One Term President
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
us3 said:
OK....I can clarify what I mean...and this may not be others definitions.....so here it goes.
If the President is going to invade Iraq without the UN....to satisfy me as an American....I want him to get on TV....and make the case that we are in immediate danger of attack from Iraq.
If they feel they cannot make the case to the public do to intelligence reasons.....They should make it to the UN.
If the UN backs the use of force I will be satisfied as well.
If they do not trust the information with the UN then they should supply the information to the Congress, so my elected representatives can do their job.
If the "evidence" is supplied to my Congressman and Senator and Congress issues a formal Declaration of War I will be satisfied as well.
As of today, I feel that the only person from the administration that has come close to making a case is Powell, and all he did was confirm what Blix has said, they are not fully cooperating. The autorization for use of force, does not cover an invasion for me. I see authorization for use of force as a tool for an immediate crisis not a contained Iraq.
Last edited:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
wasnt "A Clear and Present Danger" a
novel by someone?
thank u-
diamond
clancy.
novel by someone?
thank u-
diamond
clancy.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Good, Dreadsox! Thanks for all of the interesting dialogue. This PLEBA girl is going home. No offense to anyone but I'm not overly fond of controversy. I suppose this is a bit incongruous for a U2 fan, and a member of the AWF, but the AWF isn't really politics because it's non-partisan. I'm an autistic and we're quirky. 
I only came to talk about the war because I have such strong feelings about it. I respect the views of those who don't agree. Some of your arguments are very logical. I don't like Saddam, either. I personally don''t think a war will oust him--the first one didn't and two wars didn't oust Slobodan Milosovic. A botched political election, which elected a new president, not to mention a summons from the Hague, did that. I enjoyed my visit! See you around!
I only came to talk about the war because I have such strong feelings about it. I respect the views of those who don't agree. Some of your arguments are very logical. I don't like Saddam, either. I personally don''t think a war will oust him--the first one didn't and two wars didn't oust Slobodan Milosovic. A botched political election, which elected a new president, not to mention a summons from the Hague, did that. I enjoyed my visit! See you around!Sting...
I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to.
I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to.
pub crawler
New Yorker
Dreadsox said:
Ain't gonna happen. President Bush want his war, and he'll likely get it.
[rhetorical question] Why would Pres. Bush bother making his case to the U.N. when he has already stated that the U.N. is irrelevant unless its members agree with him? [/rhetorical question]
Dreadsox, I am SO with you on that one, but in my opinion there is no way that is going to happen. President Bush believes if he shows absolute resolve (read "hard-headed, bone-headed, obstinate bully-ishness"), that he will fare well with the public and ultimately be re-elected.
I agree with you totally.
timoroni
Babyface
one hairy bush
when push comes to shove, el presidente has never had a clue with international relations...it was the fear when he got elected 2 years ago
however, ironically, his plan with iraq is to push till it breaks which makes sense but his domestic policy is the laughing stock of a senile reagan administration
one only hopes that iraq does break, and it should somehow.
bush is your typical southern racist baptist who believes his horses are his family. his bro in florida is happily running that state into the ground. but thank god he 'stole' gov. ridge from pennsylvania so we could turn this place around.
i am glad a narrow-minded bullhead is running this country against terror and iraq. i'm am just sorry that he has to mend the farm too.
when push comes to shove, el presidente has never had a clue with international relations...it was the fear when he got elected 2 years ago
however, ironically, his plan with iraq is to push till it breaks which makes sense but his domestic policy is the laughing stock of a senile reagan administration
one only hopes that iraq does break, and it should somehow.
bush is your typical southern racist baptist who believes his horses are his family. his bro in florida is happily running that state into the ground. but thank god he 'stole' gov. ridge from pennsylvania so we could turn this place around.
i am glad a narrow-minded bullhead is running this country against terror and iraq. i'm am just sorry that he has to mend the farm too.
Dreadsox,
" I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to."
Well then you seem to be saying that the UN is irrelevant which is puzzling since you say that if the UN approves it then you would go along with it period. My point is that the UN already approved the use of force in resolution 687. It reafirmed that resolution in 1441 last fall. Congress has already approved the Presidents use of force and there is not going to be another vote in Congress.
" I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to."
