US wants the UN to clean up

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**I disagreed with it then and still will, obviously, since no one here can speak with any authority and there’s no evidence that they’d have supported anything at some future date, either.

Nor is there evidence to the contrary (although Sam seems certain).

And it doesn’t matter. Suffice it to say that they were dead against the planned invasion, we knew it, their pro-offered plan involved increasingly invasive inspections but did nothing to unseat the regime, and we disagreed with it on that basis.

You don’t know that, and even admitted it in your own previous paragraph. If the topic is Chirac’s strategy or word, then it certainly does matter - it’s at the heart of it.

Now, why are the usual revisionists sticking to their statements of the time blaming France for it all? Forgotten the veto decisions by Russia and China, and the No decisions from the bulk of the rest of the SC, haven’t they? Nope, they gotta have somebody else to blame for everything.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Fang *
**If France was doing anything other than protecting Hussein, why did they veto the nomination of Rolf Ekeus, Kofi Annan’s personal nominee and widely considered the best man for the job, as head of the weapons inspections? **

Sorry, gonna have to ask for an explanation of that one.

[ChaosGod]

Ok, I’m guessing the UN thing is mostly pissing off the rest of the world, not US-citizens.

So, apparently, what’s going to “kill” GWB is the periodic request of XX billions to congress, with no end in sight, and no real progress on the ground.
This is why the gov. is getting anxious to share the mess with other countries. It seems they realize that if they continue to periodically ask for billions (even if they can afford it), they are politically dead.

Question:
How many times will the admin need to present it’s budget to congress, before next elections?

[Dogface]

As far as the majority of US citizens are concerned, the UN is just a tourist attraction in New York city. A few radio loudmouths and their hardcore fans might care, but most of us don’t. It doesn’t matter what our country looks like to the rest of the world, so long as everything is fine and comfortable here. That’s one of the major moral faults that comes with being The Imperial Metropole. Rome did it. Spain did it. France did it. Britain did it.

However, in this case, it looks like Bush overreached himself immensely. He surrounded himself with doctrinalists and then ignored the one or two pragmatic advisors (Powell) that he had. Now that reality is returning, he’s stuck with a bunch of narrow ideologues and can’t listen to Powell without losing the support of said ideologues. Since the ideologues essentially hold the puppet strings of the most vocal segment of those who voted for Bush, he can’t tell them to take a reproductive flight at the moon without pretty much tossing his reelection chance into the bin.

It’s very simple: The USA does not have the power to compel countries that have enough wealth and power to assist us in any meaningful way. We can only request. However, the requests made so far are 100% one-sided. We request they pay money and risk their lives and in return we tell them what to do. Only an idiot would agree to that. France and Germany are exercising natural self-interest in refusing this offer. What’s in it for them? So long as the USA’s government stands itself up as Big Tough Guy in the Middle East, any previous threats that might have come from those quarters towards them will instead be redirected to the USA.

We wanna spread the risk? We gotta spread the perks.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
My point was that at the time, it was perceived that way. There was much commentary at the time about how well Powell made the case. Do you dispute this? It’s irrelevant if you think that in hindsight it turned out to be a ‘steaming pile’. NO ONE saw it as that at the time.

Sam: This statement is so mind-boggling that I almost feel like you put it in there just to bait us! Are you seriously claiming that noone at the time that you heard doubted the strength or veracity of Powell’s claims? Doesn’t that suggest to you that perhaps you were listening to the wrong people because there were a lot of people out there who weren’t exactly gung-ho about this war and didn’t find Powell’s presentation to be “devastating”?!? These people may have been largely invisible to you if you stuck to sources of information allied with your point-of-view and to the mainstream “liberal” media where the critique was largely absent, but surely you were exposed to them on this here message board?!?

I think your statement serves as about the best counterexample to the claim of a “liberal media bias” as I have seen here in Great Debates.

[jshore]

Here, by the way, are a few opinion pieces you may have missed in the online version of The Nation regarding Powell’s “devastating” presentation: “A House of Cards” and “Powell Fails to Make Case”. All because you discounted these views at the time does not mean that they did not exist!

[sailor]

It is just amazing how people are now saying that the French should let bygones be bygones and not hold grudges and just bow to the USA. It was not so long ago that the US government was insulting France and threatening them with holding the grudge for a long time, with leaving them out of any Iraqi contracts, with imposing tariffs on French products, with repudiating the Iraqi debt with the French, with repudiating Iraqi Oil contracts with France, and so on and so forth. If things had gone differently those people would be saying it is only natural to let the French get screwed but now that things are looking quite differently they are saying the French should not hold a grudge. The fact is that even after the reconstruction began the USA has done what it could to screw the French. The oil contracts France had have been repudiated, the USA has restricted many contracts to American firms or has rigged them (like it did with cellular phone service) so that European firms could not participate. And while it is still doing this it has the gall, the nerve, to ask for a helping hand but stating that the USA will remain the only decision maker.

