Mitch:

Give the guy credit - he probably believes all the tripe he's sprayed. OK - don't give him credit for intelligence or critical thought capability, but give him credit for sincerity.

Then, of course, you can take it away, as you did, by clear and simple refutation. As was always true, will always be true, and was appropriately pointed out in your rejoinder, mindless and mind-numbing repetition of fallacy doesn't turn it into truth.

I can't wait to see the (unlikely?) response. But I'm not anxious enough for that response to subject myself to DU, where it is likely to be delivered, moonbat to moonbat.

Pass the Kool-aid!

No one on the left ever stops to wonder whether UN would decline to step in. What then?

Mmmm. Sauerbraten.

Oh, I'm sorry, was there something more important in this post?

Just kidding Mitch. Illegitimi non carborundum.

Sorry to not get your back on the other post before, Mitch -- I am having to live on the house computer right now with the office upgrading its electrical system this week.

You're right about the growth of the German and French GDPs, and it's not likely to get much better. France actually is doing better than the EU forecasted growth rate of 1.7% for the year. (That's the EU's own assessment and that of the IMF in its April World Economic Outlook, free online at http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2004/01/index.htm ) Germany has negative absorption, verifying your claim, Mitch, that without exports they would be shrinking. Neither economy is expected to even sustain 2% growth, nor is there help elsewhere in the EU. Canada and UK are growing much faster and the latter is already investing in Iraq. The only other place for growth in signficant amount is Japan, which is experiencing growth only after a long contraction. If you drop a dead cat from a sufficient height, it bounces.

The bigger question, though, is if you had the money directed by the UN, who would contribute the additional funds? 25% of IMF money is U.S. contributed -- more, if you net out the borrowings of developing countries from their smaller contributions.

It's also worth noting that US spending on defense, at a little over 3% of GDP, is about 0.5% above France and almost double German defense spending as a share of GDP. And much of that gets run through NATO (which is about 5/8 US contribution IIRC. It's been a couple of years since I looked at this data closely.)

Are you surprised to hear back? I must say, I was disappointed by your "response." Hence, this will be my last post on this site, but I will give you the benefit of some closing thoughts on your comments.
“Was it half-assed? Of course. I came not to detail the economies of France, Germany or the rest of the world, but to bury them. For a full-assed explanation...er, for a fuller picture - hey, King - wanna take this one?”
King’s analysis was impressive and thorough, but the fact still stands that your analysis was slipshod and irrelevant (the only thing you buried was your credibility). As part of my larger point, I simply noted that France and Germany were not the only nations involved in the analysis, to which you wrote:
“Thanks. I was a little fuzzy on the world's overall nation count. It's greater than four - gotcha.”
Your vast knowledge of both geography and sarcasm impressed me. All this time I was expecting you to deny the existence of any other country but the US. At any rate, I quickly moved on from geography to say that growth rates weren’t determinative of whether a country could make a viable financial contribution to the Iraq effort. This apparently confused you and caused you to write:
“Er, Nick? Your argument, to the extend that you have one, is getting incoherent.”
To the extend that I have one? Oh, you must mean extent. I guess two can play at the “nit-pick each other’s grammar in an annoying fashion” game. How fun. Incidentally, although you failed to point out how exactly my argument was incoherent, I will elucidate for you:
1. There is little to no benefit to the unilateral Iraq strategy you advocated.
2. Other nations and organizations can provide valuable, if not essential assistance in terms of finances, troops, and political legitimacy.
3. They would do so if the Bush administration had even minimal diplomatic or strategic competence.
I hope that simplifies things for you. Now that I know you can at least count to four, I expect that you will respond with something more substantive in the future. As opposed to writing:
“John Kerry and the rest of the left say that there are nations with financial, military and moral resources that could either help us, or bail us out, in Iraq. By "other nations", the left generally means France and Germany…”
Your entire rebuttal hinges on a straw-man characterization of “the left,” specifically that appeals to internationalism are limited to France and Germany. Here’s a fun exercise: Go look up the total number of nations. Subtract from that the number of nations in the so-called “Coalition of the Willing.” The resulting number is how many nations we could be appealing to. Of course, I didn’t limit the argument to numbers alone and added the variable of military viability.
As to armies, you asked, “Who's bigger? (That's easy - China, North Korea, Russia and India). Who's bigger and better - for that is that way you phrased it, Nick. Name one.”

