To be precise, you seem to believe we should not do anything without France's permission. Why should we allow a two-bit Euro country, that should never have been a Permanent Security Council member in the first place, (Canada had a much better claim to the seat,) tell us what to do? Why? When did we turn over our Government to the UN?
You are a little warm under the collar tonight, Bill. It's not France. It's that without some measure of UN approval, the cowboy image that your friend Bush has created as American foreign policy image becomes the dominant read of American actions. And an untold number of things get immeasurebly worse. The only way that won't happen is if France, Russia, and China go along.
And the cause of that problem is Bush. Well and his neoconservative buddies. Had they done the PR portion of their work better, France would not be able to play that role in public opinion. Right now it does. And, it apparently, has Russia and China with it. A three way veto vote would be very, very bad.
Why am I not surprised at this statement? I knew it was going to be your reaction. Nothing will ever convince you that we should invade, I guess. I said in the post you are answering that no opinions here have been changed.
That's because you've been trapped by the Bush binary logic. You are either for us or against us. Let me suggest you look at these kinds of things as to whether arguments are advanced or not. If you do that, you will see that Powell clearly advanced the argument. He made a much more convincing argument for the presence of chemical and biological, for the sheer size, etc. But in order to have an invasion, the Bush folk have to have a significant portion of the country supporting them. That's not simply my view; it's just about every commentators view. But, further, my view, they need to warn the country about the various scenarios for consequences they are considering and the costs therein. They have done none of that seriously.
3. The Bush administration has to level with the American public as to the costs of an invasion
Nobody knows, John. Nobody knows. That's the "Fog of War."
Actually, my guess is they have a series of scenarios which deal with exactly these issues. If you had pasted my full quote you would see I included that in it. Of course, no one knows the costs in any specific sense; but they know the costs of different scenarios both in terms of predicted lives cost and dollars cost.
France will be the only "major" one, in all probability. And I know you refuse to acknowledge that this UNSC support really does not amount to much if they don't go along. They will have cut their throats if they don't get aboard the bandwagon.
As of the moment of my typing, that's France, Russia, and China all with veto power. Who knows what that will look like in about a week. I think it's unlikely the Bush folk will go with that level of opposition; I expect them to work deals until they cut that down to one or bring them all on board. Hard work for Powell. Particularly if Bush keeps popping off. (Just threw that one in to get you a bit steamed.) |
