Over at Crooked Timber, dsquared has a particularly bad defense of Moore’s film:
The big advantage of the “he’s implying this without saying it” critique, and the main reason I use I myself so often, is that since he isn’t saying it, you can chosse for yourself what you want to claim he’s implying. For example Jane Galt is cutting up rough about the timing of various Carlyle Group investments, compared with the timing of George Bush Senior joining the board. And indeed, Moore’s film would be deserving of censure if he had been attempting to make the claim that there were specific quids pro quo on those specific deals. But he doesn’t actually make that claim, as far as I can see. Now he might have been attempting to imply that claim without making it, which would be bad. But he might just have been using the revolving door between defence contractors, large investors and the highest echelons of government, to support the following assertion:
Wealthy individuals and capital have far too much influence in American politics, and members of the Bush family have provided numerous examples of this proposition.
Which would not be bad. Pace my esteemed colleague Mr. Bertram, the reason why Bush’s misleading implications are not on the same footing as Moore’s tendentious use of the facts, is that Bush was attempting to establish a specfic false claim (that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA)
This snips Moore’s movie into contextless strips. The movie has a title. That title is not along the lines of “Rich People Get Plum Jobs”. The movie has a theme. That theme is not along the lines of “Rich Americans are too Influential in Politics”. The movie’s theme is much closer to “Bush sold America to the Saudi’s for Cash” and Daniel knows that full well. Moore makes an argument, he just does so with minor deniability.
But I’m not all that interested with that argument, I find the a comment on the post far more interesting.
It comes from Matt Weiner, philosophy professor:
…The thing about e.g. Bush’s claims about British intelligence thinking that Saddam sought uranium from Africa, aside from the issue of their literal truth (the factivity of ‘learned’ ‘n’at), is that Bush’s mentioning them in that context implicated that his Administration had reason to trust the opinion of British intel on that matter, whereas we now know that they did not have such reason.
(Note that I’m not saying that Saddam didn’t seek uranium from Niger. Whether or not we can trust recent information on that subject, the Bush Administration themselves has already admitted that the evidence they had at the time of the State of the Union speech was inadequate to justify the claim. If it turns out to be true they don’t get any points.)
The uranium in Africa claim was one of the hottest “BUSH LIED” statements. This treatment of it is ridiculous. Before the speech, former ambassador Wilson was sent to investigate the claim of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger. He claimed that he was unable to verify such reports even though we now know (from Wilson’s own book) that officials in Niger told him that an envoy from Saddam, under the guise of trade contacts, hinted that they desired uranium. After the official made clear that this was not possible, no further trade contacts were persued. Wilson found out after the war that the ever-cheery ‘Baghadad Bob’ was the Iraqi official in question. So we now know that one of the highest members of the Iraqi government was attempting to get uranium from Africa. We know that he did so under the cover of trade negotiations. We know that he actually travelled to Niger at the time in question. We are told that the official from Niger did not further a discussion about uranium. We know that Iraq did not continue to pursue trade with Niger afterwards. We know precisely everything that you would expect to know from a failed attempt to negotiate for illegal trade in uranium.
Weiner writes: “Bush’s mentioning them in that context implicated that his Administration had reason to trust the opinion of British intel on that matter, whereas we now know that they did not have such reason. “
This is quite wrong. We now know that the CIA could not INDEPENDENTLY confirm British intel on that matter. We also know that one of the reasons the U.S. could not confirm it was because Wilson (for one reason or another) was unable to confirm who the Iraqi official was and dismissed the story. The reason to trust the opinion of British intel on that matter, or any other matter, is that it is one of the best intelligence services in the world. (Which perhaps does not mean as much as we might like).
And it turns out they were right.
Whatever the proper response to that might be, it isn’t Weiner’s “If it turns out to be true they don’t get any points.” This isn’t about points. This is about Bush’s claim that Saddam was looking for uranium. This is about Bush’s claim that Saddam still sought nuclear weapons. This is about the fact that Saddam was not as deterred as some want to pretend, despite the decade of sanctions. This is about the fact that you don’t try to initiate illegal uranium trade just because you like the sound of words ending in -anium. Saddam could have gotten that by chopping off another person’s head and stroking their cranium.
