You want change...?

[Yossarian]

Good, because you all owe me $5 in that case 

In my own words:

Multi-lateral foreign policy means working with your allies, rather than going at it alone.

[mensa180]

Good, because you all owe me $5 in that case 

In my own words:

Multi-lateral foreign policy means working with your allies, rather than going at it alone.

And if our allies don't support what we intend to do, even though it may be the right thing?

[SD67]

In short a multilateral foreign policy is an attempt to keep everybody happy. It's akin to trying to reach a big compromise which with the diversity faced in world politics is never going to work.
You might as well throw open your borders and say "Come on in y'all! Do what you like and we'll love it!" and be done with it.

[Donzo]

Good, because you all owe me $5 in that case 

In my own words:

Multi-lateral foreign policy means working with your allies, rather than going at it alone.

When did we go it alone?

[Yossarian]

When did we go it alone?

Iraq.  I know there was a Coalition, but it sure wasn't much of one.  The first George Bush got a huge coalition to go along with him in Gulf War One, but George W. Bush went into Iraq without a broad international agreement that it was the right thing to do.

[Hangtime]

Iraq.  I know there was a Coalition, but it sure wasn't much of one.  The first George Bush got a huge coalition to go along with him in Gulf War One, but George W. Bush went into Iraq without a broad international agreement that it was the right thing to do.

Bush woulda never tried it without his poodle.

[WWhiskey]

Iraq.  I know there was a Coalition, but it sure wasn't much of one.  The first George Bush got a huge coalition to go along with him in Gulf War One, but George W. Bush went into Iraq without a broad international agreement that it was the right thing to do.

lets see england went too war with germany all by itself,, was that a bad thing ? should they have waited till the rest of the free world got on board? i think they would have been german subjects by then! thank god (on your behalf) that they acted without the consent of the rest of the world!

[Donzo]

Iraq.  I know there was a Coalition, but it sure wasn't much of one.  The first George Bush got a huge coalition to go along with him in Gulf War One, but George W. Bush went into Iraq without a broad international agreement that it was the right thing to do.

So, in your mind there are different degrees of coalitions?  You yourself said we went into Iraq with a coalition, just not much of one. 

So what is your definition of a real coalition?

Do you think we should have just teamed up with the UN and passed another resolution?




What about when Clinton was bombing the Serbs or sending troops to Somalia?  Was there a coalition then and did it meet your standards?

[Rich46yo]

Bush woulda never tried it without his poodle.

(Image removed from quote.)

The Brits are a lot of things but one thing they aint is "poodles". I myself am glad there are still people like them left in this manure pile world.

I guess we could have all sat around for another 11 years while Saddam flipped the bird at us again on a daily basis.

[Hangtime]

The Brits are a lot of things but one thing they aint is "poodles". I myself am glad there are still people like them left in this manure pile world.

I guess we could have all sat around for another 11 years while Saddam flipped the bird at us again on a daily basis.

I hear yah Rich... was just clubbing the thread starter/obama-fan/british subject teenager with the painful truth that his nation was the #1 contributor of support in the coalition that dealt with saddam... in a format he could come to grips with.

Carry on. <S!>

[CAP1]

lets see england went too war with germany all by itself,, was that a bad thing ? should they have waited till the rest of the free world got on board? i think they would have been german subjects by then! thank god (on your behalf) that they acted without the consent of the rest of the world!

YA, because we all know iraq is sooo powerful and allmighty. they were within a day of taking over the world when we went in there, right?

[xbrit]

This is probably the same kid who last week on the game who made the statement "All Brits are stupid" then claims he was really British.
My son is a dual national but he doesn't think it correct of him to involve himself in something he doesn't have personal knowledge of, yes he could go online and research but he wouldn't be there to "see and feel" how these things affect him or he could go on my say so but he is too much of an individual to just follow blindly.
The only thing I can think of is that this kid is starved of attention so comes here trying to cause strife with his C&P arguements so that we may give him the attention his parents should be giving.

[Yossarian]

lets see england went too war with germany all by itself,, was that a bad thing ? should they have waited till the rest of the free world got on board? i think they would have been german subjects by then! thank god (on your behalf) that they acted without the consent of the rest of the world!

Incorrect, if you're referring to World War II, Britain went to war with France against Germany.

[snip]

Wrong on all counts.

[WWhiskey]

YA, because we all know Iraq is sooo powerful and allmighty. they were within a day of taking over the world when we went in there, right?

well we could have stop ed the germans long before they caused millions to die
but instead we tried to appease them and to what end?

[xbrit]

I just love the way this kid thinks if he says it that makes it correct but if it's someone elses statement they are wrong, oh well I suppose that's typical kids.
Maybe when they drop he will develop a mind of his own and not just follow blindly.