Coalition of the Willing (uncut)

[EmpirealDemocracy]

I have an idea. What if the next time we invade an idependent nation, we don't call it liberation?! :) I mean, have any of you heard of Caesar's liberation of Gaul, Cortez's (fuck him) liberation of Mexico or Hitler's attempted liberation of Russia?

[90MaPa]

wrong , they supported talibans during the civil war that followed the downfall of Najibullah , last pro-soviet president . . Talibans were equipped with American weapons, Saudi Arabian money , and trained by the Pakistanis , within 1 year they won a war that went on for 6 years .Massoud was the leader of the major party but he failed to bring peace between the opposing tribes and to counter the interests of the warlords

now instead talibans we have again warlords : pr. Karzai is one of them

[90MaPa]

second thing: do u think that America would be engaged in so long and largely ineffective wars without 9/11 events? And don't u think that your soldiers will come home sooner or later, and they will receive a pension, cure their illnesses (whether physical or mental) for their entire life? this is also a cost of war. And u ever think about all the additional costs for internal security, money that would never be spent ?

If you don't think that all this is a cause to curent crisis , well ...

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa Even factoring in those costs, the wars did not lead to the financial crisis. It's economicaly proven.

The wars were not ineffective; Saddam's deposed, Iraq has had 2 successful national elections, and al-Qaeda is descredited and in disarray. The primary goals of the wars have been achieved. Naturally, people who oppose the wars would rather frame them as losses to justify their shameful lack of enthusiasm and support for Iraqi democracy.

Oh, and Bin Laden was stupid - fattaly so.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica leave aside the discussion on the economy now, I'm focusing on what you said:

1 - I never thought that the main objective of the war on terror was the deposition of Saddam, I thought it was bin Laden's catch . the war in Iraq was based on W.M.A ( never found )

2 - we don't know anything about the stability of governments in Afghanistan and Iraq without military support , being in control of Kabul doesn't mean that you've secured Afghanistan and the Russians know it too well

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica who secretly support the mujahidin during Soviet occupation and especially Talibans after the end of the war ? . It's a classic case of the snake eating its tail . 9/11 events are just the tip of the iceberg .

3 -Al-Qaeda is in disarray, but meanwhile dozens of fundamentalist movements were born , inspired by binLaden's work .

to use a metaphor, we are still suffering the burst of the bomb, we still haven't understood what we have against , what we have indirectly triggered

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa The US never supported the Taliban. It's important 2 note that former members of the mujahideen r fighting Taliban today. Possibly the most famous afghan mujahid was Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of the Northern Alliance (U.S. allies & bitter rivals of the Taliban), who was assassinated by al-Qaeda 2 days before 9\11.

The vast majority of islamist groups today existed before 9\11. Al-Qaeda's an amalgamation of various regional jihadist groups who swear 2 uphold Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica if you want to look for evidence about the Karzai family, then search news about Ahmad Wali Karzai, Ahmed and Rashid Popal.

Regard to the "good" mujahideen search something about the Dasht-e-Leili massacre .

all certified by U.S. authorities and International Organizations

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa I don't understand what that has to do with our original discussion, which has gone totally off-track, and now you're engaging in moral equivalancies between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Were America and allied troops totally innocent of committing atrocities during the Second World War? If they weren't, did it make the war not worth fighting? Moral equivalencies seem to be the refuge of desperate anti-war campaigners, who always ignore the asymmetries.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica I just wanted to emphasize that we should not delude ourselves, we did not go there to bring democracy, we went there to get bin Laden .

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa We're there for both. That's the intention. Whether democratizing Afghanistan is achievable or not is a different question. George W. Bush strongly believed in peace through democratization, as he said in his own words, democracies don't wage war against eachother. It's not purely altruistic, he believed a democratic middle-east was beneficial to U.S. national security. But, it's obviously mutually beneficial.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica the thing that annoys me is that ur governemnt has masked a private war into a war in which everyone had to be involved, and it made​fun of making you believe your people to fight with the support of the world .

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica You are the leading power, you had the moral and political strength to really change the world but you have maintained the attitude of compromise and subterfuge, all things typical of the Cold War . I respect 9 / 11 victims and for this I hope that lesson every day that there is enough , just because those victims did not die in vain

[90MaPa]

there is no doubt that bin Laden was on the wrong side, but certainly he wasn't stupid. Regarding your objection let me say that a good commander never explicitly states his objectives to his enemy : for example (sorry for the joke but I wanted to clarify this thing) I don't think that Eisenhower has said to Hitler in 1944 "Hey dude we we are arriving in Normandy, meet us there ", rather he diverted hitler's attention to another place

[worldwanderer91]

WW2 Allied Powers (FDR-Churchill-Stalin) > Axis Powers > Bush's Coalition of the Willing

[1515alanruiz]

does this come from a movie?

