Damaged Foriegn Policy ?

[CaptnKirk]

India REFUSES to send Military Assistance
Unless it is led by the U.N.

Our running over the United Nations decisions and Authority - Germany, France, 90 % of the rest of the worlds opinion
to launch an unauthorized pre-emptive strike - has cost us so much credibility in the eyes of the world community.

Just last week the Bush Administration was boasting of all the help we were going to get from the Coalition, and except for tokenism,
and promises for 'in the future' no country of consequence has stepped up to actually help, as the Administration refuses to relinquish
it's totalitary insistance of control of the situation, they won't even step aside and let the U.N. do the job that it could do,
which is to bring in assistance from other countries.

Which brings up the consequences about the information that is coming out about what the intelligence said, and how the Administration
either re-wrote it, or made selective excerpts to support a hidden agenda, while supressing the facts so that flawed information was all that
was allowed to be presented - that in itself is manipulation.
Blair is taking it on the chin, and we have most likely seen the end of his political career since he is holding on to his position of Pro-Bush while
claiming that there are 'Alternate Sources' for the British Intelligence - which Bush transfered responsibility of authenticity to the British.
This will most likely just turn out to be another copy of the same falsifications that we've already been put through.

In other words, Our Government is as good as our words in the face of the world, and we have proved ourselves to be liars,
untrustworthy of leading a nation since greed, power, revenge, and control are the heart of this Administration's agenda.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
India REFUSES to send Military Assistance
Unless it is led by the U.N.

Our running over the United Nations decisions and Authority - Germany, France, 90 % of the rest of the worlds opinion
to launch an unauthorized pre-emptive strike - has cost us so much credibility in the eyes of the world community.

Just last week the Bush Administration was boasting of all the help we were going to get from the Coalition, and except for tokenism,
and promises for 'in the future' no country of consequence has stepped up to actually help, as the Administration refuses to relinquish
it's totalitary insistance of control of the situation, they won't even step aside and let the U.N. do the job that it could do,
which is to bring in assistance from other countries.

Which brings up the consequences about the information that is coming out about what the intelligence said, and how the Administration
either re-wrote it, or made selective excerpts to support a hidden agenda, while supressing the facts so that flawed information was all that
was allowed to be presented - that in itself is manipulation.
Blair is taking it on the chin, and we have most likely seen the end of his political career since he is holding on to his position of Pro-Bush while
claiming that there are 'Alternate Sources' for the British Intelligence - which Bush transfered responsibility of authenticity to the British.
This will most likely just turn out to be another copy of the same falsifications that we've already been put through.

In other words, Our Government is as good as our words in the face of the world, and we have proved ourselves to be liars,
untrustworthy of leading a nation since greed, power, revenge, and control are the heart of this Administration's agenda.

i long ago surrendered any hope leftists could offer a reasonable and/or helpful critique rather than the usual sniping. to illustrate
your habitually selective reading of articles - articles which you in fact choose ! - that don't even support your position here's a
juicy example.

while india is not going to send military troops, they are going to do the following to assist the united states, and they
will do so without any u.n. mandate or resolution:

Sinha said that in the meantime, "India is ready to contribute to the restoration of" educational, communications
and medical facilities, beginning with a hospital it is planning to set up in cooperation with Jordan in the city of Najaf.

and why isn't india sending military troops ?

. . . with national elections looming next year, ruling-party strategists feared the political consequences of sending
troops to help occupy the country, particularly if they started dying in significant numbers.

public opinion and so-called u.n. mandates be damned. the gov't of india would have suffered through their worse
fears of 'significant' casualties IF NOT for national elections. i don't see how these crass political expediencies support
your position - unless ofcourse one person's ploy is another's principle.

these spineless indian politicians don't even hide their contempt for their own electorate. this call for a 'u.n. mandate',
which germany's schroeder also employed during his re-election campaign, is used as a bug spray to ward off inane
mass criticism that has been stoked by opposition parties looking to score a few easy electoral points.

 

[Fencer128]

Hi,

The way I see it is that:

Unquestionably you have the military strength required to defend yourself/your interests.

Unquestionably Saddam Hussein was/is an evil man

Questionably the route by which we got from renewed inspections to war and "coalition of the willing" conscensus was flawed.