Well then you seem to be saying that the UN is irrelevant which is puzzling since you say that if the UN approves it then you would go along with it period. My point is that the UN already approved the use of force in resolution 687. It reafirmed that resolution in 1441 last fall. Congress has already approved the Presidents use of force and there is not going to be another vote in Congress.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
Re: one hairy bush
loved your post timo, easy on our beloved Pres tho....
thank u-
diamond
who's the new cat?timoroni said:
loved your post timo, easy on our beloved Pres tho....
thank u-
diamond
timoroni
Babyface
easy on the schmuck-brain? never
the true solution to all the worlds problems is education, always has, always will be
too bad his education was one of priviledge not thought
the true solution to all the worlds problems is education, always has, always will be
too bad his education was one of priviledge not thought
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
hey the man is for school choice
and gW sends his love
DB9
and gW sends his love
DB9
gvox
Ghost of Love
I feel the need to flame someone and call some names before I go to bed.
Soooooo
GW sucks big
And he's a big who likes
Soooooo
GW sucks big
And he's a big
who likes 
i wouldn't call him that.diamond said:
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
sorry i happen to agree with timoroni.diamond said:
and gabrielvox, and pub crawler, and melon, and dreadsox, and beefeater, and deep...
Clark W. Griswold Jr
War Child
Re: one hairy bush
Of course, being from SE Pennsylvania, you know Rendell isn't cut out to do this.
timoroni said:
Of course, being from SE Pennsylvania, you know Rendell isn't cut out to do this.
STING2 said:
Sting,
Obviously it is debatable that 687 and 1441 gives the US to attack Iraq without further approval. Especially since the United States is looking at introducing another resolution for the authorization of force. I guess it is not as clear cut, is it? If it were that clear cut, then action would have been taken already. The UN has NOT yet found Iraq in violation to my knowledge. Unless you are privy to information I am not aware of.
So here I go again, trying to explain my "opinion":
#1 IT is a UN Cease Fire and they are UN Resolutions
#2 Iraq has not been found in violation of the UN Resolutions by the UN..
#3 I do not agree that the use of force resolution is enough to invade another country without a clear case of immediate danger without the UN.
#4 If the UN does not find Iraq in violation then to satisify my concerns I want a formal Declaration of War.
Do I think there will be another vote? No. Someone asked me what I think. Can we not express opinions, without constantly having to get the resolution argument thrown into EVERY thread? This thread was supposed to be about presidential politics already! Maybe looking at how others would handle the situation.
As a prior servicemember who took an OATH to the Constitution, I find it to be a bunch of CRAP that our servicemembers are being sent to enforce UNITED NATIONS resolutions without UNTIED NATIONS support. Declare War if we must, that is what the constitution demands of our Representatives and Senators. Without it we have a PRESIDENT, not doing his job, and REPRESENTATIVES, not doing theirs. Going to WAR was not supposed to be easy. I woudl like a case to be made with real evidence to someone who I have elected to represent me. If someone were sending me to fight in a WAR, I would like to know that the case was made and made forcefully with EVIDENCE.
Now what is puzzling to me, is why you think it is not up to the United Nations to enforce their cease fire agreements and resolutions. Did I miss a resolution that states that the United States job in the world is to enforce UN Cease Fire Agreements and Resolutions?
Dreadsox,
Well if the whole United Nations resolutions thing is not relevant, why bring up UN support as a reason to go to war in the first place?
Evidence? Lets see, Iraq has failed to prove what happened to 30,000 munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax, thousands of tons of VX Nerve Gas. The burden of proof has always been on Saddam, not the international community. Even Saddam, legally agrees with that because he signed the 1991 Ceacefire agreement.
Will probably see if Saddam did or did not have banned weapons in a few months or maybe a few weeks.
There will never be another declaration of war. The only reason to have declaration of war is to have congress approve military action by the commander in chief. This has already happened on multiple occasions. But in the Nuclear Age, even that is often impossible.
How many wars have been declared by the way? Abraham Lincoln fought an undeclared war against the South. I'm not sure if the Revolutionary War was a declared war. So it looks like:
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World war II
I do believe that the President must have the consent of Congress and the American people to take the nation to war. In this case, he indeed has this approval. The US congress overwhelmingly backed the use of force back in October. The November congressional elections were essentially an endorsement of Bush's foreign Policy. The Latest CNN/TIME/GALLOP poll shows that 57% of US citizens support the president in leading a coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq even without UN support. The congressional approval given back in October was essentially a declaration of war on Iraq. The only difference is the exact wording.
Well if the whole United Nations resolutions thing is not relevant, why bring up UN support as a reason to go to war in the first place?
Evidence? Lets see, Iraq has failed to prove what happened to 30,000 munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax, thousands of tons of VX Nerve Gas. The burden of proof has always been on Saddam, not the international community. Even Saddam, legally agrees with that because he signed the 1991 Ceacefire agreement.
