Bush senior was a far better diplomat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not I. I mean, what else can their chants of 'No War for Oil' mean? They think the Americans are going to take all the oil (which mostly goes to Europe) from them!

And right now France is #1 in Iraq. They'd much rather prefer a peaceful route, so they keep their hold. Saddam has to die someday, and then the sanctions will be gone and France will be remembered as the friend of Iraq.

[Drake Tungsten]

While I completely agree that Bush I was by far the superior diplomat, I don't think he would've succeeded in the current situation. A lot of hostility has built up towards US preeminence over the past 10 years, especially amongst our so-called "allies", and I don't think even 41's superior diplomatic skill could have overcome that hurdle...

[KrazyHorse]

I think the chant means that people don't want to see Iraqis killed for nothing other than economic gain.

I don't think that millions of protestors are out in the streets to ensure the economic health of a select few French companies.

It's a silly suggestion. You might say that about their leadership, but that same public opposition is all the explanation I need...

[kolpo]

"Not I. I mean, what else can their chants of 'No War for Oil' mean? They think the Americans are going to take all the oil (which mostly goes to Europe) from them!"

This could bush sr solve on a creative way: hidden agreement about oil contracts for France in post war Iraq and things like that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a silly suggestion. You might say that about their leadership, but that same public opposition is all the explanation I need...

I am talking about the leadership. What? You think the leadership's true goals and what they say in public for the public opposition is the same thing?

Next thing you'll be telling me is that Bush actually believes that the US should spread democracy across the globe and Saddam is first.

I wonder how you can doubt Bush's words (and claim it is simply a lie), but pay full credence to Chirac's.

[DanS]

Kolpo: Perhaps Bush 41 was a better diplomat than Bush 43. However, Clinton had a very, very similar situation to Bush 43 with regard to Iraq in 1998 and was less successful than him (so far).

[KrazyHorse]

No, but what I'm saying is that Chirac listened to the wind and heard about an unheard-of level of opposition

He's in a much stickier electoral situation than Blair is (there's no credible opposition to the labour party) even though he won't have to face reelection for 4 more years or so. So he has to pay more attention to what's the popular move to make.

Even Blair is on the verge of losing his PMship to internal rebellion, and might well have killed his career irrespective of the ease with which victory is obtained.

So Chirac decided to go with the sway of public opinion. I don't think economic considerations had much to do with it one way or the other. If they did, he would have resisted gently and then folded when the US made clear that they were going in whether the UN said yes or not.

[KrazyHorse]

I pay no attention to Chirac's word at all.

He's saying what the public wants to hear, but in his case is also doing exactly what they want to do.

Unlike Bush who has had to ride the Iraq issue hard to get his own public to agree with him, Chirac has had an easy ride...

[GePap]

Drake: you mean that cast resentment that built up from jan 2002 onwards? caue on sept 12, 2001 it certainly was not there. The French backed us in Kosovo, our last big military push, and supported us in Afghanistan. So were did this "resentent" come up all of a sudden? From the Bush admin's. actiosn sicne the "Axis of Evil" speech, and more particualerly, our ongoing assetion that we could act unilaterally in Iraq. It is that, an asseton that basically states that we will overtrn the international order to suit us, regardless of what others think, that created all the problems. And Bush one would never made that assertion.

Again, the difference was that Bush I cared about diplomacy, allies, treaties, norms, conventions, and does not believe that it is in the interest of the US to act alone in such circumstances. Bush II and the neo-cons he brought with him don't give a damn about treaties, norms, conventions, long-term alliences, so forth and so on. You can't ask for brilliant diplomacy from a bunch of knucle draggers.

[DuncanK]

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

Except when he threw up on the Japanese

[Dis]

I think the resentment was there on Sept12, 2001. If you look closely you can see it in some of their speeches and quotes. But it was not politically correct for them to be open aobut it.

I think much of it has to deal with the fact they do not like G.W. for some reason.

[DanS]

Unlike Bush who has had to ride the Iraq issue hard to get his own public to agree with him

Actually, this isn't the case at all. For the last 12 years, there has been a topline 66% favor removal through force number in the US. This is much higher than Bush 41 had at the beginning.

There is a theory that this high of number actually worked against Bush. He pushed quickly, because he had a mandate on the issue. A lower number would have forced him to hone his arguments a little more and choose his shots.

[GePap]

Which statements forrm France and Germany and Russia, Mexico,and Chile (all states friendly to us, all of which we failed to convince?) showed this growing resentment?

The question is: was such "resentment" present before January 2001? I would say, no. It is one fo the great achievements of the Bush 43 admin.

[KrazyHorse]

I think the resentment was there on Sept12, 2001

I don't think so. Where do you come up with this stuff?

"Politically correct" my ass. People were shocked at what had happened.

Then your ape of a President started trying to tie every policy he'd had beforehand in to the war on terrorism. That pissed everybody off. And it made him look like an opportunist in the eyes of many elsewhere in the world.

We didn't think he was a very good US President before. But now he's really pissed off most people.

[kolpo]

"Kolpo: Perhaps Bush 41 was a better diplomat than Bush 43. However, Clinton had a very, very similar situation to Bush 43 with regard to Iraq in 1998 and was less successful than him (so far)."

Clinton then really didn't wanted an invasion of Iraq, he did some bombardements but not really big or long. Many other nations said "we don't like that' but they wheren't really angry. Clinton also knew that he then didn't needed internation support for those few bombs, Europe needed him in the Balkan and liked him and Russia needed his loans.