if we have proven to be incompetent then how come a majority of the Iraqis accept us still?

Or is it because we can't get the power on? Well, maybe it's because the power system was invented before i was born.



so how do you explain the Brits in Basra? tourists?




I'll acknowledge whatever i want. If you can't stand that, tough



The UN, before the bombing of their building, was leading teams to discuss issues like mines, police & army forces, and basic service repair. Now, they don't want to complete that & so they run off with their tails tucked between their legs along with the World Bank. So much for helping the Iraqis. Kofi Annan should be replaced with someone with more backbone instead of some little pacifist chicken

i can also see this thread is turning slowly into the American bash Fest thread and not the "What should the UN do now" thread.

Personally I have little faith in the ability of the UN to clean up any mess. The UN is incompetant when it comes to peacekeeping missions. If the UN were to take a leading role, its likely the rules of engagement would be so restrictive to the point of rendering troops on the ground impotent in the face of attacks. Srebrenica is a shining example of why the UN shouldn't take a leading role in Iraq. They are excellent with humanitarian missions, but horrible when it comes to peacekeeping.

And we are great at war but suck at peace keeping and nation building. So where do we go from here if we aren't going to ask them to help in those efforts? What other options do we have besides stagnation and death to our troops? (honest question btw).

GA,
You aren't whining about people picking on the poor USA are you?

I hope not...the non American's posting here might get the idea we were a bunch of crybabies that love to dish it out but can't take it (even when it's well deserved).

Good point.
But then again the demonstrations and killings are not a consideration

Or could it be having the crap bombed out of it.....shock and awe?
As for the power system being invented before you were born.
Could it be the same antiquity that caused your blackouts?

Go find out how many have been withdrawn................


I do admire your continued defence of the indefenceable. At least you say your piece with no frills and ribbons.

As for this thread degenerating...............it is going that way and should stop.
The original questions were............Another victim of terrorism, Should the UN get involved now?..NOT..What should the UN do now

I thought we were trying to put our reasons why the international body nor the UN should NOT get involved.............I apologise if I was wrong.

Regards.....Alan

I don't know why, whether you were pro-war or anti-war, you wouldn't want the UN to go in, because obviously the worst thing to come out of this is strained relations between the US and the rest of the world, the beginning of what could be a much greater conflict. Iraq and the Iraqi people are just another stepping stone for truly global power, in the same path that Nicaragua, Chile, Indonesia, the Phillipenes and Hiati were when we supported their bloodthirsty dictators to kill their popular movements, sometimes to the tune of over a million people.

We can stop that from happening by popular ogranization and protest, but we can't stop the bombs once they start to fly. We need the UN and US working together, maybe Americans could even come around to a sane foriegn policy.

I believe that it is the obligation of the United Nations to be involved. This last, crazy bombing of UN personnel has made them less enthusiastic, less optimistic, I am sure. An old quotation comes to mind (source, anyone?): "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

What right do we have to tell the UN, no, you can't go in--it's too dangerous for you? I fear for the slaughter of more international forces due to these rabid terrorists, but I so want our own troops to come home and get back to their lives.

There is much in this by rattlesnake that is worth reading.


There are already strained relations between America and us out here.
Distrust and fear of what you may do to us if we say NO, being a couple .

The last part of Rattlesnakes post is already happening, sad but true.
No longer are Americans welcomed as residents in foreign countries as friends, but with mistrust, fear and a sinking feeling.

Regards...Alan

More stories coming out saying Powell's campaign Thursday at the UN, calling on on member states to do more to help in Iraq, while at the same time making it clear that Washington won't cede any military power, isn't going well. Annan warned we would face failure unless we were willing to share in any decision making powers. France, Russia, India, and others have all ruled out sending troops unless it's under the UN umbrella. Turkey, like Japan, has now delayed any decisions to send troops until they see what happens at the UN.

Someone really ought to tell Bush all of this because that's not the message he's giving during his campaign funding speeches.



He never explains what he's basing this prediction on, who the other countries will be, or when they would be joining. In fact he doesn't even acknowledge the fact that everyone seems to be turning our requests down.

I would like HIM to tell us how come he won't share the decision making powers necessary to bring in the international community now if we really are trying to liberate Iraq instead of occupy it. At least he's already decided to send our troops on hunter missions once help arrives. Sounds like more midnight raids to me. If you weren't paying close attention you might get the impression Bush almost has everything all worked out when it comes to bringing in some help even if that is not the case.