Will probably see if Saddam did or did not have banned weapons in a few months or maybe a few weeks.
There will never be another declaration of war. The only reason to have declaration of war is to have congress approve military action by the commander in chief. This has already happened on multiple occasions. But in the Nuclear Age, even that is often impossible.
How many wars have been declared by the way? Abraham Lincoln fought an undeclared war against the South. I'm not sure if the Revolutionary War was a declared war. So it looks like:
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World war II
I do believe that the President must have the consent of Congress and the American people to take the nation to war. In this case, he indeed has this approval. The US congress overwhelmingly backed the use of force back in October. The November congressional elections were essentially an endorsement of Bush's foreign Policy. The Latest CNN/TIME/GALLOP poll shows that 57% of US citizens support the president in leading a coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq even without UN support. The congressional approval given back in October was essentially a declaration of war on Iraq. The only difference is the exact wording.
I am close to surrendering.
Sting...do not put words into my mouth.
No where in any thread have I ever said that the UN was irrelevant.
I do sense a total lack of interest in my "OPINION". I also find your "nuclear age" argument insulting to all of us. If the use of force was authorized last OCTOBER this clearly is not a case where the president needs emergency authority to act now is it? Your list of wars is impressive. I happen to disagree with your logic. All the more reason the Constitution should be followed. The polls are impressive as well. Where in the Constitution do they rank? The one thing we agree on is there is no Declaration of War.
My opinion on this situation no war unless:
#1 UN finds Iraq in violation and calls upon the use of force. I do believe that if this happens I would be satisfied that Octobers vote was good enough for me.
or
#2 Congress Declares war after a case is made by the President.
Simple as that.
Still waiting for your proof that the US has the authority under the UN to be the:
Judge
Jury
and Executioner
In the case of UN resolutions.
Sting...do not put words into my mouth.
No where in any thread have I ever said that the UN was irrelevant.
I do sense a total lack of interest in my "OPINION". I also find your "nuclear age" argument insulting to all of us. If the use of force was authorized last OCTOBER this clearly is not a case where the president needs emergency authority to act now is it? Your list of wars is impressive. I happen to disagree with your logic. All the more reason the Constitution should be followed. The polls are impressive as well. Where in the Constitution do they rank? The one thing we agree on is there is no Declaration of War.
My opinion on this situation no war unless:
#1 UN finds Iraq in violation and calls upon the use of force. I do believe that if this happens I would be satisfied that Octobers vote was good enough for me.
or
#2 Congress Declares war after a case is made by the President.
Simple as that.
Still waiting for your proof that the US has the authority under the UN to be the:
Judge
Jury
and Executioner
In the case of UN resolutions.
Last edited:
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678:
"Authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area"
I think that should answer the question. But if not, what is your interpretation of the above resolution which was passed in November 1990 and applies to all 17 resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations that Iraq is currently in violation of? What was the purpose and point of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire and the conditions that were clearly laid out in it?
"Authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area"
I think that should answer the question. But if not, what is your interpretation of the above resolution which was passed in November 1990 and applies to all 17 resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations that Iraq is currently in violation of? What was the purpose and point of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire and the conditions that were clearly laid out in it?
Sting....
With a due respect....
Thank you for derailing a thread that was not intended to debate the UN resolutions.
Thank you for allowing others to express their opinions without arguing about UN resolutions.
I suppose all arguments lead to UN Resolutions.
IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE.
It is up to out president to make a clear case for INVASION if we are not working through the UN.
PEACE
With a due respect....
Thank you for derailing a thread that was not intended to debate the UN resolutions.
Thank you for allowing others to express their opinions without arguing about UN resolutions.
I suppose all arguments lead to UN Resolutions.
IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE.
It is up to out president to make a clear case for INVASION if we are not working through the UN.
PEACE
Last edited:
Dreadsox,
"IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE."
If you look at resolution 678, you'll see that has already been done.
I'm sorry about the thread, but I was not the first person to bring the UN into this thread. I will not mention anything having to do with the United Nations again in this thread.
"IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE."
If you look at resolution 678, you'll see that has already been done.
I'm sorry about the thread, but I was not the first person to bring the UN into this thread. I will not mention anything having to do with the United Nations again in this thread.
As for the original topic of this thread, I think Bush will be a one term president if two things happen.
#1 If the economy remains muddled through all of 2003 as it was through all of 2002. Bush has until January 2004 to get some type of turn around in the economy or anyone the Democrats put up against him for the 2004 election will probably beat him.
#2 This is kind of ironic. The more successful Bush is in Foreign Policy, Iraq, combating terrorism, the less of an issue these things will be in the 2004 election, and the more focus there will be on #1 above.
