IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / Question for you
Post #177,772
by ben_tilly
10/4/04 7:41:34 PM
Reply
New Question for you
Which would be more noticable? The removal of US troops? Or the removal of everyone else's?

Thanks,
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #177,860
by pwhysall
Picture of pwhysall
10/5/04 2:29:28 PM
Reply
New Oh, no doubt.
I was merely casting nasturtiums on Skip's assertion that one could yank the non-US troops and not notice :-)

Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
Post #177,862
by ben_tilly
10/5/04 2:34:15 PM
Reply
New Well, Kerry wouldn't notice Poland ;-)
BTW did anybody notice that Poland just decided to leave Iraq? I find it very ironic that this happened right after Bush was jumping up and down reminding Kerry that Poland was part of the coalition...

Cheers,
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Post #177,871
by ChrisR
10/5/04 3:03:55 PM
Reply
New They probably didn't like the attention being drawn.
And speaking of our "willing coalition", most people think that the damage down to international relations involve only those naybobs that refused to help. Actually, I think it's been as much, if not more, damaging for our long term relations with our partners.

International relations is very much about political capital. I don't see that any of our partners were on the forefront of the push to overthrow Saddam. Sure the British went along, and they probably presented a better case than we did to the rest of the world. But I think it all goes back to the Americans siding with Thatcher in the Falklands. The British are willing to help us, even when we act rashly.

The support of America will likely cause a political shift in many of the worlds capitals. Germany shifted before the war - with the German head winning election exactly because he played against American intervention. Spain's government was changed - though terrorism and deceipt were the immediate reason. The Phillipines didn't seem too committed. Probably others will also teeter. Whether these governments joined the coalition or not, a majority of their citizens show to be against the intervention - including our staunchest allies - the UK.

And for those Eastern block countries, it's mostly an effort to show that they belong to the West - not that they care for the intervention. Which brings up another point - political capital. In order to build the coalition of the willing, the U.S. has had to expend a lot of it. Think those countries don't expect something for their support? After all, they are gambling that the payback for their support merits ignoring their short term internal populace. Someone's gonna have to grease those palms in the long term.