Whether the Challabi Intelligence Agency had the goods on Saddam or not I bet not a moment goes by that Saddam doesn’t think, “If only I had invaded Kuwait after I had the bomb!”
I wish people could muster half as much worry about the possibility of Al Qaeda obtaining nuclear weapons, the poorly guarded HEU stockpiled in Russia, the black market, the Pakistani atomic program that Musharraf does not seem able to control, and all the rest, as they can about an Iraqi nuclear program that has already been proven not to exist.
Yes. Saddam lusted in his heart for nuclear weapons.
He was not a year away from them, as Bush deliberately implied. He was not, as it turns out, five years away from them. He did not have a renewed nuclear program at all. He did not get uranium from Niger and there was not a credible possibility that he had. The aluminum tubes were not from centrifuges.
“If a terrorist nuclear attack did occur in the United States, the first questions asked would be who did it, and where did they get the bomb?….Interestingly, Saddam-era Iraq would not have even made the top ten” of likely suppliers.
–Graham Allison, How to Stop Nuclear Terror”, Foreign Affairs.
Bush’s defenders constantly ask us to ignore all this, and ask what the President knew at the time. Only we’re supposed to give him the benefit of the doubt, because it’s wartime. And he might have had secret evidence. And after 9/11 you can’t just ignore threats even if there’s no evidence for them.
Now you also ask us to ignore what the President has actually admitted about what they knew.
Who, exactly, is playing for points?
Sebastian – I don’t know who the prefered intelligence apparatus is this month, one time it’s Britain’s, another time it’s Russia’s, or perhaps we prefer an Italian journalist. They all got their stuff from Challabi and his stuff was being stovepiped to Cheney’s office it was. It’s all horse stuff, you know.
Katherine, the hardest part in building a nuclear weapon if you have any kind of an industrial state is obtaining the fissile material. He was seeking to fulfill the difficult part. Actively seeking. Despite ongoing sanctions. Despite UN censure. Despite everything he was still actively seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. Containment was falling apart. Do you suspect that Saddam would have been less likely to be successful under less supervision? Or do you believe that long term supervision was feasible given the international community as it actually is?
Furthermore this particular issue has been the centerpiece of the “BUSH LIED” meme for quite some time. And it is totally wrong.
Third, Saddam was a awful combination of bad factors–some pertaining to nuclear problems, some not. The nuclear issue of Saddam was a part of the argument in favor for invading, and it is a part often assailed by the left. Much of the anti-invasion rhetoric involved Saddam’s alleged deterability. The fact that he was seeking uranium while still under sanction is strong evidence that the left’s understanding of Saddam’s deterability was deeply flawed. This extends to other areas of the debate.
Yes. Saddam lusted in his heart for nuclear weapons. He was not a year away from them, as Bush deliberately implied. He was not, as it turns out, five years away from them.
He didn’t “lust in heart” for nuclear weapons. He built them. That’s a silly characterization that ignores history.
Possibly he was not 5 years away, but only because Israel took heroic preemptive action in 1981 to bomb and destory Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak.
Fabius, there is no evidence whatsoever that Chalabi knew anything about the Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf mission to Niger. As such it seems highly unlikely that anyone’s intelligence on that topic came from him.
And this intelligence was quite correct.
So what exactly is your point?
Sorry, link failed re Osirak. Try this one.
Actively seeking in the sense of one not-really confirmed contact, which had no real chance of success. I could actively seek to fly by flapping my wings, in that sense.
No one thinks Saddam was complying in good faith with the sanctions. Inspections and containment did not depend on his good faith. He had no chemical weapons. He had no biological weapons. He had no nuclear program.
I know about Israel and the reactor. I’m glad they bombed it. We’re talking about 2003, not 1983 or 1991 or even 1994.