If I were the president of France I would declare a national holiday: “Let’s everybody laugh at George Bush” day. The entire French government would have their picture taken atop the Eiffel tower while laughing at a photo of George Bush.

[Sam_Stone]

jshore: Oh, I meant the mainstream media, the Congress, and most analysts. I don’t consider The Nation to be a credible source, just as I’m sure you don’t consider National Review a credible source. Powell could have walked in to the U.N. building with a signed affidavit from Saddam himself, and The Nation would have found it wanting.

On the other hand, Tom Daschle called it, “a powerful, methodical, compelling presentation.”

Ted Kennedy said, “It’s clear that, after today’s indictment, Saddam Hussein has only one final chance to comply and disarm.”

Joe Biden said Powell “made a powerful and irrefutable case”.

Howard Dean said, "“The Secretary of State made a compelling case for what the American people already know. Saddam Hussein is a deceitful tyrant who must be disarmed. "

John Edwards said, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act. Saddam Hussein is on notice.”

Dick Gephardt said, "-"I believe Secretary Powell made a compelling case that Iraq is concealing its weapons of mass destruction and is in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. "

Joe Lieberman said, "I believe Secretary Powell’s presentation to the United Nations this morning put forward a compelling, convincing, and chilling case that Iraq is not complying with the U.N.'s resolutions. Though I had already seen much but not all of what Secretary Powell said today in classified briefings, taken together, the case against Saddam grows stronger and stronger. "

John Kerry said, “In his speech to the U.N.today, Secretary Powell made a compelling case, providing strong evidence, including human intelligence, satellite photography, and electronic intercepts that will only serve to strengthen our hand should military action be required to force Saddam Hussein to disarm. As I’ve said previously, convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein’s
possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq.”

And of course, the American people thought it was compelling.

As did the citizens and governments of many other countries - even in places where there was a minority of support for the U.S., public opinion improved in the wake of the presentation. After that presentation, 10 eastern European states issued a ‘strong letter of support’ in favor of the U.S. position.

Maybe it’s you guys who need to broaden your reading outside of the indymedia crowd and The Nation.

My characterization of the aftermath, that there “was much commentary at the time about how well Powell made the case.” was dead on.

[elucidator]

And, again, Sam, as has been amply demonstrated to you on more than one occassion, it was a steaming load. All the quotes from all the tame politicos and talking heads in the world will not alter that stubborn fact.

[sailor]

Sam, the fact is that it was a bunch of lies. Maybe compelling lies if you believed them but lies nevertheless. And plenty of people here at the SDMB and in America and in the rest of the world said they did not believe them. And they were right.

The only thing your long list does is prove how many people trusted the president of the USA and were deceived by his lies.

[Sam_Stone]

That was not my point!. I am fully aware that that presentation looks shaky today. This has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which is at the time, France and the rest of the world demanded that the U.S. ‘make the case’, and at the time, Powell did indeed make a case that much of the world saw as being very compelling.

I shouldn’t have stepped into the discussion. I told myself I wouldn’t get involved in any more of these threads, because they turn into heated poster-bashing parties almost immediately. Consider this my final word on the subject.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
My characterization of the aftermath, that there “was much commentary at the time about how well Powell made the case.” was dead on.

Well, I don’t deny that there was commentary at the time about how well Powell had made his case but he didn’t fool everyone and you conveniently left out this part of your characterization:

NO ONE saw it as that at the time.

Maybe you meant that no one who was in favor of the war already saw it as that at the time. (Of the people you quoted, I believe only Howard Dean [perhaps Kennedy?] was more-or-less in the anti-war camp.)

So, basically, what you are arguing is that those in favor of the war (and perhaps those in the middle who were willing to be persuaded and who still had some naive notion that this Administration wasn’t all about lies and deceit) were impressed by Powell’s presentation.

…While those who were against the war correctly said it was insufficient. But, I guess folks qualify as “noone”? So, we can safely then lambast the French for opposing the U.S. since they ought to have been blown away by Powell’s “devastating” presentation since Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt were impressed, even if the facts subsequently show that Joe and Dick ought not to have been so impressed.

Your logic here is a bit contorted, n’est pas?

[jshore]

Oh…and by the way…while Dean might have said what you claimed he said (I don’t know), he in general was not so convinced by Powell’s presentation that he felt the case for war was made, according to this source:

The only candidate for the Democratic nomination not expressing support for an imminent war was Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who observed that Powell had not made a case for a unilateral assault. “Terrorism around the globe is a far greater danger to the United States than Iraq. We are pursuing the wrong war,” he remarked.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
This has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which is at the time, France and the rest of the world demanded that the U.S. ‘make the case’, and at the time, Powell did indeed make a case that much of the world saw as being very compelling.

