...We have government ministers resigning all over the place

Only Robin Cook so far...

I like his books

Sorry FL, that was a typo on the part of my tired mind.

I meant that MPs are resigning. Also, Robin Cook may be the only one to have made the move so far, but there are plenty ready to follow his lead when the time comes.

"I'm just very heavily against any US government with a Military man as it's President. The President is supposed to be a wise individual who is skilled at diplomacy and strives for peace." - grayhaze

i never realized that as a former military man i am solemnly obligated to being unwise, undiplomatic, and highly confrontational. thanks for bringing this obligation to my attention, and i'll try to do better in the future.

Ditto

I apologise if I've caused you offense Bangkokboy, but I still stand by my comment.

As a military man, Bush is likely to gauge success in terms of military superiority. He's also more likely to resort to what he knows best, ie military action, in cases where diplomacy breaks down. By contrast, an experienced mediator will try diplomacy until there is simply no other option.

If we really were down to the point where all possible options had been tried and had failed, would there be such a clear rift between nations? The fact is, there are still many ways to settle this thing relatively peacefully and with a minimum loss of civilian lives.

By making hostile threats from the beginning, Bush has backed himself into a corner. If he backs down, it's a sign of weakness. If he attacks, it's the use of unnessesary force. For the US, it's a lose-lose situation.

I'm sure it's me, but I'm a little confused...unlike many of us Bush was never in the military and as far as know, still hasn't donned a uniform...I must have missed something.

If I'am not mistaken, Bush was a resevist or Nat. Guard. I don't think that really qualifies him as a military man that can fall back on his military experience.

Just a random link when searching for 'George W Bush' and 'military career' on Google: http://www.hereinreality.com/commander.html

The majority of people in the UK, according to polls, are against military action in Iraq. But in the USA, military action has broad support. There is more support now for action than there was in 1991.

If I remember right, that was Clinton's gig (even though he got out of it by going to school in England (Rhodes Scholar). I don't think George ever smelled a barricks.

sig: my point was in reference to the many claims that the US has no moral authority, and is hypocritical because we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons. Those same people would never hint that we didn't have the moral authority to do *more* damage to the German people, under the same circumstances, and for the same reasons.

Why? Because we see the WW2 Nazi government as a genocidal machine, and we see the WW2 Japanese as simple combatants on the other side. Such opinions discount the millions that were oppressed, raped, tortured, experimented upon, and executed; and is either a racist or ignorant opinion...

The concept of 'peace as the only option' seems to be very negotiable when people feel deeply for those who are being victimized. If, though, the people are easily forgettable or enough unlike ourselves not to evoke emotion, we seem to have the moral obligation to look the other way, or feel ashamed if we bothered to do anything. So what if Saddam starves and gasses his people, it's much better than soiling our own hands stopping him? IS that because they are a different color, religion, or just out-of-site-out-of-mind? An ass in a previous post made the comment that it would take X number of years for Saddam to starve as many children as a war would kill. How utterly sickening.

Europe does *love* to put people on trial once the vicitms are already buried, though. More of a show, i suppose. Punishment is a good substitute for effective action, i suppose. You get to feel all vindicated without all that messy fighting beforehand.

thanks for the link...I stand corrected. He was in National Guard and drunk at the same time...neat trick

My point Frogboy was that the major reason for that support in the US is the fact that Bush has been shouting from the rooftops about the (somewhat tenuous) links between Iraq and Bin Laden. He's using 9/11 as an excuse to rally support for an attack on the Iraqi people.

Thats the point I was making Grayhaze, Bush doesn't have any military experience. I've forgotten more than he ever new.

Nobody would argue in their right mind that Saddam isn't an evil man. Yes, he needs to be taken out of power in Iraq, and a new government put in place, but is the slaughter of the very innocents that we're trying to 'protect' the best way to achieve that goal? Will going to war guarantee that Saddam isn't still in power this time next year? Of course not.

I fail to see how going to war is the best way of removing Saddam. The US have already proven that they can't hunt down one man effectively without killing innocent people, so what makes them think they can do it this time? If it's Saddam they want, then why not have him taken out in a slightly more 'covert' manner?

Grayhaze, I think there are some areas we would agree on. I do think that Bush has handled diplomacy very poorly.

Let me use a skinning world example:

In the GUI Olympics, as you probably recall, we went through a lot of grief in trying to placate some of the other sites. We went through immense trouble to try to keep everyne happy. But realistically, as long as Stardock and deviantART were okay with it, we could have basically told the others to take a hike. But we didn't. That's because our goal was to try to forge a truly multi-site environment where each site was treated roughly equal. But more to the point, that is what diplomacy is about. There is nothing to be gained by stating the obvious.