Iraq may not have had al Qaida TYPE fighters blowing up their buildings before but they sure do now thanks to our war on terror. I thought the whole idea was to rid countries of terrorists...not invite them into places they did not yet exist.


yahoo
When will he get a new gimmick? This one reminds me of the movie The Jerk. There is a part where Steve Martin assumes a deranged gunman is shooting up his gas station because of the cans of motor oil displayed nearby. He concludes this guy must harbor a deep sick hatred for cans. It never occurs to him that he's the real target. Terrorist are now flooding to Iraq because of their deep sick hatred for freedom! Yeah...that's it.

Maybe Steve Martin should consider a making a sequal to The Jerk. He could play the President and call it The Idiot.

I think we've passed the point of return, and Iraq is our problem now. Even if the UN or preferably NATO were brought in, the US will still rightfully be expected to take the leading role. Either way we are going to lose troops. We also can't withdraw, as Iraq would collapse into anarchy and would become a second Afghanistan.

Thank You Danya for supporting my hypothesis that this is turning into Bush/American bash fest.

ALAN:



So how do you explain this:

Liberians: Thank You George Bush!

You may think Bush and America mean the same thing. I certainly do NOT.

This thread can hardly be described as one full of America Bashing. As far as I can see everyone else on earth got singled out and called childish names EXCEPT the US...and you were the one doing all the bashing.


Kofi Annan was called "a little pacifist chicken".

The Un was said to have "run out of Iraq like scared mice" and left their jobs to everyone else.

Poland and Spain was "scared so they left the U.S. to do what they were assigned".

You implied the International Community went "running to mommy" because they were "gutless" and "big talking buttheads"

You called Spain and Poland "weaklings. No guts to hang around when the going gets tough."

You said the French and German troops are "big mouths" and "just SCARED to get a casuality".

You said the "Germans hide under their beds" & the "French make more white flags for any other wimp who wishes to give up. "

All that in one thread.

I'm tired of worrying about the Bush defenders scolding anyone who dares to point out his obvious failures and mistakes and lies. If what I say about him hurts your feelings that's just too bad. You can pass over my posts, put me on ignore, or just get over it. I don't care which one you choose but it's your problem...not mine and I'm going to say what I think about him from now on.

Well being bush is the "man" who gave the order to attack Iraq without u.n consent, why should it not have to do with bush. That overall seems like a lame way to play it off.

On July 2nd, your esteemed and deranged president ( with a small 'p') challenged the Iraqi guerillas to "bring it on".
They did.

While America has testosterone saturated, deranged maniacs running the country NOBODY willingly wants anything to do with you and are starting to put a little political distance between America and themselves.

It may be hard for Americans to understand that the US has placed itself in a position of subservience to the UN.
The member countries with the military clout to help America were abused, derided and ignored and now understandably want control by the UN. America will eventually concede.
Lets just remember the recent political phraseology....."..the United States calls on..".
Not DEMANDS any more.

The UN has stated its case for involvement.
The UN will gets what it wants, it may not appear that way, but it will.

Regards....Alan

The question was why would the UN insist on control of the reconstruction in Iraq? You feel the US wants control over the oil. What does the UN want? That was the question I posed...

It must hurt like the devil to know that now we have to depend on the nations who not long ago were disparaged and ridiculed by the Great Bush Patriots. Now that American soldiers are targets of every Tom, Dick and Harry the Terrorist group, not to mention Iraqi citizens who have had enough, who's sorry now?

The UN will have to fix this mess, and don't be too surprised if they're not above singing choruses of "I told you so" to President Bush and his cowboy cabinet. Maybe Halliburton thinks it was worth it, but ask the spouse of a soldier who hasn't returned yet, or maybe won't return ever.

This war was ill-advised, took us off the trail of hunting al-Qaeda terrorists, and will continue to cost us lives and billions of dollars for an indeterminate time.
President Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell were dishonest to the world and the American people and I hope it bites them in the butt when Congress digs up all of the whys and wherefores.

Are we safer because of this war on Iraq? Don't kid yourself.

It would be hypocritical of me to deny that the oil is a factor for the UN and its member nations.
The fear is that the US would have tentative control over oil, even perhaps OPEC.

