Bush,Blair, Aznar- "Monday is last day of diplomacy"

[Elden]

Originally posted by orange
Viceroy - what about a vote of no confidence? Is it possible? Is it likely?

A vote of no confidence won't work - one passed with a majority against John Howard who is for the war and he IGNORED IT COMPLETELY

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Dean's the only candidate who can unite the various wings of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, he's already stated he's going to stop his criticism of the war once bombs start falling. Even he doesn't have any guts.

Traditionally, massive protests during wartime have led to a blurring of the line between "war" and "Servicemen" during protests.

So, yeah, I really hope the protests tone down once the bombs start falling. Even more so once coalition troops are traveling through Iraqi streets with the locals screaming "Boosh! Boosh!"

[Sandman]

Sadly, they are going to get away with this, at least in the short term. Two criminals stealing another criminal's oil, with thousands of people dying in between.

[Ned]

To those who know, are all the Democrats against disarming Saddam - er, let's put that differently -- in favor of appeasement? Give him more time with no threat of force? That sort of thing?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Good question, Ned.

Are all Republicans in favor of extending the Monroe doctrine globally and applying Teddy Roosevelt's "big stick" policies anywhere in the world that doesn't do the US's bidding?

"Appeasement" would imply Saddam is demanding something. The only "appeasing" going on is appeashing Bush.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Even more so once coalition troops are traveling through Iraqi streets with the locals screaming "Boosh! Boosh!"

Yeah, they're already pretty well trained at lining the streets on command, calling out the name of whichever thug controls the guys with all the guns.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Yeah, they're already pretty well trained at lining the streets on command, calling out the name of whichever thug controls the guys with all the guns.

You're killing the moment here...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Back before the first one really got started, I remember there was some footage about some ******* in Baghdad badgering a reporter, and when the reporter asked his name, he said "I um Saddam Hussein. We ur alllll Saddam Hussein."

Crudely staged, but hilarious, in that dark sort of humor you get out in the desert. I wonder if they'll find the same guy to say "I um George Boosh. We ur alllll George Boosh."

[Lonestar]

I was refering to the liberationg of Kuwait, when the streets were lined with the locals scream "We love you Boosh!"

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by orange
Viceroy - what about a vote of no confidence? Is it possible? Is it likely?

Would be very near impossible to achieve, as the Tories would likely vote for the government in such an event. In the votes on the UK's policy on Iraq, a majority of Labour delegates supported the government. Blair is safe, as elections are not until 2006.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well the tories rule in the UK whether they win the elections or not... what a country... the new Labour is really the old Tories... UK is stuck in the past as usual...

[Provost Harrison]

Well it looks like it is going to be a case of 'Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out'

[DuncanK]

Watching Bush and Blair on TV was a big difference from reading about the news conference. It's more obious that there will be no more diplomacy. Monday is it.

[Urban Ranger]

So, GWB made another silly attempt at trying to dictate his terms to the rest of the world.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Both he and Kerry, the other anti-war Democrat who has a chance, both feel that it is wrong to criticise on-going wars, even though that's how Kerry himself first came to prominence, being one of the leaders of Vietnam Vets Against the War.

Properly so. The only way you can criticize an on-going war is if it's on-going. Iraq is no Vietnam, and if there's a political settlement of the the thing to be had once the shooting starts, the Iraqi leaders (many of whom know their only future is death in combat, or death in front of a wall when the new government gets ahold of them) will guage apparent world and US political opinion to determine what they should try to bargain for, and for how long they'll try to hold out. If they think that they can string things along, rack up body count (their civilians or our soldiers), and squeak out intact with a political victory, they'll keep getting people killed to save themselves.

They're still thinking that America sees them as untrustworthy on defense, when the problem is that America sees them as willing to say anything to get elected and not ready stand for anything (though, of course, Georgia did toss that wounded vet for being opposed to Bush's war-mongering).

No, they're thinking that undermining the political policy will prolong the war, and kill more people on both sides, and they're likely right. There will be plenty of time to criticize Bush after the war, and if by some bizarre chance it drags on, then the assessment of whether to criticize administration policy can be reassessed.

Thus they let draft-dogers like Bush make them seem like cowards.

Realists, not cowards.