How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[HershOstropoler]

There's a clear rift between the US and the UK. They could have played this.

[The Mad Monk]

The US would've supported the UK proposal, so I'm not sure how the 'rift' would have figured in.

How's the Azores this time of year?

[HershOstropoler]

It's far from certain the US would have supported it, especially with a realistic timeline.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm very worried about the direction of international events. Some evil fool flies some planes into some US buildings and within 18 months the Western alliance is in tatters. This is not good.

In the last 18 months the US has gone from almost total international support and sympathy to verging on international pariah status. That is tragic and the negative effects will be widely felt by every one of us.

The only one who could be pleased about this is OBL and people of his ilk.

[Guest]

No, because only a madman would force a country with enough nukes to depopulate the planet into an isolationist stance.

I can see no strategy where France or Germany can win this one.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm very worried about the direction of international events. Some evil fool flies some planes into some US buildings and within 18 months the Western alliance is in tatters. This is not good.

In the last 18 months the US has gone from almost total international support and sympathy to verging on international pariah status. That is tragic and the negative effects will be widely felt by every one of us.

The only one who could be pleased about this is OBL and people of his ilk.

Ditto

[Ned]

AH, I know all the protesters say Iraq is about Oil. Does the average person think this as well?

[Menlas]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
It's far from certain the US would have supported it, especially with a realistic timeline.

Exactly. Anyway, I think the UK's proposition wouldn't have included a "realistic timeline" (their troops won't stay in Iraq for months, and Iraq can't be disarmed in 2 weeks), so it was a joke from the beginning.
That's probably why France refused it. It's clear that now, any resolution from USA, UK or Spain aims at beginning the war very soon, not finding a single way to avoid it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Menlas
Anyway, I think the UK's proposition wouldn't have included a "realistic timeline" (their troops won't stay in Iraq for months, and Iraq can't be disarmed in 2 weeks), so it was a joke from the beginning.

The UK's proposal made no mention of complete disarmament. It only laid out a series of benchmarks that Iraq could have met in short order.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm very worried about the direction of international events. Some evil fool flies some planes into some US buildings and within 18 months the Western alliance is in tatters. This is not good.

In the last 18 months the US has gone from almost total international support and sympathy to verging on international pariah status. That is tragic and the negative effects will be widely felt by every one of us.

The only one who could be pleased about this is OBL and people of his ilk.

Awkward mixture of facts

Flying the planes into some US buildings united the western alliance as had not been seen since the aftermath of WW2. So did many not western countries expressed their support.

USA' s isolated position 18 month later has a completely different cause, and a completely different man is responsible for it.

I agree though that it is Osama and his like must be enjoying it very much.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
AH, I know all the protesters say Iraq is about Oil. Does the average person think this as well?

I think most people think this. Oil has something to do with it. Bottom line, our desire for stability in the ME is a desire to protect the world's precious lifeline, but it's not the immediate cause. The immediate cause is that the US cannot allow Iraq to go on defying the US while the US is attempting to establish world hegemony.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
while the US is attempting to establish world hegemony.

God is there any sort of consensus on this point? I get a different answer to the question regarding the US status of world hegemon depending on the person answering.

our desire for stability in the ME is a desire to protect the world's precious lifeline,

If we want stability in the ME, why are we going to kick over a hornet's nest?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by germanos
Flying the planes into some US buildings united the western alliance as had not been seen since the aftermath of WW2. So did many not western countries expressed their support.

USA' s isolated position 18 month later has a completely different cause, and a completely different man is responsible for it.

No it doesn't. US policy makers saw the massacres as a gift. Wolfowitz and his followers saw this as their golden chance to institute the policy he'd been advocating since the early '90s: pre-emptive war, establishing US global dominence, etc. From the moment al-Qaeda crashed into our buildings, Hussein's days were numbered. The only reason we didn't attack Iraq right then and there was because the more sensible policy makers won the argument that we needed to go after Afganistan first, in order to rally support at home. There was a fantastic Frontline. You can watch it there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
God is there any sort of consensus on this point? I get a different answer to the question regarding the US status of world hegemon depending on the person answering.

No, there is no consensus on the point. We'll be arguing about this until it's blatently obvious one way or another.

our desire for stability in the ME is a desire to protect the world's precious lifeline,

If we want stability in the ME, why are we going to kick over a hornet's nest?

Because the "true believers" in the Administration really think that this will help stabilize the region. They're on a crusade.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by germanos


Awkward mixture of facts

Flying the planes into some US buildings united the western alliance as had not been seen since the aftermath of WW2. So did many not western countries expressed their support.

USA' s isolated position 18 month later has a completely different cause, and a completely different man is responsible for it.

The 2 things are intimately linked. It was the US reaction to 9/11 which has caused the current deep rift. Instead of building an international coalition the Bush Administration quickly started alienating international support with its unilateralism. Its a peculiar mix of international activism and isolationism. It seemed to be quickly forgotten that every Western country lost people in 9/11, not just Americans.

You would have to say that sadly the 9/11 attack has been extraordinarily successful in weakening the Western alliance. Many good things now hang in the balance - NATO, EU integration, the world trade round, the United Nations to name but 4. Worst of all, this militarism is a massive distraction from global economic recovery. Looks like Bush is making similar mistakes to his father - its the economy stupid!!!