Irvine511 said:
well, this obviously doesn't make a whit of difference because Colin Powell -- who's various quotes you toss out whenever possible -- thinks Iraq is in the midst of a Civil War.
could it also be that maybe, just maybe, the February Mosque bombing gave a narrative to all the violence that has consumed the country since March of 2003? that it made obvious to the Wesern world what any Iraqi has known: Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian Civil War.
and Colin Powell knows it too.
[q]In regards to resolution 1441 and resolution 1483(1486 was a different resolution), you have yet to answer the following questions:
If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
Its very simple, but its not surprising that a forum that is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Bush in its views is unable to answer the above questions and sticks to the incorrect view that the operation was not approved by the UN and illegal. [/q]
firstly, since we're so into lists, the following countries have officially condemned the occupation:
Russia
China
Pakistan
Morocco
Germany
France
New Zealand
Sweden
Switzerland
Belgium
anyway, your questions have been answered, several times, over and over, in the following threads:
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?threadid=161851&pagenumber=4
http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?threadid=147989&perpage=15&highlight=1441&pagenumber=3
[q]The United States military is prepared to occupy any country that it would have to to insure United States security. You can't use neighboring countries to occupy Iraq, that would create problems that do not currently exist. The United States military has 88 ground combat brigades of which 17 are currently deployed at any one time in Iraq. It has the forces it needs to respond to the situation in Iraq as well as any immediate situation involving North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Certainly, if you were going for longterm occupations in all those countries at the same time, you would indeed run into a serious problem in terms of numbers of units and rotations. But it is remote and extremely unlikely situation, and even if the US were not in Iraq, handling occupations in all of those countries at once would be extremely difficult.[/q]
just one of the myriad failures that has come out of Iraq is that we have sent a message that we aren't what we say we are, that we are both illegitimate in the eyes of the world as a sheriff that shoots first and asks questions later so there's little international sympathy for various US adventures message and now Iran and North Korea are flexing muscles and seeking attention becuase they know that the U.S. ability to influence events has shrunk, largely because U.S. troops and treasure remain mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Iraq war has diminished foreign confidence in American leadership. the neocons have woken up to the power of history and how the american military isn't much compared to centuries of sectarian strife, and this is reflected in the changing of the rhetoric from the White House which had no needs for allies in 2003, but certainly needs them just 3 years later in 2006.
soft power -- which is the ability to attract others to the legitimacy of US policies, military or otherwise -- has declined as a result of the global anti-americanism that has understandably resulted from Bush's policies. the US is not strong enough to do as it wishes without without approval. the world's only superpower does indeed need allies, especially now that there is no USSR to define ourselves against -- a bipolar world means you have to pick sides; in a unipolar world, everyone can simply define themselves against the big kid on the block. it's at the point where being pro-American is the kiss of death in the domestic policies of other nations. soft power is a means of obtaining outcomes the US wants, like a successful occupation of Iraq.
finally, there's the fact that failures in Iraq and the perception that we have made a big, big mistake and that 2,500 Americans have died for nothing will make the American people far less likely to tolerate any more military adventures. in case you've forgotten, this is a democracy, and Iraq is already deeply unpopular. you've got to get the civilians on your side if you hope to fight a war (which is why they deliberately lied about WMDs and deliberately trumped up hysterical stories about mushroom clouds and did all they could to link SH to 9-11) and if they are not on your side then there will be political hell to pay.
simply, we cannot afford another Iraq, not without a serious dismantling of daily life in the US, and in a democracy, you would be voted out of office, as the Republicans soon would be.
[q]But hey, if you would like to see an increase in the number of active and reserve combat brigades the US has in its force structure, I hope you will be itching to increase the military budget to the required level so those extra combat brigades can be formed.[/q]
if i ever thought the Bushies were remotely serious about anything and had any sense of history or cared about anything other than swinging their dicks, then i would have supported an occupation force of close to 400,000 soldiers because that was what would have been needed to effectively occupy the contry. these are deeply childish, petty men, and the Iraqi Civil War is the result.
Once again, you have failed to provide any evidence that this what Colin Powell truely thinks. Why would you simply believe something that is posted on a site by Arianna Huffington? Considering how often in the past people have made mistaken claims about Colin Powells positions on various issues, why would conclude from a Huffington Post that this is indeed the case?
How many countries can you name that are in the middle of a "CIVIL WAR" are able to hold nationwide elections, approve a constitution" and form a united central government? The mere presense of sectarian violence in a country does NOT equal a Civil War.
If China and Russia officially condemned the occupation, why did they vote to approve resolution 1483 which approves the occupation of Iraq?
None of your links answered any of the following questions:
If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
Not enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions against Saddam, 17 of them passed under Chapter VII rules, the UN's most serious resolutions, made the UN and the whole process a laughing stock. The invasion and enforcement of those resolutions after a decade has added credibility and strength again to what the UN says especially in respect to resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.
North Korea has been "flexing its muscles since 1994". Iran has been doing the same since 1979. Once again, you'll notice these things if you can take a longer view of the situation than just since Bush has been President. I asked you to name what Iran has done recently that you claim it has not done before, but you have yet to answer that question yet.
Once again, its a myth that the United States had abandoned Allies and was unilateral back in 2003 and suddenly it has reversed course. The United States went back to the UN in 2003 and secured another resolution although legally, the coalition already had authorization from previous resolutions to act militarily against Saddam given his non-compliance. The Bush administration helped to assemble a coalition in 2002-2003 that included more countries than the first Gulf War and had more legal and UN documents supporting the use of military force than the first Gulf War.
The United States NEVER abandon the use of diplomacy or what many call soft power. NATO is currently operating in Afghanistan, and members in the Al Quada organization continue to be captured all over the world by other countries in support of US policies. The United States has received unprecidented support from states of the former Soviet Union to include the use of bases and supplies to support US operations in the region.
The actions and sacrifices of the United States military, in Iraq have NOT been for nothing and it is a repulsive and ignorant thing to say.
Iraq is not deeply unpopular when 40% of the country according to the Gallup poll still say that removing Saddam was the right thing to do. As late as last summer, the number supporting the removal was still above 50%. More important, the United States had an election on this important issue in November 2004 and those that were against the war were soundly defeated in that election. Bush won by more than 3 million votes and achieved the first majority by any president in an election since 1988. On a more historic note, he was the first President in history to be re-elected with increases by his party in both the House and Senate.
As the situation in Iraq improves over the next few years, the opinion polls will swing back in favor of support for the removal of Saddam. Eventually, opposition to the war will seem as curious as opposition to the first Gulf War was. How many people do you find today who are still opposed the 1991 Gulf War?
The Bush administration controls both houses of Congress and has for most of the past 6 years. The Presidents approval rating has risen over the past 3 months from 31% back up to 40%. At that rate, the the opinion poll retoric used so often over the past year will be dead by the November elections. The Democrats of no chance to take back the Senate, and only a slim shot to take back the House. The party in power is not divided, its the party out of power that is really divided when it comes to policy.
Bush and his cabinet never lied about WMD's in Iraq. Its a myth repeated so often by so many people that its assumed by so many to be fact. There was certainly an opportunity for there to be political hell to pay if the population believed in the liberals view of the war. That was November 2004, and the libs were soundly defeated in that election from the House, to the Senate, to the White House.
Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell are not childish petty men and the nation agreed when they re-elected the team in November 2004 after a childish inaccurate movie by Mr. Moore and perhaps the strongest liberal crusade to remove a President from office in history. The American population rejected their call, and re-elected Bush as well as increasing the majorities of the Republicans in the House and Senate.