So, over the next year, great success in foreign policy combined with a continued muddled or worse economy will equal Bush being a one term President. Not that I would agree with the public's decision, but thats how I think they will vote if those two things happen.
#1 If the economy remains muddled through all of 2003 as it was through all of 2002. Bush has until January 2004 to get some type of turn around in the economy or anyone the Democrats put up against him for the 2004 election will probably beat him.
#2 This is kind of ironic. The more successful Bush is in Foreign Policy, Iraq, combating terrorism, the less of an issue these things will be in the 2004 election, and the more focus there will be on #1 above.
So, over the next year, great success in foreign policy combined with a continued muddled or worse economy will equal Bush being a one term President. Not that I would agree with the public's decision, but thats how I think they will vote if those two things happen.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Every time I turn on the news another Democrat is entering the election competition. I don't really know anything about these guys right now; chances are I'm going to know too damn much by the time the primary season comes up. Does anyone else think our campaigns last too long, no matter how you vote? I happen to think that this is why some people don't vote. That's bad, again, no matter how you vote you really should vote!
I agree, are political campaigns last two damn long and require to much money. I'd like it if we had a very short campaign season. Make the two conventions in the summer the start of the compaign with the the election in November. I think anouncement and debate of the candidates, selection of who will lead each party in the Presidential election, and final the election itself, should be done in under 4 months. I don't know specifically how to construct such a system, but I think its crazy for people to start compaigning for an election that is a year or two away.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Dreadsox said:
Last edited:
Here is a great article about exactly what I had on my mind when I said the president had failed us in International Relations. I fully expected him to be weak in domestic issues when he was elected, but strong, like his father in the international realm.
Well this article sums it up.
20 Feb 2003 23:13
Complications on U.S. road to war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - On the verge of war in Iraq, the Bush administration finds its goals complicated by its own uncompromising approach as it builds a legacy that could do long-term damage to NATO, the United Nations and U.S. leadership, diplomats and analysts say.
Such criticism, made in the heat of rhetorical struggle over Iraq policy and vigorously rejected by administration officials, could well be revised if war against Baghdad is quick and reasonably successful.
But as it works to maximize world support in the countdown to military action against Saddam Hussein and to isolate North Korea, the United States finds itself nearly as much on the defensive as the "axis of evil" regimes it seeks to curtail.
Tensions between the United States and two of its oldest allies -- France and Germany -- were on display at a European security conference in early February, then exploded in a NATO dispute over defending alliance member Turkey and at a U.N. Security Council meeting on Iraq.
At the United Nations, council members took the extraordinary step of applauding French and Russian demands to slow the rush to war while comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who more than any U.S. official pursued a diplomatic solution, were met with stony silence.
Later, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin fumed during a closed-door meeting with Powell that the United States was trying to divide Europe as France and Germany sought to unify the continent.
Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations around the world last weekend drew millions of people in some of the largest protests since the Vietnam War.
PASSION STOKED
"There's no question that a succession of diplomatic moves by (President George W.) Bush, including (opposition to) the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and other similar defections from multilateralism, have created the backdrop for this standoff on Iraq," said European expert Charles Kupchan.
"Does that mean if these other events hadn't come first there would be unity on the Security Council? I wouldn't go that far. But it helps to explain the passionate nature of the debate and the widespread protests that have been sweeping Europe. Anti-Americanism has been on a steady rise since Bush took office. It's not just about Iraq," said Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush sought to reassert American leadership and power in many spheres, often fomenting resentments in the process by pursuing what critics view as a unilateral agenda with heavy-handed tactics.
On such issues as the global warming treaty known as Kyoto, the International Criminal Court and the ABM Treaty, U.S. officials declared their position repeatedly, brooking no compromise, until opponents were either persuaded or worn down.
Bush also asserted a willingness to wage preventive wars, reinforcing an image of America as too quick to use force.
The president's reluctant decision to seek U.N. Security Council support for a tough line on Iraq was an effort to win over critics but many believed Bush and his team, keen to finish the job left undone in the 1991 Gulf War, were not serious about a diplomatic solution.
RISING TENSIONS
In recent weeks, tensions have risen as NATO allies France and Germany dug in their heels against military action against Iraq, Turkey bargained hard for more aid in exchange for U.S. basing rights and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rankled Paris and Berlin by dismissing them as "Old Europe."
"I think you can definitely argue the Bush people may have rubbed a little salt in the wounds and the rhetoric tended to exaggerate rather than diminish the differences," said Walter Russell Mead, also of the Council on Foreign Relations.
