United Kingdom might back out.

[kbman]

Agreed Nash,
                      GWB has about as much diplomatic finesse as a bucking bronco in a glass menagerie. How's that for a mixed metaphor? The only person in this administration with any diplomatic skill whatsoever is Colin Powell and he's had his hands full trying to do damge control for Bush and Rumsfeld from the outset, at great cost to his credibility. Is anyone actually surprised about this?

kbman

[Toad]

10Bears, here's the wager that was offered.

First bet:

This war will happen. Time frame for bet to be determined between us. I think it will be this Spring, but desert weather may postpone it till fall. You think "cooler heads" will prevent this war. I don't. I'll wager you $45 it happens. If I win, you pay $45 to HTC to cover 3 months subscription of the one TAS member that is in the Special Forces of the USA and is currently "in theater". If you win, I send $45 to Ronald McDonald house and provide you either with a receipt or have them notify you it has been received in you name.

Now, make any changes you wish and I'll read it and either agree or make a change or two on my own.

In short, what bet to you want to make?


And, oh great whooper of Toad....... if you want to raise the dollar amount, just let me know.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Nash
Dowding NAILED it in my opinion. Bush began to blow this one almost right out of the starting gate and at almost every point between then and now.

But your belief is driven by political affiliation, had this been a Democratic pres, you would have backed him 100%, because the Democrats in this country are similiar to your socialist countries beliefs.  Admit it and be gone with you.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I think 70% of Americans in a latest poll showed support for action with UN backing (Including me).  If we don't get it, we most likely won't go in me thinks and will turn to more extentions, resolutions and the anti-war folks will continue a life of freedom, democracy while the Iraqi people continue to live under a dictorial threat.  So what? This might as well be 1939 all over again as far as Isolationism goes...remember the majority of US did NOT want to get involved in war as well.

And as much as 10bears thinks that Rummy is a warmonger, let me quote him from yesterday:

".
       “The goal is to not have a war,” he said. “The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates. Short of that ... the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition and there’s an enormous incentive for Saddam Hussein to leave and spare the world a conflict.”

Don't hold your breath for any significant extensions of deadline, or aversions to action without UN backing, however... I've been sneakily suspicious (against my own opinions) that pressure (threat) on Saddam makes up about 90% of whats been going on.  Makes no sense to me that we (whoever we may be) did not or have not taken the regime in Baghdad down already if this were not so.  Look at it like this... we have had the firepower on station since the Gulf war, maybe not enough to roll up the regime, but easily enough to do more than nit-pik them in the war of attrition (slight) thats been happening since 91.  I'm not saying Bush does NOT have the intention of invading, but, I do think the current buildup is a much more intense "or else" message than we've been sending for over a decade.  In a nutshell... I believe what Rummy is saying "in this" instance.

[kbman]

Umm...Rip,
                  Get off your high horse for a second, Nash is from Canada. He didn't vote in the election. You can impune his political biases all you want to but you really need to use facts that actually have a bearing on the situation being discussed. Taking partisan potshots just makes you look ignorant, IMHO of course.

kbman

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by kbman
Umm...Rip,
                  Get off your high horse for a second, Nash is from Canada. He didn't vote in the election. You can impune his political biases all you want to but you really need to use facts that actually have a bearing on the situation being discussed. Taking partisan potshots just makes you look ignorant, IMHO of course.

kbman

Speaking of ignorance...read more closely Kbman. You need to read the whole paragraph.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by crabofix
1.)  If you dont know what the UN is and why it is, I will not explain it to you: sorry.

2.)  You want 90% of decision making? (Why, because you are US and dont pay your fees to UN?) Why would something that the US wanted to do and pay for, be handled diffrent then if Swden wanted to attack Norway and pay for it? Would it be more legitimated because you provide the troops and money?

3.)  Yes, you guys have made a good job in many cases, being the "World-Police".  But also Failed in many others.

 

1.)  You obviously missed the point of the post - Im not looking for a lesson in what the UN is.  I quite familiar with exactly what the UN is, whats it is supposed to do, and what its not doing.

2.)  I want 90% effort to equal 90% authority.  Without the US, what exactly would the UN be?  Another paper tiger.

3.)  Cant win em all, but try and imagine what the world would be like without us expending American lives, money, and ammunition to provide stability in the world.  My guess is that German would be your first language.

[kbman]

Touche Rip,
                  But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all.

kbman

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by kbman
Touche Rip,
                  But the subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by association? It's the American way after all.

kbman

I base it on historical reference, Kbman.  Silence during the Clinton reign of warmongering is the proof. And, in true Democrat fashion, you bring OPINION to the table, not fact.  Attack the person, not the facts, thats your party's motto.