The standard can be what the threat actually was, or what the president believed it was at the time, but it can’t shift back and forth at your convenience.
To hell with this. There is no f***ing point. If you still believe there was no deception on Bush’s part, it is because you do not want to believe and unless there’s some recording system in the Oval Office & the tapes are released, no amount of evidence or argument will ever convince you to believe.
You seem to think that ACTIVE inspections weren’t in fact going on. Check your timelines.
Saddam was a bad guy. The president got his wish – he invaded. He may have had valid reasons but he didn’t emphasise them to the American people.
The issue that has more importance at this late date is how competently he has carried out the invasion and the relationships in the Middle East.
Navy Davy, I had no idea that Saddam actually had built nuclear weapons. I was pretty sure the worst case scenario was something like he could build them in a year if he had fissile material. Can you point me to where I can learn more?
It’s funny how conservatives, after telling the liberals to stop arguing over past events, are now trying to argue over past events.
The present must be too tough to look at.
“To hell with this. There is no f***ing point. If you still believe there was no deception on Bush’s part, it is because you do not want to believe and unless there’s some recording system in the Oval Office & the tapes are released, no amount of evidence or argument will ever convince you to believe.”
Alternatively I have trouble believing there was a massive deception because the opinion of even those governments which opposed the war (and I’m talking specifically of France and Germany and Russia) was that Saddam had some/many of those weapons.
I have trouble believing that there was a massive deception because one of the prime examples of deception touted by the left was that Bush claimed Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa. And he was.
Perhaps I have trouble with the charge of deception because the left always ‘translates’ Bush’s discussions of the broad problems of Middle Eastern terrorism into discussions about merely Al-Qaeda, and then pretends that Bush is being deceptive. I’ve even see you do that, Katherine.
From Bush’s point of view, and mine, the war is not just about or even mainly about Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is a symptom a deeper problem. Treating that symptom involves doing lots of things in the Middle East that are not directly about Al-Qaeda. Bush has always said this. That argument was not deceptive.
In the part of Rice’s quote which Moore oh so cleverly ommitted, she says: “It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York.This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they’re all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East…”
You obviously think that is wrong. But there is no reason to call that clear statement deceptive and others like it deceptive.
In charitable moods I suspect that you believe the deceptive charge because you focus so tightly on Al-Qaeda and believe that everyone else does as well. You believe that of course the American public is tightly focused on Al-Qaeda, so therefore all other Bush arguments are just ancillary Al-Qaeda arguments and all mentions of Al-Qaeda are mere pegs to justify the rest. You don’t accept that there might be vast numbers of people who believe that Al-Qaeda is merely a symptom of something that must all be dealt with. Even in more defined wars we don’t just fight “Battalion 8”. We fight all of the armies and navies and spies and the logistical support behind them.
What?
You say:
“From Bush’s point of view, and mine, the war is not just about or even mainly about Al-Qaeda.”
No joke. The war wasn’t about al Queda. Not mainly or in part or AT ALL.
Why would you need to clarify your postition on such a preposterous idea?
And why the American people or even some of them would want to focus on an organized, funded terrorist group who has openly declared war on America and is riding on the confidence produced by their recent huge and successful attack on America – well, I just don’t see their reasoning.
Seb, can you really post that bizarre quote from Rice, where she essentially says that Iraq and al-Qaeda are in a “great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom” simply because the both hate, and then critique Moore because he’s misleading? I mean, come on.
“And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East…”
And this? Ever heard of Turkey? It’s just to the left of Iraq.
I’m sure these people are more than grateful that people like you are not providing the same level of scathing criticism as Moore is facing.
Hope this turns off the shouting.
Nope. Someone save us from all this bold.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Sept. 11 commission, which reported no collaborative links between Iraq and al Qaeda, said on Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney had no more information than commission investigators to support his later assertions to the contrary.
Hey, and neither does Sebastian. Wow.
Doh,
Can you point me to where I can learn more?
