While Bush was in Vienna, he practically pissed on the US flag?

I can only hope Bush will be firm with both Iran and North Korea.

I can only hope Bush will be firm with both Iran and North Korea.

http://www.patriotart.com/images/06_19_06/HuffyTon1.jpg

Bush should be applauded for finally embracing a multilateral approach to both Iran and North Korea. Likewise, the EU should be applauded for looking beyond past differences.

barney, I don't understand what your talking about. What are you talking about? Your post sounds like your posting in your sleep. Help me out here I just want to understand.

"While Bush was in Vienna, he practically pissed on the US flag?"

Christ, even for Barney that is dain brameged. Forgot to take his meds again I guess.

Ric-o,
" … finally embracing a multilateral approach"
Bush hasn't changed on North Korea or Iran. He called for multilateral talks with NK (including China, South Korea and Japan), and NK refused. He called for UN to intercede on Iran and they sat on their hands. If your making a not-so-subtle reference to Iraq, Bush took the case to the UN, got Resolution 1441, then aligned himself with a large coalition of nations (larger than Bush 41 in 1991). Hardly a unilateralist.

Bane,

I thought you left! I was gonna ask you what site you found more useful and informative. Recently I've been wondering why I'm sticking around. So consider that question #1.

As far as Bush's position on Iran vis-a-vis NK, my previous comment was a bit brief. The fact is, Bush was only inclined to talk to NK in a multilateral context, not one-on-one. As far as I know, that condition hasn't changed. And in that time NK has gone from possibly possessing nuclear weapons to probably possessing them. So on the face of it, one wonders about the wisdom of that intractability was. There may be some, I just don't know what it is. Do you?

In the case of Iran, until recently he wasn't interested in talking to them at all directly, whether it was in a multilateral or unilateral (i.e., one-on-one) context. My understanding is that the logic there was predicated on historical precedent -- namely, the hostage issue back in the late 70's. The US and Iran have had no formal relations since then (the Iran/Contra affair not withstanding). So Bush's recent announcement to start talking to them directly (albeit within a multinational context) was a big deal. I applaud him for that.

Does that flesh it out for you a little more?

Now, with regard to Iraq... you say Bush II put together a more inclusive coalition than did his dad, Bush I. You are right in terms of sheer numbers, but not significance. For one thing, over 90% the cost of the first Gulf War was paid by coalition partners other than the US. The opposite is the case in the second. In fact, the first Gulf War ended up costing us less than $10B all told. The second one has cost us what... $320B and counting? And that's just off-budget, "emergency" expenses.

For another, the coalition in the first Gulf War included many Arabic and Muslim countries. The second one includes two: Kuwait and Qatar -- neither of which has contributed any troops. Further, much of the good news about Iraq's economy is dependent upon whether the surrounding Arabic countries agree to forgive the debt Iraq owes them. And so far as I know, they haven't yet. Let's hope they do.

Third, the number of troops contributed by many coalition partners in the first Gulf war were significant. How many of the so-called coalition partners in the second go-round have contributed even 1% of the number of US troops? You can put one hand in your pocket and have a couple of fingers left over. Not surprisingly, the US has suffered over 90% of the casualties since the war began -- and over 98% of the causalties in the year ending March 2006. That's according to the Iraq Index, which has been previously used on this site as a souce of reliable info. I urge you to take a look at it. While you're at it, pay attention to pg. 42, which tracks the trend among Iraqis as to whether their country is headed in the right vs. wrong direction. It is just so terribly sad. I truly hope it is a temporary condition.

Bane,

I thought you left! I was gonna ask you what site you found more useful and informative. Recently I've been wondering why I'm sticking around. So consider that question #1.

As far as Bush's position on Iran vis-a-vis NK, my previous comment was a bit brief and not particularly useful in elucidating on what I meant by "multilateral". The fact is, Bush was only inclined to talk to NK in a multinational context, not a one-on-one context. As far as I know, that condition hasn't changed. And in that time NK has gone from possibly possessing nuclear weapons to probably possessing them. So on the face of it, one wonders about the wisdom of that intractability was. There may be some, I just don't know what it is. Do you?

In the case of Iran, until recently he wasn't interested in talking to them at all directly, whether it was in a multinational or one-on-one context. My understanding is that the logic there was predicated on historical precedent -- namely, the hostage issue back in the late 70's. The US and Iran have had no formal relations whatsoever since then (the Iran/Contra affair not withstanding). So Bush's recent announcement to start talking to them directly (albeit within a multinational context) was a big deal. I applaud him for that.

Does that flesh my argument out for you a little more?