A share in it would be advantageous, in exchange for hooking America out of the mess its got itself in.

Regards......Alan

goamerica: Weren't you one of the cheerleaders for our invasion of Iraq in the first place? Do you not see the inconsistency in telling the United Nations to take a flying leap at the moon when it was reluctant to support the aggressive invasion of a sovereign state, then acting all shocked and awed when it is less than enthusiastic about bailing us out when we discover that, against their far better judgement, we've bitten off more than we could chew?



And what's all this I keep hearing about the failure of United Nations peacekeeping efforts??

What about UNTSO's supervision of the armistice in the Arab-Israeli War of 1948?

What about UNMOGIP's overseeing of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan starting in 1949?

What about UNEF I (the UN's first armed peacekeeping force), which supervised the withdrawal of invading forces following Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal?

What about settling of the conflict (and Syrian intervention) following proposed constitutional changes in Lebanon in 1958 by UNOGIL?

What about ONUC's prevention of civil war and the reintegration of the Katanga province in Congo in the early sixties?

What about UNTEA's administration of West Irian in 1962 when hostilities broke out between the Netherlands and Indonesia?

What about UNYOM's intervention between the UAR and Saudi Arabia and its monitoring of the disengagement in the Yemeni civil war of 1963-64?

What about the maintenance of the buffer zone bwteeen Greeks and Turks in Cyprus by UNFICYP since 1964?

What about the monitoring of ceasefires between Egypt, Syria, and Israel over the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights by UNEF II and UNDOF in the seventies?

What about UNIFIL's restoration of peace when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978?

What about UNGOMAP's supervision of the agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan (and the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from the area) starting in 1988?

What about the initiatives by UNAVEM in the early nineties to supervise the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, oversee the independence of Namibia, and orchestrate the ceasefire in Angola's civil war?

What about UNIKOM's monitoring of the demilitarized zone along Iraq-Kuwait border since 1991?

What about ONUSAL's supervision of the restoration of El Salvador following their civil war from 1991-95?

What about the monitoring by MINURSO of the ceasefire between Morocco and POLISARIO for the past decade or so relating to the Western Sahara referendum?

What about UNMEE's verification of the ceasefire between Ethiopia and Eritrea starting in 2000?

What about UNMISET's supervision of the establishment of a government infrastructure in newly independent East Timor starting in May of last year?

To name a few.


Compared to all that, of course, the United States can claim to have... um, well... er... *ahem* let's see... uh...

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I'm just speculating here, but if, indeed, this war were about oil (though I think it is about a bit more than that), maybe some member states of the United Nations don't want the US to have control of that oil; maybe some member states don't want America and US companies friendly to the Bush administration (like Bechtel) to be rewarded for unprovoked acts of aggression; maybe some member states don't want the US to feel that it can get away with this sort of international vigilantism with impunity; maybe some member states fear American hegemony - as well they should; maybe some member states aren't enamored of the prospect of a powerful, autocratic government which feels it can do whatever it damned well pleases anywhere in the world without answering to anyone on any level ever - which is clearly the dream of Bush, Inc. Maybe - just maybe - some member states of the United Nations know that this is one of the steps outlined by the PNAC for establishing a Middle Eastern foothold as part of their ultimate plan for world domination. And maybe that notion terrifies them.

I think we shouldn't have gone to war w/out UN support in the first place.
I beleive intentions were good, but now we have a number of countries that have lost a great deal of respect for us.

This is EXACTLY right

The World became a very frightening place to live in after 9/11. Not only because of the twin towers, but because we had learned from history the terrifying concequences of disturbing that dozing psychotic... the American military machine.
Japan did it, after much provocation and America stamped its brand of fear in the minds of the World population by using WMD's to save American lives.
The message was loud and clear back then, and has been reiterated with the latest of Americas destructive fits.
We out here are expendable in the interests of America.

America, using that cryptic form of logic only understood by Americans, absolutely knew that bombing the living poo outta Iraq would make them come running to the cause with open arms.
Jeepers it looked good and made me feel as comfortable as a dung beetle in roo poo to know it wasn't happening to me.

And here we have the crux of the matter.

The World via the UN will take whatever it can get from America because it, and it's member nations advised and suggested and were ignored. NOT because it wants to be 'one up' on America but because it needs to slow the rampage.