I can practically here you pounding your tiny little chest. However, before you get carried away, consider this feat of logic:
1. China has the biggest army.
2. Israel has the best army.
3. Therefore, the US has neither the biggest nor the best army.
The fact that the US army is the best of its size really says nothing, nor did I claim that there were tougher nations out there to “save us” with armies that were both bigger and better. The point still stands that other nations, even ones with smaller and inferior forces, can be useful. Note that the President’s “Coalition of the Willing” proudly lists several microscope Pacific island nations. At any rate, you went on to make an ad hominem attack:
“Furthermore - and I'm going to play unfair here, and actually call for some knowledge of the military, which you clearly lack - name one big, useful military from a non-criminal nation that is capable of moving its troops to, and supporting its troops in, Iraq without US support. Name one. I'll be waiting.”
Typical conservative arrogance. Instead of argument, you issue slanders against my level of military knowledge, and totally evade the arguments I raise. I wonder if you can honestly claim any military experience or education. I doubt it. If you did, you would know that your question, with the qualifications you added, is impossible to answer. Specifically:
Your qualification of a “non-criminal” nation is absurd. I challenge you to find any truly “non-criminal” nation. In the meantime I will take this qualification to mean “nations friendly enough to our business interests to ignore their criminal behaviors.”
As to being “capable of moving its troops to, and supporting its troops in, Iraq without US support” I would argue that no such army could do so while the US still occupies the country. Even the most amateur military student knows that multilateral efforts always require coordinating costs, both in terms of time and money, and that the controlling question from a strategic point of view is whether or not a multilateral approach would result in a net gain in effectiveness.
Again, you simply reiterate your profound ability for ignorance in relation to US support for Saddam at a time when he was gassing his own people and using weapons of mass destruction. Your reasoning:
“I ignore it because it's untrue… Again, untrue. The gassing of Halabja was in 1988… Quick, Nick - what year did that start?”
The Iran-Iraq war started in 1980. And Halabja was not the only incident of WMDs being used by Saddam Hussein. It has been clearly and extensively documented that Saddam did not produce the WMDs but that they were sold to his regime by US military contractors who were explicitly authorized by the government to do so.
“Is that what they're saying on DU nowdays?”

I wouldn’t know. I’ve never posted on DU, and if you weren’t too lazy you could have found that out for yourself. You go on to opine about torture:
“A couple of prison guards performing a criminal act over the course of one evening is worse than the systematic payoff of politicians and the media over the course of a decade by a murderous tyrant? That'd be Hussein, by the way.”
Wow! I’m glad that the conservative moral compass is guided by “at least we weren’t as bad as Hussein!” How reassuring. I’ve always suspected that American conservatives were jackbooted thugs, and now I know for sure. Incidentally, since you apparently don’t read the papers, it’s been released that the torture was authorized by the DOD and has been in use for over a year and half. Several generals have become implicated. This has been playing for weeks, and the fact that you somehow missed it all just further proves my “ostrich” point.

“The only people who fear US war profiteering are moonbats in the US.”
Wow, name calling. It’s only worth noting because it illustrates how totally bankrupt your point of view is. I find it funny that you apparently hold “moonbats” in contempt, but apparently couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
“Feel free to address any of the shortcomings I've identified.”
Here:

1. Credibility attacks are not a valid substitute for argument. For example, I've never posted on DU. Go scan DU if you don't believe me. It's probably not even fair to characterize me as "leftist." Resorting to name-calling and credibility attacks just underlines your underlying lack of reasoning or facts.

2. Your comments on "civility" are tripe, especially considering your rambling, incoherent indictments of "the left," which apparently constitutes anyone who disagrees with your evidently uninformed worldview. I wonder if it ever occurred to you that other conservatives might just be the least bit dissatisfied with the elite cabal of PNAC fanatics in the current administration (who really aren't all that "conservative" so much as corrupt).

3. While you were certainly clever to point out the misspelling of ostrich, the fact that your response was limited to nit-picking only illustrates my point.

Incidentally, although I am somewhat overwrought, I am not a prick, and your willful ignorance makes you something worse than whatever it is you choose to call me (Moonbat? WTF?). Personally, I doubt you’d have the grapes to voice any of your trash-talk to my face, although I am amazed at your ability to spout bullshit over the Internet. Way to be.

Correction, I can practically *hear* you pounding your tiny little chest. A thousand apologies for the grammar.