Britain Furious at "Extraordinary" French Statement

Glynch, did you read Mango's post at all?? He actually offers a reasonable response that the French and Germans could have offered. Saddam hasn't complied with the UN demands from the Gulf War and is suddenly doing some things simply because he's frightened. (as he should be)

I don't like how Bush has handled this, but if the threat of force is causing Saddam to do what he should have already done, then that shows something worthwhile could come from placing this enormous power on his neck.

Projecting this power entails an enormous cost... Britain has about 25% of it's military in theatre, not to mention what we have in place. (or countries like Australia) If the pressure on Saddam is doing so much good, as France and Germany imply, why is it unreasonable to expect them to pony up one way or the other?

And, if it took this projection of power to get him to do what he should have already done, why is it unreasonable to expect that the pressure must be maintained?

 

sig.

 

One thing that continues to amaze me about this whole war thing is those who act like it's an even or proposition...As if the onus to show why we shouldn't go to war is as great as the onus to show we should...as if you're flipping a coin...

We are considering doing the following:


1) Invading another nation, for our own reasons, contrary to world opinion. Every other nation in history who has done that has been seen by history to be 'wrong', and the aggressor.

2) Invading another nation on the principle of pre-emptive self-defense...a principle which the UN has categorically denied qualifies as a defensive action, but instead calls an act of aggression...We were the primary authors of that UN definition when it suited us, and we were ( rightly) deaf to the reasons others, such as the USSR gave conserning their belief that the nations they invaded represented real military/terrorist threats.

3) Invading a nation in support of UN resolutions, while simultaneously ignoring UN opinion/negotiations in this area, and simutaneously ignoring other, friendlier nations who are also violationg UN decisions.

4) Invading another nation because we feel that they have WMD, and that their possession of same constitutes such a grievous threat to the region that it justifies war, despite the fact that we gave them at least some of those WMD, and their neighbours in the region mostly disagree as to the threat they represent.

This is the scope of what we are considering...we stand in great danger here, danger of making the same decision other pwers have made in the past when confronted with this situation...Every other one who has said " Screw the World, I'm invading" has been wrong to do so, even according to us. Every other one felt that they had just cause at the time..every other one had a government telling it's people that they were in the right...and they were all wrong.

We are supposed to be a responsible government..we need to not buy into going against the world on this. There is no infallible system for determining right from wrong, agreed, but the closest we have is what we as a species think is right...That is the principle we espouse to believe in: majority rules.

It would be foolhardy to go against world opinion in a matter as significant as invading another nation even if we were convinced as a people in the rightness of our cause and the wisdom of our leaders, but we are nowhere close to either. This is madness...and you get those that actually defend this premise with rationale like " We have to now or Bush will lose face." or " Well, France doesn't have clean hands either."...FRANCE IS NOT CONSIDERING INVADING ANOTHER NATION CONTRARY TO WORLD OPINION! Even if you admit that France has corruption, which I would suggest is likely, it's not like that means we win the argument; let's go to war. We are not immune from corruption, and we are the ones proposing something extreme here..It's not an either or proposition: We hold the highest standards for justification about something like starting a war because it is the ultimate step...we have always held others to that high standard, we have always told others that going against the world is wrong...how can we be so lenient with our own leaders when they propose to do the same thing?

This is not a 50-50 deal...we are risking the lives of the soldiers and civilians who will dies because of our decision, but possibly even more dangerous, we are risking destroying our relationship with other nations which we have built up over generations...we are risking becoming the nation the rest of the world sees as it's greatest threat. Don't dismiss that; we are saying to the world that we don't care what the rest of you think, we want to do this, we can do this, so we will do this. How would you feel about that if you were living in another nation?

 

Safwan.

Your turn.

 

The problem Glynch is that WE are footing the bill right now for all those troops in the region, which is WHY Saddam is even partially cooperating.

I would agree to this (inspections for several more months in order to disarm Iraq and avoid war)if the French and Germans ponied up sent some troops and helped split the cost.

Dakota, you might agree to more months, . but Bush wouldn't. Bush is not concerned about the up front cost to the US. It is a principled thing for Bush.

