grrrr-UN DON'T Play Ball with Him..........don't.

[BabsSong]

The preliminary reports out of the UN yesterday was that Bush's resolution was somewhat warmly received. Today the news is about Germany saying this is a great start, etc.

If the Council gives Bush what he wants, a lot of Americans are going to think this means the UN is coming in to rescue us and that Bush achieved what Kerry has been bitching about (it's not the same thing at all--Kerry wants direct negotiations with countries to get a real alliance together). They will also cheer that Bush can treat the UN like bastards and then make them do what he wants. And, it means way too many will go back to supporting their "strong" leader. Well, playing ball with Bush is also fatal to the UN itself.

If they help get this guy 4 more years, they will be having Iraq type situations spring up all over the globe as the goon presses forward. In addition, have they not learned what happens when you cooperate with Bush? He will go back to his crusade to have the UN destroyed when he gets 4 more years. I can't help but wonder what kind of hell deals are going down behind the scenes (with our taxpayer money) to buy a UN "endorsement" (and that's what it amounts to) for Bush re-election campaign. These nations need to stonewall Bush and drag their feet until after the election. It's in the interest of the planet to get rid of this dangerous clown. Sadly, it looks like enough kneecaps will be broken to make George look like he really is accomplishing something.

[Spazito]

1. The UN won't vote on this until after Brahimi's report is tabled

at the end of the month. Germany and France are saying it is a good start, that is the diplomatic way of saying it isn't good enough. A spokesperson for the Iraqi Governing Council, the appointed sycophants are saying it is disappointing. Don't worry, the UN has bush over a barrel, they aren't going to okay this without MAJOR changes.

[BabsSong]

3. unfortunately, even with major changes, the Bush regime will wave

around the resolution (if eventually passed) as the golden badge of Bush's great international skills and the effect will be just what I described. They need to not give him that resolution until AFTER the elections. They have to send the message that this man is an international disease and thus gets no cooperation. This is their chance to help us get rid of him; or they aren't going to like the animal they get stuck with for four more years.

[Spazito]

8. There isn't a country in the world that wants to do ANYTHING...

to assist bush to get elected, of that you can be sure. Germany, France and Russia have already said "no troops", changes are needed in the resolution, the plan is not clear. That is a clear message that they aren't going to help bush in any way, shape or form. In diplomatic terms, they will not come out and say they will veto the resolution, yet, they will pursue changes upon changes first and see what the US reaction to those changes are.

The UN will, eventually, pass a resolution regarding Iraq, I have no doubt, but it will not be one in which the US has ANY control over resources, decisions, etc.

[KittyWampus]

2. Democrats Can't Afford To Be Wishing For Failure Here

it stinks, but that's the way it is.

[trumad]

4. Agreed

but the International community has to make Bush and the Neo-Cons beg a bit....

[KittyWampus]

6. Beg? How About Crawl....

over broken glass

[BabsSong]

7. They can pass it AFTER the elections and it sends the message

that they indeed cooperate when a decent person is running our government. It would also open the way for Pres. Kerry to sit down and really negotiate some effective terms with individual governments instead of this nothing resolution. If Bush gets this much from them and wins the election because of it, he will still stonewall any real help in Iraq because he doesn't want to let go of any of our control over their economic resources.

[xchrom]

5. it's difficult because the un has to play ball

with the u.s. -- whether it's a dem admin or a repuke.
they are perpetuately between a rock and a hard place -- there are finacial considerations, future treaties, etc.
essentially it's why the u.n. is important in the first place.
i hate it -- but i understand why the u.n. may feel like they have to go along with bushco.

[sandnsea]

9. Or

They'll wonder why Bush didn't do this a year ago and why 800 troops had to die before Bush would do what John Kerry has said was possible all along.

[Spoon]

11. Do you think less troops would have died

if they were wearing blue armbands?

[sandnsea]

12. Oh, undoubtedly

If this had been a true multilateral operation with UN authority and control, there wouldn't have been as much "insurgency" to begin with. It's kind of hard for a handful of people to get support when they're going against truly honorable intentions of the entire world.

[Monte Carlo]

10. When it's still almost all U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq...

... I don't see how Bush can really gain any political advantage from UN support. The UN makes a lot of resolutions.