Worlds reaction at Mr. Bushs speechAudience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N. - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-24-2003, 08:35 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 12:43 PM
Worlds reaction at Mr. Bushs speechAudience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.

NY Times

Quote:
Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 23 A president who has led his forces to victory, ostensibly on behalf of the United Nations, would in theory deserve a hero's welcome. But that was not what President Bush encountered in an icy chamber here today, almost five months after he declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq.


Without apology, Mr. Bush declared that the Security Council had been "right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so" and "right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply." The United States, he said, had not only unseated Saddam Hussein but also defended "the credibility of the United Nations."

But that was not how others, from the secretary general of the United Nations to the French president, saw it. The invasion of Iraq, to them, remained a dangerous act of unilateralism now beset by intractable problems.


The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States.

Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more skeptical than ever of Mr. Bush's assertions, including his promise to "reveal the full extent" of illegal weapons programs he says exist in Iraq, and unforthcoming, at least for now, in their response to his appeal for help with the Iraq occupation and reconstruction.

Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.

"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations."

But today it was more obvious than ever that the key to getting troops and money for Iraq was in the hands of nations that, like France, opposed the war or were uneasy about it.

President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times.

There was another grim reality here today. Even if the United States gets the resolution it desires, the money and troops may not be forthcoming in a way that the Bush administration had hoped. If the goal today was to cajole other countries and persuade them to be more forthcoming with their assistance, it failed to produce any immediate results.

A month ago, administration officials said they wanted billions of dollars pledged for Iraq at a meeting of donor nations in Madrid next month. It now appears they will have to settle for a fraction of that, which will complicate efforts to get the rest from Congress.

Increasingly, as well, the nations that have been asked to send forces to Iraq are not coming through. India and Pakistan now seem to be long shots. South Korea says it cannot decide until the end of October.

Turkey is being asked to send 10,000 troops, but "several thousand might be more realistic," a Turkish official said.

Mr. Bush's performance today seemed to reflect the precarious situation.

Fidgeting in an almost eerily silent hall where the audience observed a tradition of not applauding before or during a speech and offered only perfunctory applause at the end the president spoke in an even tone, occasionally smiling but rarely becoming passionate.

In the corridors all day, diplomats were intensely discussing the recent decline in Mr. Bush's popularity at home and wondering if his troubles would make it easier for countries around the world to oppose the United States on Iraq.

The speech was built around the theme that the war in Iraq was a chapter in the campaign against terrorism being waged to avenge the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and similar attacks in Mombasa, Kenya; Casablanca, Morocco; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Jakarta and Bali in Indonesia; and Jerusalem.

To this list he added the attack on the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad last month that killed the United Nations special envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, praised by Mr. Bush as "this good and brave man from Brazil."

Without going so far as to say the United States needed the United Nations in Iraq, Mr. Bush said it was the fledgling government in Baghdad that needed United Nations assistance in developing a constitution, democratic institutions, and holding elections.

But Mr. Bush's vision of the United Nations role continued to be less than the one desired by France, Germany and many others skeptical of the sweeping powers of the American-led occupation, which is called the Coalition Provision Authority. "He said he wanted the United Nations to assist," declared a diplomat here. "But assist what? Assist who? The Coalition Provisional Authority? Please."

A rainstorm lashed the United Nations buildings this morning, while inside another illustration of the tempests over the war emerged in the address by Secretary General Kofi Annan, who deplored the administration doctrine of pre-emptive action epitomized by the Iraqi war.

As if in counterpoint, Mr. Bush defiantly repeated the doctrine, saying that "nations of the world must have the wisdom and the will to stop grave threats before they arrive."

American officials are working to try to broker a compromise on a new resolution that would get French support, but Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, are making clear there will be no early turning over of sovereignty to the Iraqi Governing Council, as France wants.

The main grounds for compromise appear to lie in the possibility of a fixed timetable for the transition to self-rule. Americans said they were cheered by Mr. Chirac's endorsement of what he said was a "realistic timetable" words that, to some ears, left room for something taking place over time.

"We will make enough changes in the resolution to get others on board," said an administration official. "If it turns out that France is on board, so be it. But we're not jumping over hurdles to try to get France into this."


and NY Times :

Quote:
The response (comment: to Mr. Bush's speech) was cool, reflecting the enduring anger stirred in many parts of the world by a war waged without United Nations backing, and applause was no more than polite. The authority and actions of the world's most powerful nation came under repeated criticism.

Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, appeared to accuse Washington of endangering world peace with its policy of pre-emptive force.

The logic of states that "reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions" is dangerous, representing "a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years," Mr. Annan said, without referring specifically to the United States.


...
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 08:54 AM   #2
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 11:43 AM
Kofi Annans speech was actually quite good. He slapped both the US and UN on the wrist.
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 10:48 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:43 AM
Despite the editorial comments on the reaction to the speech, Bush is making headway with his German counterpart.

