"I support the troops..." ???

Craven - Excellent comments. For the most part, I could not disagree more, but I respect the thought you have clearly put into this and the integrity I sense in your stated position.

Timber, my good friend. I would argue that other players such as France have by their choices endangered The UN, and that it is the UN's credibility--not that of the US--that has been diminished, for what is credibility if not the faith of others that you mean to follow through on what you say you will do? I suspect few will question the US' willingness to follow through for some time to come, while I am convinced that no one would consider any ultimatum, threat or demand from the UN the least bit credible today.

As Friedland points it out in The Guardian:

Well said, Trespassers W!!!!!

Agreed, wabbit.

And streisd, come back safely.

sumac

Craven -
I just got to read your whole post. Man, you oughta foray more.

Oh yes, there's a very active Slovak-American community. There was a mailinglist called Slovak-L (@ ... ubvm.umc.edu or something like that?) that included many of them, discussing Slovak politics. The "diaspora" groups (whether Slovak-Americans or Hungarian-Americans or Lithuanian-Americans, etc) tend to pick pretty nationalistic positions, too, mostly far outdoing those 'at home'.

--- edit ---> ahem ... so that was [email protected] ... well, it's been a while. See http://listserv.buffalo.edu/archives/slovak-l.html

(nimh, sad champion of taking threads off-topic)

i think not. that is precisely the reason why i do not seek the company of my fellow countrymen and countrywomen over here. i went to their meeting once or twice, only to discover that other than the language we have absolutely nothing in common. i was awfully bored. nationality just isn't enough, if you have hay for brains (that's not to say that all of us are dumb, just that particular group was frightfully, um, uneducated or perhaps hopefully just drunk) even slovak-ness won't help you!

But back on track: TW, how exactly did France and like-minded undermine the UN's credibility? By disagreeing with the U.S. position? If the war in their opinion was not justified ON the UN grounds, then I would see it more as a commitment to the whole idea of UN than a betrayal. France was by far not alone in their opinion either.

I belong to another online community with an International membership, and one British member who hadn't posted for a while checked in to see what we Americans thought of the war. That reminds me of another reason to continue to protest -- to make it clear to the rest of the world that not all Americans agree with Bush, and in fact many many many of us disagree, strongly. Perhaps that could do something to heal the rift between the US and the rest of the world, especially if we get Bush out of office in 2004.

One nation, one vote. Why can't France vote the way it pleases and not get attacked by america. It just adds to our bully persona. I think the status of the UN may be affected by this mess, but we can't blame france. Maybe it's time for a differently structured international organization for keeping and maintaining peace.

This all goes to show that Bush may not be the total schnook I think he is.

After all -- Bush has managed to get many Americans to agree with the French (imagine, agreeing with the French!) -- and now he intends to do something for Saddam Hussein that Saddam could never have done on his own -- become a martyr; a hero; someone beset and put upon by a bully -- an object of sympathy.

And I suspect Bush loves the idea that he will soon be a wartime president. What a brave guy. I'd bet if he were just a little younger, he'd be rushing out to join in the fray -- like he did during the Vietnam War.

I just heard an interesting interview on (statewide) radio: an exchange student from Montana was asked about her opinion (and since she went to school at my old one, makes her final exams there and lives in a nearby village, I was more than only interested).

She stated with: "I have to be thankful to Bush and his government, since they made it possible for me to stay here. Thus, I can't say anything against them." Lateron, she expressed her deep understanding of us here being against the war: it was the same in her small hometown, as her parents had emailed her. The only difference would be that THERE no-one could say this openly, only at home or with wellknown neighbours. And since her brother was in the army, it really would be dangerous for her sisters and parents to speak this out.

I think UN will do, it took half a century to build it up, but yes, it will require some major restructuring. Especially the Security Council and ECOSOC. Hopefully it is possible without too much international chaos.

I expect the level of chaos will be significant, and its duration will be considerable. If nothing else, The UN will be changed by this imbroglio. Not it, not The US, not The EU have done any of themselves much good through this. Perhaps the best that has happened is that it clearly has been demonstrated that it is well past time to develop a better, more effective way to prevent such debacles in the future. That is probably too much to hope for, at least in the near to mid term. This is history, something which often takes a while to play out, and which typically confounds all projections.

Hmm - this is off topic, I guess - but I have been wondering exactly what, if any, international organization WOULD be able to address these issues effectively?

In a world of competing and struggling nation states, of blinding inequalities of power and wealth, of continuing "tribal" loyalties, what kind of supra-national organisation can we imagine that would be fair and reasoned and also able to act effectively when it needed to?

Asherman
If memory serves me he is not alone. I must have a distorted view of patriotism and loyalty to country. Maybe even a little of "My country love it or leave it. I guess my beliefs were forged by my childhood years being spent during the depression, Teens during WW2. Service prior to and during the Korean war and a deep sense of love of country forged by my parents. Both of whom came as youngsters to this country to escape the kindness of European society. Although I despise Bush and think he is a plague visited upon this nation I still in the final analysis love America and will support it.

DL - an international organization with real mechanism of implementation of its decisions and laws AND a mechanism for sanctioning those who are members and do not observe them would do. UN is still too weak in this respect. Other than pointing fingers and wagging them at the bad guys it can't do much more.

Timber wrote:

"Perhaps the best that has happened is that it clearly has been demonstrated that it is well past time to develop a better, more effective way to prevent such debacles in the future."

dlowan wrote:

"Hmm - this is off topic, I guess - but I have been wondering exactly what, if any, international organization WOULD be able to address these issues effectively? "


Dagmar said:

"...an international organization with real mechanism of implementation of its decisions and laws AND a mechanism for sanctioning those who are members and do not observe them would do. UN is still too weak in this respect."

COMMENTS:

Sounds like we've decided to bell the cat.

Who is going to do it?

How do you keep a lid on the United States?

No, by refusing to back their own position as stated in 1441.

By the way, I hope your stay in the US is a long or permanent one. You seem a very intelligent, thoughtful person and the type of citizen we need--even if you don't see things quite the way I do.

COMMENTS:

France's position was NEVER to immediately go to war over non-compliance or half-hearted compliance.

France, like Russia and China and several other non-permanent members of the Security Council, signed on to 1441 only when it was purged of any hint that immediate war would be the result of compliance problems.

So to say that France is refusing to back it's own position is absolutely incorrect.

What France is doing is to refuse to back the United State's position about what 1441 meant. And well they should, since it was very obvious when 1441 was debated in the Council that if the United States had taken the position it is taking now -- the resolution would never have passed.

I understand your fervor for this war, Tresspasser, but overstating your case about France's motives doesn't help.