Well Dragger,

I agree with your sentiments that it's nice to have someone at the helm who'll make tough decisions, when needed. I'm sure Kerry's done that many times as a decorated war veteran, and Bush has proven he's also willing to do so.

However, I think you seriously underestimate the long-term consequences of not involving the international community through vehicles like the UN.

I guess that's part of the difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry thinks getting people with different viewpoints together to solve problems is practical and pragmatic. And that having a wide variety of viewpoints available BEFORE making the decision, is wise, and possible.

I see Bush as more of the "lone ranger". Unfortunately, life isn't a T.V. show, and often times, allies are needed, and it takes time to both build support for a position, and time to have that position also modified by input we are getting.

As I stated on another thread, the "crush terrorists like a bug" routine plays well with some, but if that's the extent of the policy to stop terrorism, then it's going to fail, and fail miserably with an extraordinarily high cost attached. Just ask the Irish after their decades of fueding.

Or heck, even look around at the "war on drugs". Another "crush 'em like a bug" routine that's failed miserably. Almost inargueably, almost any other course of thoughful action would have been better there.

In any case, building coalitions, engaging those with a stake in the outcome, taking time to have others develop respect for you and your viewpoint, time, effort and patience. It's not aided by a "lone ranger" mentality.

And engaging others, what you call "world opinions", doesn't mean NOT getting the job done.

It just means going about it in a different way - perhaps with a longer term view to resolving the problem, rather than just thinking about getting re-elected because you look and sound tough.

The UN being what? France and Russia? You do realize the ONLY reason the UN wasn't on board for the invasion of Iraq was France and Russia don't you. 

I think it would be great to court European favor if their intentions were truly honest. The problem, though, is that they are in sad economic straights and are willing to do anything at this point to gain a more advantageous position. Iraq is a golden example of what sort of relationships they are willing to court to compete with the US.

They haven't taken the EU model far enough. They are small states trying to act like big superpowers. It is kind of sad to see a French/US trade war being discussed. That's like saying a California/US trade war.

I don't think Kerry has the personal ability to do anything about terrorism other than court terrorists, as Clinton did when he sad down with Arafat as though he was a political leader. I think the average US voter should ponder the fact that those who count themselves adversaries and competitors of the US are very hopeful that Kerry will win. .

the results of the la times most recent poll included a section that involved a number of 'which candidate seems to you to be" questions. those polled felt "too ideological and stubborn" applied more to Bush (58%) than Kerry (16%). in my eyes, that description applies not only to the president personally but to the administration's anti-terrorism strategy in general.

it was stubborness and ideology--in the real sense of attempting to impose ideal on real--that shifted the focus from a working coalition in afghanistan to an essentially unilateral campaign in iraq (those little eastern european nations' inclusion or refusal to participate is negligible except for pr purposes). we saw it manifested again over a year ago when bush very prematurely proclaimed the end of combat in iraq. no matter how you look it at, that was a serious lapse of judgement.

if the administration was more committed to the reality of what is needed to win the war against terrorism and less stubbornly invested in the ideology of a new american century, it would have finished pacifying afghanistan and nullifying bin laden before taking the show on the road to baghdad.

if rumsfeld and the president had been less stubborn, they might have heeded the counsel of generals zinni and shinseki when determining how many troops to deploy in iraq. a force of 300,000 soldiers would, if nothing else, made things safer for all involved.

afghanistan is becoming a more dangerous place by the day. we have only 20,000 troops on the ground. we seem unable to harass bin laden effectively, much less capture or kill him. sooner or later theyre going to hit us again because of stubborness and ideology--theirs and this administration's.

the results of the la times most recent poll included a section that involved a number of 'which candidate seems to you to be" questions. those polled felt "too ideological and stubborn" applied more to Bush (58%) than Kerry (16%). in my eyes, that description applies not only to the president personally but to the administration's anti-terrorism strategy in general.

True. Bush is more ideological and stubborn, but those are qualities that I'll accept if the alternative is worse. Who won on the question of "Which candidate seems to be the most insincere and vacillating?"

it was stubborness and ideology--in the real sense of attempting to impose ideal on real--that shifted the focus from a working coalition in afghanistan to an essentially unilateral campaign in iraq (those little eastern european nations' inclusion or refusal to participate is negligible except for pr purposes). we saw it manifested again over a year ago when bush very prematurely proclaimed the end of combat in iraq. no matter how you look it at, that was a serious lapse of judgement. if the administration was more committed to the reality of what is needed to win the war against terrorism and less stubbornly invested in the ideology of a new american century, it would have finished pacifying afghanistan and nullifying bin laden before taking the show on the road to baghdad.

It's rather insulting (and downright inaccurate) to call Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, and Australia little Eastern European nations.

Bush did indeed make mistakes, but nothing that I think only Kerry could fix.

afghanistan is becoming a more dangerous place by the day. we have only 20,000 troops on the ground. we seem unable to harass bin laden effectively, much less capture or kill him. sooner or later theyre going to hit us again because of stubborness and ideology--theirs and this administration's.

The problem is that terrorism occurred even before Bush's ideologies and stubbornness. In fact, wasn't 9/11 planned during Clinton's years?

