Hi deSelys! Thanks for your reasoned response!
I'm sorry, but how reliable is Powell's presentation? Would it be the first time that politicians are lying to the citizens when they want to take unpopular decisions? Of course I may be wrong because I don't have any hard data about this, but ties between Saddam and AQ don't make much more sense to me than the plot of a Michael Bay movie...
Ouch!
I guess that we come down on opposite sides of the fence here.. if I was pinned down with the question of 'which politican in the bush administration do you trust" i'd have to say "only Powell".
I choose to believe Powell's presentation is based on fact.. I can't picture this guy presenting to the world 'un-founded assumptions'.
Finally, I think you're misjudging the french people a lot. First, and Straffo should agree with me, Chirac isn't the brightest president France has known... Before Bush's election, Chirac was THE target (and victim) of a lot of political jokes and 'bons mots'. Now of course, he's relieved that Bush has taken the role...Maybe this explains a part of France's reactions during the last weeks.
It's thanks to discussions like this that I get a sense that the people of europe and in particular the french do not appreciate or agree with the picture of Iraq and Saddam that is presented by their diplomats.. in short, you're no happier with your leaders than we are, you want saddam out, you want iraq disarmed, you want stability in the region and are not unwilling to see it done at the point of arms
if necessary.
(Q: at what point will you decide that force is necessary??)
I also get the sense it's the perception of personalitys in play.. not ideolgy or the methods implemented. If it was Powell or McCain as president, would you be more comfortable with our actions? Because no matter who's sitting in the Oval Office, there is little doubt that post 9-11 the reaction of THIS nation would be the same... Identify the states that support and supply terror and put 'em outta buisness. Identify potential sources for the material, destroy them. Find the terrorists, nutralize them. Any chief exectutive in this country that did not react this way would lose his mandate, and we'd put one in the office that will.
Bush would not be much of a president in any other times.. he's a damn poor president when it comes to rallying worldwide support.. he's got credibility problems. But, regardless of how little faith I have in his abilities, how little respect I have for him as a politican, how little respect I have for him as a man... he is the President of The United States, in his official capacity as Commander in Cheif of our Armed Forces and as the Nations Chief Diplomat he does have my as long as I pewrcieve he is carrying out the will of the american people.
And his is.
It's becoming apparent that most europeans just don't get it.. we are pissed. All of us. americans will not accept any government leader in senior office that will permit via diplomatic double speak the continued activity of a rouge dictator barking 'death to america' to it's citizens.
So, the question is.. would you rather have Bush gone and Saddam still in till we get another President (because we will in either 1 or 5 years) and take your chances on saddam lighting up the middle east in another war using what we all accept and acknowledge to be weapons proscribed my international mandates that your nations are signatories to..
..Or, get your leaders to shelve nationalistic ploys and instead back the US, the majority of NATO and the UN resolutions and take action?
How long do we wait? A month? Year? Two? At what point will Europes leaders decide to take direct action? What in europes diplomatic history can you point to that will give us unshakable faith in the results of 'diplomatic pressure short of force of arms'?
The embargo has not worked.. resolutions taken by the UN have not worked.. what diplomacy sponsored by the UN, US, NATO, or any other body politic will produce results that will curb the proliferation of WMD and terrorism?
Thanks for your reply!
