Bush names Bolton as U.N. ambassador

[Black Dog]

France was prepared to act unilaterally in absolute terms and that's just fine, vive la France; America accumulates international support which is only a fraction of it's own contribution, but they're still the bad guys for acting "unilaterally", if only in a "de facto" sense.

Great strawman. France's ability to act unilateraly (indeed, any UNSC member nation's abilityto act unilateraly) is a testament toon eof the flaws of the UN's structure, one that has little to do with whether or not its membership is democractic or not.

How noble of you to disparage the contribution of any country, no matter how large or how small. Have you ever taken a mintue to think that other countries may not have the resources or the military capabilities to send more then how ever many troops or services they're providing?

And why would I care? Look, most countries that signed up as members of the "CoW" did so onlyin exchange for aid and financial assistance. So it's hard t take claims that they are key contributers alll that seriously.

Each year, when a coalition of people make donations to cure diseases like cancer, do you also disparage the individual who donates 5 dollars, instead of 100's or 1000's that others may be able to afford?

Holy pointlesss analogy, Batman. I expect someone donating money to a cause like cancer research is doing so out of true selflessness, and not becaus ethey expect repayment.

I get it man, you hate President Bush. It doesn't mean you have to hate everything associated with him. Stop being so childish.

I oppossed the war from Day One because it was a stupid idea based on a web of falsehoods. I would have done so regradless of who was in charge (though I will admit, Bush does make it easy to hate Bush.)

[BHS]

Great strawman. France's ability to act unilateraly (indeed, any UNSC member nation's abilityto act unilateraly) is a testament toon eof the flaws of the UN's structure, one that has little to do with whether or not its membership is democractic or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's hardly a strawman argument. France was prepared to act in a truly unilateral fashion to directly oppose the American led coalition. And yet, the anti-war crowd overlooks this entirely, preferring to disparrage the contributions of "bought" allies so that they can say that it's really the Americans who are acting unilaterally. Which is utterly ridiculous.

[Black Dog]

It's hardly a strawman argument. France was prepared to act in a truly unilateral fashion to directly oppose the American led coalition. And yet, the anti-war crowd overlooks this entirely, preferring to disparrage the contributions of "bought" allies so that they can say that it's really the Americans who are acting unilaterally. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Let me get this straight: we're suppossed to be as upset about a country's intention to veto a resolution which was never put forward (a sentiment also expressed by Russia, BTW) as we are about the actual actions of a country which has led to turmoil and blodshed?

Anyway, I've already said the veto is one of the biggest barriers to an effective UN.

[BHS]

It's hardly a strawman argument. France was prepared to act in a truly unilateral fashion to directly oppose the American led coalition. And yet, the anti-war crowd overlooks this entirely, preferring to disparrage the contributions of "bought" allies so that they can say that it's really the Americans who are acting unilaterally. Which is utterly ridiculous.

Let me get this straight: we're suppossed to be as upset about a country's intention to veto a resolution which was never put forward (a sentiment also expressed by Russia, BTW) as we are about the actual actions of a country which has led to turmoil and blodshed?

Anyway, I've already said the veto is one of the biggest barriers to an effective UN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A major argument against the war on terror is that it is "illegal" because an 18th resolution specifically approving military intervention was never approved. The American administration made a great deal of effort to convince the Security Council that the war was necessary. However, Chirac declared that no matter what happened, no matter how much support the Americans could attract to their cause, France would use it's (unmerited) veto to deny Security Council authorization to the intervention. That declaration of intent marks the end of American efforts to further persuade the world that it's goal was legitimate. If you ever want to lay blame for the end of pre-war diplomatic efforts, you need look no further than Chirac.

[Black Dog]

A major argument against the war on terror is that it is "illegal" because an 18th resolution specifically approving military intervention was never approved. The American administration made a great deal of effort to convince the Security Council that the war was necessary. However, Chirac declared that no matter what happened, no matter how much support the Americans could attract to their cause, France would use it's (unmerited) veto to deny Security Council authorization to the intervention. That declaration of intent marks the end of American efforts to further persuade the world that it's goal was legitimate. If you ever want to lay blame for the end of pre-war diplomatic efforts, you need look no further than Chirac.

