Why in favor of unilateral action

[Gordon B]

We must give, and have given, this policy with our allies and with the United Nations every opportunity to work. It is evident, however, that the cost in human lives in allowing this policy to continue is too great. In addition, and perhaps more importantly for the United States, we are now in a position of ignoring, as many did in the 1940s, one of the worst crimes committed in history. If we ignore these behaviors, no matter where they occur, our moral fiber as a people becomes weakened. As the Catholic Church and others lost credibility during the Holocaust for not speaking out, so will the United States lose credibility and our people lose confidence in themselves as moral beings if the United States does not take action.

Since it is clearly no longer possible to take action in conjunction with NATO and the United Nations, I have reluctantly concluded that we must take unilateral action.

--Howard Dean 7/19/95 letter to President Clinton, excepted from
USA Today

[Monte Smith]

It's a beautiful thing.

Ffffffattttttttt stooooopid hobbit!!

[jesus marion joseph]

Prepare to be pilloried for mentioning what's-his-name.

[moneyp]

That's not a reason for unilateral action. That's an EXCUSE for unilateral action, and a hypocritical one.

[walto]

Come back, Sen. Graham. COME BAAAAAACK!!!

[Paul B]

The situations being entirely different, I'm not sure how the quote is relevant.

Uniltateral action may indeed be necessary from time to time, depending on the situation and context. No one on either side is saying the U.N. should dicate all U.S. policy.

But the mess we've made in Iraq seems a good case for at least listening to what others have to say, and waiting until other countries see things our way. Then maybe we'd have allies with us in the sort of monumental effort that was the unnecessary invastion of Iraq. But when you have an administration of immoral, bible-thumping, one-track-mind ideologues, one can't hope for much in the way of diplomacy.

Bye-ya.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Paul B
The situations being entirely different, I'm not sure how the quote is relevant.

Absolutely. The former Yugoslavia was an imminent threat to the United States of America.

Yeah, they bombed a gas station in St. Louis that Ghandi used to own.

Uniltateral action may indeed be necessary from time to time, depending on the situation and context.

Oh my, what a classic "you just don't get it" kind of statment. Tell us more Senator B.



Foo-ya

[Paul B]

Given the mess they've created, I'd say it's the Bush administration that "doesn't get it."

But why should they care? Conservatives care only for money and the Bible. The rest be damned.

Bye-ya.

[Al in NYC]

The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was a clear case of genocide and an active Serbian war (well, wars) of aggression that did, in fact, threaten to spill over into other countries in Europe. It was also about the clearest case I can think of of U.N. policy and military failure -- from which I hope they have taken some lessons.

Iraq was chastened, contained, and subject to U.S. supported U.N. sanctions that were, if anything, overly harsh. Of course the U.N. arms inspections, which had already successfully turned up and destroyed siginficant amounts of weaponry and supplies, were halted by our unilateral actions. And those actions consisted of a unilateral war of aggression against a country that was at peace. I would say that there is a HUGE difference between the two events.

For those who will, undobtedly, bring up Saddam's atrocities -- if our government had truly cared about them wouldn't it have been a bit better not to have supported, paid for, and provided supplies for them in the first place?

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Al in NYC
The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was a clear case of genocide and an active Serbian war (well, wars) of aggression that did, in fact, threaten to spill over into other countries in Europe. It was also about the clearest case I can think of of U.N. policy and military failure -- from which I hope they have taken some lessons.

Can you name a UN success?

Conservatives care only for money and the Bible.

Geez, where does that leave me?

Does that mean that I'm the closet liberla that my boss claims that I am?

Or perhaps a "moderate" like Walto.

[just ribbin ya Walt]

[Uli]

The war in former Yougoslavia was not faught unilaterally. It was done by NATO. As to Dean's letter, he was obviously not in the loop assuming it was impossible to do with NATO.

[Gordon B]

Paul, you evidently don't think that Howard Dean has any explaining to do.


Goody hasn't entered the building so I will have to say,









Hypocrisy on sale in the lobby!

[Douglas]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Can you name a UN success?

The eradication of smallpox.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Douglas
The eradication of smallpox.

Fantastic, Douglas. Of course, the UN attacked smallpox with something bigger than sanctions and a series of Security Council resolutions.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Uli
The war in former Yougoslavia was not faught unilaterally. It was done by NATO.

Ri-iii-iight! The war in Iraq is unilateral because it is the US and UK plus over 30 allies.

The Serb war was multilateral because it was NATO. Though nearly 100% of forces involved were US forces, with a healthy complement of Brits.

What a crock!

