U.S. envoy chides Canada

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Virtually every nation on Earth was behind the United States after Sept. 11th. Everyone sympathetic and willing to contribute to the war on terrorism. In a short year and a half Bush's policies have divided the world. He turned worldwide well-being and a willingness to work with the United States into contempt. If that isn't bad statesmanship then someone please explain to me exactly what it takes to become a failed statesmen.

Yes, they were behind us, but when it came to a course of actions the disagreements began.

Bush didn't convince the world that Saddam has had long enough to disarm and that he is a threat, but that doesn't mean that he didn't try, or does the lack of world support relieve him of his responsibilities. He's got a job to do, and in my opinion and the opinion of @70% of Americans he is doing that job now.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: but it didn't work.

Sounds like failure to me.. [/QUOTE]Are Chirac, Schroeder, and Chretien failed statesmen because they didn't convince the coalition not to act. Are they somehow successes for standing with their population on the subject while Bush is a failure for doing the same thing? Think about it?

[ 03-26-2003, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: your right about pretending their was something malicious about the us officials statement. And as i said in the post above. I don't think what Celluci said was malicious. It was totally warranted. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that without any qualifiers. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

That's all I've been saying, but somehow people had a problem seeing it.

[ 03-26-2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Masklinn]

Quite a few nations were convinced though.

Convinced is not the right word...most of the nations that support US current action need US support in return for other purposes, others just don't wanna risk to "disappoint" the US...

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Are Chirac, Schroeder, and Chretien failed statesmen because the didn't convince the coalition not to act. Are they somehow successes for standing with their population on the subject while Bush is a failure for doing the same thing? Think about it?

Yes they are failed statesmen. They couldn't stop a war and that is a failure imo. They failed the human race by their inability to convince Bush and those @70% that solving a problem with violence is unnacceptable.

They were all behind Bush a year and a half ago. After Sept 11th. Chirac, Shcroeder, and Chretien were all trusted allies willing to work hand in hand with the USA.

Thanks for the replys Ronn. You deserve a Weekly Wonder Award for your conviction and level-headedness. [img]smile.gif[/img]

edit> added 'failed statesmen' after the 'Yes they are..' on the first sentence.

[ 03-26-2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Quote: Quite a few nations were convinced though.

Convinced is not the right word...most of the nations that support US current action need US support in return for other purposes, others just don't wanna risk to "disappoint" the US...[/QUOTE]Always with the qualifier....

It's impossible for you to believe that anyone could voluntarily go with the coalition because they believe it's the right thing to do.

Sure some people needed incentives, but if you'll look back at the first Gulf War, you'll see that there were nations then that needed incentive as well. That didn't mean that Kuwait hadn't been invaded though, and it didn't mean that most nations didn't agree with the cause.

[Ronn_Bman]

Djinn, you and I may not always agree politically, but I certainly respect your ability to admit when something is wrong or unfair, even if those who make the error are on your side of the issue.

It's easy to point out the wrongs of the opposition, and pointing out the obvious wrongs from your own side can be tough, but to me, that makes your stance even stronger.... not weaker.

[ 03-26-2003, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Masklinn]

Always with the qualifier.... It's impossible for you to believe that anyone could voluntarily go with the coalition because they believe it's the right thing to do. Sure some people needed incentives, but if you'll look back at the first Gulf War, you'll see that there were nations then that needed incentive as well. That didn't mean that Kuwait hadn't been invaded though, and it didn't mean that most nations didn't agree with the cause.

Don't compare with the first Gulf War, there was a UN approval on this one. It was actually voted and approved as "the right thing to do". They were so many countries volunteering that incentives were not invovled. And, back then, we didn't need to add Eritrea or Azerbaïdjan to that list to make it look bigger.

Now look at the list of countries of the "coallition", look for yourself, I m not lying to you.
And while you look, ask yourself why so few of them really helped by sending troops and why 1/3 of them want to remain anonymous.

