Rumsfeld: We don't need the UK - Page 4

Velociryx · March 12, 2003, 16:00

Hey Mobius...I'll be the FIRST in line to admit that the US has made its share of mistakes (not unlike the UK, France, and Germany, btw), and in this instance, we're taking steps to undo one that shoulda been undone a long time ago.

-=Vel=-

DinoDoc · March 12, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Iraq got more than enough support from the US and you know it!

If by support you mean looking the other way while the French and others sold them weapons, you're correct.

DanS · March 12, 2003, 16:07

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
USA! USA! USA!

Hey, there's hope for you yet!

Agathon · March 12, 2003, 16:14

Isn't this drifting off topic; the topic being yet another embarrassing gaffe from a pro-war official. I nearly died laughing when I heard what Rumsfeld said; what a wonderful way to make things difficult for your only significant ally from a total idiot. I take it as more evidence that the Bush administration is simply incompetent in foreign affairs. Their arguments are a shambles and they have regularly taken liberties with the truth and given their opponents ample fodder for ridicule.

Let's face it, a much better case for war could have been put from the outset by focusing only on one particular line of argument; an argument that did not rely on proof of a negative and was not based on easily checkable facts or implausible claims. They didn't even have to go to the UN, they could merely have used a more vigorous version of the Desert Fox campaign which could have been slowly been built up over time. There would have surely been objections, but none of the farcical security council meetings in which the US has been ritually humiliated by the French (who are loving it).

And have you seen Blair lately, he looks like he's aged 20 years?

Sten Sture · March 12, 2003, 17:32

It seems that some of you have only seen a short excerpt of the press conference.

Here is the question and response being discussed...

Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every- other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post- Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume.

here is a link to the text of the entire briefing:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...3_t0311sd.html

hardly an international slap in the face to British military capabilities...

SpencerH · March 12, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Quote:

How long did France fight the nazis?

Hmm.. if I remember correctly, longer than the Poles, Serbs, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Greeks, Norwegians, and certainly longer than those like the Slovaks, Croats, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and Italians who backed the Nazi's (of course that is no black mark as long as they support the war), or the Spaniards who took their aid but never got involved (also not a black mark on them, of course). Oh, and lets not forget the strong resistance the US put up against Nazi Germany before Dec 9, 1941: we really wanted to go towar before we actually went to war when they declared it on us... we really, really did.

That is, of course, if one ignores the actions of resistance figthers from any of the conqured nations, and the expatirates who fought bravely alongside Allied forces in Europe.

Yes, of course we must alway ridicuale the Vichy French government for its actions: it is utterly hypocritcal though to ignore the complicty of most of our European backers had with the Nazis as well.

I guess I should have put a smilie beside that comment. It was a non-serious poke at a series of rediculous statements made in a number of posts.

Urban Ranger · March 13, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
That's part of the issue, yes. It absolutely is, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Of course not. There are a whole lot of resolution unreinforced, say, Rwanda. Why isn't/wasn't the US in there bashing heads.

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
We have been d*cking around with Saddam for almost twice as long a time now, as US soldiers spent fighting WWI, WWII, and Korea COMBINED (counting from Saddam's FIRST UN violation).

What about UNSC's resolutions regarding Israel, esp. those with the Occupied Territory?

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
If the UN lacks the balls to enforce its own resolution then perhaps (just perhaps, mind you), it should get out of the business of writing them. In any case, they have certainly proved their own uselessness, and we will enforce the resolution on its behalf, whether it likes it or not.

Hasn't this rhetoric been wearing thin? Is there at least something new that comes out from the pro-war camp?

Urban Ranger · March 13, 2003, 00:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The US never sold Iraq any weapons of import.

Okay, what about those CDC transactions? Microbes, you know. Things the US/UK have been accusing Iraq of making?

Velociryx · March 13, 2003, 01:26

No, UR, the rhetoric isn't wearing thin....truth seldom does. What, may I ask, is the point of bothering with going through the motions of *writing* a resolution if you lack the means or the will to enforce it? Can you think of better things the UN could be doing besides that? I can. I can think of a good many off the top of my weary head.

As to the rest. For whatever reason, this administration has made Saddam a priority. Agree or disagree, thems the facts. Rwanda was not (again, for whatever reason) made a priority.

Our forces are in position in and around Iraq. They are not in position for a strike at Rwanda (yes....even as an ignorant American, I know a bit about geography).

You can sit and fingerpoint at all the resolutions that went unenforced, but to that I simply say, "if you want to change the track record, then you HAVE to start somewhere. Easiest to start where you have assets in place to make that start....in this case...that would be Iraq.

-=Vel=-

curtsibling · March 13, 2003, 05:25

Rumsfeldt is one of the most abusive and heavy-handed men in that adminstration.

I listen not to his meandering rhetoric...

Empty vessel = Most noise.

SpencerH · March 13, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Okay, what about those CDC transactions? Microbes, you know. Things the US/UK have been accusing Iraq of making?

Neither the CDC or the ATCC sold any bugs to Iraq that are used for biological warfare. They did sell the Iraqis some strains of bacteria. Both the CDC and ATCC are repositories of cells and microbes used by scientists all over the world. I myself just bought some bacterial strains from them last week for use in my research.