Americans can fix it, you put the 'Warlords' there and gave them the power, so by default we here have to presume you are happy with the situation.

A very unhappy state of affairs indeed.

Regards...Alan

It's quite a funny thing when you think about this fact. French people would have been willing to participate in the defeat of Saddam and the fall of his regime, should the inspectors reveal that Saddam had WMDs and ties with terrorism. Of course, they wanted the UN (Security Council) to validate any decision before action.

When the US stopped the process of inspections by declaring war, the French opinion in its majority shifted in a resolute opposition to Washington policies. Now, the US are asking countries to participate in the pacification of Iraq, because they can't handle the situation. What do you think we French think about it? Washington is losing its credibility.

Maybe some member states, like France, Russia, China had BIG oil contracts with Iraq (All opposed to the war...what a coincidence!!)




Oh yeah...there is a ceasefire between India & Pakistan Wasn't it 1 or 2 years ago that they were about to nuke one another?




So why is France in Congo? To stop the current civil war




I think the U.S. helped a little there

Dare i mention how the UN wanted the UNITED STATES to go into Liberia & not UN troops

Or dare i mention the UN sanctioned raid into Somalia to take out the warlord? FAILURE! The UN didn't assist in any way (clinton kinda helped make it a failure as well)

Or better yet, the UN take over (with NATO) of Afghanistan, which has just caused it to get steadliy worse (90 dead police and Afghanistan soldiers in ONE WEEK)

goamerica: First, you can't say that France, Russia, or China were opposed to war. They all signed on to UN Resolution 1441. What they were opposed to was an unprovoked, preemptive war without evidence of a clear threat. That is why they were supporting UNMOVIC rather than the War Party in the White House. We will never know what their level of participation and support would have been had the inspectors been given another thirty days. We didn't want their support - and that was orchestrated from the outset. We wanted Iraq to be ours. Well, we got what we wanted. Now you want us to run crying to the mommy who told us that if we played with fire we might get burned?? Very noble.

Second, this is not necessarily the thread to examine the history of UN peacekeeping efforts in detail (though starting such a thread may not be a bad idea). Of course, not every UN effort has been an unqualified success. Even in the three instances about which you managed to quibble, though: despite the fact that India refuses to acknowledge UNMOGIP, full-scale war has not broken out on the border in over fifty years, what hostilities there have been have been in North Kashmir where no UN presence is allowed, and no one has nuked anyone; ONUC was established to ensure the withdrawal of Belgian forces, to assist the government in maintaining law and order, and to provide technical assistance - its successful mandate ended in 1964; and UNGOMAP ensured that the Soviet Accords were adhered to and that the hostilities between Afghanistan and Pakistan ceased. And, no, as a matter of fact, the United States had nothing to do with the peace-keeping - Austria, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Nepal, Poland, and Sweden supplied the military personnel which UNGOMAP needed to fulfill its mandate.

The point, goamerica, is this: what can the US claim that is in any way comparable to any of the UN's successes? The partitioning of Korea? The reunification of Vietnam?? The enabling and support of people like Pinochet, Botha, the Somozas, Pahlevi, Salazar, Noriega, Zia Ul-Haq, Hassan II, Papadopoulos, Chorezo, King Fahd, Pol Pot, Marcos, Suharto, Mobutu, the Duvaliers, Saddam Hussein, and bin Laden??? And, on the basis of our track record, why should anyone imagine that the political (rather than the military) resolution to Iraq will be anything other than a total mess - even if it's a totally self-serving mess?

West Germany and Japan spring to mind...

Wertz, the UN record is laughable. If you look at those examples you cited, most of them remain quagmires of civil war or open hostilities DECADES later.

The UN, at THIS point in time, has a responsibility to do WHATEVER it can to help with the stability of the region. The US has reached out and asked for that help. The US has not, and should not, relinquish military command over the situation. To do so would invite disaster (as shown in Afghanistan and Bosnia and half a dozen African countries).

There are troops on the ground in Iraq right now that did not participate in the initial campaign. Also, pointing to the fact that British troops are withdrawing while at the same time the US commitment has also lessened is self-serving. All troops levels are down since the initial invasion.

I do not blame the UN for their position of being against the war. But the US had the obligation to act upon a threat that it perceived to be grave and imminent. That the UN sat out the conflict should not be a factor in determining what happens from this point forward.