Yes, Bush failed.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Masklinn: Don't compare with the first Gulf War, there was a UN approval on this one. It was actually voted and approved as "the right thing to do". They were so many countries volunteering that incentives were not invovled. And, back then, we didn't need to add Eritrea or Azerbaïdjan to that list to make it look bigger. It doesn't compare, because this is still that same Gulf War. The conditional ceasefire has been lifted after giving Iraq 12 years to comply. The conditions were not met and the ceasefire has been lifted. I find it interesting that you discredit Eritrea or Azerbajan or any nation. Are you saying they aren't important? Are you saying they don't count? Should they even be in the UN? Are you saying they are less important than European nations? Yes, I know what you're saying with your statement, but it seems a bit haughty and arrogant. It seems to me that they aren't important to you because of who they are. This argument doesn't help your position. It makes you seem discriminatory against any who oppose your view. Either all nations have an equal voice or they don't? Yes the P5 of the SC are the only one's with VETOs, but if they are the only ones that matter, then why bother with the UN at all. Now look at the list of countries of the "coallition", look for yourself, I m not lying to you. And while you look, ask yourself why so few of them really helped by sending troops and why 1/3 of them want to remain anonymous. I've seen the list, and I'll ask again if really you think they really should NOT count. Either they count or they don't. You like to talk about the political pressure exerted by the US for nations to join, so I'll tell you the political pressure exerted by those in the anti-war movement is certainly a factor. Especially in Eastern Europe amongst prospective members of the EU. What's the difference? Other than the fact that you think you are right and I am wrong? Yes, Bush failed. Maybe so, but not as badly as Chirac, and Bush was quite a bit more diplomatic throughout the process. [img]tongue.gif[/img] (EDIT - In case that didn't seem humorous, I meant it to be so, and not to be insulting.) Bush had a job to do, and he's doing it. I support him, as do 70% of Americans. Blair now has a majority in support of his actions according to the latest figures, and we'll see support continue to increase because despite what many have said, and despite their actions to block disarming Iraq, Iraq needed to be disarmed and now finally will be disarmed. You think Chirac's position is correct because you agree with it, and I think Bush's position is correct because I agree with it, and if we break it all down to the basics, you think you're right and that you can prove it, and I think I'm right and that I can prove it, so we go round and round.

EDIT

[ 03-26-2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ronn_Bman]

For those who have jumped straight to the last page, the premise of this thread was that the US had somehow done something wrong because a US official told a Canadian official that the US was "disappointed" with the Canadian position on Iraq.

[Masklinn]

It seems to me that they aren't important to you because of who they are. This argument doesn't help your position. It makes you seem discriminatory against any who oppose your view.

It's not discriminatory. Don't close your eyes cause it serves your purpose. You are clever enough to know that some countries have more weight by their population, military and economic power. I was not being discriminatory at all.
In time of war, yes, support of Russia or France or Canada IS more important than support of Eritrea. And you know it.

Either all nations have an equal voice or they don't? Yes the P5 of the SC are the only one's with VETOs, but if they are the only ones that matter, then why bother with the UN at all.

Cause having the majority with you and a veto against you is way more different than not having the majority + a veto. I know it, you know it, Bush knew it and that's why he didn't even bother.

Either they count or they don't.

In a military action, money and military power are needed. So yeah, see above, some countries count more than others.

You like to talk about the political pressure exerted by the US

I didnt talk about that at all. I talked about countries that NEED support of the US for various reasons. Countries for which political pressures was not needed.
Political pressure exist on both side and they're part of the diplomatic process.

Maybe so, but not as badly as Chirac, and Bush was quite a bit more diplomatic throughout the process.

Bush was diplomatic ? Manicheist (good vs evil) propaganda is diplomatic for you ?

Bush had a job to do, and he's doing it.

No offense intended but that sounds like an awful mix between Rambo and Joan of Arc, like a big cliché.
Edit : That goes very well with "The game is over" kind of statement though.

[ 03-26-2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]