Everyone knows that the US is the world's only "hyper power". What people resent and are uneasy about is the current administration's lack of effort to even try to be humble about it. Bush and Co basically seem to take the view "Tough shit." as their answer to any sort of international resistance or disagreement.

Sometimes, good diplomacy means playing politics. The Kyoto accords are a great example of that. Everyone in the know knew that Kyoto would never pass. The US couldn't pass it because its government doesn't have the authority to. Clinton knew this but he was willing to play politics. Bush knew it too but was unwillingto play politics and basically said that Kyoto is dead as far as the US is concerned. He did this with a bunch of treaties.

Some would say that Bush was just being truthful. True. How many husbands tell their wifes that they're too fat? There are other ways of handling the sitution and the Bush administration just can't seem to handle that very well and hence this is where we are left.

But the facts themselves haven't changed. Only percpetions. The current Bush policy is almost identical to the Clinton policy -- but without the smoothness.

The whole thing is aggravated by France. Who seems to exist only to increase the temptation of the Bush administration to say "Tough shit. Whatcha gonna do about it?" I know that even I, when seeing France's behavior, want to just say "Too bad. Nothing you guys can do about it but we'd love for ya to try" which is of course a terrible attitude to have.

It is easy to throw all the problems in the world at the US's feet. Just like it was easy for some to throw all the problems in the GUI Olympics at Stardock's feet. But France (like Shoggot) and Iraq in my view are the ones that people should be taking hard looks at. Bush may be an undiplomatic ass but the facts are on his side.

Regarding US public opinion, most Americans don't think that Iraq and Al Queda have any significant ties. I know I sure don't. I am in favor of action for numerous reasons including the simple fact that this guy has been violating the cease fire terms for 12 years now and after 9/11, we can no longer afford to allow dictactors of rich countries to obtain weapons of mass destruction if we can help it. Look at North Korea. Now he has WMD, which makes our options there much more restrained. We don't want Iraq to end up in that position.

That's pretty much how most Amreicans feel.

I may be wrong, but I don't see France in quite the same light that they are seen in the US. You have to remember that the US media is extremely patriotic, and therefore do everything within their power to dirty the name of other nations when they aren't quite as pro-American.

The French want peace. It's as simple as that. They see that there are other options aside from military action, and quite rightly believe that the US government haven't done everything they can before resorting to threats of attack.

Now, I never thought I would find myself defending the French, but I honestly believe they are in the right here. It's not a case of 'whatever you want we'll try and stop you getting it'. It's a case of favouring peaceful solutions over killing.

As a quaint point of diverting interest...in my lifetime I have been irradiated by nuclear 'weapons' belonging to 2 individual countries.....England and France.
I'm an Australian.

Silly bastards didn't realise I'm a Tasmanian so already had two heads...

a two-headed Tasmanian and drinks 'Coopers' to boot

That's ok - our sheep glow in the dark thanks to Chernobyl

I can still find my kids in the dark 24 years later cause of three mile island

In my eyes, the French want to preserve a client.

How can you possibly talk about the French wanting peace while they butcher people RIGHT NOW in Ivory Coast.

OK, a few points to set records straight:

1- France is not the only country in the security counsil to not be in favor of the war. It most probably would never have had to oppose its veto simply because the resolution would never have passed in the first place. That is preceisely why the vote never took place. The US would have be perfectly happy to get a general vote in favour, even if France would have ooposed its veto. The US would have then went to war knowing it got a mojority support with only one fiend country opposing it. But the fact is that of the 9 required votes, the US only recruited 2 other supporters (UK and Spain). 3 votes in total. That's a far cry from the necessary 9 out of 15. Maybe with a little more persuation (money) the US could have gotten another 2 or 3, but no enough. Result: no vote was taken. The US could not risk to have a vote AGAINST war.

2- About the US citizens support, it's all about marketing. Governement spend a lot of money and effort giving a positive image of war. They plead to citizens' patiotic fiber. If the US were to want to invade Canada for example, I'm have total confidence in the government's persuation abilities to get the population's support. They could say all sorts of things, starting with how we are socialists, maybe they could even find some ways to prove that we habour some terrorists. Or maybe - probably - all sort of nice things I can't even think of. They really only need to have a motive in the first place, then convincing the population would come naturally. I love Americans, but I must say it's quite easy to play with their patriotic feelings, and the government knows it. Having said that, the US would never invade Canada, or any other western country for now, simply because it would just not be worth it. But if they wanted to, they could, and nobody would ever be able to stop them. That's why America is dangerous. It's too powerfull, and it's frightening.
I really hope that EU develops strong, both economically and militarely. Only then will we live in peace, when World powers are balanced.
Again, Lets be clear. I'm not saying that it's likely to happen (US invading a western country), it's not. But what I'm getting at is that it CAN. And you never know what the future will bring us. You never know who your friends will be.

Sure Roman times were peacefull. Pax Romana they called it.