What am I, a frickin’ one-man University?:)
Sure, but you have some preliminary ground work to do:
First, divest yourself of any opinions you have on politics in general (you’re probably liberal) and on the merits of Gulf War II (you’re probably against it.)
Second, go read facts about Saddam and Iraq. Here’s a rough chronological outline:
1. 1979 — Saddam takes complete power of Baathist Party in Iraq
2. 1980 — Iraq invades Iran
3. 1981 — Israel destroys Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.
4. 1988 – Iraq massacres 5,000 civilians at Halabja with chemical weapons attack.
Some observations by survivors of the attack.
5. 1991 – Iraq invades Kuwait
6. 1991- Gulf War I
7. 1998- Clinton bombs Iraq in Desert Fox. The mission was designed to destroy Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
8. 1998 — Clinton signs into law new policy of Regime Change for Iraq.
9. 2003–Bush invades Iraq, Gulf War II
Be mindful, that during from Gulf War 1 to Gulf War II, Saddam violated a bazillion different UN Resolutions.
Here’s a good history of Saddam: .
Here’s an interesting paper by Democratic Senator Don Riegel from Michigan on Iraqi Chemical warfare and resulting Gulf War Syndrome, suffered by our soldiers.
Next step, is to find 2 learned people you respect on each side of this issue. Make them explain their positions, and ask them good, pointed questions.
After all that, then, and only then, Doh, you may form an opinion on this matter. You’ll be one smart cookie, too!
This is not a useful argument–and yes, I blame your side for that, absolutely; this isn’t a question of agree to disagree. I can’t figure out how or if you even believe these tortured argument.
But if you blame my side, it’s equally not useful. Whether it’s your fault or mine, neither of us will budge an inch.
So I’ll only add a technical note. You’re right to say that getting fissile material is the hard part of building a nuclear weapon. Yellowcake is not fissile material:
What am I, a frickin’ one-man University?:)
yeah, Wutsamatta U.
Fast Eddie,
yeah, Wutsamatta U.
Yea! Eddie got his sense of humor back!!
I’m actually glad you didn’t say, “Neurotic State”:) That would have been insulting!
Navy Davy
A parallel:
Kentucky’s economy is in a fiscal crisis.
I’m going to do something about it. My goal is a stable Kentucky economy and ultimately a stable mid-Southern economy.
To accomplish my goal I am going to give a single dollar to every new person that enters the state of Kentucky thus providing an infusion of new cash to Kentucky’s economy. Will it work? I don’t know because I actively ignore the people whose job it is to know those things. Will it possibly hurt in some way. I don’t know.
I will be steadfast though if that counts.
Will you defend me and my plan to near religious levels because you agree with my goal?
Will you defend me and my plan to near religious levels because you agree with my goal?
No. Your hypothetical is too convoluted and incoherent. But, I do like Kentucky — particularly the mint juleps.
Convoluted and incoherent. Good description.
More on Uranium in Iraq via AP.
Just curious Katherine. Why do you think Saddam wanted uranium?
Mr. Davy, that link (Uranium in Iraq via AP) really has nothing to do with this discussion. According to the article, the US lifted out of Iraq about a 1,000 radioactive sources that could, at best/worst, been used in a “dirty” bomb, and almost 2 tons of low-enriched uranium that is useless for bomb making (or even dirty bomb making) without expensive/complex enrichment procedures. None of these are close to being either highly enriched urianium (HEU) or plutonium, which are utterly necessary for making a nuclear bomb. It’s good we did this (especially the 1,000 industrial/medical radioactive whatever-they-ares), but not remotely relevant for a discussion of Saddam and nuclear weapons.
From NavyDavy’s link: “Wilkes said “a huge range of different isotopes” were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.
Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material – including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium – could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.
Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup.”
Are the US now removing all fertilizer too?
And your report from the democratic congressman is from May 25, 1994. If I may quote “Scott Ritter:”RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capability — “we” being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn’t account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.”
In the UK GW syndrom seems to be probabely caused by actions from the US and the UK.
