Britain and the United States find themselves isolated in the UN

July 21, 2006
World News
Times Online

Britain and US block ceasefire calls

{snip}

Britain and the United States argue that a cessation of hostilities would be premature unless the conditions are created for a durable peace, by disarming Hezbollah and extending Lebanese government control to the south of the country.

France, by contrast, has called for an "humanitarian truce" to alleviate the suffering of civilians as soon as possible. It has proposed that the Security Council call for a ceasefire, while addressing the underlying causes of the conflict.

Russia, Greece, Congo, Peru and Qatar, the sole Arab representative on the Security Council, have all also endorsed the need for an immediate cessation of hostilities. Qatar has accused council members of "vacillating" and called for a Security Council resolution as soon as possible.

Mr Annan’s six-point peace plan calls for an "enlarged peacekeeping force", to help the Lebanese army move into the south and for an international conference to disarm Hezbollah.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, today urged Mr Blair and Mr Bush to change their minds and back the UN's call for an immediate ceasefire. The Pope has also called for a cessation of hostilities.

report: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2280081,00.html

We can't do anything about him, but he always requires Britain for cover. As long as he has Tony Blair trotting along in his wake, he and the press can maintain the illusion that his administration is the beloved, beneficient savior of the world, instead of the increasingly hated bully of the world.
Maybe you don't know your own power to affect events--but believe this: without Blair's loyal vassalage Bush can't do half the shit he does. He would be too isolated.

in which his party has a majority. He gets some criticism from his backbenchers, but most of them are too worried about being seen as regicides, which they think looks bad to the voters, to do anything about it.

As to why Blair got re-elected in 2005: you can raise that in the DU UK forum, and re-open some wounds. Those who voted Labour will say the alternatives were worse; I disagree with them.

All Bolton has to do is whisper in his ear the words "oil for food program" and Kofi will say whatever he is told to say.

Don

the question - why then could not the same thing happen in Iraq....or Afghanistan, for that matter

Understand - I'm not interested in comparing the situations(Iraq/Lebanon,who started what, who did what)...I'm saying the end game...how it is allowed to resolve...plays directly into Bush's on war on terror. This tug of war is between Bush and the UN...his contempt for the UN...and his support of his own horrible policy (the war on terror)

take this sentence from the article...

"Britain and the United States argue that a cessation of hostilities would be premature unless the conditions are created for a durable peace, by disarming Hezbollah and extending Lebanese government control to the south of the country."

Now re-read that same sentence..

Britain and the United States argue that a cessation of hostilities between coalition forces and "insurgents" would be premature unless the conditions are created for a durable peace, by disarming the militias and Al-Queada operatives and extending Iraqi government control throughout the country.


If the UN steps in and manages to obtain some success, then Bush and Blair lose control of the war on terror. UN intervention opens the door to another way of handling terrorism.(that does include disarming known terrorist groups but doesn't involve unilateral invasions of sovereign countries)

An UN intervention would just further point to how wrong Bush has been...

Bush doesn't have any interests in doing anything that would expose his war on terror as a sham. Allowing the UN to lead the way would expose it.

Unless Bush and crew get to write the UN initiative to fit into their way of thinking, they won't back it...they can't back it.

I don't know how much success the UN can achieve, but I do know doing it Bush's way has been disastrous.

We do what the US State Department tell us to do (and the US Defense Department tell the State Department what to do). It really is pathetic.