The conclusion I draw is that it's been a costly war in terms of foreign relations, even if you ignore the vocal non-participants.
Post #177,879
by imric
10/5/04 3:45:59 PM
Reply
New Yeah, yeah. So I exaggerated a little
People have told me millions of times not to.
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
     Bush launches really underhanded new ads - (JayMehaffey) - (52) - Oct. 3, 2004, 12:24:45 AM EDT
         foreign approval - (rcareaga) - Oct. 3, 2004, 02:27:16 AM EDT
         Is he? - (bepatient) - (46) - Oct. 3, 2004, 12:36:40 PM EDT
             Consider: "flip-flop" .eq. "flexible" -NT - (pwhysall) - Oct. 3, 2004, 12:50:44 PM EDT
             You have already fallen into Bush's trap - (JayMehaffey) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2004, 12:58:38 PM EDT
                 Sorry, you're incorrect. - (bepatient) - Oct. 3, 2004, 01:20:02 PM EDT
             Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill. - (imric) - (41) - Oct. 3, 2004, 09:26:13 PM EDT
                 Not in the 30 second sound bite. - (bepatient) - (5) - Oct. 3, 2004, 02:38:01 PM EDT
                     Hmm. You are correct. - (imric) - (3) - Oct. 3, 2004, 06:52:33 PM EDT
                         Dunno - (bepatient) - (2) - Oct. 3, 2004, 07:55:11 PM EDT
                             Try this then: - (a6l6e6x) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2004, 08:55:41 PM EDT
                                 Okee dokee - (bepatient) - Oct. 3, 2004, 10:22:07 PM EDT
                     Of course our actions are subject to a test... - (GBert) - Oct. 3, 2004, 10:39:56 PM EDT
                 Re: Sounded pretty clear to me, Bill. - (danreck) - (34) - Oct. 4, 2004, 12:34:51 PM EDT
                     And the U.S. would still be part... - (ChrisR) - (5) - Oct. 4, 2004, 12:36:59 PM EDT
                         Re: And the U.S. would still be part... - (danreck) - (4) - Oct. 4, 2004, 12:50:20 PM EDT
                             60 years is not that recent. - (ChrisR) - (2) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:00:52 PM EDT
                                 Wrong question... - (danreck) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:31:19 PM EDT
                                     And as a joke, try reading this... - (danreck) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:17:01 PM EDT
                             Ah, the old saw. - (pwhysall) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:07:27 PM EDT
                     You've got to know how to translate US political speech. - (Another Scott) - (8) - Oct. 4, 2004, 12:48:06 PM EDT
                         Re: You've got to know how to translate US political speech. - (danreck) - (7) - Oct. 4, 2004, 12:57:04 PM EDT
                             Which border - (jbrabeck) - (6) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:47:17 PM EDT
                                 I was a linguist... - (danreck) - (5) - Oct. 4, 2004, 02:29:46 PM EDT
                                     Were you cunning? - (pwhysall) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 02:42:43 PM EDT
                                         As often as possible... - (danreck) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:02:44 PM EDT
                                     And I was stationed in Germany - (jbrabeck) - (2) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:40:03 PM EDT
                                         Re: And I was stationed in Germany - (danreck) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:56:08 PM EDT
                                             What was I doing? - (jbrabeck) - Oct. 4, 2004, 10:13:04 PM EDT
                     Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant - (imric) - (18) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:47:32 PM EDT
                         By the numbers... - (Yendor) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:49:40 PM EDT
                             Of these, how many are supplying troops.... - (ChrisR) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:54:57 PM EDT
                         Uninformed tosh, I'm afraid. - (pwhysall) - (6) - Oct. 4, 2004, 02:05:42 PM EDT
                             I don't question the valor - (imric) - Oct. 4, 2004, 07:36:22 PM EDT
                             Question for you - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Oct. 4, 2004, 07:41:34 PM EDT
                                 Oh, no doubt. - (pwhysall) - (3) - Oct. 5, 2004, 02:29:28 PM EDT
                                     Well, Kerry wouldn't notice Poland ;-) - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 5, 2004, 02:34:15 PM EDT
                                         They probably didn't like the attention being drawn. - (ChrisR) - Oct. 5, 2004, 03:03:55 PM EDT
                                     Yeah, yeah. So I exaggerated a little - (imric) - Oct. 5, 2004, 03:45:59 PM EDT
                         Re: Horsecr@p. Our allies are insignifigant - (danreck) - (8) - Oct. 4, 2004, 02:15:05 PM EDT
                             For additional reading on the subject... - (danreck) - (4) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:45:05 PM EDT
                                 Sounds like... - (ChrisR) - (2) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:55:10 PM EDT
                                     Re: Sounds like... - (danreck) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 04:30:11 PM EDT
                                         Getting all wet over the prospect of Winning Big, are we? (new thread) - (Ashton) - Oct. 4, 2004, 06:30:02 PM EDT
                                 Okay, I gotta differ on the Phillipines. - (inthane-chan) - Oct. 4, 2004, 04:09:20 PM EDT
                             ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant - (imric) - (1) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:49:10 PM EDT
                                 Re: ROFLMAO - Allies ARE insignifigant - (danreck) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:58:40 PM EDT
                             As near as I can tell... - (ChrisR) - Oct. 4, 2004, 03:57:39 PM EDT
             Yes - (tuberculosis) - Oct. 4, 2004, 01:16:19 PM EDT
         It amounts to the same thing. - (marlowe) - (2) - Oct. 3, 2004, 03:13:02 PM EDT
             Re: It amounts to the same thing. - (daemon) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2004, 08:14:28 PM EDT
                 I was thinking more like.... - (ChrisR) - Oct. 3, 2004, 08:16:56 PM EDT
         Re: Bush/Rove launches really underhanded new ads - (jb4) - Oct. 4, 2004, 09:15:11 AM EDT

I've spent an unreasonable amount of thought on the line Janet sings in Rocky Horror: "His lust is so sincere". Now, on the surface, that's a big "DUH!" because that's the nature of lust. But wait: Brad has earlier sung about how hot he is for her, and it's pretty clear he's just being conventional. Brad's lust is not sincere.

Now, I could swill green mead and gnaw raw meat with sincere lust. As for kimchee and lutefisk, well, those would be just for effect. And if I'm just going for effect, I might as well wear a tie. And pants.

-- mhuber
120 ms