[reubenprowse]

What movie ist that @1:13 with the monster gobbling up the South Koreans?

[Re5Publica]

@reubenprowse "The Host" 

[ballsopt]

lololol delusional republicans

you'll find anything to justify your place in Iraq, and you don't even know why. you're all hopeless, and mentally weak. Easily controlled.

I can't wait to see you tear yourselves apart, as You've already begun.

keep bringing the entertainment. it's delicious.

[Re5Publica]

@ballsopt This video was made by myself, a canadian, and therefor not a registered member of the Republican party, it's a bit disappointing that you took the opportunity to comment just to expose your own prejudice.

[givemevids]

Is it just me or is that montage by Marxist Mooron incredibly racist and insulting? This is hilarious considering those are the very things the DEMons slander Dubya and the Republicans of being. Hmm...

But what do I know, I'm just a REICH wing yahoo. Carry on you useless hypocrites.

BTW, that 0 sure has the world eating out of his hands, huh?

[Re5Publica]

@givemevids It's ironic isn't it? Michael being the internationalist that he is, portrays foreign countries as being ridiculous, but only when those countries ally themselves with the U.S., his country, as he did give a pretty flowery view of Saddam's republic of fear.

I really despise the man.

[DrToke5]

This is also meant to show of Michael Moore's technique of humor. Even the most uninformed people knew the coalition was made up of more country's than the ones listed. Anyone who'd find interest in this movie also probably has somewhat of clue. My point: Michael Moore's ethics are not as bad as people think. His movie's are meant to encourage discussion and your own research.

[Re5Publica]

"Even the most uninformed people knew.."

It's been my experience that they in fact don't know the size of the coalition. Try this experiment yourself, ask people to name members of the coalition, even educated people, college grads, if you choose.

His movies don't encourage research, they are his own op-eds. Very few people after watching Fahrenheit 9\11, went on to trouble their own opinion by searching out opposing opinions. That is against human nature.

[DrToke5]

I suppose your right, I was mostly speaking for myself. After watching his movies, I usually read up on the subject. I would hope most people know his movies can be misleading, but most people are dumb no? At the very least they lead to discussion on important subjects.

[nosign87]

Well most of the European countries have a decent army with mordern equipment but still a funny montage^^

[axelbigfish]

was saddam a former cia agent?and what about the 2 citys in japan that were bombed in ww2...did the us commit a terrorist act?

[Re5Publica]

In response to both: no.

The allies actually killed more civilians bombing Germany with conventional weapons. It wasn't an age of smart bombs, and generally since you couldn't be precise, you just flattened everything hoping to deal a blow to your enemies industry and supply lines. Warfare was different. Using the atom bomb was meant to end a long and bloody war.

[axelbigfish]

"To not believe Saddam was hiding something would've been a much greater leap of faith than vice versa. " i don`t know what to say...maybe all of us thought that saddam had weapons because of the manipulativ press all around the world...he had 12 years to prove something...maybe u are right...but maybe he thought that he was innocent until proven guilty...so was he guilty of having been armed?...let me tell u something guilty are the ones that loose wars...why wasen`t the u.s. guilty of

[Re5Publica]

"but maybe he thought that he was innocent until proven guilty"

Actually, the U.N. resolution put the burden of proof on Saddam. But, Saddam wanted the world, specifically Iran, to think he had WMDs. He admitted this when he was interrogated after his capture.

[axelbigfish]

why won`t u admit the fact that they went in iraq for oil?they don`t care!!!...u sayed that iraq had a chemical weapons program....where are the weapons???....saddam was a bad guy....bush is the devil!!:D

[Re5Publica]

"why won`t u admit the fact that they went in iraq for oil?"

Because I don't believe it, or at least that it was for oil in the way you think, or solely for that reason.

"where are the weapons?"

Saddam had 12 years to prove his disarmament and he didn't. He lived under sanctions for failing to do so, he harassed U.N. arms inspectors, denied them access to sites of concern. To not believe Saddam was hiding something would've been a much greater leap of faith than vice versa.

[Re5Publica]

"saddam was a bad guy....bush is the devil!!:D"

I wouldn't be so happy to make such an ignorant statement. I've made the same statement in the past and feel ashamed for it now.

You think Bush is evil for invading Iraq for oil? Let's suppose that's the case. Invading a country to open up its oil market for American petrol companies for trade is worse than Saddam invading Kuwait to take entire control of the country and its oil fields and when he failed, set them on fire?

[xxUSofAxx]

You are aware that the vast majority of oil contracts were given to non-US companies, right? If only people would do their own research instead of spouting unsubstantiated claims that they hear from other people, that have no resemblance to truth whatsoever. If the US is in Iraq to steal oil then we sure are doing a piss poor job of it.

