The US, UN & Iraq III

But even the dark storm clouds of war can have a silver lining.

Who would have thought to see Iraeli and Palestinian prime ministers shaking hands on a twin State solution?

I have always supported Blair EXCEPT on the necessity for this war. I thought Blair's condition for British support (without which the whole adventure might not have been possible) would be Bush's commitment to a middle East peace process. But I really thought it would be an empty promise. But no! Bush has made the most serious public commitment to enforce the road map. IF (and of course I have no way of knowing this) it was Blair who insisted Bush put some backbone into the peace process, then that is a very positive outcome.

I'd have to agree with that, Boss. So far, in our history, Carter is the only one to put some real pressure on the Israelis, and the Reagan administration squandered that momentum. I thoroughly despise Bush and all his works. And, if he can make this work, he will have my full support and respect.

I used to have high regards for Colin Powell before he joined the GWBush administration. It seems to me that he has sacrificed his own good sense to comply with this administrations ill-advised policies. c.i.

Kara, interesting debate now on WMD from Houses of Parliament. (You can get there via BBC website).

Jack Straw (British Foreign minister) says the Guardian report of the Waldorf meeting was rubbish as on that day he was in France talking to Dominique de Vilepin. But as usual he didn't comment on the content, just the fact that the Guardian had the date wrong.

Later the Government's position will be summed up (I think) by my mate Bill Rammell who reports directly to Straw.

I really got the sense Bush meant it. I can't help but applaud that.

(Its not Bill Rammel but Dennis MacShane summing up btw sorry about that)

Again he's going on about the Waldorf meeting, from the Guardian "my favourite paper".

They had been vocal supporters of the peace process and have long dennounced terrorism.

But you are right that this is different since they have taken a loud stand against terrorism aimed at Isreal.

I think they do this simply because they recognize the opportunity for peace. The Mid East has been on the back burner for a while and they are happy we refocused our attention on the problem.

I'm not sure if you meant to explain their intent by saying they are in "defensive positions" and that this is "directly tracable" to our policy in Iraq, what goes on in their minds is something you can't be certain of. I personally think they would have done exactly the same before the war. The proposal Saud and most other Arab states made to normalize relations (including diplomatic and trade relations) with Isreal (I think it was March 2002) over a year ago indicated to me that they would have been willing to make the same type of declaration but Isreal and the US wanted to wait until Arafat was sucessfully marginalized.

Now the US and Isreal are ready. I posit that Arab leaders have been ready for a while. The main difference IMO is that Arafat has almost completed Isreal's course in irrelevance 101.

But if you can tie this more specifically to the war I'd be interested in reading it.



Isreal has a history of responding very well to our requests of her.



North Korea has agreed to these talks before. When the Bush administration entered office they decided to reduce the diplomatic contact with North Korea, after calling it evil North Korea was peeved for a while but that they are willing to talk is only a positive sign if you consider the steps taken by teh US administration to make talk difficult a negative sign.

As to China, it has long been a part of the problematic pennensula, they have participated in the diplomatic efforts with North Korea before so I wonder what you mean by saying they have for the first time acknowledged her interests? I ask because you must see something from them that is different to say so and I have not.

I'm also interested in how that's directly traceable to the war in Iraq.



You wax very general in your accessment of how many ways the war directly improves everything. But
I'm interested nonetheless. How did the war affect Japan and why is this supposed to indicate that.



Again you speak vaguely about responsibilities but specifically how has South Korea's position changed?



And so they should be (defensive), after all their country starts with an "I" too.



I'd say the bombings in Saudi Arabia have far more to do with this that Iraq but would love to see you "directly trace" it back to Iraq.



Emphasis mine.

Please show how "all" of that is "directly traceable" to our policy toward Iraq.

See, I understand that many who support the war have long said that teh war would send a positive ripple throughout the world. It would "put fear into the hearts of those who think America is a paper tiger" (incidentally I don't think many people think America is a paper tiger so much as that is a nice way to get people riled up for more action "they think we are soft""no, you don't say! We'll show them").