Now, with regard to Iraq... you say Bush II put together a more inclusive coalition than did his dad, Bush I. You are right in terms of sheer numbers, but not significance. For one thing, over 90% the cost of the first Gulf War was paid by coalition partners other than the US. The opposite is the case in the second. In fact, the first Gulf War ended up costing us less than $10B all told. The second one has cost us what... $320B and counting? And that's just off-budget, "emergency" expenses.

For another, the coalition in the first Gulf War included many Arabic and Muslim countries. The second one includes two: Kuwait and Qatar -- neither of which has contributed any troops. Further, much of the good news about Iraq's economy is dependent upon whether the surrounding Arabic countries agree to forgive the debt Iraq owes them. And so far as I know, they haven't yet. Let's hope they do.

Third, the number of troops contributed by many coalition partners in the first Gulf war were significant. How many of the so-called coalition partners in the second go-round have contributed even 1% of the number of US troops? You can put one hand in your pocket and have a couple of fingers left over. Not surprisingly, the US has suffered over 90% of the casualties since the war began -- and over 98% of the causalties in the year ending March 2006. That's according to the Iraq Index, which has been previously used on this site as a souce of reliable info. I urge you to take a look at it. While you're at it, pay attention to pg. 42, which tracks the trend among Iraqis as to whether their country is headed in the right vs. wrong direction. It is just so terribly sad. I truly hope it is a temporary condition.

Rico,
Been very busy, naw that’s not it. I hate posing here anymore because of the trolls and their refusal to simply knee-jerk anything Bush. It becomes tiresome.

Re: NK, I challenge your timeline, shortly after Bush took office NK was exposed as having processed Nukes during the Clinton administration in violation of the agreement (been discussed here many times.) The Bush admin would not meet to discuss with NK without the other players; the meetings were not discussed until after NK triumphantly announced they had the Nukes, so Bush’s reticence is irrelevant, in my opinion. The intractability is part of the Bush Doctrine; do not allow the violators of the agreements to dictate the terms to the determent of the principals; don’t sell out your allies for a quick agreement.

Re: Iran, Bush insisted this is a UN problem and would deal with Iran through the UN. Because the UN and the EU are stepping up to voice opposition in unison, Bush now knows that other multilateral talks can be productive. Without support from the UN and the EU Bush would be pissin’ in the wind and setting a date certain for the invasion of Iran. My opinion is based on the recent events that you referenced, specifically that we will talk with Iran directly, but this came about after the UN agreed to discuss the issue, and Russia made repeated attempts (this time sincerely) to intercede on the Western world’s behalf.

Re: Iraq. I take exception with your characterization that the recent coalition is not significant, your word. The 1991 coalition had one major factor in its favor and one major drawback. The favorable element was the invasion of Kuwait; an overt act which demanded action. Compare that to the plodding UN, on-again-off-again weapons inspectors, deliberate misleading by the Iraqi regime and intentional interference by our allies Russia, China and France. A real credit to Bush for putting a coalition of the willing.

The downside to the 1991 coalition was the codicil that the coalition may remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait, but the coalition disbands once that is accomplished. Our bases in Saudi Arabia would have disappeared if we had crossed into Iraq with the intention of pursuing the fleeing Iraqi army. Our coalition (especially the Arab nations) would have turned on us and the purpose for the war would have been problematic. Compare that with the nation building we are currently engaged in. (He said through gritted teeth).

To that end, the coalition in this engagement is much more symbolic than the first war, and given the enemy that symbolism is much more dangerous to the nations that stood (and stand) with us in this war.

I agree that forgiveness of the Iraqi debt is critical to the nation’s future. All of our sacrifice may end in disaster over this or myriad other pitfalls that await the fledgling government. I said at the beginning of this adventure, the President is taking one of the biggest gambles of any president since Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation (which could have changed the nature of the struggle into freeing slaves, and could have caused insurrection in the Union, thankfully it didn’t and the Nation was preserved and slavery abolished.).

Thanks for the link, what’s the old saying, “when you’re up to your ass in alligators it’s hard to remember that your primary objective is to drain the swamp.”?

Rico,
In case you missed it, here's why i don't post here much; Turd-eye.

"European leaders agree with Bush..."

Did Hell freeze over??

Bane said: "In case you missed it, here's why i don't post here much; Turd-eye."

If it's any consolation, plenty of other people read what you write besides the addressee. I do anyway. And if you talk about the kinds of economic issues in your high school class that you discussed in that thread, I want to take your class! To tell you the truth, most of what you said was over my head, too. I never professed to be an economist, but your post made it woefully clear just how much I really don't know. The worst part is, I thought I was making some headway! Lol! I guess I'm going to have to bone up.