Now yes, the Russians played a role in Kosovo. The Russians seized the airport, counter to NATO command, nearly precipitating a whole other conflict. God, it'd have been nice to have the Russians seizing portions of Iraq counter to UN command, huh?

[Douglas]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Fantastic, Douglas. Of course, the UN attacked smallpox with something bigger than sanctions and a series of Security Council resolutions.

True, Monte, and I’m sure that there was little disagreement in putting in place measures to eliminate smallpox. With resepct to the former Yugoslavia, I understand one government (at least initially) created important obstacles in co-ordinating an effective international reaction; if you hand peacekeepers a mandate that says “you cannot do anything”, don’t be too surprised if they cannot do anything.

[walto]

Douglas, you don't understand. When Monte said to name one thing the UN has done well, his point was that nobody was supposed to be able to name anything they had done well. As you have violated this rule by mentioning something he didn't think of, I don't think you should be allowed to play anymore.

I mean it's a clear foul!

[Uli]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Ri-iii-iight! The war in Iraq is unilateral because it is the US and UK plus over 30 allies.

The Serb war was multilateral because it was NATO. Though nearly 100% of forces involved were US forces, with a healthy complement of Brits.

What a crock!

iirc, the Serb war was authorized by the foreign ministers of the NATO member countries. imho, the fact that the UN was not involved was probably a violation of UN laws as well. International law is violated on a daily basis by almost everybody. My take on the illegal nature of the Irak war is not formalistic. The justification of the Iraq invasion was alledged violations of the UN resolutions based on cooked intelligence. It did not get any broad support internationally. The fact that Outer Bangistan supported it verbally does not make a coalition. From what we know Bush would not even have gotten a qualified majority vote in the security council. We don't know fer sure as he did not bring it to a vote as he repeatedly sed he would. That's a crock.

Let's ask Monte to list the over 30 allies and their contributions to Bush's failed war.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
Let's ask Monte to list the over 30 allies and their contributions....

You asked the right person. There are 46 countries in the coalition. Most have committed troops on some level, but few are doing heavy lifting like Britain or Poland. The exact numbers from each country is a daunting task to ascertain, but there are 31 nations who have sent troops and there are about 21,700 non-US, coalition troops seeing active duty in Iraq. This compares to about 130,000 US troops. I do know that Britain polices southern Iraq, Poland controls Babylon, and that there are 173 Mongols in Hillah. The last time Mongolian soldiers were in Iraq was in 1258. That time they destroyed Baghdad.

Here are the actual figures. Rather pathetic in terms of numbers--looks like about a dozen countries did not send troops, so what are they doing for Bush's cause?. I also wonder how 160 Mongolians stretched to Monte's figure of 173??? Were some of them pregnant?

• 1. United States: 130,000
  2. Britain: 10,620
  3. Italy: 3,000
  4. Poland: 2,350
  5. Ukraine: 1,650
  6. Spain: 1,254
  7. Netherlands: 1,100
  8. Australia: 800
  9. Slovakia: 800
  10. Romania: 700
  11. Bulgaria: 500
  12. Thailand: 443
  13. Denmark: 420
  14. Czech Republic: 400
  15. Honduras: 368
  16. El Salvador: 361
  17. Dominican Republic: 302
  18. Norway: 179
  19. Mongolia: 160
  20. Azerbaijan: 150
  21. Hungary: 140
  22. Portugal: 120
  23. Nicaragua: 113
  24. Latvia: 100
  25. Philippines: 80
  26. Albania: 70
  27. Georgia: 70
  28. New Zealand: 61
  29. Croatia: 60
  30. Lithuania: 50
  31. Moldova: 50
  32. Estonia: 43
  33. Macedonia: 37
  34. Kazakhstan: 25
  
  Total: 156,576

Oh, so right, Chris. How pathetic. Puts the "uni" in unilateral doesn't it?