The UN must do whatever it can to further the stability of Iraq (and, by extension, the region). To do otherwise would be negligent.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that WWII was a unilateral America vs. the Entire Rest of the World sort of thing.


Um... that's kinda why the UN peace-keeping forces are in some of those places. You see, it works this way: when there's peace, harmony, tranquility and fluffy little kittens, a peace-keeping force isn't exactly required. When there's contention, hostility, civil strife, and potential armed conflict, a peace-keeping force is put in place to make sure that the situation doesn't escalate into outright warfare. In fact, the UN record has been pretty good in this regard - especially in those cases where their mandate has been extended or accepted. In terms of peace-keeping arrangements, I find it interesting that you didn't mention East Germany or China in your list of post-war American successes. We were part of the entire resolution of that global conflict, Amlord - not just the bits you like...


Apart from the awkward phrasing, I would agree almost entirely. The UN is not seeking military command (and, indeed, has no mandate to do so - even if the idea had ever occurred to any of the member states). What should be relinquished, though - once the military situation is more stable - is political control. Restoring infrastructures, monitoring peace accords, rebuilding ravaged countries, assisting with new government structures, overseeing elections - these are the things at which the UN is good (and for which peace-keeping forces were designed). The last thing the world needs is another US puppet government to initiate another US-sponsored reign of terror, ruthlessly violating human rights for the benefit of American business. You are quite right that the UN has a responsibility to see that that does not happen again - ever. The millions of innocent civilians worldwide who have had the life ripped out of them for the sake of corporate America is a national disgrace which I'd hope few of us here would wish to see continue. If only the same could be said of our leadership...


Except, of course, that that "perception" was a desperate sick lie engineered by an administration that wanted to effect the conquest of Iraq at any price, but go on...


Agreed. Absolutely. In fact, the points we've outlined above are among the best arguments for UN intervention in the rebuilding of Iraq. Let the US finish up what remains of the protracted military campaign - then let us get the hell out and leave the UN to clean up after us. This is a much better idea than allowing the Bush administration to continue meddling with another sovereign state within whose borders we had no business in the first place - and I'm glad to see that this has a bit of bipartisan support. The only thing worse than the US orchestrating the future of Iraq would be the restoration of Saddam Hussein (and that's being generous).

An interesting bit of news.


U.N. Chief Says New Force in Iraq Can Be Led by U.S.
Doesn't exactly fit with the assumption that the UN wants authority over security due to American ineptitude.

I would care to add one more to this list.

The allowance of Martin Flannery's little project in 1970 and the continued American administrations 'blind eye' diplomacy towards its actual function.

Regards..........Alan

I don't see what the UN is so crazy about in the way of control

Why does the United States have to hand over all control (or part control) of the forces? The United States can handle the military operations of our forces, while other UN members who join in the party can deal with their forces

That would only really work if there were an agreed set of objectives and an agreed strategy to achieve them. The problem is that the USA hasn't clearly defined what the objectives for their own forces are other than trying to find the deck of cards, let alone what they would be for a UN force, and the strategy appears to be more or less reactive.

Furthermore, there is no suggestion in the appeals of the Bush administration for UN assistance that any other countries would have much of a say in the overall objectives and strategy for their troops. Which makes potential UN contributors think that all America really wants is reinforcements - replacement troops and materiel to continue the current US campaign, rather than initiate a proper reconstruction and peacekeeping programme (what we've mostly agreed the UN is pretty good at, including the Bush administration, otherwise why are they asking for help if they think that they could do it with US troops alone).

The war itself was a little different - because the Brits (and others) were there at the start, Iraq was carved up geographically and the Brits could pretty much do what they wanted within their area of control.

That might be a model for UN intervention, but the USA doesn't currently want to give up control of any areas to anyone else.

But all this is irrelevant. In every situation where you ask someone else for some help, you must expect them to do it on their terms, not yours. If they are prepared to help on your terms, you have to accept that you owe them a favour, since they've done you one. (This is simple good manners, not to mention the enlightened tit-for-tat game theory that we talked about in the thread on Rules for living a few months ago). At the moment, the UN doesn't see what it has to gain from the transaction, so it won't help.