As the intelligence about the WMD’s goes: even the people who thought he still had some knew that he had no means of delivering them. Almost all of the WMD he had were for aerial delivery – and the best they could come up with was a missile that might have flown 20 miles further than allowed under the sanctions. I think that Robin Cook’s resignment speech of March 18th 2003 shows that there were people who actually had acces to the intelligence materials but were not convinced.
Is anyone else but me seeing this all in bold? Or is it something I ate?
Katherine and Sebastian were using a little bold but nowhere near everything on the thread.
Check your “view” on the toolbar.
Or reboot.
Hey Sebastion!
When you ask:
“Just curious Katherine. Why do you think Saddam wanted uranium?”
Is it because you are promoting the WMD-related-program-activities-thought-crimes theory now?
OK, that should fix it.
And it turns out they were right.
Oh, really? *checks news* No, they were still wrong, unless you want to suggest that the vast liberal conspiracy has succeeded in completely hushing up Saddam Hussein’s mythical nuclear weapons program.
If you’re complaining that Moore lied, Sebastian, it’s just not terribly convincing coming from you. Gary Farber’s outrage, while I confess feeling it a little misplaced, is at least sincere: Farber objected to Bush lying, too. You didn’t, and you’re still trying to defend Bush’s lies with that bendy yardstick that says, somehow, it’s okay for the President of the United States to lie to the US Congress, the US people, and the UN, to get the US into an aggressive war on a country that could not have harmed the US: but somehow it’s not okay for Michael Moore to use Bush’s tactics to attack Bush.
Odd, that.
I think that Gary Farber is wrong to place the same value on an independent moviemaker making an attack on a public politician as on the President of the US making a case for attacking another country. But at least Gary’s using the same values. For you, the values seem to change according to politicial affiliation.
Dutchmarbel:
Are the US now removing all fertilizer too?
Please don’t take offense and I hope I’m not being too picky but we say “Is the US…” This grammatical point was decided by 558,000 dead Americans between 1861 and 1865. Some of us take it very seriously. Myself included.
I think he probably wanted uranium for weapons–assuming this story is true; as I understand it we’re working from third hand hearsay right now.
Of course, I was pretty sure he had chemical weapons and biological agents that might or might no be weaponized, and that turned out not to be true.
But surely it’s useful to know whether we’re talking about weapons grade uranium or not?!!? Other uranium needs to be enriched, in a process that is time consuming, expensive, and much harder than chem or bio weapons to hide from satellites and inspectors. Those centrifuges aren’t small, and you need a lot of them.
So he wanted them for weapons. What do you expect would stop him from getting such weapons?
A perfect intelligence agency which would catch his every attempt?
A strong international force dedicated to keeping him from getting nuclear weapons–perhaps like the force which is so effective against Iran?
Something else?
RE: centrifuges and the impossibility of hiding them.
North Korea.
I guess those weapons inspections in NK were a waste of time, huh?
He did not get uranium from Niger and there was not a credible possibility that he had.
Finally, Moore could have ended the movie with the question as to where all of Saddam’s nuclear techies went to. You know for the sequel.
Well if you would have stuck with that you would have been proven correct.
But your statement isn’t true NOW… they have found SOME chemical weapons. They have not found stockpiles… yet.
Oh..btw… I voted to destroy all my chemical weapons before I voted against it.
Anyone who could post in perfect Dutch (and probably German, and probably one more) should feel free to hassle Dutchmarbel for his grammar. I seem to remember D. mentioning that he actually is a citizen of the country with the best public foreign language education program in the world.
I digressed. Wjoops.
Mark Morford reviews Fahrenheit 911 (Sebastian, you might actually enjoy the review more than you think).
You know, Jes, I actually appreciated that link; it gave some valuable perspective on how fortunate we are in our comments section. I’m sure that I have at least one reader who agrees 100% with Morford… but if so, at least he/she is a good deal more polite about it. 🙂
Moe
nagoya ryan, tnxs for the defense. I took Daves comment as a hidden compliment on my English 😉 and will try to not make the same mistake again – I have similar point with my own lanuage so I recognize the sentiment.
