I just wanted to point out what an excellent description this is. Nicely observed, sir!
“And France apparently gave assurances to the U.S. that it WOULDN’T oppose a second resolution, which is the only reason the U.S. agreed to go down the U.N. road in the first place. France was duplicitous, and reneged on its agreement”
Hmm. I asked you thrice for a source for this in the other thread and you still haven’t given one.
In any case France is not the reason why all those other countries oppose war. Their governments are just listening to public opinion and also expressing their displeasure at the perceived high-handedness of the Bush administration.
France has merely exploited the widespread mistrust and anger with the Bush administration to give it a diplomatic black eye. If Bush had been more skillfil in persuading other countries France wouldn’t have taken such an active role in opposing the US and would have been isolated if it had.
Read the paragraph I quoted again especially:
“Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it”
This goes way beyond France.
Jealousy, that must be it! They secretly agree with all of our excuses–er, reasons–but they just feign opposition to spite the U.S., 'cause they wish they could be in our club! :rolleyes:
"Something about “It’s time for the world to show where they stand.” "
Actually the expression he used was “show their cards”
Then at the Azores press conference when asked about whether there would be a vote there was this rather priceless Bush ramble:
“I was the guy that said they ought to vote. And one country voted - at least showed their cards, I believe. It’s an old Texas expression, show your cards, when you’re playing poker. France showed their cards. After I said what I said, they said they were going to veto anything that held Saddam to account. So cards have been played. And we’ll just have to take an assessment after tomorrow to determine what that card meant.”
Now of course the vote has been withdrawn. I guess the prospect of Chile and Mexico “showing their cards” was too humiliating for the administration. 
France? France? What the fuck? France?
We pretend that the we would have had our way, except for France…evil, face-fucking France…when anybody with a grain of sense, the sense that God gave a goose, knows…
We gave up on the resolution because we couldn’t even bully our way…not even Mexico and Chile…nations whose balls we have in our pocket…
Could it be that men of good will defied us for good reasons?
Is there a better reason for hope?
Yeah, I wish we had Tony Blair speaking for us. Even though I’m beginning to think Bush is making some sense, I cringe at his methods and syntax and attitude.
The main problem is that Saddam is the criminal, and yet the world is focusing on Bush. It’s a shame he’s let that happen.
OTOH, of course, after several months of this maybe it’s not surprising that he’s stopped trying to be tactful. No matter what he says, he gets blasted. And I’m not going to say he shouldn’t grow a thicker skin and/or spend an afternoon at charm school, but it must be frustrating as hell if you feel as he does that you’re wasting time quibbling with your friends as Saddam laughs.
It doesn’t help matters when the Bush Administration demands apologies whenever it feels insulted by a foreign government, yet gives itself free rein to denegrade other countries without pause.
And I wouldn’t except Britain from that list; Blair is taking a serious beating politically at the moment from his support for the US approach to the war, to the point where he may well need to rely on support from the Tories to pass any referenda in that area. The recent resignations of Robin Cook and the Junior Health Minister (whose name I momentarily forget) over the war and the vocal opposition from Chris Smith and other former Cabinet ministers are merely the tip of the iceberg. This won’t bring Labour down at the next election, but it could depose Blair long before then.
Well yesterday after Dubya’s speech a geopolitical analysist made a great point (His name is Carlos Perez Llana and I posted his opinion elsewhere). Asked to coment on argentina’s anti-war policy, he answered that it was the brightest thing to do considering that we are a very weak country and that supporting the preemptive strike doctrine could mean we will have a very bad future, you never know when someone will make a jump on you.
I say that sheds a new light on the chilean, mexican, turkish and even french position (a lot of dopers arguments against france is that she is not powerfull anymore).
I say this because I disagree with elucidator, don’t explain with good will what can be explained by survival instinct 
I agree, and it would be a shame if people formed their opinions about appropriate actions in Iraq based on their opinion of the person making the proposal rather than the merits of the proposal itself.
What I took away from the article (and what I believe myself) is not so much that things definitely would have turned out differently with France and the UN. But we could have arrived here, at the brink of militarty action, without having earned such an unprecedented amount of international ill-will. The upcoming post-war decade (fingers crossed!) would have been made much easier for the U.S., had Bush handled U.S. diplomacy with a more deft touch, and not treated the world’s lesser powers with such arrogance and contempt.
-P