The US, The UN and Iraq

Just to summarize the pertinent parts: Bush's job approval rating has fallen to 54% from 64%. 29% of respondents disapprove of taking action against Iraq. 59% wants Bush to give the UN more time. 63% of Americans said we should not act without the support of our allies. 56% said Bush should wait for UN approval.
That's encouraging. c.i.

Walter - If your point is that most Americans are in no rush to see blood spilled, that is not news to me, nor does it change the fact that blatham was a little overenthusiastic in his accounting of people who oppose war with Iraq in this country.

I keep waiting for people here in A2K to understand that I am not--nor have I seen a single other person who is--eager to take military action against Iraq. I am convinced, however, that most people who are vehemently opposed to war with Iraq are good people who may be listening to their hearts a little too much and not listening enough to their heads.

Nobody likes war. Sometimes it is necessary. This may be one of those times. If our choices are to use military force to take Saddam from power or to leave him there to build more weapons and fund more terrorists then I choose war. I would prefer that he would choose to step down, or be forced out by his own people, but I am less and less convinced that he will go without a fight.

blatham, I sort of reacted the same way when Powell tried to make the connection between Iraq and OBL. Most of the people on the talk shows were also not convinced there is any connection. C Powell is turning out to be a big disappointment. c.i.

t w

My point was just to show the poll.

I sorrowly agree that war is necessary to get what the US government (and others) want(s).

My point is just the "what" ...

If one reads into the details of the CBS/NYT poll Walter cited one comes upon the startling poll finding that two thirds of Americans consider war with Iraq to be inevitable and necessary. The article describing the poll results has a very evident anti war/anti administration viewpoint. That is certainly OK, however it signals that the description is hardly objective. A comparison of the details of the findings with the headline certainly confirms that.

Blatham suggests that "a clear majority of the western world" opposes the administration's policy with respect to Iraq. That is a remarkably broad rhetorical assertion. Does it have any basis at all in fact? Can Blatham cite any facts that support this remarkable assertion? The evidence at hand strongly suggests that the majority of western European Governments support our policy. Agreed there are supporters and opponents of the policy in these and every country in the Western World, however it may be defined. This, I believe, should lead any reasonable observer to seriously doubt the accuracy of Blatham's assertion

So that's less than a third as opposed to blatham's one half. Cool.

I think the important message from any of these polls (at least the one I take away) is that most Americans understand that war is sometimes a necessary evil, and that most Americans who support war if necessary have serious reservations about whether it is necessary.

Contrast that with the small percentage who are absolutely convinced that it is not and do not support military action under any circumstances, and then ask yourself this question:

Which group is THINKING?

Yes, the polls show that the majority of Americans feel that war is inevitable and necessary. We can all agree to that conclusion, as well as that most Americans still prefer UN approval before we take action. I think the UN inspectors have come up with one smoking gun, the missile with a range exceeding UN resolution limits. Most of us are also sure that given enough time, the UN inspectors will find more. At that point, it will be necessary for France, Russia, and China to come on board to approve the UN Resolution that the US is seeking for the "major consequence." If those three countries continue to refuse the approval, it will not matter, because it proves they have other interests besides the the survival of the UN Security Council. With the loss of credibility will come the disolution of that body as it currently exists, and a new one will be formed. War will come with the approval of most citizens and countries of the free world, and a new world order will be established. c.i.

ci - I snipped your comments for brevity, but they were all good comments, and show you and I to be far more in agreement than not. I hope you are right as to how this will play out. I do think the US will go to the UN once more and hope we come away with what we want. (While I am no fan of the UN, I do think it is in our best interests to work with them if we can.)

I must also caution, on second thought, that polls have a tendency to change with time. Let's wait to see how this all plays out. There are too many variables involved at this point to decide on any conclusion. The report from Blix may or may not change the UN Security Council. Although hardly likely, Saddam may step down before any war starts. Eventually, all the WMD in Iraq will be destroyed, and they will no longer present a threat to his neighbors or to US security. We can continue to hope that this can be accomlished without any casualties. c.i.

In the United Kingdom, there will be what is supposed to become Britain's largest ever political demonstration in history: 500,000 people are expected in tomorrow's rally against the war in London.

"War with Iraq: politicians split, public united
In short:
The world's political leaders may be divided over the Iraq crisis, but public opinion across the European continent appears to be firmly opposed to a US-led war to disarm Iraq, recent poll findings reveal.

Brief news:
In an open defiance of what has been popularly referred to as the "Dubya doctrine" (summarily describing the US' drive to clamp down on Iraq at whatever cost), people across the globe are expected to stage anti-war demonstrations on 15 February.

In most of the EU's 15 Member States, there appears to be a marked majority opposed to launching military action without a further UN resolution, and even that would be unconvincing for many. Meanwhile, the American public seems increasingly ready and willing to go to war, although people across the Atlantic are also increasingly wary of doing so alone, without a "coalition of the willing". Throughout the US, support for war is highly conditional, and this "yes... but" attitude seems to prevail in Britain as well.