Let's keep terms like the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq seperate, shall we? In any case, you are incorrect vis a vis France's intentions: French President Jacques Chirac said he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors, while Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin did not rule out the use of force. His position, diplomats said, reflected apprehension among a number of council members that the Bush administration wanted support for war next week, choosing a timetable based on when the weather was best for the US military. So France did not say it would veto any resolution on Iraq, only those mandadting the immediate use of force: their stated view was that weapons inspections needed more time. But the U.S. wanted its war right away.

[Shady]

And why would I care? Look, most countries that signed up as members of the "CoW" did so onlyin exchange for aid and financial assistance. So it's hard t take claims that they are key contributers alll that seriously.

No, most countries that signed up didn't recieve aid and financial assistance. And again, you can explain to the families who's members have shed blood that they're not "key" contributers, whatever that means.

Holy pointlesss analogy, Batman. I expect someone donating money to a cause like cancer research is doing so out of true selflessness, and not becaus ethey expect repayment

People that donate money to causes like cancer are likely to be "repayed" in medical advances. My analogy is apt. According to your standard, if all members don't contribute an equal share, thier contribution is deemed almost meaningless by people like you. In Iraq, "repayment" can be knowing you're doing something just, and more importantly, contributing to the long-term advancement of the middle east and world security.

I oppossed the war from Day One because it was a stupid idea based on a web of falsehoods

Again, if the war was a stupid idea based on a "web of falsehoods", then France lied, Germany lied, China lied, Russia lied, the United Nations lied, and half the world's intelligence apparatus lied.

I will admit, Bush does make it easy to hate Bush

I'm well aware of the hatred the exudes from the kook-left in North America and across the world.

[BHS]

Let's keep terms like the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq seperate, shall we? In any case, you are incorrect vis a vis France's intentions: French President Jacques Chirac said he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors, while Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin did not rule out the use of force. His position, diplomats said, reflected apprehension among a number of council members that the Bush administration wanted support for war next week, choosing a timetable based on when the weather was best for the US military. So France did not say it would veto any resolution on Iraq, only those mandadting the immediate use of force: their stated view was that weapons inspections needed more time. But the U.S. wanted its war right away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, let's not. The intervention in Iraq is a part of the war on terror, whether you choose to acknowledge it as such or not.

Chirac did waffle and offer a one or two month extension, but he did so later in March 2003, only after he'd played his ace and declared his intention to veto outright on March 10, 2003:

Chirac Veto

(If you're not fond of Fox News, feel free to copy the quote from Chirac and run it through a search engine. It was widely quoted at the time.)

At that moment on March 10 it was clear that diplomacy was futile, because France had already stated that it would use it's (unwarranted) power of veto to override any decisions made.

[Black Dog]

No, most countries that signed up didn't recieve aid and financial assistance

Most of the countried involved depend on the U.S. for aid and financial assistance. Would they bite the hand that feeds them?

Twist my arm

And again, you can explain to the families who's members have shed blood that they're not "key" contributers, whatever that means.

If some poor bastard gets shipped to Iraq and subsequently gets killed, what does that have to do with whethe rhis country was a key contributer? I look at it like this: the countries in the CoW have about 10 per cent of the world's population. What's more, in all but a few of those copuntries, public opinion was solidly opposed to unilateral and even UN action.

According to your standard, if all members don't contribute an equal share, thier contribution is deemed almost meaningless by people like you.

No your analogy is bogus. The reason the contribution of such powerhouses as panama are overlooked is because they make no differenc eto the success or failure of the operation. This was an American show from the start.

Again, if the war was a stupid idea based on a "web of falsehoods", then France lied, Germany lied, China lied, Russia lied, the United Nations lied, and half the world's intelligence apparatus lied.

