Full Version: Another victim of terrorism.
QUOTE(washingtontalk @ Sep 11 2003, 08:38 AM)
Why should other nations send troops to Iraq to fight George Bush's war when he literally spit in their faces and broke international law to attack Iraq in the first place?
What are we going to offer them, barrels of oil that we steal from Iraq?
You can call these groups in Iraq terrorists if you will, but many also considerthem freedom fighters, fighting the aggressive occupiers of their nation, the US Military.
What are we going to offer them, barrels of oil that we steal from Iraq?
You can call these groups in Iraq terrorists if you will, but many also considerthem freedom fighters, fighting the aggressive occupiers of their nation, the US Military.
...and yet some in the UN are agressively trying to gain full UN control of Iraq (following the Afghanistan model), Why?
As for the "Freedom Fighters" there is a thread to debate just that topic.
Freedom Fighters
There's also a thread to debate the Iraq war and Oil.
Iraq and World Domination
and of course welcome to the forum!
The UN can't help if it's hands are tied by the US and it's continued insistance on failure. The US should hand them the reigns or stop whining about the cliff they're about to go over. Bush had his chance and proved incompetence. Now let the UN try.
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 11 2003, 04:28 PM)
The UN can't help if it's hands are tied by the US and it's continued insistance on failure. The US should hand them the reigns or stop whining about the cliff they're about to go over. Bush had his chance and proved incompetence. Now let the UN try.
Danya:
The UN has had much more "time to prove it's competence" in Afghanistan. Both situations are difficult. That's no reason to start crying "imcompetence".
"Insistence on failure" Could you elaborate?
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 11 2003, 04:28 PM)
Bush had his chance and proved incompetence. Now let the UN try.
How can you call this proof of American incompentence? Both Afghanistan and Iraq are hostile environments and take time to re-build.
So, is the UN gonna do the job better than the US on the field? It's not certain. I mean, the US have the largest amount of troops in the country and it's a mess. Is a 25 to 50% increase of military going to change the situation? I don't think so.
However, the UN has called for people in the past to be administrators of provinces or countries that had been at war. Mr Kouchner was the representative of the UN in Kosovo for instance. And the administration of the UN works. So why not try in Iraq?
Here is a first reason. Some say that America could find a shelter behind the body of the UN and gradually change the feeling of occupation of Iraq into assistance to progress. The UN could succeed where the US are failing.
Another reason is the tremendous financial effort being asked to Americans in the current process. It's a good reason by itself to ask your allies for backup, isn't it? Especially if you want to be re-elected at the end of your term... But which country is ready to go in, spend money in the conflict, and have some of its boys get killed on top of it? The US made it clear already that oil would not fund the war or even pay back for its expenses; so where's the reward then?
A French essayist was saying this on the radio the other day : "America is the strongest power in the world. And since they're the strongest, it will take them more time to fail in Iraq than any other nation. But they will fail eventually."
However, the UN has called for people in the past to be administrators of provinces or countries that had been at war. Mr Kouchner was the representative of the UN in Kosovo for instance. And the administration of the UN works. So why not try in Iraq?
Here is a first reason. Some say that America could find a shelter behind the body of the UN and gradually change the feeling of occupation of Iraq into assistance to progress. The UN could succeed where the US are failing.
Another reason is the tremendous financial effort being asked to Americans in the current process. It's a good reason by itself to ask your allies for backup, isn't it? Especially if you want to be re-elected at the end of your term... But which country is ready to go in, spend money in the conflict, and have some of its boys get killed on top of it? The US made it clear already that oil would not fund the war or even pay back for its expenses; so where's the reward then?
A French essayist was saying this on the radio the other day : "America is the strongest power in the world. And since they're the strongest, it will take them more time to fail in Iraq than any other nation. But they will fail eventually."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.