Anti-war sentiments are exceptionally strong in Germany (84 per cent of Germans oppose military action against Iraq), Italy (68 per cent oppose any war), Spain (70 per cent believe Iraq is not enough of a threat for war) and Portugal (65 per cent see no reason to attack Iraq). In Eastern Europe, where practically all the governments have lined up behind the US, the public's opposition to war is likewise manifest: 67 per cent of the Czechs, 57 per cent of the Slovaks, 90 per cent of the Slovenes, 67 per cent of the Croats and around 80 per cent of the Hungarians oppose military action against Iraq. Meanwhile, public opinion in NATO Europe appears to be turning against the US. In certain EU Member States, the US appears to be catching up with Iraq as a perceived threat to world peace.

While Washington summarily describes the division as a token of the split of Europe into "old" and "new" parts, arguing that the three European governments throwing obstacles in the US' paths are "isolated", some 80 per cent of the public stand behind the dissident governments, and the pro-German-France-Belgian line is supported by over 70 per cent of the public in Eastern Europe. "
[from: EurActiv, February 13, 2003]

There are only two exceptional circumstances in which America and Britain could legally declare a war against Iraq:

1) If they were acting in self defence. Article 51 of the Charter preserves the right to self - defence where a state has been attacked.

2) If a UN Security Council resolution explicitly authorised force under Article 42 of the UN Charter, the Security Council having concluded that such force is necessary in order to secure international peace and security.

Ash

I hope I'm wrong about the start date. Every hour now that the war is delayed makes it more difficult for GW Bush, politically if not militarily.

Kara, danke schoen for the Loyal Toast. I'm sure Her Majesty is most appreciative. However there are a number of ironies here:

- Her Majesty is unlikely to tell Her Majesty's First Lord of the Treasury (and Prime Minister) that he and Her Majesty's government can get stuffed over Iraq.
- As you know our Royal Family are not really British at all but German, not that I have anything against the German position in this
- I am a republican.

Regarding polls

I'm sure I read somewhere that one in ten Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens.

Walter,

Interesting statistics in the article you quoted. Their source is not made clear, and they are imbedded in an article arguing against America's policy. This, and the fact that the democratically-elected governments of almost all the states cited have specifically expressed their support for the U.S. government in this matter, make me doubt their veracity.

I believe that as events unfold we will find that it is Germany and France that are isolated on this matter, not the United States. Some of Schroeder's recent statements, and a speech I watched last night, suggest to me that he too is concerned about this possibility

Steve,

The war we will soon undertake against Iraq is a continuation of the 1991 war which was fought to counter Iraq's unprovoked aggression against Kuwait and which was explicitly sanctioned by the UN. The specific causus belli arise from Iraq's deliberate and repeated refusals to comply with the agreements she signed ending those hostilities and UN resolutions associated with them. The principal belligerents in that conflict (the U.S. and Britain) certainly have the right to act on Iraq's refusal to comply with the agreement ending that conflict, with or without subsequent UN action. That is the stated position of the U.S. government. It is very clear and compelling from a legal perspective. Endless repetition of the indefensible assertions to the contrary do not alter that fundamental fact.

George

That you doubt the veracity of the information Walter provides (to support the claim that the great majority of Europeans are against the war) because the attending article speaks against US policy tells us merely that you aren't reading very much, certainly very little from outside the US. This news isn't news. The following site will link you to a plethora of news/commentary sources... www.aldaily.com

As to foreign nations coming on side...let's have a little bit of realism (realism apparently being a vital component to understanding world affairs and how evil people can be) on the deals that are being cut and the threats being leveled by the US's cadre of diplomat guys.

As to worries about the possibility of ending up isolated...well, this isn't something the US ought to concern itself with as when they have broad agreement it is proof they are right and when they are isolated it is proof they are uniquely right. "Sheesh", the Greek choir intones.

Now, why don't we bring in the 'elephant in the room no one is bothering to mention'.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078333/

George, this is the party line of proponents for a first strike against Iraq. It is not convincing. We defended Kuwait from aggression and drove Saddam back home, at a cost to us in time, money, and men and women. This is different; if we do into Baghdad, we are not protecting anyone. We are invading a sovereign country.

Steve, I figger'd you were a Tory. LOL

Many lawyers could agree with that, but not the way you want!

Kara Ouch! lol

Blatham, quite surprised that Bush's mind could be so expansive as to take in a whole elephant.
Besides the obvious necessity of keeping all American SUVs running, perhaps its true that Bush's road to peace is via the establishment of Eretz Yisrael, rebuilding the Temple (again) and making sacrifice to YHWH. We shall see.

Steve, your sense of humor has saved you from Tory-doom, uh Torydom.

steve

The net is acting up this morning and I haven't been able to get into the WP or New Yorker pieces referenced. The Kinsley piece is here...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2073093/