The open list of the coalition countries

United Kingdom - attended the Azores summit with the US and Spain, will provide military support including about 45,000 troops.
Spain - attended the Azores summit with the US and the UK and is not sending troops into the conflict, but will deploy military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey from an attack from neighbouring Iraq.
Australia - military support including about 2,000 troops and and 150 special forces.
Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops are in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for an invasion, and it is a members of the GCC.
Poland - military support including 200 troops and a logistics ship.
Albania - military support of about 70 troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - providing basing rights and has contributed 278 experts in landmine removal and chemical and biological decontamination. It has opened its airspace to ally planes, and will contributed post-conflict and non-combatant military troops for humanitarian missions.
Czech Republic - sending a chemical-biological warfare support unit.
Portugal - granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refuelling stop.
Italy - not sending troops, but will provide the minimum base of logistical support, in particular, the use of bases and air space.
Turkey - is still negotiating the extent of its involvement in any war.
Japan - prepared only to provide post-conflict financial support for the reconstruction of Iraq due to Japan's post-war pacifist constitution bans the use of force in settling international disputes.
South Korea - may send non-combat troops likely to be a 500-strong engineering battalion and has pledged aid as well as help to war refugees.
Denmark - a warship and a submarine, a medical team, and AWACS crew-members. Also set aside funds for postwar reconstruction.
Netherlands - sent patriot anti-missile batteries to Turkey and about 300 soldiers to man them along border with Iraq. They have given full support to the US in moving its troops through Holland to the Middle East and will to take part in any peace-keeping operation in Iraq after the war was over.
Hungary - providing political support.
Estonia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Latvia - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Lithuania - extent of support is unclear, but may be seeking US financial or military support through Nato.
Bulgaria - has offered 150 non-combat troops.
Slovakia - providing political support.
Macedonia - providing political support.
Azerbaijan - providing political support.
Afghanistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Georgia - offered political and moral support and use of its air bases/
Philippines - political and moral support.
Uzbekistan - promise of support due to involvement in the war on terrorism.
Colombia - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
El Salvador - has offered political support and will send Salvadoran military officials with any U.N. troops assigned to maintain peace in Iraq, due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Nicaragua - prepared to offer political support due to US funding of the anti-drugs war.
Dominican Republic - providing political support.
Costa Rica - providing political support.
Honduras - political and moral support.
Eritrea - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Ethiopia).
Ethiopia - political and moral support (may be seeking US support in a boundary dispute with rival neighbour Eritrea).
Rwanda - providing political support.
Uganda - providing political support.
Iceland - does not have an independent military but will provide postwar humanitarian relief.
Singapore - will allow US military ships and aircraft to call at Singapore and to use military bases and air space.
Mongolia - providing political support.
Marshall Islands - providing political support as it does not have a military.
Micronesia - providing political support.
Solomon Islands - providing political support as it does not have an independent military.
Palau - providing political support.
Panama - providing political support.



Unnamed countries which may be on the expanded list of the coalition include:

Bahrain - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which agreed to help provide for the defence of Kuwait in the event of a new war with Iraq.
Oman - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refuelling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars, and is a member of the GCC.
Saudi Arabia - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
United Arab Emirates - has made facilities available to the US military, and is a members of the GCC.
Jordan - U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.
Belgium - Allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.
Croatia - Allowing refuelling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
Egypt - Keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to gulf.
Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defence agreements, but will not send troops.
Germany - Ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany.
Cyprus - degree of support unknown.
Israel - the main US ally in the Middle East.

[walto]

I don't really understand this. I thought you fellows OPPOSED any sort of multilateralism (based, I take it, on the theory that not only is the U.S. the most powerful country in the world, but the obvious fact that we're always motivated by justice and unalloyed goodness--hence, we don't need or want nobody else nohows).

But now you seem to be saying we've got multilateralism right now, in spades (what with the 70 non-combat Albanians and everything). Do y'all hate this non-going-it-alone (I mean except for God being on our side) thing?

Scott's more detailed list makes this even more pathetic! Talk about grasping at straws...talk about exaggeration (a Bush non-elected regime specialty, it seems)!

*The term "non-elected" is used to protect the integrity and judgement of American voters,most of whom did not cast their ballot for Bush/Cheney.

[Monte Smith]

Chris, if you're genuinely concerned about the Mongolians, the latest information that I see available is that there are 173 Mongolian troops with the 150th Elite Peacekeeping Force in Hillah. General Myer made a speech in Ulan Bator this week thanking the Mongolians for their support and that figure of 173 comes from a report of January 13.

Troop levels will be fluid and any figure is an estimate at best.

[Monte Smith]

By the way, the sum of the figures that Chris A. posted is 4,876 troops higher than my estimate. So if someone is guity of pumping up the "pathetic" numbers of this "illegal" war, I suppose it is Mr. Sunshine.

Back to the topic of this thread, Drudge reports that Dean is not the only candidate to hypocritically praise unilateral action at one point and then condemn it on the campaign trail. Wes Clark supported so-called unilateral action: he supported this war and he did it in front of Congress. Drudge has a transcript of Clark's testimony up on his site right now. I never trust Drudge unless there is further confirmation, though. If this testimony is accurate, it's a hell of a thing.

Walto, sorry about that, I was just doing my part to dispel the "unilateral" myth.

And I know I'll regret asking this, but Chris, what is so pathetic about it? The percentage of non U.S. troops involved in this war isn't much different than the war in 1991.