Bush senior was a far better diplomat.

[DanS]

One thing to keep in mind is that men of Bush 43's administration have a lot of overlap with the men of Bush 41's administration. Part of the actions of Bush 43's administration are due to what they perceived to be their own failures the first time around.

BUsh 41 would have had more people on hsi side oging in

While true, Bush 43 is getting more support in some quarters. For instance, this time Jordan is on our side, even though Turkey is sitting this one out.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Or he could have tried something completely different. Lift all the sanctions, cancel the no-fly zones, and resume normal relations with Iraq. The idea behind this is to give Saddam Hussein enough ropes to hang himself - which was what Bush Sr. did apparently.

Let me see if I have this right .... we gave him enough rope to hang himself in 1991, which he did, and now we let him off the hook (UN says no evidence of anthrax, VX destroyed, remember?), so that we can give him enough rope to hang himself, ....

The point of this would be exactly what??

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You accuse me of avoidance? After you just brushed aside two articles about building resentment of the US in Europe by claiming resentment is "too nebulous" a concept to be a cause for current behavior? God, I hate being the kettle all the time...

One of your quotes supports the fact that Europe was actually doing something to avert this resentment...

And the other was from the Richard Nixon library...

Besides, you were talking about European resentment directed to the US after 9/11, which is patently untrue...

Since 9/11 Europe has broadly supported the US in its war against terrorism with enthusiasm.

The problem is that attacking Iraq is not technically a war on terrorism, no matter how it's dressed up.

Whatever you guys are fed in the US, it is commonly accepted here that there are no tangible links to Al-Qaeda...

The only links are that Saddam pays out money to the families of dead palestinian terrorists - but no WMD...

This is a blatant war of opportunism, consequently Bush's allies are thin on the ground

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Let me see if I have this right .... we gave him enough rope to hang himself in 1991, which he did, and now we let him off the hook (UN says no evidence of anthrax, VX destroyed, remember?), so that we can give him enough rope to hang himself, ....

The point of this would be exactly what??

The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You accuse me of avoidance? After you just brushed aside two articles about building resentment of the US in Europe by claiming resentment is "too nebulous" a concept to be a cause for current behavior? God, I hate being the kettle all the time...

If I think "resentment" is too nebulous a term, then that is my opinion. These two articles put forward a thesis by the author. I disagree with it, saying that i feel that what drives policy is a view of what national interest are and not some feeling; and this being social sciences you can't present me some 'proof' about how their argument is correct and mine isn't, now can you?

On the other hand, when I stated that i felt the failure of Bush 43 to get support was based on the fact that he is a poor salesman of diplomacy and the message was flawed using a phrase, you say : "well, thats stupid" without any sort of counterargument.

These are not equivalent things Drake, and I hope you see why.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

How many bites at the apple do you want?

[DanS]

AS: What is your current thinking on the whole deal? Has it changed lately?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point of that is, once he does that, you put a resolution in UNSC calling for his removal.

I thought that you were of the opinion that regime change was illegal.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought that you were of the opinion that regime change was illegal.

I was merely pointing out that such a route is far superior diplomatically for GWB; it is not an indication of a change in my position. Which is in accordance to international law IIRC.

[Adam Smith]

DanS:

My view is still the same.

1. Saddam is not an immediate threat to anybody.
2. US has bigger fish to fry (Al Qeda, Israel - Pal, possibly NK)
3. We could take care of Iraq for virtually nothing if we waited a year.