I would not bet against GWB's father getting the job done. I do not want to miminize the effort or the many steps that would be required to build such a coalition. It would have been very hard work. It is too bad that GWB gave such a minimal effort.
"Hard work". Great. Thanks for the very specific chiding on what Bush could have done differently. Yeah, daddy could have pulled it through. I'm not sure what he would have done, but he could have done it... Specifics. What could he have done to change Chirac's mind? Schroeder's? Nothing. You know as well as I do, nothing.
Oh, BTW, that "minimal effort" took over a year. A year wasted. What, he should have made a personal visit to Paris? Oh yeah, I'm sure a more personal approach would've changed ChIraq's mind...
I'm glad you for once agree with me. I humbly submit that his father would have started out by NOT stating the end objective and bottom line in public. His father could have gone to the UN and got yet another UNSC resolution, six months before his son. His father could have slowly escalated the cause at the UN until everyone agreed that military force should be used as a threat. Once the UN agreed to send troops as a threat, the UN is then committed to use force if necessary. The point I making here is that the US could have taken this step by step, gaining UN support and world approval as it went. It goes without saying that his father would not have tolerated his Admin making the comments that the president's Admin did.
Correct. It goes without saying that George HW Bush is light years ahead of George W Bush when it comes to diplomacy. You gain a wee bit more diplomatic experience being Ambassador to China and the UN than you do being Governor of Texas and principal owner of the Texas Rangers baseball club.
Yes they wanted to get rid of Saddam. I think everyone wants to get rid of Saddam. The problem I have is that there are men in our govt. that are actually happy that we are going to war. War should never be something that brings to joy to people, no matter what the cause.
Ah. So had we taken it even more slowly, then surely world approval would have been forthcoming. Had we not initially said that Saddam would be disarmed one way or another, then surely everyone would have agreed to go along. I guess that if they believed that we could be a little less firm about what the end result had to be, then they surely would have been more amenable to a forcible outcome, had it been necessary... *Surely* this would have happened had we not stated unequivocally what the end result must be? Perhaps if we had come out initially and said "Hey guys, we'd really like it if the international community could peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein, but if not then we're cool by that"... Surely... The bottom line is that France, Germany, Russia, and China would not have done *anything* differently had we done anything differently. They would have been vehemently opposed no matter what. Do you expect me to believe that they would have been more cooperative and just dismissed their own interests were we a little more diplomatic? Please. You also leave out the Saddam factor. Are we to believe that he'd have been more cooperative had we not been such a bunch of warmongering cowboys? Please. Diplomacy never had a chance. You and I both know that, only one of us will admit it.
this war WILL bring joy to the Iraqi people, especially those still in the torture chambers. And I am happy for them. I am happy for this war.
I think one of the ones that are definitely happy would be Wofowitz. He's the one that urged the first Bush to adopt a pre-emptive strike policy and argued back during that administration that the policy of containment is outdated. What he wrote back then is directly related to the Bush doctorine of today.
Are you sure about that? You know that when we go in there we're probably going to find quite a bit of documentation of France, Russia, Germany, and China busting sanctions. Are you sure that they want Saddam gone? I don't know that "happy" is the right word. "Relieved" would probably be more accurate. A long nightmare is about to come to an end.
The main point isn't that diplomacy failed. We may have had to go war no matter what. That being said it should be a last resort and something that those who wage the war do with a heavy heart because there was no other way out. The thing that's sickening about this is that people in our govt. with the president's ear, aren't heavy hearted. They are happy about it, despite the fact that people, including innocents are going to be killed. If someone was coming to kill my family(not that I think Saddam is a threat for that) I would hope that something, almost anything would stop that person first. I would hate to think that the only I could stop them and protect my family was to kill that person. I believe I would kill them, but I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.
The goal in Cuba for decades has been regime change. Yet even today nobody is threatening war with Cuba. Regime change doesn't always mean war. And like I've said before even if war is the only option, it's nothing to be happy about. TJ- That diplomacy failed or didn't fail, or who is claiming which side isn't the point. The point is that you have people in this administration who are happy this wasn't resolved peacefully and that we are going to war.
FB: Look, no one is happy about people being killed. No one is happy that we're going to war. Your assumption that those in charge are going into this lightly is baseless and false. Everyone knows how serious a business this is - no one is happy. Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc - it is not that they are gleeful about the fact that we're finally going to war. These guys have known for some time that the only way to disarm Iraq and effect regime change there was through war. It is the only option that will actually work. They are simply relieved that so many others are finally coming around to that conclusion, and that something is finally going to be done about it. Relieved, yes. We are finally going to do the right thing. We are going to correct a dreadful mistake that was made 12 years ago. Should we be sad about that? I do not think so. Should we be happy about it? No. No one is happy about war. But we are relieved that after so long we are finally going to do the right thing.
That's not what Lawrence Eagelburger, who knows these people said. He said that at least three, maybe four are indeed HAPPY that it wasn't resolved peacefully and that we are going to war. I thought we should have waited longer and gained more international support before acting militarily. My wishes didn't come true, I can accept that, and I can be relieved that Saddam is on the way out, but I'll never be happy that these results sadly have ended and war. Even though the outcome may be positive it's not a happy thing. At least to sane people it's not a happy thing. For some in the administration, they don't feel the same.
I'm glad you for once agree with me. I humbly submit that his father would have started out by NOT stating the end objective and bottom line in public. His father could have gone to the UN and got yet another UNSC resolution, six months before his son. His father could have slowly escalated the cause at the UN until everyone agreed that military force should be used as a threat. Once the UN agreed to send troops as a threat, the UN is then committed to use force if necessary. The point I making here is that the US could have taken this step by step, gaining UN support and world approval as it went. It goes without saying that his father would not have tolerated his Admin making the comments that the president's Admin did.
They may be "happy" that the whole process did not result in the US being stopped from acheiving its objectives. They may be "happy" that the US is not going to be humiliated by French action. I seriously doubt that they are "happy" that we are about to engage in an action that is going to get people killed. Again, I think "relieved" would be a better characterization. Perhaps you're reading too much into Eagleburger's characterization? Why the double post, No Worries? Run out of arguments to make?
Treeman, I have a certain distrust of the government, but despite that, I never imagined that anyone in the govt. would actually be happy that we were going to war. I imagined that they felt that war was necessary and that diplomacy wouldn't help, and that as hard as it might be, they had to do what they believed in which was going to war. They believed that war was the only option. But according to Eagleburger who worked with all of these men, in a wartime situation involving Iraq, he said the were HAPPY that other options failed, and that we are going to war. That means that if the diplomatic action had gotten Saddam to disarm and war was avoided these men would be disappointed because they didn't get to go war. These members of Bush's cabinet were hoping for war. It couldn't have been clearer. I understand that you may not be able to fully believe that, because if I hadn't seen it myself and someone else told me that I would think they were overstating the facts. I would have pointed to my thoughts listed above, but after seeing Eagleburger, who is a supporter of W. Bush, and military action in Iraq, I'm ashamed of to have these people in our govt. I also think they are dangerous.