American force NEED the help, though, so in time they WILL come in, after the USA has made some suitable concessions. If you don't like it, I suggest interplanetary migration, as no matter what the USA does or says it will never get everyone else on the planet to agree with absolutely everything it wants without killing all of them. And (needless to say), the only way you'd be able to manage that would involve killing yourselves too, so you'll have to resdiscover the joys of negotiation and compromise.

Wertz isn't too far off on this one, the UN should come in with peacekeepers and rebuilders. That is what they are best at. It would also free up more of our troops so that we'd be ready to handle the next mission. Right now we're stretched a bit thin and can't make a bold move as readily as we'd like to be able to.

They why don' t they just come in? If they are so good at peacekeeping and re-building, what's stopping them from overriding our authority and coming in and taking charge?

Who's this "they" everyone is talking about?

Last time I looked, the USA was a full member of the UN, and a permanent security council member.

As for what's stopping them, well, until VERY recently, the USA was more or less saying stay away except for humanitarian relief. Which is a bit difficult to do when there's a need for major civil engineering projects to happen (putting on the water, gas, and electricity, for example) before the humanitarian relief can be of much use. Most vaccines, many fresh foodstuffs, and many drugs need to be kept refrigerated, especially if the outside temperature is above 110F as it is in Iraq at the moment.

I've heard of this, but is there any evidence to back it up? I've seen no sign the the coalition would do anything but welcome UN troops, reconstruction workers, etc.

If the US won't cooperate or compromise there is nothing they can do but leave the US alone to do whatever it wants to do anyway. The uncontrollable giant has to be willing to find peaceful solutions in order to have peace. If we're insisting on holding all the control over everyone else and all decisions they will be of no help anyway. They'll simply be cannon fodder at the mercy of our military in a battle they tried to stop but we insisted on waging.

Peacekeeping is about negotiating, compromising, communicating and working toward solutions and that's their expertise. War is about military operations, combat, and technology which is our expertise.

You don't want to let them do what they're best at. You just want their money and muscle and none of their lip. They would be doing the same job as our troops. The only difference is we'll say we're fighting a war and they're keeping the peace. In reality they would just be helping us fight the war they've already informed us they will not join. You can't call it a war in one breath and the peace in another.

The enemy will see UN troops as nothing but puppets of the US military occupation because everyone will know the US refuses to give them any authority or legitimacy which will likely make them bigger targets than our own troops.

If this is the same attitude we are using on the ground in Iraq to help them rebuild their country it's no wonder we are failing so badly. We can't see the difference between controlling and helping. If the UN comes in the way we want we are just asking them to help us fail.

EVERYONE thinks that everyone who we support or supports us is a U.S. PUPPET. That's because they have had that thought burned into their brain by brainwashers.

I doubt anyone would see the UN as our puppet because the UN would never let that happen.

Um... which do you mean, goamerica?

The Iraqi people have never been to keen on the UN. It oversaw the devaststing economic sanctions, which according to UN and other human rights groups took the life of over 500,000 children. With anti-occupation militants engaging in a low-intensity war, all elements relating to any power structure not fully run by the Iraqi people or picked by Bremer and his folks, as Bremer is able to veto any decision the new interim council makes, is a target. Not a soft target, as anyone in Iraq can be labeled as because our government cannot and does not have the resources or man-power to provide security and improvement to the country's civil infrastructure, which it is obligated to do under the 4th Geneva Convention.

With this in mind, the U.N. is engaged in this mess becasue of this bombing. Sergio Di Vieira's last words came out telling his peers that the UN must stay in Iraq no matter what. This will be a problem, however. Neoconservative politics behind Bush's push to continue the exclusive Anglo-Saxon operation goes against not only UN charters, but against the very countries that want to contribute troops namely, Japan, India and Pakistan. These countries' young troops may be poor choices for peacekeepers, but the current status quo is going to only be ameliorated with drastic measures. The UN now finds itself in a tight squeeze after being marginalized by our government and its own self by passing a resolution condoning US military occupation. Countries wanting to contribute troops mentioned above want a more explicit UN resolution approving of and calling for a UN-led rebuilding of Iraq. Countries all over the world were directly touched by this tragic bombing, but they still cannot take a huge leap past their formal stance on deploying troops. precedents are being made everyday in Iraq.

Terrorism cannot come out victorious here, but until the relative notion that the Iraqi people, like any other people including ourselves need freedom and democracy, a guerilla war will continue with more and more support from mainstream Iraqis. Lives must be bettered on the ground in terms of clean, running water and reliable electricity output. Until then, you will see the UN wanting to play a larger role, but will not be able to with our government impeding.

