Skepticism Greets Bush's Multilateral Move

[lanlady]

The Bush administration's hopes of getting more foreign troops in Iraq depend not only on winning over the United Nations – the White House also confronts vocal opposition in the key countries that it hopes will supply the soldiers.

Bush officials now seek what they once disdained: a Security Council resolution granting the world body greater control over peacekeeping and the formation of a new Iraqi government. U.S. policymakers hope this will persuade other nations to relieve U.S. troops stretched thin by hit-and-run attacks, heat and hatred. The Post suggests that the U.S. is especially keen to enlist nations whose armed forces include Muslim soldiers, namely Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Turkey.

But commentary in the English-language online media in those countries suggests the hazards of Washington's new multilateral message. Most pundits express little enthusiasm and lots of resistance to the idea of an international force under U.S. military command....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19862-2003Sep3.html

[ixion]

1. absolutely NOT under military command

I think they've proven that they are utterly incompetent to do this sort of thing.

[CatWoman]

2. hahhahahahaha

suck on it, cod piece boy!!!

hahahahahahahahaha

who's "irrelevant" now??

[Kellanved]

5. Schröder said much the same thing today

He said "it overstrains our capabilities and our political will" today in Halle.

[DemNoir]

3. Skepticism Greets Bush?

Oh my, what has our great leader come too?

[gratuitous]

7. But, but, but . . .

Don't they know what an honorable and Christian man Lil George is? And how he's brought honestude and integriosity to the White House? Don't they care that they're making him look bad?

[HereSince1628]

4. I think maybe they've read the National Security Strategy...

And know you can't help a hegemonon too soon. Much better if you wait until the bully is in the quicksand up to its neck, it becomes rapidly more friendly at that point.

[prolesunited]

6. Gee, I wonder why

Perhaps you shouldn't have LIED ABOUT THE WMDS!!! Look how many people are suffering as a result of the evil PNAC cabal.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Rollins]

8. What is going on behind the scenes?

Whatever it is bet it has a lot of '0's behind it. Economic Aid to countries like Slavakia, planes for Turkey, the right for Russia to crush the Chechneyian uprising? What about the EU which is a large part of the UN? Why would the EU bail us out? We are the economic competition to countries like France and Germany wouldn't they want to see us get caught in this mess? I realize I know little about world affairs but wonder if our debt has anything to do with the UN coming on board? Iraq owes Russia billions, Bush might throw that in to get Russia to come on board but also wonder if the US is balking on any payments of it's own debt? They already balked on paying the UN bill in New York, wonder if those cheap bastards have something else up their sleeves?

[gulliver]

9. I don't see how our case has gotten any better.

Before the war:
1. Powell forcefully says Iraq definitely has scads of WMDs.
2. Neocons scurrilously attack allies who are skeptical.
3. Allies worried about possible quagmire and Iraq spinning out of control.

The U.N. decided not to go in with us.

After the war:
1. Powell was forcefully wrong about the WMDs.
2. Neocons still sneering about the French and Germans, but a little quieter.
3. There is clear evidence of violence, a possible quagmire, and Iraq spinning out of control (so much so that the Bushies are calling back the U.N. in fact)

And the U.N. is going to change its mind now?

Personally, I think Bush is just trying to fend off critics in the U.S. by going through the motions with the U.N. Bush won't actually give the U.N. what it wants (turnover of sovereignty to Iraqis), because the Iraqis would promptly start cutting deals with Russia and Europe. And that's the best case.

This is a chance for Bush to show that humility he said (in the 2000 debates) would lead other nations to respect us. It would be good for the country, but his base would howl.

[Warren Stuart]

10. It makes you wonder, what's his real motive?

Of course they will be skeptic, you would have to be an idiot to think otherwise. So what bunch of idiots would actually believe that he is being sincere? (scratches head, looks at FOX, says hmmm).

Maybe he is saying this more for domestic consumption than anything else. For what reason? So he can say that he extended the olive branch, but those faithless Europeans wouldn't assist the US in our crusade to liberate the world from evil and terror.

This is just an opportunity to bash Old Europe all over again.

[lanlady]

11. Yep, and they performed the same tap dance

last week, only with Armitage instead of Powell doing the talking. This time next month we'll be hearing about those "gutless UN cowards" who'd rather make chocolate than help the Iraqi people.

