Hi Nadine Carroll; Re: "Before Afghanistan, we received help from Britain, and a little lip service from NATO and the UN -- just as we are in the process of getting now."
Ah, nothing like selective perception at work, LOL!!! This article is from the day after the attack:
Bush gets strong support from Congress, NATO
CNN, September 12, 2001
NATO has taken an unprecedented step by invoking Article Five of its charter, which states that any armed attack against one of its members is considered an attack against all of them.
cnn.com
The UN gave its approval on September 30, 2001, only 19 days after the attack, and about a week before any air attacks, if I recall correctly:
dawn.com
UN questioned the Taliban as a legitimate government, September 28:
dawn.com
The US didn't do anything until it had a coalition, but that only took a matter of days, not the months that Bush has been working on it.
US strikes in two weeks: analysts
Dawn, September 27, 2001
Official lips are sealed, but US analysts say the signs - military buildup, coalition formation, and weather forecasts - point to US strikes on Afghanistan in the next two weeks. Since the Sept 11 attack on New York and Washington, the United States has taken steps to build a global coalition in pursuit of extremist networks. ...
dawn.com
Re: "The same people who are predicting Iraq will be a quagmire predicted Afghanistan would be a quagmire."
Wrong. The truth is that the people who predicted that Afghanistan would be a quagmire are also, by and large, predicting that Iraq would be a quagmire, but the converse is not true. For example, I predicted that Afghanistan would not be a quagmire, but that Iraq could be. The same predictions were made by numerous military men. That's why the military went into Afghanistan with little qualms, but is screaming bloody murder at the Bush administrations ideas.
Re: "And the surrounding countries (I presume you refer to Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Russia) cooperated, not because they favored the idea, but because we exercised some friendly persuasion. Friendly persuasion works in the Middle East too, Carl."
The Bush administration has had nearly a year to perform "friendly persuasion", but still has zero support. This is in complete distinction to the case in Afghanistan where the US got, for example, promises of support from Musharraf as early as September 12, 2001, within 24 hours of the attack:
Musharraf assures Bush of cooperation
September 12, 2001
dawn.com
Pakistani support was so quick and deep that the Taliban threatened to attack Pakistan on September 15, 2001, only 4 days after the WTC:
Taliban threaten war for aiding US
Dawn, September 15, 2001
The Taliban on Saturday threatened Pakistan with a "massive attack" if it helped the United States launch military strikes on Afghanistan in retaliation for suicide bombings in New York and Washington.
dawn.com
Now where has Saddam had to threaten to massively attack his neighbors to keep them from helping the US? He hasn't had to at all because his neighbors are standing with him on this. Here's Musharraf's speech of September 19, only 8 days after the WTC attack:
Lets look at our neighbors. They have promised US all cooperation. They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state.
dawn.com
The Taliban began recognized by only 3 nations, the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan promised to cooperate with the US the day after the WTC. The UAE broke ties with the Taliban on Sept 23, and the Saudis on September 26th:
dawn.com
dawn.com
Compare that to the situation with Iraq.
Re: "Watch what they do, not what their diplomats say."
This advice loses because before the Afghan war their diplomats supported the US. What the hell do you think severing diplomatic relations with the Taliban meant?
Re: "Qattar signed the Arab League opposition and sent its diplomats out to oppose us."
Let me get this straight. You think that Qatar, a country slightly smaller than Connecticut, with a population of less than a million, is a significant neighbor, in the military sense, of either Iraq or Afghanistan? Jesus weeps. All they are is a base. At least pick your examples from among states that mattered in Afghanistan. Maybe Iran. But while Iran would have been a useful country to have on board, the fact is that Iran did not significantly oppose us in Afghanistan, and we had plenty of other neighbors that gave support. And besides, as so many in the military have explained, Iraq is not Afghanistan. With Iraq, you will need the US Army, not just air power.
Re: "As for US public opinion, it's for going into Iraq to oust Saddam, according the latest Pew poll, 64% favor it. That's more than favored the first Gulf War."
(1) This is untrue, or at least is very dependent on how, and exactly when the questions were asked. Immediately after the Kuwaiti invasion the US did not have allied or UN support (a situation it now faces with Iraq). I would bet that poll numbers showing support for US military action didn't rise until after the allies and the UN backed us. But it's worth nothing that support for an attack against Iraq rose as Bush #41 organized it. Compare that to Bush #43 who's seeing support for another attack on Iraq decline.
(2) A moment ago you were comparing Iraq to Afghanistan, but now you want to compare it to the first Gulf War. But if you want to switch your comparisons over to the Gulf War, you need to admit that Saudi Arabia hasn't allowed us to move hundreds of thousands of soldiers (none of this 3,000 soldier BS) into their territory, LOL!!! The difference with the Kuwaiti liberation is clear. Bush #41 got international support for military support of Saudi Arabia within weeks, and support for an ultimatum from the United Nations within months. Bush #43 ain't got shit in nearly a year.
-- Carl
Being accurate in your predictions, particularly on emotional issues, is all about avoiding selective perception. This applies to the memory of past events as well as to the view of current events. |