It was supposed to bring democracy to the Arab world (to be fair this may well happen, we'll see), it was supposed to make North Korea soft (they have always been after two things, economic assistance (in the form of charity as well as easing restrictions) and a non-aggression treaty (we'd placed nukes there and have done a few things that make them feel unloved so they are very wary of us), I do not see how the war has changed that.

They had been talking, we called them evil and said that their mother cooks poorly and that we'd not let them in the clubhouse anymore. They had been demanding US/Korean talks for some time with close to full normalization on the table (we have long indicated to them that a non-aggression treaty with them is not something we are interested in).

That being said I do not see much of a difference in their position.

If you see a nuanced stance on their part and can trace it to the war please do so.

Thing is, these nations have been cooperative for a while now. Syria is supposed to have changed too but they have been cooperating to some extent since 9/11,

Ok, gotta work, but to cut this short, I know how this war was supposed to be the very catalyst for all good things. It has been touted as such for some time.

I'd like to know why you think it "directly" affected "all" that you spoke of. Or it is just the theory posited before the way that the war would put good old "fear of America" back in the hearts of the bad guys.

(Memo to georgeob1: roll over and expose your throat.)

(Memo to PDiddie: georgeob1, if he has the time, can probably reply to that with more information that what he alluded to. No need to "roll over".)

lol

CI -- My respect for Powell started to dribble away when he joined the Bush administration. Seemed like such an abject thing to do. Then, when we were introduced to his son in recent doings at the FCC, and even though it's hard on a parent to be judged by the quality of his kids, my respect for Colin Powell evaporated completely. Cats' paws, the pair of them. Into the dumpster. Bye bye.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

BillW, The big question now is can German newpapers report facts or conjectures? c.i.

Yikes, what's Wolfowitz smokin' these days?

He's setting Great Britain up for the next fall. He is whispering in the unPresident's ear that Blair is really a very evil man in charge of a very evil empire!

Its interesting that only the Gaurdian picked up this story. I can't find another source to confirm or deny the story from any reputable news source. You would think something as ground breaking as this would have at least been picked up by CNN. Maybe the Enquirer will run the story...

Or maybe other outlets passed on the story because it did not pass the smell test.

Bill - I don't quite trust this reference to oil. Wolfowitz has a habit of shifting from one cause to another, all of them designed to draw attention away from whatever purpose there really is. This sounds like the shift from war on terrorism to disarming to regime change to WMD.

George - I do see a change in position, and it is a defensive position. When they started showing us pictures of children coming out of Iraqi jails, this was horrific. But we knew about that before. It just seemed to be a further reason introduced, after the fact, to justify the Bush war. And having to explain to repeated doubts and questioning is not a total position of strength.

I think, too, that perhaps you and a lot of republicans misunderstand the thinking of liberals and moderate democrats.

We believe in certain basics - among them a peace and liberty for all people, a chance at equal opportunity, a concern for the care and education of people. You see millions of people all over the world marching in protest against a war they feel is unjust and unnecessary; we see it as a deliberate deafness to what the people of a country really want and think. You see certain decisions made as being made with wisdom and intelligence. We see no public discussion allowed, which doesn't allow for a democratic process. Rather, it is autocratic. As an example, the discussion prior to the vote to exclude those 12 million children from the child tax credit was held only among republican representatives and the White House, not a democrat was even invited. We look for representation when it comes to taxes, which is one of the old ralying cries.

We want realistic solutions to the mid-east problems. If this happens now, great. But it won't be through Bush, any more than the fall of the Berlin Wall was through Reagan. It will represent the cumulative effects of years of trying (some hard, some not, some impossible to attain). To make us proud, a smart president would stop saying "I" all the time, and include the people of the country. And that "I" is one of the great dividing words used. Where Bush should be talking about "us" and "our country" he talks about "I." In the latest Pew Research results, most people around the world do personalize a lot of their resentment and ager - Bush. This, of course, is not necessarily bad. It could mean that the next president would be greeted with relief.

I'm still glad to be an American, and there are many things I take pride in. But to swallow blindly and accept so many things that have been allowed to happen to this country in just a few years would be a total rejection of all I believe in and hope for.

x x x

jackie - We don't use might to change men's hearts; we use it to change their actions.

Kara, would that be a Weapon of Mass Defacing?

LW - oh, that's good.