Amen-Moses

Yeah get it right, the correct spelling is Sodamn Insane, oh sorry that's Bush's nick name.

I wonder if in future bullying someone much weaker than you will be referred to as Saddamy?

Amen-Moses

John Hancock

Martin Buber

Damn I can't seem to make imag thing work, wrong address this http://www.whitehouse.org/initiative..._bum_snort.asp I guess It's Blair adviseing to sniff Yankee Butts.

Sue Sponte

Thanks for the interesting responses, all.

One point of clarification: the issue I intended to spur discussion on is whether the U.S. can politically go it alone with its staunchest ally waivering in support, not whether the U.S. needs British muscle. It is a given the U.S. can decimate the Iraqis due to military superiority; the issue is the impact on foreign relations if the U.S. does not have the backing of at least one of the major industrial nations.

Personally, I believe it would seriously impair the reputation of the U.S. globally and would, in the long term, do more harm than good. If the U.S. can put together a reasonably representative coalition of the industrial nations, the world will have less friendly ears to complain to.

I look forward to further interesting views.

King's Indian

Thank you, Sue

I'm in the way of wondering whether this does much damage to the US Govt's reputation globally. After all, such places as Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, The Occupied Territories, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Cuba, East Timor, Mexico, Italy etc will have already decided the matter to their satisfaction some time ago. What I find interesting is the level of protest in the US and UK. I can't recall, or recall reading about, anything on this scale. And remember this is about something that hasn't started yet. The only near-example I can find is Vietnam: although there were a few people protesting throughout the early- to mid- Sixties, it only really seemed to kick off after '68, when perhaps the Tet offensive helped sharpen the question for the populace. Perhaps it would be a question of the people of both countries falling into step with what was already a majority view. Whether such negative PR would be bad in the long run is difficult to say, but one good thing must come of it: that people would be a little less inclined to take governments at their word. After all, governments are supposed to be servants of the people (and we all know what servants can get up to when our backs are turned)
(Added after listening to the news: this may all be moot. It doesn't sound like TB is clearing his throat prior to announcing his withdrawal from the coalition)
Take care,
KI

Kamchatka

OmGod,

Thank you soddamuch for pointing out that I mistook Soddom for Saddam. I feel sodemized by your reprimand that I will be seudoserious from now on.

You're sodoming with the immensity of your intellect.

Kamchatka (reporting from Soddom on Sadam)

Kamchatka

For 'da record, I'm the one who suggested France, Russia et al may be playing the good cop to the U.S., Britain et al bad cop.

Now let's apply it to the present scenario.

What has been accomplished?

Pressure has been reapplied to Soddom's regime for the purpose of disarmament. Granted, the good cops signed the U.N. resolution, but without the bad cops there would have been no resolution to sign.

Inspections (in the guise of an easter egg hunt) have resumed thanks to the resolution of the bad cops.

Superficial cooperation with the weapons inspectors has begun. The superficiality of it is the accomplishment of the good cops. The fact there is any cooperation at all is thanks to the consistent increase of the heat by the bad cops.

In the present scenario the good cops are accomplishing the load of Fauvist crap I referred to in a previous post. They are morally, diplomatically, and economically bankrupt of any responsibility for the accomplishment of the U.N. resolution they signed. The good cops' goal is to deteriorate the bad cops' image, credibility, economy and military strength.

The good cops have NO interest in disarmament.

Meanwhile, the bad cops have assumed all responsibility for Soddom's disarmament. The bad cops are investing billions of dollars and 100's of thousands of lives into the effort.

And the good cops are at home moving their bowels.

The French have accomplished one thing beyond creating an immense load of crap. They've managed to impress a portion of the world with their "good crap".

seanie

What should we do about the Dadaist North Koreans?

Ut

There's a reason it's called "good cop/bad cop". You need both the good cop and the bad cop. Of course, the bad cops were necessary.

No, without the good cop, no cooperation would have happened as Iraq would have thought no amount of cooperation could prevent war.

The good cops don't want to deteriorate the bad cops image, credibility, etc. The charge that they want to deteriorate their economy is especially absurd. Among the biggest trading partners of France, Germany and China you find the US and Britain. Why the hell would you want to deteriorate the economy of your trading partners?

The fact that the bad cops image is deteriorated is nothing but a by-product of playing the bad cop role in the good cop/bad cop scenario. Too bad the US and Britain were so quick to jump on that role and on that scenario.

What do you know? France's stance is not pacifist and is not of unconditional opposition to war. They only want to wait until (if) the inspectors tell that the process has failed and that progress is no longer possible. Then, they will support an attack on Iraq (as Chirac explicitly said on French national television)

Such eagerness to take up the bad cop role...
Bonus points for the emotionalist "investing 100 000's of lives".

Chirac wisely picked up the good cop role after Bush and Blair jumped on the bad cop one. I can't believe that B&B could have failed to see that coming.

Kamchatka

Just as the Iraqi catastrophe was fostered by American support of Saddam in the 80's, the monster in North Korea was created by China and the Soviet Union.

America is in the process of cleaning up its mess in Iraq. China and Russia should assume the same responsibility for North Korea.

I'm sure if they need assistance America would be more than willing to provide it.

There is no doubt that the North Korean threat is much more ominous as it relates to humans immediately threatened.

The human trajedy in North Korea proper dwarfs the Iraqi situation at this time. That is why it is imperative that China and Russia apply diplomatic pressure from their positions in relation to North Korea.

Ultimately, the only solution in North Korea is regime change. Unfortunately, the military, economic, political and geographical parameters of the crisis are more volatile than in Iraq, and many more lives will be lost (mostly North Korean) before the solution is accomplished.

Kamchatka

Chirac "wisely" chose appeasement, "do nothing but create and sell our load of excrement."

The juries still out on how "wise" Chirac and his et al do nothings have been.