Anyway, I appreciate you because you're not a bomb-thrower. You're much more inclined to argue the issues themselves rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks. TEO sometimes makes some good points sometimes, but he mixes them in with too much invective for my taste. Worse, he espouses a willingness to learn, but in that thread what he largely did was trash you for talking at a level he didn't understand. If you're out there, TEO, you could have asked Bane questions. My experience is that he tries much harder than most to explain things.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand...

Let me sum up my overall impression before getting into any specifics: When all is said and done, what ends up getting done is far more important than what is said. We could argue the rationale for Bush's decisions until doom's day (which hopefully gives us plenty of time, lol!), but it's the results which are most important.

You questioned my timeline with regard to the NK and suggested that it was discussed on this blog numerous times before. On that score I'm afraid I have to claim ignorance. Anyway, as I understand it, early on in Clinton's admin the US successfully managed to get NK to give up its plutonium program. But the terms of the agreement were stymied by the Republican congress and never came to pass. As a result, NK surrepetitionsly endeavored to engage in a uranium enrichment program instead with technology provided by AQ Kahn's network (to my mind, Kahn is the greatest criminal of the late 20th century and should be hung from the yard-arms, but that's another topic). That project was not divulged until sometime in 2002 (and NK still denies it existed, a fact which I suspect could be taken with a grain of salt). When it was the US, under the Bush administration, responded by withdrawing from the "Agreed Framework". Essentially from that point on the US refused to talk with NK one-on-one, despite repeated requests by NK, and despite repeated pleas by the other parties in the six party talks. Soon after the Agreed Framework fell apart, NK withdrew from the Non-Proliferation agreement and kicked out the IAEA. By then, of course, Iraq was the primary focus of the US, for better or worse. And because it was, our options with regard to NK were curtailed. Two years later, early in 2005, NK announced that they had a nuclear bomb -- a plutonium bomb. Now, you say "Bush’s reticence is irrelevant". I don't see it that way. IMO, Bush's actions (or lack thereof) with respect to NK were exceedingly relevant, and arguably as big a blunder as any encountered in Iraq. I would further argue that one exacerbated the other.

With regard to Iran, I find it incredible that many of the same folks that have been denigrating the UN as corrupt, feckless fools, and have been doing so since before the Iraq invasion, are often the same ones that are the last to fault Bush on his strategy of allowing the UN to take the lead in negotiations with Iran. Does that make any sense to you?

Be that as it may, I HOPE that Bush's actions vis-a-vis Iran are what I thought they were vis-a-vis Iraq back prior to March of 2003. Back then I thought he was doing a masterful job of brinksmanship diplomacy -- leaning hard on congress in 2002 to get them to authorize force, which was essential to then lean hard on the international community to lean hard on Saddam. It all worked to perfection. Up to that point I thought... "woah, this guy is GOOD! A chip off the old block!" Then he decided to invade in a way that I thought was premature (and still do).

You say, "Compare that to the plodding UN, on-again-off-again weapons inspectors, deliberate misleading by the Iraqi regime and intentional interference by our allies Russia, China and France."

As far as "on-again-off-again weapons inspectors" goes, I understand your point. In retrospect I think one of the worst moments in international diplomacy was the reluctance of everyone involved (Clinton included) to respond effectively to Saddam kicking out the arms inspectors back in 1998. On the other hand, by December 2002 I think everyone got it. And by March of 2003 there was a growing impatience with Saddam's recalcitrance within the international community. I believed then, and I am absolutely convinced of it now, that if allowed to fester a little longer that impatience would have blossomed into a broad concensus that action against him was imperative. Then we would have had a real coalition.

Reading your post I'm still not sure whether you agree or disagree with my contention that the "coalition of the willing" is more appearance than substance. I called it insignificant, and meant it in the sense that the contribution of most members is rather pitiful in terms of either manpower or money. My feeling is that many in the coalition remember what happened to countries like Jordan and Yemen, who actively resisted joining the Gulf War coalition. They paid a very high price for several years. Thus, it was clear to many that direct confrontation was not the way to go. Better to contribute a little than not to contribute at all. And that is what we see -- either in terms of manpower or money, the contribution by most members of the "coalition of the willing" is meager. If I was disposed to hyperbole I'd call it the "coalition of the kicking and screaming". Lol!

But you call it symbolically significant. I disagree. More importantly, I think it would have been far more symbolic if the coalition had gotten the imprimatur of the UN, or AT LEAST that of NATO. People seem to forget that we couldn't even convince NATO to follow us into Iraq. In that regard, whatever stones you throw at China and Russia are completely irrelevant, don't you think?

Then there's France. What can I say about France? Lol! My dad's French, or at least spoke it. He's a Cannuck. I have no idea how far his family goes back before they emigrated from France, but I'm guessing it's not that far: except for the freckles (contributed by my mom, who is Scots/Irish) I'm a dead ringer for a Frenchie -- sans the baret. I'm more of a gimme cap kinda guy.

