Powell's Gambit

[corplinx]

It seems Powell has made his own dirty bed. After pushing the Bush administration from using a simple coalition to remove Saddam into getting full UN cooperation, he finds the UN to be obstructing and playing politics with a very important issue.

In "Bush at War" in particular, you see how Powell has made this situation that he now finds himself foaming at the mouth over trying to get France and Germany on board.

I appreciate that Bush has the more cautious and prudent Powell in his cabinet. However, I think Powell in this instance overplayed his hand.

The UN "security" council:
A. Won't recognize that they are still at war with Saddam since the first treaty was never complied with.
B. Are dutifully ignoring the last resolution they passed last year.

Mr. Powell, It is time to gather your coalition and fight the good fight and ignore the bureacrats. Liberty is not won by committee. Despots are not removed by gavels. And every day you wait to act shows North Korea weakness.

[Richard G]

This will work to our favor in the long run. This drawn out process has made many countries abandon their poker faces and reveal their true colors. An invaluable revelation that will help us to shape our future foreign policy. Especially considering that some former allies were anything but.

By almost complete accident, we have pulled off a huge intelligence coup.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Richard G

By almost complete accident, we have pulled off a huge intelligence coup.

Its a shame that this self same coup couldnt locate the whereabouts of any WMDs then isnt it??

[svero]

There could be some negative repurcussions to this. Basically if the US is determined to go to war and can't get UN backing now, they may go on their own. I'm not sure how snubbing the UN would bode for the future stability of the middle east, but I find it worrying and I see it as a very real possibility. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the US is going to war in a few weeks(months?) regardless of what happens at the UN.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx
It seems Powell has made his own dirty bed. After pushing the Bush administration from using a simple coalition to remove Saddam into getting full UN cooperation, he finds the UN to be obstructing and playing politics with a very important issue.

In "Bush at War" in particular, you see how Powell has made this situation that he now finds himself foaming at the mouth over trying to get France and Germany on board.

I appreciate that Bush has the more cautious and prudent Powell in his cabinet. However, I think Powell in this instance overplayed his hand.

The UN "security" council:
A. Won't recognize that they are still at war with Saddam since the first treaty was never complied with.
B. Are dutifully ignoring the last resolution they passed last year.

Mr. Powell, It is time to gather your coalition and fight the good fight and ignore the bureacrats. Liberty is not won by committee. Despots are not removed by gavels. And every day you wait to act shows North Korea weakness.
maybe it is just that the US is starting to realise that the rest of the world is not it's lapdog.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

maybe it is just that the US is starting to realise that the rest of the world is not it's lapdog.

I see this sentiment from many euro-elites. Basically, agreeing with the US is is being a lapdog. Disagreeing with the US is "bold" or "independent". Look at how Tony Blair has been maligned in such fashion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


I see this sentiment from many euro-elites. Basically, agreeing with the US is is being a lapdog. Disagreeing with the US is "bold" or "independent". Look at how Tony Blair has been maligned in such fashion.

agreeing with the US when it is wrong is being a lap dog. For a good example of this, see John Howard trailing along like a puppy, thinking he is Winston Churchill.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by corplinx


I see this sentiment from many euro-elites. Basically, agreeing with the US is is being a lapdog. Disagreeing with the US is "bold" or "independent". Look at how Tony Blair has been maligned in such fashion.

There's also still a sore spot in many European minds due to the fact that this "uppity former european colony" is the world's only remaining superpower, and doesn't come begging to Europe for help anymore...

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

--J.D.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by svero
There could be some negative repurcussions to this. Basically if the US is determined to go to war and can't get UN backing now, they may go on their own. I'm not sure how snubbing the UN would bode for the future stability of the middle east, but I find it worrying and I see it as a very real possibility. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing the US is going to war in a few weeks(months?) regardless of what happens at the UN.
A couple of notes:

- The U.S. will not be 'going it alone'... There are dozens of countries which have sided with the U.S. in this matter, and have already given their support to attack. Countries like the U.K., Australia, Spain, Italy, a whole mess of former Soviet-bloc countries (I believe Poland, Romania, Albania, etc. are all in there), and some Islamic countries (I believe Qatar, where the U.S. has many of their troops stationed, and Turkey both support the U.S. plans)
- The current 'stability' of the middle east has given us a country ruled entirely by brutal dictatorships (escept for Israel), terrorism (both against Israel, and the U.S.) and strong support for Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps we need to eliminate this 'stability'.

[svero]

>- The U.S. will not be 'going it alone'... There are dozens of
>countries which have sided with the U.S.

By going it alone I meant not under the banner of the UN. I'm not sure how genuine that support really is though. That is, they are probably just weighing the political benefit. Will they actually be committing troops? Money? or will they just be around afterwords with their hands out saying, remember me? I supported you guys so why not cut me a break on some of that oil. If the US goes in without the banner of the UN the focus will be primarily on the states. Clearly the US would prefer to have UN approval for that reason, but I think they're prepared to go ahead without.

>Perhaps we need to eliminate this 'stability'.

Well I agree the middle east is a mess. I'm not sure that war is the right antidote though. Does war promote regional stability? I'm dubious.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by svero
[B
>Does war promote regional stability? I'm dubious. [/B]

War is a very broad thing. Let me restate what you said more specifically.

">Does removing Saddam Hussein and destroying his arsenal promote regional stability?"

I think the answer is "yes" and even perhaps "duh". Saddam's support of palestinian terror organizations and the fear his neighbors have of him are part of what keeps the middle east unstable. Replacing Saddam with a nonagressive government who does not give money and arms to terror groups would contribute greatly to a stabilized region.

[svero]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think the answer is "yes" and even perhaps "duh". [/B]

At any cost though to other destabalizing factors? This may be a case of cutting down the trees to see the forest.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by svero


At any cost though to other destabalizing factors? This may be a case of cutting down the trees to see the forest.

I'm game. Tangible example?

[svero]

Originally posted by corplinx


I'm game. Tangible example?

Well there's certainly plenty of examples in history of war torn countries being unstable. If we can agree that Iraq would be better of without Saddam, and I think we can, then I'm simply saying that if you advocate war as a way to remove Saddam Hussein from power you should also be able to show that his removal will outweigh the negative effects of the war itself.

When you're talking about killing thousands of Iraqi civilians it doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to figure out that there will be a lot of desperate, angry, people eaten up with thoughts of revenge against the country that killed their wives, kids, husbands etc... and suddenly those al-queda recruitment drives are going to start looking pretty interesting. Add to that dead US soldiers, environmental effects, polarization of other muslim countries against the west, etc.. etc.. etc... Where will it lead in a few years? Is Saddam Hussein really worth it? What makes him special? There are lots of dictatorships which are allies of the US. What makes Saddam's case so special that he's worth the risk of all the above? Would Bush and Blair give their own lives if Saddam agreed to go into exile? That's what they're asking US soldiers to do. Somehow I expect that in that context they would see things in a different light. Find another way.