Well, France apparently did not find it very compelling (as presumably did not the other countries who were not going to vote with the U.S. in the Security Council despite major arm-twisting and vote-buying). And, in retrospect, they were right. Now, you tell us that they should have been convinced by the lies, deceit, poor intelligence, and exageration because lots of other folks were?!?

[sailor]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
That was not my point!. I am fully aware that that presentation looks shaky today. This has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which is at the time, France and the rest of the world demanded that the U.S. ‘make the case’, and at the time, Powell did indeed make a case that much of the world saw as being very compelling.

Your view is so skewed it is just amazing. The fact is that the majority of the world as represented by the UN felt that the US did not present a case compelling enough to authorise the US invasion. That is a fact and the rest is rubbish. The presentation was only compelling to those who were blindly following the US government on faith alone. It was NOT compelling for anybody else and immediately the questions began and the lies started to come out.

[London_Calling]

If memory serves it took about 48 hours to tear the crap out of Powell’s speech. But yeah, for those 48 hours he did have a shred of credibility.

Then we found out the mobile labs were ice-cream vans or whatever . . .etc, etc, . .

[Tee]

*Originally posted by sailor *
** The fact is that even after the reconstruction began the USA has done what it could to screw the French. The oil contracts France had have been repudiated, the USA has restricted many contracts to American firms or has rigged them (like it did with cellular phone service) so that European firms could not participate. And while it is still doing this it has the gall, the nerve, to ask for a helping hand but stating that the USA will remain the only decision maker.

If I were the president of France I would declare a national holiday: “Let’s everybody laugh at George Bush” day. The entire French government would have their picture taken atop the Eiffel tower while laughing at a photo of George Bush. **

We “repudiated” French oil contracts? While the only French business in Iraqi oil was within the Oil-for-Food program? We “rigged” cell phone service…? I thought the decision to use the GSM mobile network was a concession to the Europeans, don’t forget that the “Coalition” includes EU members.

I’m following Sam out because you have no clue what you’re saying, and you’re saying too much of it to keep up with. It’s maddening. But then again you’re illustrating why it’s a bad idea to try to appease the more vocal opposition - they’ll just look for something else to complain about. Worth keeping in mind.

[T.Mehr]

According the news today french fries are once again called french fries at the senates cafeteria. A first but important step to get old Europe onboard!!!

[Futile_Gesture]

*Originally posted by Tee *
We “rigged” cell phone service…? I thought the decision to use the GSM mobile network was a concession to the Europeans, don’t forget that the “Coalition” includes EU members.

A “concession” was it?

GSM is a global standard already in use by surrounding Arab countries. It is clearly the most sensible standard for Iraq.

The problem the some US commentators had with it was that the French invented it, the horror! And that US companies might have trouble bidding for a GSM contract. Some lacking in sufficient patriotism even thought that it might make sense for a European company to handle it. But how many were amazed when the contract went to an American company?

US concerns for rebuilding in Iraq are very much skewed in favour of what’s good for American companies, not what’s best for Iraq. And any divergence from this aim is a “concession”.

Thanks guys. :rolleyes: Any more scraps to be had, except for the privilege of manning the barricades?

[Eolbo]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**That was not my point!. I am fully aware that that presentation looks shaky today. This has nothing at all to do with the point I was making, which is at the time, France and the rest of the world demanded that the U.S. ‘make the case’, and at the time, Powell did indeed make a case that much of the world saw as being very compelling.

**

It doesn’t look shaky just today. Far from being a ‘slam-dunk’ at the time, for much of the world it looked like American showmanship at its worst, theatrical and devoid of a compelling argument. And given the overwhelming global opposition to the war its a safe bet my much is bigger then your much

It’s irrelevant if you think that in hindsight it turned out to be a ‘steaming pile’. NO ONE saw it as that at the time.

Poppycock.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

“thin and deeply unconvincing”

From Russia:

“Powell’s Fairy Tales: Puerile and Patronizing”

From India:

“Powell case against Iraq still unconvincing”

From the UK:

“Powell leaves the jury unconvinced”

From the Vatican:

“unconvincing and vague”

I could go on but the point is made. It was widely perceived as a load of crap at the time for the simple reason that it was. After all for anyone even moderately well informed, coalition use of forged documents was known even before the war, distortion of intelligence was known about before the war, dodgy dossiers were known about before the war. If you didn’t know those things you just weren’t paying attention. And in response to the inevitable cry of cite:

Analysis: What went wrong?