The breaking news headlines currently show "President Bush says he and German Chancellor Schroeder have set aside differences, agree to work together on Iraq and Afghanistan"
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-24-2003, 06:05 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:43 AM
Member States of the United Nations that refuse to help Iraq now that Saddam is gone should not be a surprise. Many of these same member states refused to enforce the resolutions that required Saddam to disarm as well.

The United States and other countries will continue to work hard in building a better future for Iraqi's. Its unfortunate that other countries may not participate in that process for the most irrelevant of reasons.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 03:01 PM   #5
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Russia
Posts: 210
Local Time: 02:43 PM
I did like his speech. It was a pleasant surprise, I'd say. I thought there would be usual arrogance and much more "if you disagree, you are our enemy"-like stuff. But unexpectedly, it turned out to be reconciliatory almost. I guess, Mr.President starts realizing that if he proceeds the same way asking for another 87bln and more reservists to be dispatched to Iraq, his first tenure will be his last...
__________________
ALEXRUS is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 05:12 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:43 AM
ALEXRUS,

"I guess, Mr.President starts realizing that if he proceeds the same way asking for another 87bln and more reservists to be dispatched to Iraq, his first tenure will be his last..."

Bush is a President that is willing to do the right thing for his country, even if it cost him the election.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 05:22 PM   #7
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Bush is a President that is willing to do the right thing for his country, even if it cost him the election.
*Cough Cough* Bullshit! *Cough*

Sting if you honestly believe that, I have a bridge I'll like to sell you.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-25-2003, 05:36 PM   #8
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:43 AM
sending 87 Billion dollars to Iraq and Afghanistan was not the popular get yourself re-elected thing to do. Most Americans are against the funding by a 50% to 40% margin. Its not popular during a time when the Job market is poor to do this, but its the right and necessary thing to do for the country.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 05:54 PM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
sending 87 Billion dollars to Iraq and Afghanistan was not the popular get yourself re-elected thing to do. Most Americans are against the funding by a 50% to 40% margin. Its not popular during a time when the Job market is poor to do this, but its the right and necessary thing to do for the country.
Yes but you're assuming his actions that are now forcing us to pay 87 billion were "the right thing for this country, even if it cost him the election." That's a pretty big assumption. Now I know where you stand with the war so I don't want that debate, but I think it's a big assumtion to think that was the best and only thing to do for our country and that he did this only because it was the "right" thing to do and didn't care about votes.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-25-2003, 06:41 PM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:43 AM
Bonovoxsuperstar,

"I think it's a big assumtion to think that was the best and only thing to do for our country and that he did this only because it was the "right" thing to do and didn't care about votes."

Its not an assumption but something that is supported by facts. If US troops do not stay in Iraq to build the country it will fall apart with incaculable risk for the region and the world. I can go into detail. US troop levels in Iraq will cost about 60 Billion dollars for the next year. The other 20 Billion is vital for the recostruction of Iraq, much of which has been neglected from 25 years of Saddam's rule.

Just as the Marshal plan for rebuilding Europe was vital to US and international security, so is the rebuilding of Iraq.

Big dollars signs of foreign aid to other countries are never popular in an election year. Given Bush's approval rating, it was even less so. Its rather easy to see that Bush is not doing this to win a popularity contest. Its a fact that it is necessary for US Security regardless of what the latest opinion poll on the general public might say.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 06:58 PM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Bonovoxsuperstar,

"I think it's a big assumtion to think that was the best and only thing to do for our country and that he did this only because it was the "right" thing to do and didn't care about votes."

Its not an assumption but something that is supported by facts. If US troops do not stay in Iraq to build the country it will fall apart with incaculable risk for the region and the world. I can go into detail. US troop levels in Iraq will cost about 60 Billion dollars for the next year. The other 20 Billion is vital for the recostruction of Iraq, much of which has been neglected from 25 years of Saddam's rule.

Just as the Marshal plan for rebuilding Europe was vital to US and international security, so is the rebuilding of Iraq.

Big dollars signs of foreign aid to other countries are never popular in an election year. Given Bush's approval rating, it was even less so. Its rather easy to see that Bush is not doing this to win a popularity contest. Its a fact that it is necessary for US Security regardless of what the latest opinion poll on the general public might say.
Yes I'm agreeing that we now have to rebuild. I'm saying your assumption was in that the war and how he went about it was the "right" and only thing to do for this country.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-25-2003, 07:20 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:43 AM
Well, my "big assumption" was supported by 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations, the 1991 Ceace Fire agreement for the 1991 Gulf War, the UN inspectors report from 1998, the USA's decades long commitment to security and stability in the Persian Gulf guided by both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

The Big assumption I believe was to think that it would be ok to trust that Saddam had destroyed his WMD without any evidence or verification as required by multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 07:28 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I'm saying your assumption was in that the war and how he went about it was the "right" and only thing to do for this country.
Only thing to do - no.

Right thing to do - only time will truly tell.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-25-2003, 09:11 PM   #14
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Only thing to do - no.

Right thing to do - only time will truly tell.
You're right. It may take 5, it may take 10 years, but there's no way to know right now.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com