Bush and Americans are not the only people in the world with principles. The Turks turned down billions and when they did they said it was partly because they were insulted that we acted like they had no principles and could be bought. The French, Gemans and Russian are in principle against a war to disarm when they don't think Sadam is that big of a threat and that he is disarming.

If you believe no one has principles, how much could Sadam pay the US to make this whole little affair go away? I believe Bush would be insulted and so would you all if the French and Germans offered to pay us to call off the war.

Just because we are paying the bills for the soldiers (we did that on our own and against the wishes of much of the world, to creat a fait aacompli) does not mean we have the right to demand that UN members go against their principles and give us UN authority. This is large scale war, death and destruction. This is not some sort of agreement to share expenses on a car trip.where the one who pays for gas and has the car should expect the others to give in to their itinerary.

 

we are risking destroying our relationship with other nations which we have built up over generations...we are risking becoming the nation the rest of the world sees as it's greatest threat. Don't dismiss that; we are saying to the world that we don't care what the rest of you think, we want to do this, we can do this, so we will do this

Macbeth, most Americans seem completely blind to this. They are completlely traumatized by 9/11. We have a crew in the Whitehouse that has deliberately fanned the fear and the anger that this has generated to achieve their long planned for reorganization of the Middle East. Have you ever wondered about the blindness that made Gemany or France under Napoleon think they could defy virtually the whole world? We seem to be seeing a similar phenomena here.

Even a normally moderate guy like Will thinks it is absurd that the UN would go against us, as we invented the UN and have the military power and all should bow down to us. It is dangerous and delusional.

One way or another we Americans and Bush will get a dose of humility and reality. I think world opinion is starting to deliver this lesson to Bush at least this last couple of weeks. Let's hope the lesson hits home before too much other damage is done to our standing in the world and peaceful international relations.

 

Originally posted by glynch
...
Macbeth, most Americans seem completely blind to this. ...

Apparently the rest of the country and our leaders just cannot grasp what glynch can.

Interpret that any way you want.

... We have a crew in the Whitehouse that has deliberately fanned the fear and the anger that this has generated to achieve their long planned for reorganization of the Middle East. ...

What a crock of ****. It's been dicsussed here ad nauseum how many high-ranking, in-the-know, non-Republicans consider Iraq a threat.

... I think world opinion is starting to deliver this lesson to Bush at least this last couple of weeks. Let's hope the lesson hits home before too much other damage is done to our standing in the world and peaceful international relations.

And what if the Iraqis cheer their liberators, either now or in a few years after they taste democracy? Who will look ignorant then?

 

Good article on the Bush's handling of foreign affairs.
*****************
*****************
By PAUL KRUGMAN


board the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries?

Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. A long list of pundits who previously supported the Bush administration's policy on Iraq have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn't want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.

If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy — a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance.

Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing — how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks

Wasn't someone at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters nonmilitary, the U.S. isn't all that dominant — that Russia and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours, that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do and that in much of the world public opinion matters? Apparently not.

And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration's eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.

What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing with right now.

I've talked in this column about the administration's eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair.

Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim.

The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush's `Waco.' . . . This time, it's Kim Jong Il (and Saddam) playing David Koresh. . . . Sober minds wrestle with how to break into the mind of George Bush."

We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons — and there will be a heavy price to pay.

Alas, the epiphanies of the pundits have almost surely come too late. The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started.


Krugman

 

This is something that Powell should hammer them on.

 

Cohen...I don't always agree with you, but I do respect what you have to say...However, I am a little surprised at this comment. I know that glynch can, and surely will respond to this, but I would just like to point out in his defense: Americans supporting the war are the last people on Earth who should be pointing out the ridiculousness of somone in a vast minority supposing that he is right anyways...

 

I don't see the depth of relativity...Please elaborate/explain...

 

I think that that is an entirely reasonable position...not a deal breaker; ie Not that war is the reasonable response if it's turned down, they are separate issues, but yes, I would fully support this position. Not just France and Germany, I think that the cost of thie inspections should be spread out between all nations who are in favour of them, either as an alternative to war, or just as a precaution. I don't think that the US should have the lions' share of the authority with the UN that it wants, but neither do I think that it should have the lion's share of the cost.

