Actually my statement was quite factual. The week before the French and Germans publicly said they would not help America in any war in Iraq, they assured Colin Powell on his European trip that they would be on our side, then Powell had the rug pulled out from under him which is why you saw many figure heads in the American govt. react to France and Germany the way they did. Now if we're talking UN, then I would agree that the US really didn't care if the UN was involved or not. Sure they would of liked to carry the flag of the UN if the UN was backing our cause, but if it didn't then to hell with them. If you listen to the UN representatives speak it is really nothing more than a forum for the less powerful nations of the world to help themselves by curbing the power of the more powerful. At least that's the way its sounded to me the last few decades. And I think that is something all Americans should realize regardless of their party affiliation. The UN speaks for the little guy even when the little guy is wrong.
So you do not remember GWB stating that the US would unilaterally invade Iraq if need be? And certainly Rumsfeld's and Cheney's public drubbing of France and Germany would indicate that having major league allies was not a priority for the Bush Admin.
I remember things exactly as I stated in my last post. I do not recall Bush making the above statement prior to the US/Euro rift I described in my last post, but it would make since to make that statement before hand to let the waivering Europeans know how serious we were on the issue. The problem is the French and the Germans could have expressed a desire not to give their support quietly. Instead they called a press conference and rubbed it in America's face with the Chirac-Shroeder meeting and THAT was when the rift between the countries was initiated contrary to popular opinion.
I haven't read what No Worries has said entirely on this subject in response to this however a staple of Wolfowitz's Defensive Planning Guide which was adopted by this administration and largely stands for US policy now, ie pre-emptive war etc. is the concept that the US will no longer rely on long standing allies but rather form ad hoc coalitions as situations present themselves. We don't want allies, we want lap dogs. If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action. There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations. The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis. The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html
The U.S. didn't really ask for anything. They went to the UN and said we are going to do this whether anyone wants to help or not. We are going to do this our way and that's that. Ok, who's with us? Naturally there were others who wanted to handle things a different way. After 9/11 when the U.S. wanted help going in to Afghanistan, however, it was a different story. That was when world opinion was on our side. France even flew more combat missions in Afghanistan than the British. They flew more than anyone except the U.S. When it came to really fighting terrorism the world was on our side and the good will was there. When it came to preemptively invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, Bush's method of going to the UN and talking tough to our allies, did little to help build a coalition.
