What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

I know....that was just my gruff attempt at humor.

And, I'm glad you came back to continue the discussion.

I know I can be abrasive as hell (well, me and most of my American compatriots), but by God, we mean well.

Anyway, the basics of your plan sound okay (enough to warrant a ) , but....have you considered the following points:

First, we set a potentially dangerous precedent by giving the UN the power to mandate who can, and who cannot govern a particular nation (and enforce it *as* a unified, global body). You realize that by taking this approach, the next nation they dictate such terms could be the Canadian PM? (unlikely in the extreme, but you see the door it opens).

Second, this position has now steered the conversation entirely away from your former position, which was one of PROVING absolutely that Weapons of Mass Destruction were inside Iraqi borders, to one of ousting the current leadership. That's okay, so long as you make the conscious choice to shift the argument.

Third, if we go this route, and assuming Saddam defies this resolution as well (which we have every reason to believe that he would, given his track record, and the UN's track record wrt enforcement), are you prepared to risk Canadian lives to oust him by force? True, Canada won't need to make a large troop committment, because the US already has forces built up in the area sufficient for the job, but if called upon to commit troops, what would Canada's position be? (I ask this, because IMO, if you are not willing to share in the risk of the operation, the you should have little or no say in the way the resolution shakes out....this may not be a universally agreed upon conviction, but in general, him that risks the most, gains the most).

-=Vel=-
(who chimes in his agreement 'bout the server!)

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Arrian
And the server really has been godawful today...

Seconded and thirded.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

I'd have nothing against such a proposal.

And the server really has been godawful today...

-Arrian

Living next to a giant, many of us Canadians have had to develop a knack for diplomacy.

Bush could learn a few lessons from us frankly. If he'd only listen to what other people have to say.

[Velociryx]

::nodding::

Willem, that's a good point....I would add though, with the proviso that the "other people" (whomever they might be) were willing to:

a) bring alternatives to the table (as you did today), and not just b*tch and moan about the current plan and the way it's going,

b) be fully willing to have their alternate plans put under just as much of a close examination as our own are (held to the same standards, in other words),

and

c) if the "others" want a share of the say, then they need to be willing to share a portion of the risk.

In that case....I agree absolutely.

-=Vel=-
EDIT: and I don't know if you saw, with the server bein' wiggy, but I replied to your other post too (above).
-V.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
First, we set a potentially dangerous precedent by giving the UN the power to mandate who can, and who cannot govern a particular nation (and enforce it *as* a unified, global body). You realize that by taking this approach, the next nation they dictate such terms could be the Canadian PM? (unlikely in the extreme, but you see the door it opens).

It would much less dangerous than having the US administration determine the next government in Iraq, which they'll have to do if they invade. If you think there's a lot of accusations of "Yankee Imperialism" now, just imaginge if Bush installs his puppet regime.

Second, this position has now steered the conversation entirely away from your former position, which was one of PROVING absolutely that Weapons of Mass Destruction were inside Iraqi borders, to one of ousting the current leadership. That's okay, so long as you make the conscious choice to shift the argument.

Yes, because after discussion and dialogue, a new idea I never considered before presented itself. Your president can learn something from that!

Third, if we go this route, and assuming Saddam defies this resolution as well (which we have every reason to believe that he would, given his track record, and the UN's track record wrt enforcement), are you prepared to risk Canadian lives to oust him by force? True, Canada won't need to make a large troop committment, because the US already has forces built up in the area sufficient for the job, but if called upon to commit troops, what would Canada's position be? (I ask this, because IMO, if you are not willing to share in the risk of the operation, the you should have little or no say in the way the resolution shakes out....this may not be a universally agreed upon conviction, but in general, him that risks the most, gains the most).

My position has always been that if the UN declares an invasion, I would support the decision. I don't like the ***** any more than you do, frankly. I just want to be sure that all options have been explored, and that war is the very last resort available.