They agree with Bush? Well, what will they do now? Nothing. They will wait for America to fix a problem, once again...

Rico,
I’ll try to answer your questions/address your thesis as best I can.
First, the general consensus is that NK had an agreement with the US approved by both sides with conditions applied to both which precluded NK’s continuation of the enrichment program in exchange for other considerations. You seem to strongly feel that the terms were not fully defined; which goes against conventional wisdom. But, you rarely feel this strong about something without some evidence; I’ll investigate further and we can discuss the findings. I believe that NK willingly violated the terms and, because there was no verification process were allowed to “get away” with it. Once the Bush White House made inquiries of NK, they dropped the façade entirely and announced that they had developed the nuclear weapon we had sought to deny them.

I may be restating the obvious, but as I said, this is the conventional wisdom and even Madeline Albright hasn’t denied that the deal stunk from the get-go.

As to the multi-lateral talks with NK; it is my understanding that Japan and South Korea both felt that if NK engaged only the US, the North Koreans would try to play to our interests and we would sign another treaty that would leave both the South Koreans and Japanese at the mercy of the Chinese and North Koreans. The assumption being that it is in the interest of the Chinese to continue straining relations between North and South Korea and putting Japan on the defensive to prevent any interference with Hong Kong (being an economic powerhouse of no small interest to the Japanese.) By keeping Japan’s eye on the Korean peninsula China is free to play Hong Kong as being without viable allies in the area. A good friend of mine lives in the States, his father is an importer in Hong Kong and the business community according to him is very afraid of the Korean situation, and its long term implications on the South China economy.

We’ll discuss further when I get more details about the obviously failed North Korean treaty.

Re: the coalition. I believe this is one case where the symbolism is as important as the substance; the US brought in many countries with real threat of retribution from the IslamoFascists. Having at once asked them to stand up for the cause, we cannot abandon them, nor can we appear to be willing to abandon Iraq and the Iraqis as that would give the impression that we will not come to the defense of those countries that came to ours, in whatever small way they were able to muster. I’ve heard the argument that the smaller coalition countries received some “consideration” from us for joining (coercion) but if they received anything it’s the best kept secrets in the universe. None of the coalition countries have had debts forgiven as a result of the war, nor have they been elevated in trading status or given any military protection (that I know of). Please enlighten me if you are aware of any perks received.

I think you’re aware that NATO had a “different” interest in the Iraq war, vis-à-vis Turkey. Ask yourself this question, if Kosovo why not Iraq? The bombing in Kosovo and the International action taken during that period was clearly in violation of international law; much apparent and documented than the “illegal Iraq war” digestions we’ve heard around this blog. Simply stated, and Gen Powell testified to this effect in 2003; NATO is Eurocentric and doesn’t look at areas beyond the Euroscope, (It’s high time we got Israel in NATO.

I believe that Bush did a masterful job of aligning the world against Saddam, and I believe that the invasion was necessary. I’m incredulous at the democrats that now say they felt “tremendous political pressure to vote for the war; if they felt it was the wrong thing to do and voted with Bush anyway, what does that say about their scruples.

The US did make a strategic decision when Saddam threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998; Congress passed The Iraq Liberation Act, setting the stage for the second Iraq war. The UN wouldn’t have acted on Iraq after another 100 violations; the Security Counsel countries of France, Russia and China had a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo, and an interest in relaxing the sanctions (same-same; different-same as my Thai friends would say).

Re: Iran. You’re speaking of my personal faith in the United Nations to do anything other than debating until their tongues fall off. Mr. Bush has, on every occasion attempted to make the UN relevant to the issues (Iraq. Iran, NK et al) but has come away empty-handed each time. What’s that old joke about one definition of insanity? Yet, he keeps going back; my favorite stupid liberal line was Hilary lecturing the administration for not acting unilaterally with Iran and damn the UN! “Valuable time has been lost while the Administration looks for someone to deal with the Iranians.”

I don’t become a bomb-thrower unless someone brings up the Vietnam war; for reasons I’ll not go into suffice to say I don’t appreciate those that think Apocalypse Now was reality. I also believe that service to country is honorable, but not all service was done honorably. Tens of thousands served during Vietnam, not all of them were in country, many didn’t survive those years and many gave the full measure of devotion without ever being in Southeast Asia. That doesn’t make their service any less honorable.

You are right in one thing, there are questions to ask about the economy; arguing facts isn’t among the rational questions to raise.

BTW,
The CIA determined that NK had the bomb in November 2002; NK admitted to the bomb in April 2003.
The US signed the Agreed Framework in 1994 which should have suspended NK's program. Good reading.