Undeniably this war has split public opinion outside of the US, and within it's traditional allies (both within the electorate and between them and the government), like no other I remember. Most of the correct reasoning for this war (imminent threat, danger in light of 9/11) was based on a "trust us now - you'll see later" methology, one that was almost without question by those who were staunchly behind the offical government position in this. Now, especially in the UK, where Blair's credibility has been wagered in exchange for some public backing, it looks like spin and possibly the complete lack of significant WMD finds may rule the day and in doing so lower our public opinion of the US to a level not seen in quite a while.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,
Undeniably this war has split public opinion outside of the US, and within it's traditional allies (both within the electorate and between them and the government), like no other I remember. Most of the correct reasoning for this war (imminent threat, danger in light of 9/11) was based on a "trust us now - you'll see later" methology, one that was almost without question by those who were staunchly behind the offical government position in this. Now, especially in the UK, where Blair's credibility has been wagered in exchange for some public backing, it looks like spin and possibly the complete lack of significant WMD finds may rule the day and in doing so lower our public opinion of the US to a level not seen in quite a while.

there is a very long and tortuous history of failure that precedes the arrival of the 'trust us now - you'll see later' methodology. this 'method' was
the applied corrective to years and years of u.n. impotence and international complicity.

 

[SuperTool]

well, we still got poland on board

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, we still got poland on board

I think Italy is going to send some pasta and let us use their beaches without paying the beach fees.

 

[phillyTIM]

the Germans may send us some chocolate cake, and allow us to eat it too!

 

[BOBDN]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinha said that in the meantime, "India is ready to contribute to the restoration of" educational, communications
and medical facilities, beginning with a hospital it is planning to set up in cooperation with Jordan in the city of Najaf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and why isn't india sending military troops ?

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . with national elections looming next year, ruling-party strategists feared the political consequences of sending
troops to help occupy the country, particularly if they started dying in significant numbers.

Sound much like the reaction we'll have right here in the USA. As a matter of fact I read about the Bush administration discussing this very problem before their invasion of Iraq. They wanted to be sure it was all over before 2004. Unfortunately Bush's premature statement on the end of hostilities and his Disney World fighter jet ride landing were just that. Premature. Now his administration will suffer what India's politicians fear. Unless they're all impeached first.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM
the Germans may send us some chocolate cake, and allow us to eat it too!

I love German chocolate cake.

 

[BOBDN]

I can enjoy the German chocolate cake while I watch the impeachment proceedings on TV!

 

[DealMonkey]

Yeah, if India won't send some troops, the least they could do is send over some of those spicy curry dishes! Or maybe some chicken tikka. That nan and raita stuff is pretty tasty too.

Mmmmmm *drool*

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I can enjoy the German chocolate cake while I watch the impeachment proceedings on TV!

I'll be watching right along, chomping down on some scrumptious FRENCH fries!!!!!!!!!!

 

[athithi]

public opinion and so-called u.n. mandates be damned. the gov't of india would have suffered through their worse
fears of 'significant' casualties IF NOT for national elections. i don't see how these crass political expediencies support
your position - unless ofcourse one person's ploy is another's principle.

these spineless indian politicians don't even hide their contempt for their own electorate. this call for a 'u.n. mandate',
which germany's schroeder also employed during his re-election campaign, is used as a bug spray to ward off inane
mass criticism that has been stoked by opposition parties looking to score a few easy electoral points.

blah, blah, blah...

Who's contemptuous of whose electorate?

Elections are about the only time politicians are scare of the populace and listen to their wishes. If the Indian electorate wishes that the blood of its soldiers not be spilled on an inexplicable cause, then so be it. Jump, shout, scream and tear your balls out all you want - India will NOT send its soldiers under the command of a foreign military.

 

[Moonbeam]

We punched the tar baby and want everybody else to punch him too.

 

[SuperTool]

Bush wanted Iraq so badly, that he would leave our allies behind, fracture the anti-terror coalition, undermine NATO and UN, and start a war under shaky "evidence." Now he got Iraq, and he doesn't want it anymore, but wants to pass it off to people he pissed off on the way to Iraq.
I guess they just don't want America's sloppy seconds.

 

[BOBDN]

To reiterate the point made by the original post - Bush and Co. alienated the UN, our allies (hell, the USSR couldn't destroy NATO in 50 years, it took Bush and Co. only 2) and destroyed our credibility in the eyes of every nation save the few who were paid to go along with this madness. And even they know it was all lies and they are just prostitutes for the pimp Bush administration.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, we still got poland on board

Let's not forget Bulgaria! They're sending a whopping 150 soldiers to the ME.

Of course, they are doing this because they are convinced of Bush's righteousness and most certainly not because Iraq owes them 2B and Bush assured them they'll get their money back.