Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Most of those countries are doing the bare minimum. You can't really say they're putting as much effort into it as the United States or Israel is.
|
In the case of Canada, maybe the influence (leadership) of the French foreign minister, on the eve of the Invasion of Iraq, by the U.S. led, 'coalition of the willing", on a country, Canada, that boasts the presence of a city, Montreal, with the largest French speaking population in the world, after Paris, was a contributing factor for the lack of "as much effort", Infinite_Loser.....
Enough time has passed to confirm that the former French foreign minister, and current prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, was proved correct in nearly everything that he said in his march 7, 2003 speech at the UN, vs. what Mr. Powell and Mr. Bush said in those weeks, concerning what to do next in regard to Iraq's WMD and the threat to international security that they actually posed:
Quote:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...rance_3-7.html
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/st...n_un030703.asp
Dominique de Villepin
New-York, March 7, 2003
Mr. President,
Mr. Secretary-General,
Ministers,
Ambassadors,
I would like to begin by telling you how pleased France is, that on this decisive day, the Security Council is being presided over by Guinea, by an African.
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the presentation they have just given us. Their reports testify to regular progress in the disarmament of Iraq.
What have the inspectors told us? That for a month, Iraq has been actively cooperating with them. That substantial progress has been made in the area of ballistics with the progressive destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles and their equipment. That new prospects are opening up with the recent questioning of several scientists. Significant evidence of real disarmament has now been observed. And that indeed is the key to resolution 1441.
With solemnity, therefore, before this body, I would like to ask a question—the very same question being asked by people all over the world: Why should we today engage in a war with Iraq?
And I would also like to ask: Why smash the instruments that have just proven their effectiveness? Why choose division when our unity and our resolve are leading Iraq to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction? Why should we wish to proceed, at any price, by force when we can succeed peacefully?
War is always an acknowledgement of failure. Let us not resign ourselves to the irreparable.
Before making our choice, let us weigh the consequences, let us measure the effects of our decision.
We all see it: In Iraq, we are resolutely moving toward completely eliminating programs of weapons of mass destruction.
The method that we have chosen works: The information supplied by Baghdad has been verified by the inspectors, and is leading to the elimination of banned ballistic equipment.
We are proceeding the same way with all the other programs: with information, verification, destruction.....
|
With the following under reported poll results this week, and the contradictions between perceptions of the Bush administration on where and how to fight the "war on terror", and much of the rest of the world community, is it really much of a surprise......the way other countries have reacted to the Bush "leadership"?
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...oll_080606.htm
Washington Post-ABC News Poll
The Washington Post
Monday, August 7, 2006
This Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone August 3 - 6, 2006 among 1,000 randomly selected adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus three percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Fieldwork by TNS of Horsham, PA.
*= less than 0.5 percent
<b>6. Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM)?</b>
8/6/06 - Summary Table*
___________________________________________Both Neither No
_______________________Democrats Republicans (vol.) (vol.) op.
a. The situation in Iraq___________43______40______*____11_____5
<b>b. The U.S. campaign
against terrorism_____________46_____38_____1___11____4</b>
*Item a asked of half sample, item b asked of other half sample. Trend where available: a. The situation in Iraq
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608080005
Tue, Aug 8, 2006 1:59pm EST
......After repeatedly touting terrorism as a political advantage for Republicans, The Washington Post ignored its own poll's finding that, in fact, more people trust Democrats than Republicans to handle "the U.S. campaign against terrorism.".......
|
|
IMO, the reaction of other countries and how much they are willing to do, is not about their reluctance to commit to the fight against "terror", but about their reluctance to follow the leadership of Mr. Bush, and to believe what he and his representatives tell them, needs to be done in that fight, and why.
The majority of Americans are only now. starting to catch up with the POV of most people in most other western countries.