War - at Any Cost?

[pritchke]

This is a link to the full article.
http://www.macleans.ca/xta-doc2/2003...ld/56820.shtml

It is apparent that war is inevitable because the US doesn't want diplomacy to work. Bush seems to be a decent man but he is a puppet president in the overall scheme of things.
The Bush administration has bluntly dismissed Ottawa's proposal. Then again, the Bush administration is dismissing almost anything that may stand in the way of war -- including an assertion last week by chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix that Saddam's regime appears to be showing signs of "real disarmament." Blix later repeated that message when he reported to the Security Council on Friday, although he also stated that Iraq still needs to be more forthcoming. But Bush had effectively given his answer the night before, in a televised speech that seemed intended to prepare the U.S. for war. Iraq has failed to disarm, the President said -- "when it comes to our security, we don't need anybody's permission. This is the last phase of diplomacy."

Not all Americans think this way but a good many have taken the link with counter terrorism hook line and sinker. Many still believe in our freedom to express our opinion, and to democracy. Why were a good many Americans upset when Turkey made a democratic decision on the option to not allow US troops on their soil for invasion. Probably because it wasn't in their interest, Seems to me that the US government stance is Democracy when it suits them especially when the US as been quite willing to establish dictators when it suits them. So stop being upset with other countries because their democratic decisions are not in your favour.
"Why do so many Americans support the Bush plan, and why are they angered by other nations' protests?" asked one Canadian diplomat. "It's mainly because Bush managed to link the Iraq issue to counterterrorism, and the American public is hurt by suggestions the world doesn't want to support the U.S. against terror." A colleague added: "There are voices within the current administration who don't see any purpose in the UN. They believe this is the 'American Historical Moment' and that the U.S. shouldn't be tangled up by the UN."

Isn't patience a virtue. I guess the administration as so few virtues that it is no need to worry about that one.
Prominent U.S. statesmen also worry that Bush is storming recklessly into a maze of blind alleys. "This is a different style of leadership, and if it continues we're going to see reactions that won't be good for the U.S.," says Lee Hamilton, president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. "We've seen these reactions already in election results from Brazil to South Korea to Germany. Around the world, there's a lot of resentment. This president's policies are blunt, his rhetoric is quite divisive. There's a lack of patience in the Bush administration -- they've made up their minds to give it another couple of weeks, but they really don't want to give diplomacy a second chance."

Humility is also a virtue that I definitely think the administration could use some of that. If America decides to continue its policy based on ignorance and arrogance it could be a very dangerous future for it and its allies. Don't think buying duct tape will make you safe.
Hamilton told Maclean's: "The President is less concerned about the uneasiness his policies are creating than other presidents. This group in the White House is very confident about American power, that it's good for the world as well as their own interests. The main consequence is that you're probably creating a lot of Osama bin Ladens. The long-term consequences of power used arrogantly are hard to measure, but what happened in Turkey [the refusal to allow 60,000 U.S. troops into the country for a northern attack on Iraq] is not surprising. Allies and friends may not be as willing to step forward and co-operate with us in future."

This is the stuff that really annoys me the administration lying to the public and warping the truth. It isn't surprising however since it has taken credit for Canada's participation in both WW time and time again at least from the Hollywood perspective.
Maclean's has learned from a police source in Pakistan that at one point during the melee of claims and counterclaims, Pakistani officials considered releasing a formal rebuttal of Washington's assertion that American case officers had been key to the operation. The Pakistanis' version of events is backed up by at least one well-placed observer within Washington's intelligence community. "It's pretty disgusting, really, because the truth is that this was a Pakistani operation through and through, really basic gumshoe stuff," the source told Maclean's. "It wasn't about sophisticated spying at all. They just tracked Shaikh Mohammed down with good old-fashioned police work. The FBI in Pakistan had a minor role, but these claims that it's a major victory for U.S. espionage don't really give a true picture at home in the States.

Looks like it could be another failure in term's of the post conflict.
One foreign policy consultant to the U.S. military, who spoke to Maclean's on condition of anonymity, said, "It's undeniable, I'm afraid, that this administration has lost focus. The President and his people have bet every dollar of their political capital on getting a perfect outcome in Iraq -- disarmament, regime change, spreading of democracy, the works. It'd be more like a miracle. The truth is that once the military gets beyond the brute force stuff, we usually fail pretty miserably. Post-conflict, if you can't be successful in Afghanistan, I can't imagine we're going to be successful in Iraq."

There that is the end of my rant for today I hope it was at least informative.

[ 03-13-2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]