Support ebbs for U.S. war plans [HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO ALERT]

PMSNBC ^ | 01/19/2003 | Karen DeYoung

[Publius Maximus]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 - As the Bush administration heads toward a crucial United Nations Security Council meeting at the end of this month, a strong council majority appears less willing than ever to agree that early military action against Iraq is justified.

Snip

There is widespread international appreciation of the fact that inspectors would not be in Iraq today if the United States had not used its overwhelming military and diplomatic power, the official said. Bush could easily declare victory now and save himself a potential debacle. He's shown seriousness, and Saddam caved, the official said. If you ask whether the world is in a better position vis-a-vis Saddam Hussein than it was a year ago, the answer is Absolutely. Is that victory Yes, if you want it to be.

[Publius Maximus]

Going to the UN was a mistake. Not because I'm all gung-ho for war, but because its only purpose apparently is to protect third world dictators and communists from the consequences of their actions. If we have the evidence that Saddam is a clear and present danger to us, and that he works with terrorists to plot American deaths, then the rest of the world can stuff a sock in it. Going to the UN gives them power they do not deserve or have any moral right to exercise, being so morally fuzzy-headed.

[Support Free Republic]

Donate, And Snuggles The Fabric Softener Bear Gets It!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[LS]

I disagree. While I do NOT think we need anyone's "approval" to do anything, it did not hurt to go to the UN---it a) bought us time, that we needed anyway, to get our troops in place. Now, instead of just waiting, it "looks" like the inspectors are "doing a job." All baloney, as you and I know; b) it gives the pretense (probably genuine in the case of the Bush admin.) of wanting to build a "coalition" and have the UN involved. In reality, this gave the UN one last chance to APPEAR to be relevant, and they are blowing it.

So I don't see the harm. We are doing what we were going to do anyway, and in the process proved the UN irrelevant and stupid. I'd say, that's a deal!

[chiller]

Complete dittos, LS.

As to lack of support on UN Security Council; Did we ever expect support?

[lavaroise]

“It is much murkier and less clear-cut than it was in November,” one diplomat said.

I see, so America's resolve is murkier is what they say in fact. I did not know the UN believed in UFOs and other Unidentified Flying Saddam Objects all of sudden seeming OK after aggreeing with 50% of the demands. I DONT THINK SO.

It seems like we need to yet increase the pressure, maybe the truth will boil up ultimately, but do we have the time?

Why should we have to deny the truth longer about Saddam's horrors? Why should we have to deny the truth from existing in Iraq by keeping Saddam in power? This is ridiculous.

[zarf]

I disagree. This is forcing the UN to either stand up or step aside.

This has yet to play out, but I think the real test for the UN will come when Bush calls on it to confron North Korea.

[Admin Moderator]

You have been here long enough to know not to post full text Washington Post articles.

[Publius Maximus]

As to lack of support on UN Security Council; Did we ever expect support?

Well, we sure made much pretense of getting and having it. The media will use any lack of support to fan the flames of protest. We risk being put in the embarrassing position of having our plans icksnayed in terms of "world support" and appearing renegade. In short, we tried to make them relevant when they weren't and shouldn't have been. As much time as we've had to prepare, the Iraqis have had to prepare and this will be - if and when it comes - the single most telegraphed punch in the history of warfare. I only hope we do it right and get the job done and are able to move on to other threats in short order. But I suspect it will be bloodier than last time, and in two years we'll feel like we're living in the sixties and seventies all over again.

[Publius Maximus]

You have been here long enough to know not to post full text Washington Post articles.

Right, which is why I snipped it in the middle and only included the two parts of the article I wanted everybody to see before they clicked over to MSNBC to read the whole thing.

[nonliberal]

All Bush has succeeded in doing is giving the UN legitimacy.

If Hussein is such a direct and immediate threat, if he threatens the lives of AMERICANS, then take the guy out. Don't screw around with the UN, just take him out.

I recently had the opportunity to chat about American politics with a foreign exchange student from India. He said that every day that this drags on, it is making America look weaker in the international community. Had we been bold and forceful, people would have jumped on board.

Bush, imho, has long since dropped the ball on this one.

[Admin Moderator]

which is why I snipped it

Not enough. Keep the excerpt down to 3 paragraphs and no more than that. Thank you.

[Publius Maximus]

Not enough. Keep the excerpt down to 3 paragraphs and no more than that. Thank you.

Fair enough. Instead of the Powell quote can you replace it with the statement at the end of the article about how just isolating Saddam could be victory "if we want it to be"?

[Amelia]

All Bush has succeeded in doing is giving the UN legitimacy.

No, you misunderstand completely.

Bush has told the UN that if it doesn't enforce its own mandates, it has no relevancy whatsoever. He's told them to prove they are relevant, or get out of the way.

They are failing the test.

He said that every day that this drags on, it is making America look weaker in the international community.

I do tend to agree with this part.

Here's a question: do the 8 cable relay sites we took out this morning indicate that the air war is underway?

[Puppage]

How about the fact that Iraq has broken 23 articles of surrender from the LAST time we went to war with them?? Does that mean anything to ANYONE?We you are defeated in war, you sign the articles of surrender....break ONE, and the war can be resume IMMEDIATELY.They have broken 23 at last count. WE DO NOT NEED THE ANTI-AMERICAN UN FOR ANYTHING!

[Admin Moderator]

"Instead of the Powell quote can you replace it with the statement at the end of the article about how just isolating Saddam could be victory "if we want it to be"?"

Done. Thanks.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

The real sleeper issue here isn't the UN, per se, but whether NATO can continue to exist as a mutual alliance after "No" votes by France and Germany.

[Irene Adler]

Interesting comment. Hadn't thought about that potential effect.

[Amelia]

“Realities tend to come in rather late,” this diplomat said of the administration. “They are thinking ‘We have the power, the will and the bases. Let’s do it ourselves.’ ” But he said he hoped the Americans were “beginning to realize that it’s all connected — the Mideast, Afghanistan, oil, Russia, China, North Korea, the economy.”

I suspect some of the countries who are most reluctant to back us in the Security Council might also be those who've been secretly, and in defiance of UN resolutions, shipping missile and other weapon parts to Iraq.

(And yes, I do suspect that there are countries on the Security Council that have been doing this, but I could be wrong.)

[tm22721]

We don't need the UN for anything except political cover for an Iraqi invasion, and eventual peacekeeping duties after we pump out all of the oil.

BUMP

[latrans]

No guts, no glory.