They blame the US for the sanctions as much as they do the UN. There was a window of opportunity where they were willing to see what we did after the fall of Saddam. They were also suspicious of our interest in their oil.

We proved to care more about the oil then their hospitals or security once the regime fell.

We failed to improve their quality of live even to the low standard it was before the war. What little they had now they have less.

Promises have been broken about elections and instead the US chose representatives for them although they had no idea how they would be received by the people.

We left families with no air conditioning, no jobs, no water, no sanitation, and no security. The progress is so slow that they feel it's because we choose to let them suffer. A superpower with the wealth and military might that we have along with the promises we made have left them feeling that we are purposely making them suffer or that our intentions are to steal their oil.

Now we've invited every extremist terrorist organization to Iraq and each have different agenda's. The Iraqi's want their country rebuilt and would only be satisfied now if the US was not the authority. But now we have groups that will kill us anyway and destroy everything we try to do.

Wouldn't the Iraqi people be better off if we handed the situation over to UN authority and backed off in order to reduce the current hostility that we've invited?

We keep saying we have an obligation to rebuild as if that means we have to control it all ourselves. We have an obligation to improve their lives and give them freedom from Saddam like we promised. Our original explanation for going in was wrong...that doesn't help.

We have freed them from Saddam and at the same time made our original plans for occupation impossible to carry out by missed opportunities and mistakes and maybe even bad luck. But this approach is not working and will not improve unless there is a major shift in the authority of Iraq. The various groups are organizing and getting stronger all the time. Tell me how the current situation can get better without that kind of change? If they prefer to have us gone over having us help them rebuild we have no right to stay.


We can hand it over to the UN or we can hold some rushed elections and support the rebuilding financially while they do it from inside their own way. Maybe we could agree on a dollar settlement to fulfill our obligations...especially the one where we told them they would be free to govern themselves. That needs to happen NOW or the UN needs to try to diffuse the situation by taking authority.

Bush's plans have failed...everything he said would happen has been wrong and all of his critics were right. there is no reason to think anything they plan in the future will be any different. We are more hated every day and the citizens and soldiers of this country are getting angrier every day. He has no other choices.

While blaming America seem to be a passion for some, there is real progress being made in Iraq. While it's a slow process, it is steady. Each day new and better conditions arise, but the media filters so much out it's hard to see it. The constant bleating at home by those who prefer to see us fail is hard to understand. Actually, it isn't all that hard to understand after all. There is so much hatred for this administration in some circles that they are willing to sacrifice our own nation. And that is sad............

Passion51 - your post was completely off topic. Care to discuss the UN AT ALL? BE CONSTRUCTIVE in your debates here.

Many can go into a debate and question the patriotism of those who dissent and do not agree with the continuance of the status quo on the ground in Iraq. In order to prevent more GI deaths and better the conditions in Iraq, we need a fruitful debate that will help secure a better future for Iraqis and provide our nation with security. Individuals need to stop attacking perspectives and do more debating.

Danya hit it on the head. People need services and resources and if we are too slow, becasue of problems with funding or manpower, someone else needs to help. We as citizens of this country cannot imagine not having basic necessities at our disposal. Many in Iraq do not. If many do not trust or like the UN or a bluse-helmet operation some different force such as NATO would help, but at the looks of it, the UN is in Iraq to stay and will not continue to want to be marginalized by our occupation forces, especially after the bombing.

This board is very interesting indeed...

The United Nations are currently in Iraq to help with the humanitarian aid. I have no memories that a resolution was passed to give it power to maintain order there. Order is under the responsibility of the Occupation forces on the field(America and its coalition).

If extended powers were given to the UN in Iraq, a resolution would have to pass. I don't think that the US are ready to allow the UN any military power at this point, but I fail to understand why.

However, I understand why my country won't join the coalition. We've said since the beginning that resolution 1441 was forfeit, because the American and English invasion/liberation (whatever you like) took place and sabotaged the inspections' process, preventing us from accessing a clear truth in these complicated matters. To us, it is clear that America's actions were illegal, even if its intentions were good. We knew we would be exposed to the incomprehesnion and wrath of Washington, but we simply couldn't let that be.