[screembloodymurder]

18. Already hearing their new line on TV

They (the French, Germans, etc.) want us to fail.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

12. Bubba explains it...

Ya' see, Dubya, before we invaded Iraq, we essentially told the UN to go fuck itself. Ya' said Iraq had all sorts of weapons of mass destruction that the people they had over there was too stupid to find.

Dubya, ya' can't shit on someone and ask 'em to pay you for the honor of bein' shit on. It just don't work that way. Ya' see, most of those folks out there in the rest of the world kinda' like seeing that they were right and you were wrong and are tickled to death to see you squirm... To put it bluntly Boyo, you got a snowball's chance in hell of these people wanting to help ya' without you laying down some serious grease.

[sushi]

13. It has finally got through to him

that the deteriorating mess in Iraq is not good for the coming election! It has also taught him that even the most powerful country needs friends. I can't believe how ignorant he is!

[Beetwasher]

14. They're on to this admin. BIG TIME: CANNON FODDER

"To simply replace U.S. soldiers with foreign soldiers but to retain U.S. command would hardly serve the purpose, unless the intent is to simply use the foreign soldiers as cannon fodder."

That is EXACTLY why this admin. is going to the UN now. For more cannon fodder and PR cover...

[peterh]

15. It’s kinda fun to go back and look at pass articles....

to see who has egg on their face….

Like this one on April, 11th

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2941417.stm>

Secretary of State Colin Powell said coalition members - who had "invested this political capital and life and treasure into this enterprise" - would play the leading role in shaping Iraq's future.

On the same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz put it more flatly: "The UN can't be in charge".

Our correspondent, Steve Rosenberg, says the trilateral talks are a bid to regain political capital and clout lost in the damaging clash over how to deal with Iraq.
Russia, in particular, is trying to promote itself as a peacemaker, he says - not the image depicted in the headline of one of Russia's national newspapers on Friday, which dubbed the meeting "summit of the losers".



Who are the losers now?

[htuttle]

16. I've been trying to hunt down some statistics

It occurred to me that Bush is asking for UN troop commitments on a scale only rivaled by the Korean War. What I'm wondering is whether they are looking to get MORE international troops than were involved in the Korean War. I think there were less than 50,000 UN allied troops in Korea at any one time (not counting US and ROK troops).

In order to take the pressure off the US military, they would need at LEAST that many, and they probably would need more than are there right now.

I just don't see it happening. The mood of the international community toward the 'war' in Iraq is about 180 degrees opposite what it was in Korea in the '50's (and, of course, the Korean War was about defending against an illegal invasion, not cleaning up after one).

[Gloria]

21. Randi Rhodes said today that it was all about taking the troops in

Iraq and using them against N. Korea!

Sounds perfectly plausible to me....with negotiations going south, Bush will now start a drumbeat about N. Korea, nukes....and will get his next war going...

[Old and In the Way]

17. Het UN, make the man a deal!

You resign...we'll clean up your mess.

I hope they show him who is truly irrelevant.

[cliss]

19. The longer the UN and Europe hold out...

the better it is for them. The US is trying to bargain right now, and they're still playing hardball. They still want to call all the shots. This is a typical move from a party who's used to being the "top banana", used to calling the shots.

They're "horse trading" right now, from a position of "supposed" strength. Give them a few more weeks. Watch the perspiration start to build up on their upper lip.

It's in the UN's absolute interest to do nothing. The US position can only deteriorate from now. It's kind of like trying to scalp tickets to the opera......the show's already half-over.....

[aquart]

25. They're used to dealing with Democrats who just roll over

And give them whatever they want.

Europe just ain't that easy.

[Gloria]

20. Gosh, I even saw an editorial from Taiwan that said that bailing out Bush

now would mean he would feel free to do whatever he wants in the future...

The Taiwanese are right on that one!

[Sick of Bullshit]

22. Skepticism should greet the bastard's EVERY move

Rule of thumb: Never, EVER take the cabal's word at face value.

[Enraged_Ape]

23. I sincerely hope the UN tells Bush to fuck himself

Although I know that probably won't happen, since BushCo will surely pull some underhanded bullshit to threaten the the nations of the UN into sending troops.

But I can still hope. The UN was the body that Bush himself called an "irrelevant debating society", and there just is no better opportunity than now to hand this cretin chimp his ass on the world stage.

[wabeewoman]

24. Ohhh, I have the BEST senario

The UN says since its obvious this administration doesn't represent the best interests of the US, obviously are incompetent and weren't elected by the people, the rest of the world will step in when bush hands the presidency over to Al Gore, the democratically elected president. Now THAT would be a solution!