To many lives are at stake to justify rushing headlong into battle, not to mention the possibility of destabilizing the entire region. Especially if the unrest spreads into Pakistan.

[Velociryx]

I disagree that the UN's newfound mandate would be less dangerous than the US-propped up government approach (and in fact, would contend that it is a good deal MORE dangerous), but concede that it is another debate entirely, and will say no more on that matter here.

Your second comment ('bout the Shrub) made me smile, and don't you worry. When the next election comes, I'll be doing my part to see to it that WE get a regieme change, and I know a lot of like-minded people. Don't lose too much sleep over him. He'll be gone soon enough.

As to the third, I'll take a chance and read between the lines then, and take that as a yes to committing Canadian troops to the effort.

In that case, with the proviso that THIS was the end of the line....that there would be no more extensions, no more deadlines, no more coddling Saddam or d*cking around with it, yep....I'd endorse it completely if I was in a position to do so.

One week to step aside, or war.

That would have my complete backing.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As to the third, I'll take a chance and read between the lines then, and take that as a yes to committing Canadian troops to the effort.

You've got it right. That's also the official position of our government BTW. We won't support unilateral action, we will commit resources to a UN led invasion.

Not that our help will amount to much, with our three tanks and a tugboat. We could possibly send over a troop of boy scouts though!

[Jaguar]

Republicans have too much pride to admit they're wrong.

SAVA has too much Hubris to admit he's wrong.

Enough with the personal attacks on members...

Ming, why is insulting a single poster worse than insulting a group of posters?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx


That would have my complete backing.

Then contact your government representives. The ball's in America's court now, only you and your countryman can do anything about it at this point. I'd say we're pretty close to the brink.

[Velociryx]

Just back from a *fine* dinner with the grandmother at the retirement villa....a good evening.

Willem, it doesn't matter that your country can't contribute much in terms of material or manpower....only that the desire to do so, and the will to make the effort is there. For that, I thank you and your countrymen! (along with thanking every other person from every other nation who lends their support IF things come to blows in the ME)!

I've been thinking about it over dinner though, and I fear your amended position (much as I admire it) has put you in the same boat with us Neandericans.

Here's what I mean, and here's what the love birds will no doubt shove down your throat, should they read the posts between here and there closely:

Earlier you said you wanted to make sure war was a measure of last resort....that all options had been tried, and failed.

Those who oppose action in Iraq will point to the fact that your plan is, essentially, an ultimatum, and adds a scant one week to the deadline. After that, the drumbeat sounds.

They will tell you then, that you have become a pawn of US interests, and that the sole reason you prefer your plan (1 week, then war), over the currently floated one (non-compliance with 1441 = dire consequences; dire consequences = war) is that it was....your plan. You had involvement in it, and therefore didn't feel left out of the process.

I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you and argue against them, but just as a heads up, don't be surprised if it comes.

It still stands though, that though some 14 pages of griping and whining, you were the ONLY person who did more than complain, and actually got in there and offered an alternative to the current plan.

Nobody else could be arsed to do it. Much easier to b*tch and whine but not offer anything constructive. Nobody else could be bothered with it.

Was that because Iraq is seen as largely unimportant, and therefore not worthy of a few minutes contemplation to come up with an alternative, or was it something else? I don't know.

I do know, however, that you were the lone exception.

It would have been more heartening had there been more than just one exception, but that's okay. That there was even one gives me hope, because Apolyton really can be seen as a microcosm....a mini-model of the rest of the world, and each of us, representing the nations we hail from, can be seen, in that light, as ambassadors of the nations we come from.

I have viewed this thread as an interesting experiment.

Intentionally making inflamatory posts to get reactions, and even going so far as making posts in hopes of drawing *other Americans* into disagreement with me (MtG's response to my "action" comments).

Why?

Couple of different reasons. First, because America is a loud, brash, noisy place. We get off on rowdy, lively debate. That's what makes things go 'round here. Yeah, I know, that's crass and uncultured and so forth, but it works. It works like gangbusters.