[axelbigfish]

i didn`t know u knew who the cia is laundering money for...ok maybe u are right i am an ignorant misinformed who dosen`t do his own research idiot....but answer me this one question....what is america looking for in iraq?maybe the weapons that they solled to their former cia agent saddam? or what exactly are they looking for....did u hear about the UN?ori NATO? why did america formed another coalition and send troops besides this other 2 organizations?

[deguowatao]

@xxUSofAxx the relative absence of us-companies in iraqi oil business, at the moment, may have to do with the relatively hard conditions that were set up by (now former?) iraqi oil minister, forcing interested parties into a fierce bidding contest to get the best deal for iraq, but that was before the last election...

btw didnt american companies get the majority of rebuilding contracts?

[Re5Publica]

@deguowatao Which contradicts the popular argument that Iraq isn't in control of it's own oil.

[deguowatao]

@Re5Publica yeah, as much as a destabilized country after years of war and close to falling apart can be in control. i already indicated that this recent and indeed favourable handling seems to be mainly due to one couragous iraqi oil minister alone. and his political oponents already said they'd reverse this path if they'd take his position. this was before election so i dont know who prevailed or will in future, just saying this "control" aint sure at all. if you're proved correct i ll be glad

[Re5Publica]

@deguowatao I'm already correct.

[deguowatao]

@Re5Publica allright nostradamus go ahead

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica I think Moore isn't doing , as you say ,misinformation . I believe that Moore wanted to focus on the insignificance of foreign military aid, 90% of the work was done by the us army at he end . for Moore this fact proves that this is an American war disguised as UN intervention, or at least that's what I figured.

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa America contributed 90% of the effort to the U.N.-sanctioned First Gulf War, as well.

He's not saying other countries contributions are insignificant, he seems to be suggesting the members of the coalition are insignificant... but in fact, the coalition members had populations totalling 1 billion people, and included such important economic and geopolitical nations as Japan, Poland, Italy, and Australia, as well as Muslim nations like Azerbaijan, Albania and Bosnia & Herzogovina.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica Yes I knew it and I would say that maybe you're right, but only apparently. I am Italian and my country has sent to Iraq, like all others, a peacekeeping force, made up not for shooting but to help the civilians. Most of our victims were members of a police force , no army. same thing can be referred to other countries, which have contributed with a few hundreds men . in fact it seems to me that US&UK have received foreign military support only AFTER the war, not during it .

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa Yes, but what does that prove? What role has Italy played in NATO? A generally small one, in every NATO engagement, including the war in Afghanistan where it assumed a non-combat role as well. It barely fulfills is treaty obligations, why would it be expected to contribute all that much to a non-NATO mission? It's not surprising or unprecedented for America to take the lead in military engagements - it is the world's military superpower. It's the most capable as a consequence.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica

This is the point.

if the contribution of the main allies in Afghanistan and Iraq (ie the UK and Italy) is composed of relatively few people compared to U.S. Army , then the war itself was conducted only by the U.S. Army, then this proves that it is a U.S war and allies are only a cover to hide it .

the so-called "coalition of the willing" is just a trick to show that America had a good number of supporters, when in fact foreign aid is almost zero.

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa But as I pointed out, even U.N.-sanctioned missions are led by America, since America is the most capable, and most importantly, the most willing power to carry out military operations. So, even a war, like the First Gulf War, which was approved by the United Nations, was primarily fought by the U.S.. Likewise, America did more than any European state, as well as Muslim nations, to bring about the end of conflict in the Balkans which saved the lives of thousands of Muslims.

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica omitting the war in the Balkans (where, if you do not know, NATO and the UN are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents because both have not found the courage to intervene before) the point where it seems to me that we do not understand is that afghanistan first , and then iraq , wars are proposed, begun and run by Americans, the Allies arrived AFTER .

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica And let me say, I don't agree with the fact that you insist that America must always have a leading role because it has the strongest army because the "strongest army in the world", with no local political support and without a slightest idea of​local culture , was able to set himself against the whole local populations and that was precisely BinLaden's goal: to bring financially down America with long and costly wars , to raise muslims against america and isolate it .

[90MaPa]

@Re5Publica And let me say, I don't agree with the fact that you insist that America must always have a leading role because it has the strongest army because the "strongest army in the world", with no local political support and without a slightest idea of​local culture , was able to set himself against the whole local populations and that was precisely BinLaden's goal: to bring financially down America with long and costly wars , to raise muslims against america and isolate it .

[Re5Publica]

@90MaPa It's a total mistake to say that this is how Bin Laden imagined this would turn out. Read his own words, he predicted that the U.S. would be easy to defeat militarily, unlike the Soviets, because Americans lived pampered lives and couldn't stand prolonged or bloody conflicts. He was wrong, now he's dead.