And again: I've already showed that France, Russia and China had serious misgivings about the quality of the U.S. intelligence. There was no consensus on Iraq's WMD capability. In other words: you're wrong.

I'm well aware of the hatred the exudes from the kook-left in North America and across the world.

I'll take hatred over being consistently wrong.

, let's not. The intervention in Iraq is a part of the war on terror, whether you choose to acknowledge it as such or not.

Um..simply stating something with an air of certainty does not make it the truth. The testimony of former administration officials (including Paul O'neill and Richard clarke) stating that Bush planned to invade Iraq almost two years before 9-11 would invalidate your conclusion.

As for Chirac, well, okay. however: this:

At that moment on March 10 it was clear that diplomacy was futile, because France had already stated that it would use it's (unwarranted) power of veto to override any decisions made.

is only correct if the intent of diplomacy was to ensure a war and not to disarm Iraq. This would indicate that the sole objective of the U.S. in going to the UN was to give their attack a measure of credibility. Therefore, the invasion was a unilateral fait accompli before the U.S. even went to the UN. the facts,a s revealed in the Downing Street Memo for example, would indicate that was the case.

[BHS]

Um..simply stating something with an air of certainty does not make it the truth. The testimony of former administration officials (including Paul O'neill and Richard clarke) stating that Bush planned to invade Iraq almost two years before 9-11 would invalidate your conclusion.

As for Chirac, well, okay. however: this:

At that moment on March 10 it was clear that diplomacy was futile, because France had already stated that it would use it's (unwarranted) power of veto to override any decisions made.

is only correct if the intent of diplomacy was to ensure a war and not to disarm Iraq. This would indicate that the sole objective of the U.S. in going to the UN was to give their attack a measure of credibility. Therefore, the invasion was a unilateral fait accompli before the U.S. even went to the UN. the facts,a s revealed in the Downing Street Memo for example, would indicate that was the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, two years before 9-11? You'd better check your dateline. Bush became President 8 months before 9-11. Unless you're suggesting that Bush started scheming the Iraq invasion while he was still Governor of Texas, and how would Clarke know about that?

I have no illusions that UN approval was nothing more than a fig leaf. Such is the nature of all diplomatic initiatives. But the fact remains that the US was willing to put it's plans on hold and negotiate terms for going into Iraq, and Chirac's public statement was the end of the diplomacy.

[Black Dog]

Um, two years before 9-11? You'd better check your dateline. Bush became President 8 months before 9-11. Unless you're suggesting that Bush started scheming the Iraq invasion while he was still Governor of Texas, and how would Clarke know about that?

Woops. O'Neill was seceretary during Bush's first two years. That's were that came from.

O'Neill

In any case, I have no doubt Iraq was on the agenda before 9-11 (The PNAC also laid out schemes for regime change before 9-11).

But the fact remains that the US was willing to put it's plans on hold and negotiate terms for going into Iraq, and Chirac's public statement was the end of the diplomacy.

But the fact that the invasion was fait accompli regardless of the results of any negotiating nullifies any diplomatic efforts. Diplomacy was clearly a dead end from the word go, so to accuse France of being obstructionist is to ignore the basic facts and to stretch the definition of diplomacy beyond its breaking point.

[Guest eureka]

The possibility of a French veto - supported by the majority of the Council, incidentally, - was always conditional. Chirac was clear as were his words, that France did not threaten a vetu under any circumstance. The veto was to be used only to prevent action without Security Counci approval; and only to allow the Inspectors to finish their job and report.

France, and the others, were firm in that any action must be under the banner of the UN. The action might well have been the one that was taken and France then, like the body of the UN would have participated.

There would not have been thedebacle that we now have had the US not been so trigger happy. And, Black Dog is correct. The US did plan the invasion 2 years or so earlier. It was a confirmed objective of the circle that surrounds Bush and brought him to power. Wheteher Bush used that or they used him is open to question. What is not questionable is that it was a "happy" coincidence that the aims of both were converged in the attack on Iraq.