Bush senior was a far better diplomat.

[kolpo]

Just compare the strategy used by Bush senior and Bush junior. Bush senior was a genius and intelligent diplomat, he did it slow, patient and clever he even got muslim nations like Syria and Iran on our side.

China offered to send troops, France and Germany sended troops. He even got Germany and Japan so far that they paid big parts of the war. He bought the whole world toggetter and increased the solidarity and power of the UN.

Bush junior his diplomacy comes down to "they are bad! they are evil! If you don"t support us are you also bad and evil! will you have to face bad concequences!" add to this the minister of defense his remarks "some nations like Cuba, Lybia and Germany will never support us!". Powell was at the same time giving complet different signals. At one moment was it a war about disarment and could saddam stay if he complied, another moment was it a war for a regime change and even another moment was it to about democraticizing the middle east.

While Cheney was in public saying that they shouldn't go to the UN did Powell said exactly the opposide. They used "proof" about uranium transport in the UN without checking it.

I think that with Bush senior we would now have had an unaminius UN vote, France would send us troops, Germany would now be paying a part of the war, Tony would be loved in britain for his role in this great international succes and Saudi Arabia would allow US troops from it's territory with a smile, diplomacy can do a lot more then some people think just look to the Gulf war.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well duh. Bush, sr. was professional diplomat material. Being head of the CIA, US Ambassador to the UN, and Vice President makes you a better negotiator.

In this case though, Bush sr. probably would not have had better success. '91 was an invasion. Totally different.

[Dis]

I think we can all agree on that.

but we have to play with the cards dealt to us by the voters.

[KrazyHorse]

Vote Bush in '04:

He may be an incompetent monkey, but he's our incompetent monkey.

USA!

[Arrian]

I didn't read the bulk of the post, since I agree completely with the title. Then again, I doubt there are many people who would actually assert that Bush II is more "diplomatic" than papa Bush.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hell, Arrian, there hasn't been a better diplomat as President than Bush I, since perhaps Thomas Jefferson.

[kolpo]

"In this case though, Bush sr. probably would not have had better success. '91 was an invasion. Totally different"

While it is somewhat different do I think that he still would have succeed. He would have gaved the French and the Germans there extra time for inspection and this combined with good diplomacy would at least have prevented a French veto. If the French don't veto then won't the Russians and Chinese do that. The small nations don't want to fight the US on there own so we would have had a resolution. With a resolution and better diplomacy would nobody except the the usual suspects complain.

As ex-CIA head would he maybe be also better in making a case against Saddam, if he can't do it is there simply no case

btw, have you noticed that he even publicly suggested the UN way, he wouldn't have suggested that if that was impossible. So a UN vote is possible. This is the first time I have ever seen a father of a president attacking the points of view of his son.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think there is a case, but that France would never budge. A regime change would hurt their bottom line, since they are the country that has the most investment in Iraq now, and after a regime change that would be thrown open.

[GePap]

Bush would have done a far better job than Junior on this issue:

1. He would have kept to one message- he probalby would have said disarmement and never mentioned regime change as an aim until getting widespreads agreement on it.

2. He would have openly stated that he would go through the UN- if we blame France's veto thread for our inability to garner even 9 votes (which I think was our failure and ours alone), then we can blaim Bush's constant claim that we could go alone for the French veto threat...

3. High end members fo the Cabinet wuld have actually left the country, to speak face to face with others.

4. He would not have ignored any state, specially allies like Germany and France (this admin. never even called either on the phone once) and would have sought to see what compromise was needed.

5. Perhaps most importantly of all, he would have based the military timetable on the diplomatic one, not the diplomatic timetable on the military one: military timetables can be precise and clear- diplopmacy is always messy.

6. Biggest difference is not that BUsh Senior was a skilled diplomat and junior isn't: that's what advisers are for. The big difference is that Bush Senior believes in diplomacy and working with allies, while this admin. could give a rats ass about anyone else.

[Dis]

I would have liked to gave more time as well. Bush should have pushed for this over a year ago.

yes we know more time is meaningless. But I cannot help but think there was some way we could have got everyone on board if we played nice guys to Iraq.

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, that makes no sense.

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

[Imran Siddiqui]

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

I think that is what they are concerned about. The French are afraid that the Americans will get most, if not all, the business in a future liberated Iraq, which will destroy their hold on the country.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Frogger
Vote Bush in '04:

He may be an incompetent monkey, but he's our incompetent monkey.

USA!

I'll vote fpr bush in hopes of him screwing things up and causing a WW III.


I need a lil spice in my life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

CALC! Make your baseball pick!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

After a regime change there would be a hell of a lot more business to go around. While it's likely that their market share would decline, it's very unlikely that their absolute dollar value of contracts would go down...

I think that is what they are concerned about. The French are afraid that the Americans will get most, if not all, the business in a future liberated Iraq, which will destroy their hold on the country.

But the country isn't worth as much now as it would be when sanctions were lifted. And the French might have a head start too. Based solely on economic considerations, I'd see them as being pro-war...