I had read a brief mention in the NYTimes (IIRC) but can’t point you where to verify it. My supposition is mostly that, a supposition. Given our blatant bribery of the government of Turkey, under conditions of nearly universal opposition amongst the people allegedly represented, I think its entirely likely. Nor do I suspect that either of us will be privvy to the conversations between say, the US and Angola. I would dearly love to believe than I am a citizen of a great and magnanimous country, one that wouldn’t stoop to such behavior as bribing Turkey, and one that would be equally unlikely to bully a small, impoverished nation. I regret to say otherwise, as I regret to believe otherwise.
Probably. Not being French, I couldn’t care less. However nobly France may behave, I may admire them, but I won’t be proud of them. There have been many instances when I was proud to be an American. This isn’t one of them.
Of course. But these nations have severe problems, desperate problems, of the sort that you and I can scarcely imagine as being part of the modern world. If thier leaders knuckle under to American demands in order to bring help to thier people, I certainly cannot fault them, a man who places honor above compassion is a prig and a martinet.
And finally, of course, there is the matter of objective: one set is using less than pristine principles in order to prevent war, while the other seeks to bring it about.
Ari Fleischer said today, when asked why the U.S. would force a losing vote: "Because, when the Iraqi people are freed, we want them to see who voted to liberate them, and who voted against their liberation.
Now think about France’s 30 billion dollars in oil contracts with a soon-to-be demised regime. France now cannot win. Either it caves in and gives the U.S. a resolution, or it votes no, and then loses 30 billion dollars.
I honestly think there is a lot more going on here than Iraq. I think the Bush administration has put the U.N. on trial, and this resolution vote is the evidence that will damn it. If the U.S. gets a supermajority, and France exercises its veto, the U.S. will demand reform in the U.N., possibly including the removing of France from the Security Council and replacing it with perhaps India or Japan. And possibly also demanding that only democracies sit in the Council.
If the U.S. can’t even get the 9 votes, then I believe it will temporarily suspend membership in the U.N. until certain reforms are made.
I noticed an interesting shift in rhetoric from the Bush administration yesterday. Before then, Bush used the phrase “A coalition of the willing” to describe the international alliance standing with the U.S. Yesterday, he said “If the U.N. will not act, another international organization will disasm Saddam Hussein.” That is a direct threat to the U.N. - “Recognize our interests here, or we will build a new international organization around the shell of the U.N. and make you irrelevant.”
In all fairness, the “other organization” Dubya was referring to might be NATO. Recall that Clinton used it instead of the balking UN and EU for the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, although they came around later. This time, though, Dubya has pissed off most of the primary NATO and EU allies as much as, or more than, anyone else, so those options are out too.
A second for neurotik’s observation about Sam’s strained relationship with reality.
Bush has never given any indication of the war on Iraq being a NATO action. There are no “primary” NATO members: they all get one vote. Most NATO members support Bush. NATO requires unanimity, so every member effectively has a veto. If France vetos in the UN, they will presumably veto in NATO, so NATO would not be an option.
“If you don’t let me win, I’ll take my bat and ball and go home and hold my breath till I turn purple.”
It just underscores what children Dubya and his acolytes are. The days when we could take the phones off the hooks, wrap the country in Saran Wrap and give the finger to the rest of the world are gone. Deal With It.