Robot,

I think King was referring to a number of small and tiny Slavic and former USSR nations, including, eg

Albania
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Estonia
Georgia
Hungary
Latvia
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Ukraine
Uzbekistan

Source: White House

There was also many other tiny nation states, or economically weak states among the so-called coalition, including:

Angola
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Honduras
Iceland
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Rwanda
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Uganda
Uzbekistan

Further, Russia WAS NOT on the list of supporters ...

With the functional exception of Britain, it was pretty much a unilateral campaign, if you measure these thing by either troops committed, logistical support, or cash. So I don't think KingBee is wrong in asserting that.


Furthermore, even in many western nations where the war was supported by the govenment of the day, it was pretty unpopular with the electorate there - nations in those categories included -
Australia, Britain, Spain and Italy amongst others.

Even if there were many tiny Eastern European states that supported the campaign, that does not change the fact that not only tiny Eastern European states supported the war, and even if we did provide most of the resources in Iraq, that does not change the fact that they still supported us. Besides, the UK provided some troops too.

I think it's insulting to all those nations to treat France's, Germany's, and Russia's views as the world's view, but their views as completely insignificant.

They haven't taken the EU model far enough. They are small states trying to act like big superpowers. It is kind of sad to see a French/US trade war being discussed. That's like saying a California/US trade war.

Now now, Baker. No need to insult California. It's economy dwarfs France's and California actually produces things people use.

BTW, on the FOR side you have UK, United States, Japan, Poland, and Italy (along with a bunch of small countries).  On the AGAINST side you have Germany and France and (to a small extent) Russia along with some small countries.

Want do a population comparison between the two groups? What about GDP? What about a historical view? Take your pick.

I'm pretty comfortalbe that the US is on the side of the angels on this matter.

Draginol: , absolutely, my apologies to the home of great wine... California. And hats off to the nation who consumes the most wine per capita (over 50 liters a year): France. If you can't be a superpower I guess you can drink a lot and pretend you are one...

Right Dragger,

Am not saying that Hussein wasn't a bad guy - just that this war - as a tactic - was questionable. Most of the experts I've seen on the Middle East suggest that Iraq wasn't among the larger exporters of terrorism.

As far as weapons of mass destruction goes, let's just say that Bush made a reasonable mistake there. However, North Korea was known to ACTAULLY have them (as opposed to supposition relating to iraq), and Kim Il Sung is just as despicable as Mr. H.

So the reasons for going to war at that time, without UN sanction, remains somewhat mystifying. North Korea, many experts feel, is a far greater security threat to the world than Iraq. Ideology, instead of pragmatism, perhaps? Trying to correct what, in hindsight, was his dad's error of leaving regime change undone?

I'm fine that there are people who disagree with "tactic" that led to Saddam's demise.

My point is that "the world" is a lot bigger than France and Germany.  Most of the major world governments supported the United States. That is a fact.

The governments of France and Germany were also against the D-Day landings as well. Luckily we didn't take their views too seriously then either.

"Am not saying that Hussein wasn't a bad guy - just that this war - as a tactic - was questionable. Most of the experts I've seen on the Middle East suggest that Iraq wasn't among the larger exporters of terrorism."

What would have happened, re: the ability to fund and equip terrorists, if we had coddled France another year or two and popular opinion in the UN allowed them to completely drop sanctions against Iraq? They had been screaming for an end to almost all sanctions already, even military sanctions. Once we didn't have the right to oversee the technology that came and went from Iraq, what then? You think the man who paid 10k a head to suicide bomber's families would have just let his grudge fester?

"As far as weapons of mass destruction goes, let's just say that Bush made a reasonable mistake there. However, North Korea was known to ACTAULLY have them (as opposed to supposition relating to iraq), and Kim Il Sung is just as despicable as Mr. H."

North Korea also has extant nuclear weapons and delivery systems that put Japan within easy range. They were rumored to have a much greater range... Do you think our tactics with Saddam Hussein would have been different had he had a handful of moderate yeild nukes aimed at Tel Aviv? Do you think if he had *millions* of soldiers poised to rush the border of a neighboring country we would have treated him the same? Iraq and North Korea are apples and oranges. We can invade Iraq. A conflict with North Korea would be blindingly fast, with a really, really long cleanup... if you get my meaning.

"Trying to correct what, in hindsight, was his dad's error of leaving regime change undone?"

France & Iraq's other purveyors also had a big hand in that, I think. Had we set out to unseat Hussein the first time we wouldn't have had the glorious coalition then, either. Hussein was worth much more subjegated for a few years. Kuwait made some show of force necessary, though. My personal opinion is that we should have agreed and then found an excuse once the fray began, but then I think there was a great deal of hope that the Iraqi people would do that for us later.

Look at France's history in North Africa. For the last 200 years or so they have had great ambitions and a little success. They still keep trying, though.

Dragger,

"The governments of France and Germany were also against the D-Day landings as well. Luckily we didn't take their views too seriously then either."

You now venture into the inane with comments like this. Have fun!

BakerStreet

regarding your comment ...

"...and popular opinion in the UN allowed them to completely drop sanctions against Iraq?"

That wasn't the way it was heading, and I don't think any honestly informed commentator would suggest it was. Please, let's try and keep the fictional arguments to a minimum.

And insofar as the tactics goes, the allegation was then, that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So the US entered, under the assumption that they could be deployed against foreign countries, just as they could in the case of North Korea. Or else the adminstration was lying, and knew there was no weapons of mass destruction.