But the idea of Europe "being increasingly unhappy with American leadership while the U.S. feels its leadership is more needed than ever after Sept. 11 -- that's something that's there. It doesn't matter who was president," he said.
U.S.-European consensus on Iraq is still possible but even if America goes to war without U.N. approval, trans-Atlantic ties will survive, as in previous upheavals, he added.
NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said the dispute over whether to give Turkey equipment to defend itself against Iraq showed alliance disarray but was not a mortal blow.
Kupchan was more pessimistic, doubting NATO would survive the crisis and warning that Washington's failure to win U.N. support for military action would be a "historical turning point that would ... deal a powerful blow to the U.N., (erode) the West as a coherent political entity ... and risk the United States' international political legitimacy."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20391137
Ex-Reagan Official Speaks out with similar voice:
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2003/02/20/35002.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News
Well this article sums it up.
20 Feb 2003 23:13
Complications on U.S. road to war
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - On the verge of war in Iraq, the Bush administration finds its goals complicated by its own uncompromising approach as it builds a legacy that could do long-term damage to NATO, the United Nations and U.S. leadership, diplomats and analysts say.
Such criticism, made in the heat of rhetorical struggle over Iraq policy and vigorously rejected by administration officials, could well be revised if war against Baghdad is quick and reasonably successful.
But as it works to maximize world support in the countdown to military action against Saddam Hussein and to isolate North Korea, the United States finds itself nearly as much on the defensive as the "axis of evil" regimes it seeks to curtail.
Tensions between the United States and two of its oldest allies -- France and Germany -- were on display at a European security conference in early February, then exploded in a NATO dispute over defending alliance member Turkey and at a U.N. Security Council meeting on Iraq.
At the United Nations, council members took the extraordinary step of applauding French and Russian demands to slow the rush to war while comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who more than any U.S. official pursued a diplomatic solution, were met with stony silence.
Later, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin fumed during a closed-door meeting with Powell that the United States was trying to divide Europe as France and Germany sought to unify the continent.
Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations around the world last weekend drew millions of people in some of the largest protests since the Vietnam War.
PASSION STOKED
"There's no question that a succession of diplomatic moves by (President George W.) Bush, including (opposition to) the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and other similar defections from multilateralism, have created the backdrop for this standoff on Iraq," said European expert Charles Kupchan.
"Does that mean if these other events hadn't come first there would be unity on the Security Council? I wouldn't go that far. But it helps to explain the passionate nature of the debate and the widespread protests that have been sweeping Europe. Anti-Americanism has been on a steady rise since Bush took office. It's not just about Iraq," said Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush sought to reassert American leadership and power in many spheres, often fomenting resentments in the process by pursuing what critics view as a unilateral agenda with heavy-handed tactics.
On such issues as the global warming treaty known as Kyoto, the International Criminal Court and the ABM Treaty, U.S. officials declared their position repeatedly, brooking no compromise, until opponents were either persuaded or worn down.
Bush also asserted a willingness to wage preventive wars, reinforcing an image of America as too quick to use force.
The president's reluctant decision to seek U.N. Security Council support for a tough line on Iraq was an effort to win over critics but many believed Bush and his team, keen to finish the job left undone in the 1991 Gulf War, were not serious about a diplomatic solution.
RISING TENSIONS
In recent weeks, tensions have risen as NATO allies France and Germany dug in their heels against military action against Iraq, Turkey bargained hard for more aid in exchange for U.S. basing rights and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rankled Paris and Berlin by dismissing them as "Old Europe."
"I think you can definitely argue the Bush people may have rubbed a little salt in the wounds and the rhetoric tended to exaggerate rather than diminish the differences," said Walter Russell Mead, also of the Council on Foreign Relations.
But the idea of Europe "being increasingly unhappy with American leadership while the U.S. feels its leadership is more needed than ever after Sept. 11 -- that's something that's there. It doesn't matter who was president," he said.
U.S.-European consensus on Iraq is still possible but even if America goes to war without U.N. approval, trans-Atlantic ties will survive, as in previous upheavals, he added.
NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said the dispute over whether to give Turkey equipment to defend itself against Iraq showed alliance disarray but was not a mortal blow.
Kupchan was more pessimistic, doubting NATO would survive the crisis and warning that Washington's failure to win U.N. support for military action would be a "historical turning point that would ... deal a powerful blow to the U.N., (erode) the West as a coherent political entity ... and risk the United States' international political legitimacy."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20391137
Ex-Reagan Official Speaks out with similar voice:
http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2003/02/20/35002.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News
Last edited:
