First Draft of History Looks a Bit Rough on Bush

[Bangkoktraveler]

[color:red]"and it would be incomprehensible that such a person could function in daily life "[/color]

 

The great one, GWB seems to do okay, considering his mental IQ of 78.

[playtheblues]

Saddam complied formally with the resolution and submitted a 12000? page report report about his weapons, two months after the resolution. Blix, on his side, did not find any WMD (there was some talks about chemical gas missiles) upon inspection but, I will remember without checking, he expressed dissatisfaction with the report and considered crucial questions unanswered.

 

The logical outcome of this not satisfactory compliance from Saddam's side would be a new decision by the UN Security Council about how to proceed, including the possible use of force, by a new resolution. Many, if not most, experts, including Hans Blix, agree that it's up to the Security Council, not to individual states or group of states to decide upon the use of force. Remember that this was also the general concensus in the comments on the resolution 1441; here's the statement by the British Ambassador:

 

"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12 (my italics). We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities".

 

Quite clear isn't it?

 

But President Chirac of France had declared to the dismay of President Bush that he would veto any resolution mandating the use of force. Even if this was interpreted by the UK and US that the Security Council did not meet its responsibilites, the procedure should be continued within the UN framework. Anyhow, subsequent revelations about falsified evidence by the US and failure to find any WMD even after the invasion, cast quite a new light on the issue of non-compliance from Saddam's side.

 

Now, it had been quite obvious since the beginning of his presidency that Bush was determined to effectuate regime change in Iraq, no matter what, even though multilateral mandate for military action would have been desirable.

 

And to war he went, hand in hand with Blair (and a few others). The latter, aware of the fiasco of the WMD objective, has turned the focus towards the Human Rights objective for the invasion. With some justification: as I said before most critics of the Iraq invasion tend to underestimate the horror of living under Saddam.

 

The truth about oppression is with the oppressed (Jean-Paul Sartre).

[playtheblues]

I am even more worried if his tone and poor argumentation technique is representative for today's

(neo)conservatives in America.

 

Talking about tone: what has happened to old fashioned American civility? I can hardly question anything argued by Americans on the net these days without the polemic level being raised by 100 percent or more, to the point of outright hostility and the use of hooligan language. Intentional "misunderstandings" are standard and explanations from my side to nuance the debate are futile.

[..]

Which of course is France's right, the veto that is, and was the proper course of action.

 

And America has no right to complain about security council vetoes. ANY resolution against Israel gets an automatic veto from the US.

 

The SC veto system needs to be changed to a simple majority as it is too easy to abuse.

 

Cheers,

SD

[rogueyam]

The fact that a few other countries, notably the UK, cooperatated with him by sending troops, did not make it a multilateral action.

 

Hee, hee, hee. You're funny. Post some more.

[USVirgin]

No. You stop.

 

Stop posting NOW.

 

Thanks.

[playtheblues]

"Post some more".

 

A last one. Not even you can deny that a UN mandated force would constitute genuine multilateral action.

 

Now, President Bush did the opposite. He monomanically led the campaign into Iraq, with support from some NATO allies etc (who, especially the UK, strongly would have preferred mandate from the UN, but nonetheless followed through). You call this a multilateral action.

 

So in your semantics, both a genuine multilateral action and its opposite, an action which bypasses the authority of the international community, almost completely initiated, energized and dominated by President Bush' compulsive ambition for regime change in Iraq, are both multilateral actions?

 

Then what is not multilateral?

 

I would call this use of language conceptual erosion. No meaningful definition remains of a concept used in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[playtheblues]

Even though Chirac like even more Germany's Schröder,

had his domestic policy agenda (strong anti-Bush and even anti-American undercurrents in his electorate.

 

 

[Old Hippie]

Wasn't it even referred to initially as "a multilateral decision to invade?" and a "Multilateral coalition?"

[playtheblues]

I really don't remember which terminology the Bush administrations used as smoke screens to camouflage the true unilateralism of the Iraqi campaign. Read statements by Cheney quite early in the Bush presidency. The overriding goal was regime change in Iraq, no matter how but if with support from the international community, then, why not? But multilateralism never was high on the administrations agenda, indeed we are all aware that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz were (are) notorious for their disregard of international opinion. Bush-supporters' use of the "multilateralism" is loaded with irony.