[Batrachian]

Yes, I read the whole article. I'm not referring to the speech. I'm referring to stories that the U.S. is asking the U.N. for a new resolution authorizing troops from other countries, I.E. france, to go into Iraq. I characterize that as begging. You can call it whatever you like, but it's certainly not a sign of anything good, and it's bad policy and is humiliating to our nation, and there are other alternatives.

[KantianBurke]

It also introduces doubt into the Bush doctrine of pre-emption. If we don't have the forces to carry out serious missions related to our national security then its a flawed policy and should be dropped in favor of what Bush is requesting from the UN now. Which is of course exceedingly dangerous to depend on others for our security and shouldn't be done. Bush should have called for enlistment in the armed forces instead of harping on about feel good focus poll "volunteer organizations" such as the Freedom Corps. He didn't, he stuck with pre-emption and now our low troop levels have us in a bind.

[Pubbie]

Ok, but as long as Bush doesn't give the UN more than minor concessions, I don't think people should go into panic mode, as some are doing right now.

[GraniteStateConservative]

I'm referring to stories that the U.S. is asking the U.N. for a new resolution authorizing troops from other countries, I.E. france, to go into Iraq. I characterize that as begging.

It's more explicit than that. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte welcomed the "good discussion" at the meeting and stressed the U.S. proposal was only a "working draft." Translation: France will be writing the resolution. Read on-record quotes from that meeting-- it's like they had been singing "What the world needs now is love, sweet love..." Anytime these rat bastards are happy-- it's not a good sign for us. Bank that.