SameoldSameold They tested and the polish grenades did not contain chemical weapons.
I find the Iraqi watch site quite usefull.
nagoya ryan, tnxs for the defense. I took Daves comment as a hidden compliment on my English 😉 and will try to not make the same mistake again – I have similar point with my own lanuage so I recognize the sentiment.
SameoldSameold They tested and the polish grenades did not contain chemical weapons.
I find the Iraq watch site quite usefull.
Moe, the main reason I linked to it is because I find Mark Morford to be an amusing and inspiring writer, with a gift for eloquent invective that politicians should envy. But unquotable here. *grin*
Navy Davy, I have taken your advice and searched far and wide among people and institutions I respect, and I can’t find a single one who thinks Iraq ever actually built nuclear weapons.
(Interestingly, I did find some people who believe that before the first Gulf war, the US, under George HW Bush, actually helped Iraqis learn how to build a nuclear bomb).
This leads me to the conclusion that you are indeed not a one-man university, but rather (to quote yourself) prone to “silly characterization.”
Thanks for the advice though.
“A strong international force dedicated to keeping him from getting nuclear weapons–perhaps like the force which is so effective against Iran?”
It doesn’t exist, no. We should MAKE it exist. It should be our highest priority, should’ve been our first priority, if not on September 12, then certainly after the Afghan War. Instead we’ve neglected it, even the obvious, relatively easy steps that required no bullets, no dead soldiers, and much less money than the Iraq war. We devoted more energy and money to a missile defense that will be no damn good against terrorists. We shot our credibility all to hell. We needlessly alienated our allies. We overstretched our armed forces so much that we may not be able to credibly threaten force to North Korea or Iran. We may have convinced those countries that getting nuclear weapons was the best defense from being “regime changed”. We told Pakistan that it was their own affair if they wanted to pardon the head of their nuclear program for running a black market.
Most of this, to deal with a country that wasn’t even in the top ten of nuclear threats. It was known at the time that terrorists were more likely to get a nuclear weapon from not only Russia, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, but also the Ukraine, Ghana, any country with a poorly guarded HEU stock or a Soviet-era HEU-fueled reactor. We learned afterwards that Libya should’ve been on the list, that El Baradei wasn’t finding anything because there was nothing to find, that Saddam didn’t have a serious nuclear program at all.
And STILL the administration and its defenders are absolutely certain that Bush did nothing wrong, made no mistakes.
In a vaccuum, in a world where there were not at least a dozen more serious threats, you could justify this war. Not the botched diplomacy or the botched occupation, but the decision to invade itself. He was a psycho; he was a monster; he was not remotely trustworthy; he was self-interested above all but was not good at figuring out what was in his self interest; he was violating UN resolutions; he was so awful to his own people that any successor was bound to be an improvement–however unlikely it was that democracy would blossom like a beautiful flower, most dictators are more benign than Saddam Hussein.
But it did not take place in a vaccuum, and we don’t live in that world.
“A strong international force dedicated to keeping him from getting nuclear weapons–perhaps like the force which is so effective against Iran?”
It doesn’t exist, no. We should MAKE it exist.”
Who would be a part of such a force in containing Iraq? In 2002 Russia, Germany and France all wanted to end sanctions against Iraq despite the fact that Iraq had kept inspectors our of the country for 4 years. That is post-9/11.
The UN has refused to deal with North Korean proliferation issues at all.
The EU approach on Iran has been actively counter-productive.
You want an international approach, yet your criticism is about Bush. Is it an international responsibility or a U.S. one?
I am perfectly willing for you to answer either way. But if it is an international responsibility, some other nations damn well might want to do something constructive. And pretending that having another round of meetings in Paris counts as doing something constructive is just self-deception.
And far more important than who would be involved is this question: what would they do?
If the U.S. is doing everything and the rest of the world provides moral support and token material support, I don’t see why anyone thinks that is worth it.
Hopefully that’s all fixed, now.