Bush administration's hegemonic intent CLEAR.

This is not good. It's another slap in the face to UN and the International Community.

 

Not....

The reading of complete articles seems to be a challenge for some here.

For some perspective:

Says Powell:

"...that does not mean we have to shut others out. There will definitely be a United Nations role, but what the exact nature of that role will be remains to be seen."

Yep, that hegemonic all right.

In addition:

Powell played down the differences, calling his meetings consultative. "I'll report back (to President Bush) what I heard. We are still examining the proper role for the United Nations."

Powell and the Europeans did reach tentative agreement, however, that NATO should consider deploying peacekeepers in Iraq.

Powell said the United States made no formal request, but said, "I am pleased that there was a receptive attitude" to the suggestion which was first made last December.

At the time, the idea was shelved after French-led objections amid an increasingly acrimonious debate over Iraq that provoked one of the worst splits in alliance history.

"The ministers were ... more than willing to see whether other international organizations, like NATO, might have a role in helping" Iraq's reconstruction, NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson told reporters.

He said that while there was no common view on any U.N role in postwar Iraq, Powell's talks were held "without acrimony."

 

Re: Re: Bush administration's hegemonic intent CLEAR.

Actually, Karl, it is.

3 entries found for hegemony.
he·gem·o·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-jm-n, hj-mn)
n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.


We're going to decide what role the UN will have.

 

Ohhhhh, the Europeon military......why would anyone be scared of a bunch of pacifist wusses?

 

Universal - you must be French ....

You know why this is the case - that we will take the lead in reconstruction - with the UK as our partners - and with the cooperation of the UN (on our terms) ..... it is because American and British blood have been shed to accomplish this ....
how did you term it? - oh yes - "killing exercise" -

we are going to take the lead in reconstruction and liberation of this people - and the rest of you can go whine to the French.

The Security Council and elements of the UN rendered itself irrelevant by being unwilling to take resolute action. We did. So they can take our lead in the reconstruction, and liberation. Where they can best help is in the provision of humanitarian action.

But I can think of a Warner Brothers cartoon including Daffy Duck and the UN and the French.

 

Re: Re: Re: Bush administration's hegemonic intent CLEAR.

so you want us to surrender now - or after we submit to the global community government?

 

"Ivanov arrived here, keen to smooth Moscow's troubled relations with Washington and London. He told reporters the main task "now before the entire world community is to search together for an exit from the situation." '"


translated - we {Russia, France, Germany, Italy and others} fxxxed up and need to repair our global strategic and business relationships.

 

Re: Re: Bush administration's hegemonic intent CLEAR.

Why would we want all of the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq, except to exploit it and its oil? I think Uni is right on this. Actually I think he's right most of the time.

 

Re: Re: Bush administration's hegemonic intent CLEAR.

Or a funny cartoon from the Simpsons, for those of us not inclined to melodrama.

 

Powell should just say "To the victor goes the spoils." Pretty simple.

We can take a step toward rebuilding goodwill by embracing and advocating a large UN role in reconstruction. The burden is squarely on US to show that our reconstruction motives are noble. That may not be deserved, but it is fact. The entire world is skeptical of our motives for going to war, and while we can't exacatly justify it post-hoc by involving the world community, we can at least prevent further alienation.

Bush needs to justify how the Iraqi people are better served by excluding, or at leat minimizing, the UN's role.

 

I bet he thought these guys were really trying to take over the world:

 

Or they can just speak to the Filipinos.

Look on the bright side, we'll all have better dates, falafel and hummous.

 

Hegemonic - Great word.

The US wanted a broad-er coalition. The French seized the opportunity to ensure the UN would not go along with "removing the regime" as the French have veto power and let everyone know that they were going to use it.

When the US made one of its last proposals, the French turned it down before the Iraqis did. To some, this showed that France had its own motivations for dismantling the coalition. The French, German and Russians were daring the US & UK to go in without UN approval.

Were the French and Germans thinking of the Iraqi citizens when they took these actions?

Anyone can say that the US admin. has more motives than "just" to liberate the Iraqi citizens. But at least they put their a$$es on the line (at least in a political context) to take action that will DEFINITELY help the Iraqi citizens. The US & UK took and are taking a tremendous ration of crap for taking action against a ruthless leader like saddam hussein. And as you say Universal 87% (???) of the world was against them.

So, if and when, the dust clears and Iraqi citizens are ready to form their own government, it would be idiocy to think that the US would turn around to the UN (and France & Germany especially) and say, Oh, yeah, please stick it again up my .......

 

The thing is, the French never had to use the veto. And if all the reports of the last minute jockeying are to be believed, if France had abstained, we still would have lost the vote, with only 6 or 7 votes on our side.

The way the Bush administration has convinced the dittoheads among us to blame the French and not the other nations in the world or on the UNSC, is an excellent illustration of propaganda.

 

We will never know if the French veto would have been necessary or not. We will never know if we had the votes or if we did not. The easy speculation though is to assume that we didn't, otherwise we would have sent it to the UN.

That being said, it is so convenient to call republicans on here dittoheads as if all conservative thinking people who are in favor of this war (for various reasons) yet have hesitations are just being manipulated by the crap which flows forth from the Bush administration.

The French said "we will use our veto on any resolution which authorizes force" because we don't think force is the solution now. Sorry for taking them at their word.

 

Fair enough. Counterfactual arguments can never be proven beyond doubt. You could jump off the Empire State Building and live. Until you do it, you don't KNOW that you'll die.

But here's what we DO know. Both Bush and Blair were posturing that a UNSC resolution that failed only due to a veto would validate the US/UK effort. We know that Bush wanted a vote ("put your cards on the table.") We know the US was "lobbying" (offering bribes to) UNSC members even after France said it would veto. And we know that the resolution was withdrawn.

It's obvious to everyone except the koolaid drinkers what happened. We did a nose count, and we fell short. From the statements of the various nations on the UNSC, we didn't even have a simple majority, let alone the "supermajority" necessary to force France to use the veto.

That's why you have to be a dittohead. The only way to believe it is to suspend disbelief.

 

Stop your blathering. When 1441 was passed, the French promised Powell they would back a second resolution. They changed that to a position of not backing a second resolution under any circumstances. So they're right to blame the French.

But then again, you're living in a blissful wonderland where French influence didn't have anyhthing to do with the US not "having the votes". You are a dittohead of the Democratic variety.

 

TWUB, remember, I was the guy that linked the article about 1441 and its aftermath, and I called the thread something like, Everyone Gets Blamed. You can search here for threads with the word "Negroponte" in them, and you'll find it.

But what about Mexico? Or Germany? Russia? Chile? The 3 African nations. Were any of them going to vote for us? China, IIRC, said they were going to abstain. My vague memory is that of the 7 nations mentioned plus France, there was one that was up in the air, and all of the rest publicly came out against us. Add in China, the best we could have had was 7 votes. If France had abstained, we still lose the vote.

I didn't say that. Please stop projecting your Manicheaism onto me.