The US, UN & Iraq II

blatham...

Gautam,
I agree with you on most of your points. The failure of the world to do anything at all, in a timely fashion, about bad things happening to good people all around the world, is surely a failure of the individual countries to care. Most importantly, if would seem to be an indicator of the failure to the UN to be, or do, anything of importance - other than what is instructed by host goverments.

The fact that our significant governments have based their foreign policy and behaviors for today, on presumptions, anticipations, projections about the future, and what is influenceable in the future, has been a most unfortunate and negative fact. In truth, nothing has come to be the way planned or anticipated. Going to bed with bad people has always had bad results.

Instead, wouldn't it be refreshing if we could act on the principles and facts at hand, without thinking about the future? Or how the facts at hand might play into a future global politik that benefits the narrow self interests of just one, or a handful of countries?

NEWS : Right now. The US, Britian and Spain withdraw their current proposal. The US won't pursue a vote on the 2nd Resolution. White House just announced Bush to speak tonight at 8pm EST.........

Joe, you beat me to it !!! I was just coming to post this news !

We are at war now. God help us all

Impeachment scenario one: get a blow job and lie about it.

Impeachment scenario two: begin a war and lie about it.

Gautam,
It doesn't have anything to do with oil, but with 9/11 instead, and the realization that we are no longer safe, given our usual conceptions about what is possible and probable. We have been lowered into a simpler, more primitive view of expressing our differences with one another. The terrorists' modus operandi of acting out has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention or any such 'gentlemanly constructs of engagement'. Just blind hate and anger, within no bounds and with no constraints.

That was a shock. And Bush, in his oversimplistic, macho, cowboy fashion is striking back, and hard, at any hint of terrorism, anyplace. He said, right after 9/11, that he was staking his entire time in office to combat and eliminate terrorism. Iraq is just a logical extension of that mindset.

And US diplomacy has failed miserably, and done great damage to the world's view of the US. Our allies, such as France, Germany, and Russia, have also done much damage to the world's view of the US, just as they have done much damage to the standing and legitimacy of the UN (which was questionnable, anyway).

It is a sorry, sorry, state of affairs.

I guess what I am saying, also, is that a military man should never be put in charge of the Department of State. As much as I admire Powell, and I do, he is a military man, first and foremost, and is comfortable with taking instruction and direction from above.

Such a conjuncture has surely not been helpful at this point in time.

sumac, Where is the link between Iraq and terrorists ??? As I pointed out earlier, Iraq is the most secular country in the Arab world - Heck, the foreign minister is a Christian !!!

Hey Pakistan promotes terrorism - Half of Al-Quaida operatives are hiding there. Let's invade them !!

Oh one sec, they don't have oil fields ( sorry, could not resist)

sumac

It's really hard for me to believe that some people seriously think, this is a war because of 9/11.

sumac

I think that it is about 9-11 only because this ahistorical idiocy has been the fundamental sales pitch (repeated and repeated, per standard marketing strategy) and a lot of folks have thought this is as desireable a story as how Tide gets your clothes whiter than white.

blatham

That sounds to be logical - ehem, yes.

Are "most" people that gullible? Yes. ;( c.i.

The inspectors have been told to leave Iraq. It's now a matter of days. c.i.

I have been listening to NPR, a discussion about the French attitude and the Iraq situation in general. An articulate man from Chapel Hill NC called in to say that the US has all of the technology, all of the guns and weapons, all of the electronics; it has the know-how and the energy and the ability to attack anywhere in the world. What the US has forgotten is the "thinking" part, the reasoning, the moral leadership. His point was that people like Jacques Chirac still think, hope, and plan as if he and his country are part of an international community, which is exactly what the US has forgotten how to do.

We are all wrapped up in the technology of war-mongering and have neglected only one thing, finding a reason to go to war. Although the administration puts forth one reason after another, trying to convince itself and us, it seems in the end that having the ability and the weaponry and the massed armed forces are the reason we are going to war.

c.i., re the connection between this war and 9-11: I think the administration believes that if you repeat something, true or false, often enough, people begin to believe it.

Tony Blair has just lost one cabinet member (Robin Cook, former foreign secretary).

Meanwhile another cabinet member, Attorney General, (appointed by TB) gives his considered opinion that the war is legal. So thats all right then.

I am not going to switch on the TV now. If I hear one more time Bush saying "We will prevail" or Blair saying "I firmly believe" I am going to puke.

Today is a sad day - The world has a new, dangerous dictator - who is armed with WMD.

steve

Please send Robin Cook an email, and pass on my sincere thanks to him for his principle.

Kara

I think that's the problem. There is the world community and the United States, neither any longer believes one is part of the other.

While I think the language you choose to use is loaded towards the negative, given the two choices you offer, I'll take the second (in bold, above).

Gautam

There is a sliver of hope. Perhaps Perle and his business associate Kissinger will rethink the US position on the International Criminal Court.