 

Who tell bush to send a quarter million of soildier to middle east without trying to solve the iraq problem other way or at least get the approval of the united nation! u cant blame the frennch , russian , germany and china for the cost of the army in middle east! everyone knows the longer it wil take the higher the cost for maintaining the army! but no one ask bush to send his army there with an attitude saying we will even go alone with out un aprroval. so whats the fuxking points of asking a united naion approval now anyway. beside iraq is breaking the un treaty !
everyone know bush will go to war now no matter what becuz he will lose face if he dont!
some peoples here need to realize is how just is this war if u cant stop it becuz of saving face!!

 

MacBeth and glynch: Thanks for the good posts.

 

That statement was not directed to glynch's opinion, but what he 'feels' about those here who disagree with him. Glynch's actions show that he has no respect for 'the other side'.

If the questions get too tough for his view, he won't respond. If it's just short of that, he'll came up with some ridiculously unlikely 'possibility' so he doesn't feel compelled to admit that his view might be wrong. Without ever admitting that the 'other side' has good points or could be right, he will make statements that indicate he feels the other side is ignorant and/or obtuse.

I have many concerns about our county's path. That is why I cannot rule out arguments for action/inaction/reaction made by either side on this issue. There is conflicting information, and the level of reliability/uncertainty one assigns to each will probably be determined in part by one's ideologies, but none of us can say either side is 'wrong'. We will only see after the fact, and I imagine both side will be right to some degree.

But I find glnych's habit of discounting others unacceptable. My beliefs are not based on some fear-manipulation tactic by the Whitehouse. I believe that Bush, Powell, et al, and some leading, in-the-know Democrats believe the evidence and see a threat to the US.

 

Cohen, pissing contest, no thanks.

 

The strange thing to me is that if there is an imminent threat to the US, which means immediate as in tomorrow or next week, then why in the hell are we bothering with the UN? We don't need UN permission to protect Americans if there is an imminent threat as there was in Afghanistan. The truth is nobody believes Iraq is an immediate threat and Powell hasn't been able to show it but anytime Bush is having trouble getting the UN to sign on with military action he throws out the "my job is to protect the American people" card. If he really believed there was an imminent threat to the American people and he went to the UN to get permission then he's incompetent.

 

Great post MacBeth! I have to say that some of the reasons for going into Iraq could be used to invade some of our allies. To liberate the Iraqis and bring democracy doesn't sense for a couple of reasons. Number one is that showing people the superiority of democracy rather than forcing our will upon them is the American way and probably much more effective in the long run

Number two as has been pointed out why aren't we worried about democracies and liberation of oppressed people in countries like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia etc. Instead of trying to encourage democracy there we help prop up the dictatorships in those countries. The real issue doesn't seem to be democracy but which countries are willing to do our bidding, and allow our troops strongholds in the region. Iraq was a friend of the U.S. and there was no talk about bringing democracy there until Saddam started doing his own thing and not what the U.S. wanted him to.

Then the U.N. says that Iraq is violating resolutions and not complying with the UN. Well Israel is violating more resolutions, and I believe it's been longer than 12 years that they've shown no interest in complying. Of not enforcing those resolutions doesn't perch the UN on the verge of irrelevancy. I'ts only irrelevant when they don't enforce their resolutions on countries that the U.S. doesn't like.

WMD, and or nukes? We know that the other two countries in the 'axis of evil' are much closer to a legitimate nuke program than Iraq is.

It's clear that Saddam is lying and not in full compliance, and the thtreat of military invasion seems to be able to compel him into at least partial compliance. I think the real question is that if we waited 2 months for the inspectors to finish their work would we be any worse off?

There may be real reason for going to war in Iraq, but it doesn't help build support when the Bush administration puts out bogus excuses or only selectively enforces their reasons for wanting war.

If they would just be honest or apply their rationale accross the board and stop lying about evidence like the aluminum tubes they might win more support.