Despite all our failings (and there have been a great many, and will, no doubt, be many more in our future), *considered* action is still preferable to inaction. Considered action gets things done, endless rounds of hand-wringing and debate do not.

I deeply admire and respect the whole of Europe...a collection of nations which essentially *created* the nation of my birth, and I am hopeful that the strained ties we have with them at present will improve, and we will once again draw together in friendship.

But the path Europe is on demonstrates that if they have learned the lessons of their own past, they have not learned them very well, or, as another poster put it here, are keeping those learnings a closely guarded secret.

From this side of the Atlantic, it seems (to me, at least) like the same old story, replayed endlessly. Terrible war, leading to peace, leading to disarmament and reliance on the parchment walls of treaties and diplomacy to protect them.

Inaction in the face of growing danger seems the order of the day until the eleventh hour, when there is a mad scramble to do something about it.

Contain and ignore, but do not act.

That's not what we're about, and if that is truly the path that Europe is once more on, then I am troubled, because as the contrast grows between their refusal to act, and our attempts to head off problems before they grow to monsterous proportions, the rift between us will widen until it is as vast as the ocean that separates us.

There are deep-rooted, fundamental problems eating away at the strength of Europe....problems that make our own in America seem scant indeed. Although the collective weight of EU economies is easily on par with ours, and although the whole of the EU enjoys a greater population at present, much of what we know of as "Europe" today, is vanishing demographically. Many countries there face negative growth rates. As the population ages, and given the weight of the welfare states and the ineffiency of labor markets there, this can only cause a rapidly spiriling problem that has but one (predictable) outcome.

Nonetheless, it is still not too late, and should they have the will to act, rather than continue to talk about action, it is possible that Europe could awaken from her slumber and realize her full potential.

Of course, the Euros who read this will write it off quickly as more ranting from an uneducated, unworldly, uninformed Neanderican.....so be it. But maybe....just maybe, it will prod them into action, before it really *is* too late.

-=Vel=-
(donning the flame-retardant suit)

[Ramo]

The Eurocoms in general are correct. Specifically, the Austricom.

Americans in general, and Shrub specifically, have failed to address what will happen after Iraq in terms of public discourse. We haven't made any specific committments on guaranteeing the liberties of the Kurds after Saddam is gone. There's a reason for that; we won't. Our relations with the Kurds for the past few decades demonstrates this fact very well. The Turkish alliance is more important to us than the liberties of the Kurds. The fate of the Shia isn't much better, due to possible Iranian sympathies. Our government won't take the chance of Iranian clients taking over the government. Iraq'll be a puppet dictatorship, not a free democracy.

Iraq isn't a danger, and containment can work. There aren't any connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq except in the minds of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Saddam has every reason to not wage war outside of international law. Saddam has every reason to not attack us (at least, until we invade).

[Alexander's Horse]

Saw this on The Onion, man in the street comment section.

"Hey, Mr. President. When even the Germans don't want to fight, take the f*cking hint."

[Velociryx]

And I will reiterate. Nukes and other weapons of mass destruction are to the global landscape what junk bonds are to the business landscape. Both allow the weak to become strong overnight.

Should a nuke land *anywhere* it is both a threat and a problem for all of us, and it is irresponsible in the extreme to assume that Saddam, who has stated openly that he's in the market for nukes, won't use them to bully his neighbors, and if the bullying doesn't work, won't let one of them fly to get his way.

If that is seen as a "non-problem" then I suppose a redefinition of the word is in order.

Should the UN fail to enforce its own mandates, then perhaps it's time they got out of the business of writing them. If they're only good for toilet paper, then I am sure less expensive alternatives for toilet paper can be found.

-=Vel=-

[Kramerman]

Vel, disagree on some points (might get time to discuss later), but on the whole, good/interesting post

Kman

P.S. How long that take?

[Velociryx]

Thanks man! And looking forward to the discussion!

Time-wise....only about ten minutes....fast fingers and all that....

-=Vel=-