[kbman]

Rip,
       My party affiliation has nothing to do with my ability to think clearly or be critical of anyone I see fit anymore than does your own. We all bring our opinions to the table of political discourse and to state otherwise is just ludicrous and disingenuous. I happen to be a registered Democrat for the sole purpose of being able to vote in the primary election. I may even vote Republican in the next Mayoral election in Phila. because I have little respect for the present democratic occupant of that office. All this is absolutely immaterial to the discussion here and I think you are being hypocritical in your statement about Democrats and your assumptions of their support for Clinton. I sincerely don't think you can make a strong case for the diplomatic aplomb of our current administration no matter who you voted for.

kbman

[Ripsnort]

KBman,
The subtext of my remark still stands. Don't you think it's better to argue the merits of someone's point of view with facts and opinions of your own and give everyone credit for being an independant, free thinking individual rather than attempting to dismiss them by claims of ignorance?

[kbman]

Rip,
      You make my point precisely. My assessment of the diplomatic performance of this administration is based on my observations of their actions. You may disagree with that assessment and are perfectly justified in doing so. I didn't call anyone ignorant, i called them incompetent. I truly believe that and I challenge you to show me otherwise. Neither of us need resort to insults and invective in order to acomplish that objective. I hope you agree.

kbman

edit for spelling

[blitz]

Originally posted by Dowding
Maybe. He has out-manouevered an administration that has a piss-poor ability to play the diplomatic game and has benefitted hugely from the splits amongst the Western democracies. This whole thing should have been a done deal, before it even started rolling.

Blair has been put in an impossible position and he's in very hot water politically. And you know what? The US probably couldn't give a toejam. So much for that 'special relationship'.

Now let's see what we've achieved over the last 6 months:

1) Massive trans-atlantic splits between nations who should be working together

2) Large splits within the EU and with former SU republics

3) A Saddam Hussein who has gained reluctant support from those pretty much despise him

4) A pissing away of the anti-terrorist sentiment and unity post-911

"The Art of Diplomacy is letting people have your own way."

It's a shame that maxim wasn't given more regard. The bulldozer has no place in these affairs. While this mess certainly isn't the sole responsibility of the US, was a compromise such a difficult thing to achieve?

Well spoken


Regards Blitz

[Nash]

Rip, your assumption about the bias of my observations of Bush's handling of this affair, which you think is based on my country's "socialist beliefs" is wrong. For one thing, I'm in disagreement with probably a majority of my country's "socialist beliefs", and for two - despite appearances, our two countries really aren't that different from my perspective (having lived in NYC for about 5 years during and after college). To the average bloke like you and I, we're just not that different. So "be gone" with you.

I'll go one further and say that despite your repeated claims to vote the issues, you constantly come out in favour - almost 100% - along the Republican party line and bash those not in line.... how? Not by arguing the issues themselves, but almost exclusively by pointing out party line bias. How's that for a double standard?

A perfect example is right here in your rebuttal to kbman: "And, in true Democrat fashion, you bring OPINION to the table, not fact."

Regarding how I come to my view on the issues, kbman said it best: "My assessment of the diplomatic performance of this administration is based on my observations of their actions."

Regarding the issue itself, kbman also said it better than I did or could have: "GWB has about as much diplomatic finesse as a bucking bronco in a glass menagerie. Is anyone actually surprised about this?"

[crabofix]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
1.)  You obviously missed the point of the post - Im not looking for a lesson in what the UN is.  I quite familiar with exactly what the UN is, whats it is supposed to do, and what its not doing.

2.)  I want 90% effort to equal 90% authority.  Without the US, what exactly would the UN be?  Another paper tiger.

3.)  Cant win em all, but try and imagine what the world would be like without us expending American lives, money, and ammunition to provide stability in the world.  My guess is that German would be your first language.

1, Good, then you must think its an old instituition, to be supersed
by your supreme Nation?

2, Your historic knowledge might lack some vital informations.
90% effort of what? Of UNs Budget? Of the worlds population?
Of all nuclear weapons? Of chemical/Biological weapon research?
Of all peacekeeping operations?
Where do you get 90% from?
I do know one thing: US owes UN Billons of dollars.

3, No you can´t win them all and the one you´r sure of not winning, or can´t gain from: you stay out of, good thinking.
So you guess my languege would be German? I think your wrong, it would be Russian.

crabofix