It's a myth that the wars contributed to America's financial crisis. They cost 1.6 trillion, over a 10 year period. Obama spent 3 times that amount in his first year as president.

[axelbigfish]

u didn`t understand me u wrote "It seems bizarre to me that you think they'd have the right to remove Mugabe, but not Saddam Hussein"...they have no right to go in a country that didn`t attacked theme....u sayed "did he have a history of trying to annex his neighbours"....ok maybe the could have trained Kuweit`s army or arme theme... thats what they did in ww2 for the brithis until pearl harbor....that`s why 9/11 happend...they needed a reason for afgahanistan...

[Re5Publica]

"they have no right to go in a country that didn`t attacked them"

U might not b aware but Iraqis fired on U.S. planes patrolling the U.N. no flyzone set up to stop Iraqi jets from bombings Kurds for years before the Iraq invasion.

"maybe the could have trained Kuweit`s army"

After Kuwait was invaded? Kuwait is a small country, the entire population numbered less than Iraq's army.

In ww2, the British were an Empire, and Kuwait was a tiny part of a vilayet under its control. No comparaison.

[axelbigfish]

u are naive if u think that the u.s. invaded iraq to rid them of a brutal dictator, & state-sponsor of terrorism...the only reason is OIL...if they relly want to get rid of the world`s terrorists and dictators why aren`t they in Zimbabwe for example....i tell u why....because they have nothing ti win over there...let us not forget that saddam was a former cia agent....and another thing....where are the chemical bombs..and so called weapons of war....saddam was a bad guy..as the us government

[Re5Publica]

Zimbabwe isn't a state-sponsor of terrorism, nor did Mugabe have a chemical weapons program, nor did he have a history of trying to annex his neighbours, nor did he use chemical weapons against his own citizens. Despite what you think, the U.S. does pick its fights.

It seems bizarre to me that you think they'd have the right to remove Mugabe, but not Saddam Hussein. It's the argument I hear all the time "The U.S. intervenes too much..." followed by "The U.S. doesn't intervene enough."

[axelbigfish]

and about the thing that u sayed about iraqis killing othere iraqis.....what i thing happend is the the us army opened a pandora's box.....after the first bombs where dropped in desert storm 2....a lot of soldiers hid there weapons ...and so on....now u have these guy`s with guns that remember that in 78 or 67 there neighbor didn`t lend them a rock or so on....and they are pissed off....they know that they could run from the iraq police so they kill there neighbor and move somer else

[Re5Publica]

Ok... so should we have fought them, or given up the country to whichever faction brutalizes the others the most?

On the argument of law & order which you seem to be giving. Law and order is what dictators are good at, that goes without saying, go to any dictatorship and you'll find they're very quiet, and orderly. There's an invisible reason for it; fear of doing anything.

[axelbigfish]

Re5Publica....let`s say that tomorrow the french invade us city`s....what would u do?u would likely pick up a gun and blow them away....let`s say they accidently bomb you`re mother she was in the wrong place at the wrong time....u would try to kill as many as u cold,woulden`t u?we have no right to be there.....the us is not the police of the world....why are u there?

[Re5Publica]

I'm Canadian, but if I could use your analogy, I'm assuming that the French would be invading to rid us of a brutal dictator, & state-sponsor of terrorism, confirm his disarmament & to give us the chance to hold elections for the first time in our history, but not to annex, or govern us. I would say vive la France!

Don't be naive & call these people who fight the U.S. & kill other Iraqis, freedom fighters, they fight to enslave Iraqis, they are former Baath party members, and Islamic fanatics.

[axelbigfish]

u are right.....but you don`t get the messages....look beyond the smoke and mirrors...beyond the laughs...we have no right beeing in afganistan...iraq...vietnam...­and so on....armys are made to defend.....not to attack inocent

[Re5Publica]

"armys are made to defend.....not to attack inocent "

You mean innocent people, or do you consider Saddam to be innocent?

The U.S. army and the Iraqi government are fighting the people who kill most civilians, just look over the past month, car bombers have killed hundreds. Michael Moore says surrender to them, I say fight them.

Even now they're killing other Iraqis even though U.s. troops are no longer in Iraqi cities, that just proves it wasn't specifically an anti-occupation insurgency

[axelbigfish]

Re5Publica thanks for the response....people shold get there info from different sources...but the main idea is that this is a stupid coalition....i am from romania...i diden`t see any afgan people on the streets of romania...so why did we attacked theme?....michael moore trys to be irionc...you shold understand the message!

[Re5Publica]

I don't agree with his message, and although I find his style entertaining, it's also highly misleading because he exaggerates and distorts to the point of absurdity to get laughs. Documentaries, in my opinion, should be funny only if they're documenting something funny, but in this case he purposely misuses facts to get laughs at the expense of a serious lesson of a serious event.