You gotta love the use of the word “coalition” to refer to two countries. Especially when Rumsfeld said they’d go to war even without the UK. I guess that would have made it a coalition of one.
[Mrs Slocombe of Are You being Served?]
And I am unanimous in this!
[/Mrs Slocombe]
Right Tee, just like I said. France vowed to veto “that resolution,” and was determined to veto “this evening” because France wanted more time for inspections prior to a second resolution and was opposed to the days not weeks time frame in which the second resolution was being offered.
Your interview confirms part of what I said about France without disproving any other part. Hence, it only gets old because it takes so long to get the same facts to penetrate the same hardened minds.
China, no nitpick at all, but a reasonable addition. I’d add though that Bush himself helped to place the economy in such straits by making the war so inevitable at that time time. I think it’s an interesting question though, and one that (unlike the present one) hasn’t been discussed to death.
Which fact. Did you have one I missed?
Was the French diplomatic postion simply a cover up?
The pickup truck is one thing…
Darn the torpedoes! Them Iraqis got them french man-u-fak-turd japski pickups! Who should we attack now - France or Japan?
Tee: “Which fact. Did you have one I missed?”
As you seem to be suggesting that my posts thus far are fictions, the burden is on you to be more specific. Say exactly what it is, if you care to, that you hold to be non-factual.
This stuff in particular: “Had Bush been willing to compromise with France, he’d have been able to have his cake and eat it too. Even had the compromise fallen through, he’d have gained from the attempt, while France would have lost.”
I didn’t see the French offering anything that looked like it would remove Saddam from power, and claims that they would support that action next time, 60 days max, for sure, are speculative unless you can cite otherwise. We gain nothing from continuing inspections indefinitely, IMO - it preserves the same regime we’ve been committed for years to ousting.
The fundamental error that the Bush Administration made was to make very clear before going to the UNSC, that the US would invade regardless of what the UNSC decided. The Bushies treated the UNSC as a rubber stamp, and the rubber stampees, particularly Russia and France, whose main claim to world-power status is the UNSC, didn’t like being treated that way.
And it was completely unnecessary. Even if you plan to invade regardless, as a matter of diplomacy, you don’t state that. It causes a prejudgment against you.
If you are going to invade anyway, you go through the process. You wait for France or Russia to make some sort of statement that they will veto regardless of circumstances, and then you say “we tried in good faith, but [France/Russia] have made it clear that they intend to hijack the workings of the UNSC for their own national interest.”
And if France/Russia don’t make such a statement, the UNSC approves your plan to invade Iraq.
I mean, this is known to third-grade schoolyard diplomats. You want a favor from someone, you engage in give and take - you don’t say to him, “and if you don’t help me, screw you. I’m doing it anyway.”
Sua
I agree with you Sua, but it’s the truth that we were going to depose Hussein with or without the UNSC and everyone already knew it. Through UN efforts he was given one last chance. (I think the effort was genuine, mostly based on what other people have said like Madeline Albright and such people. Again YMMV.) To have us going around as early as Feb 2002 to other countries to drum up support for it, then to have an immediate oppositional stance from France and Germany when it’s brought to the table…!!!. They could not have prevented a regime change, but they could possibly have prevented a war.
I am not sure if you are suggesting that France was rejecting any deadline, or whether you are questioning what would have happened after a compromise deadline. If it is the former, please see the following:
Fox News
If it is the latter, than I suggest that it would actually be incumbent upon you to present a cite that supports your assertion that France would not have kept its agreement. Most of these stories also note that the suggested compromise was immediately nixed by Dick Cheney. Within the overall bungling, there are so many instances of specific bungling (such as this) that it boggles the mind. I believe that the only conclusion one can draw is that statements to the effect that Bush was interested in any resolution to the problem were fabrications, and that one would immediately reject such a compromise as that reported in these stories only if they truly desired war.
I agree with most of the posts here, but consider this subject to be academic. France and Russia were never going to allow the Security Council to authorize overthrow of the Ba’ath regime. Saddam was never going to change his ways. Bush was always going to attack. Although alternative approaches might arguably have been preferable, the results would have been the same IMHO.
Thanks Hentor, for sparing me some googling. I was going to refer Tee to a 3/17 article from the New York Times which is more specific as to the details of France’s eleventh-hour compromise offer. But he will have to pay a few bucks to read it. december, I think France and Russia might well have been willing to use force and commit themselves to regime change had a genuine willingness to compromise as to timing and post-war reconstruction been in evidence. Germany was the most opposed to war, but, so far as I know, they were not threatening to veto a resolution approved by the others.
I would have to see some evidence to believe this, especially now that we have learned about all the hanky-panky beween these two countries and Saddam.
Germany isn’t a permanent member of the Security Council. They do not have veto power.
There was no ridicule of those countries for their support. However, the U.S. was planning a war and it helps to have the support of countries who are capable of providing either personnel or matériel when one is building a “coalition” to wage that war. The word coalition implies active involvement.
As you noted, Iceland may not have appreciated having to choose–yet it did choose. (And under what sort of inducement or threat?) This indicates that the U.S. exerted specific efforts to include them, unless there was a groundswell of “Support Bush!” in the Althing that I missed.
The point is not that the smaller, unarmed countries do not deserve a voice in international affairs. The point is that the U.S. had to go out and offer bribes or threats to countries that would not play an active role in the war simply to be able to cloak themselves in legitimacy by exclaiming “Look at the number of countries support us.”
The U.S. stepped outside the formal, deliberative body to create the appearance of a “shadow U.N.” that “supported” the war. They then tried to hide that fact by calling it a “coalition,” when, in fact, what they had was a very small war coalition “supported” (on paper) by a somewhat larger number of countries who were not actually part of any coalition. Unless Iceland sent over a hospital unit I missed, it did not actively participate, thus the word coalition is false and the presence of unarmed countries in the “coalition” is bogus. (Note that I did not refer to the importance of the opinions of those countries, which would have been legitimate, but to their capacities as warrior states.)
Um, Turkey anyone?
" Germany isn’t a permanent member of the Security Council. They do not have veto power."
Right you are, december, I misspoke and should have said oppose. And, as I’m sure you’re aware, it’s an important difference since without veto power their opposition might not have counted for much at all.
It is amusing to me that the relationship Germany and Russia might have had with Iraq is “hanky-panky,” while our relationship with them was a 20 year old forced choice of the lesser of two evils.
American support for Iraq during their war with Iran did not violate Security Council resolutions and was not done in secret.
>> American support for Iraq during their war with Iran did not violate Security Council resolutions and was not done in secret
Whether something is secret or not is irrelevant and the USA does plenty of things in secret anyway. Irrelevant.
Whether it violated Security Council resolutions or not does not detract from the fact that it violated the policy which today is the only one acceptable to the USA and which is given as a justification for the war.
But you are right, there was a time when the USA had some respect for world opinion and the world appreciated that. At the same time the USSR had no respect for the UN and was considered a pariah by western countries. Sadly this has changed and the standing of the USA has greatly diminished.
Bungled diplomacy? Did the Bush Administration even try?
Then Sec’y of State James Baker made 7 overseas trips to sell Gulf War I to Arab nations and our European allies. Did Colin Powell go on the road to sell Gulf War II?
Rumsfeld made a trip, but did the Bush Administration trust Powell to take the war out on the road? He didn’t even come on board for the war until late.