To the further of my current knowledge, France won't participate into an illegal occupation of Iraq. Furthermore, it's unlikely that France will accept any new resolution brought forth by the Americans to the Security Council regarding Iraq, unless Washington decides to give the head of command to the UN.

____________________________________________________________

GA, our troops have intervened in Liberia to save and protect American citizens, in response to a request from the US. If I remember correctly, Mr. Powell thanked Mr. de Villepin for the rescue.

The reason why we didn't stay in Liberia afterwards is because we didn't have any UN mandate to be there. Only the US have it. It was decided so at the UN because Liberia has historical ties with the US.

I do not get all of my information from the media. Some of it comes from bloggers on the ground who tell their own stories which all seem pretty consistent and which I have often researched for accuracy and find them so far to be honest. The first blogger is somewhat famous and has been hired on to submit pieces to the Guardian as well.

The issues I listed above were in support of my argument that things are not being done that are necessary. Passion follows up with basically, "we are making progress."

Put a little more work into it and spell out all of this progress you speak of rather than just telling us all what George Bush says in his speeches. Offer your own analysis of the situation like I have or don't bother quoting me at all. I'm not worried about looking like a 'bad American' by voicing my views because I would feel like a bad human being if I didn't.

Here are my favorites:
Dear Raed
Baghdad Burning
and one of the troops:
Turningtables (this one hasn't been updated since mid July which was when all the flack about soldiers talking too much came out. This blog doesn't include anything like what the soldiers who spoke out said...it's just a daily diary type thing. )

I post these mainly for those who already appreciate the problems going on because they are so telling and so interesting as human stories go. The other side is not likely to appreciate their educational value and so I'm not posting it for their sake.

BTW, the first two blogs indicate how some Iraqi's felt about the UN bombing and the second one indicates what they feel about the Red Cross pulling out much of their assistance due to threats. The Red Cross is the fourth major humanitarian aid group to do so. Tell me, who will replace them and do the jobs they were doing before? Is Bush going to go to congress and ask for more billions to privatize that too?

There is a lesson here to be learned: There are some things money and military might can't buy. Not for America and not for anyone else. You can talk to your buddy George about sacrificing this nation. We were much better off before this war...9/11 and all.

Danya - you are replying to an off topic post, which I now realize I should have removed.

You both can take this subject up in ANOTHER thread. In this thread debate:

QUOTE

In light of the bombing of the UN HQ in Baghdad, is this evidence that the conflict has elevated to a point where the UN has a personal interest?

The blogs I posted are on topic, the first two indicate what the Iraqi's felt about the bombings and what the impact's were. The question is if it's in the UN's best interest. A good way to determine that is what they can and cannot accomplish. The only way to answer that would be to figure out if the POV of the Iraqi's is such that they would be able to help or if they would be rejected.

The third blog is just an extra POV that is equally telling about the situation on the ground...at least prior to mid July.

I have taken the progress issues to the other thread.

Well, at least now we know what we're dealing with.

France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq
Is this what needs to be done? I don't even think it's the major issue in Iraq.

Some solution...

It's a UN takeover. US goes in as the bad cop defying the world and the UN and comes to save the day. Same as Afghanistan. Now the UN has all the crack they'll ever need. Iraq is next, a mass of US troops will move out, then on to the next country. World Government here we come.

I think this sums it up:

In plain English that means: if you see some silly *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** getting into a mess, don’t get mixed up with ‘em.” And this is exactly what is being pondered by the Old Europeans and other countries disturbed about the shambles that has been made by Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the rest. Silly *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, all of them, to the last plaintive bray.

Bush and Rumsfeld boast that ‘vast numbers of countries are with the US’. Good. That should be enough. The rest of the world should stay out of Iraq. Don’t reinforce failure.

Bush can either get the help of the UN like he was supposed to do in the first place or he can use his massive coalition of the willing, which they continue to brag about even today, and get the job done. The neocon's said we didn't need anyone else to do this. If they really believed this it wouldn't be so bad...but they didn't. They ASSUMED once we went in and won the war everyone would be clamoring to join us. This administration should not be making gambles like that. ESPECIALLY in order to wage a war of CHOICE. Bush needs to stop trying to make decisions on what he assumes he can get later from someone else...be it money or troops or cooperation. His hostile approach in all matters has only made it harder for him to get what he wants when he really needs it. And, as we are now seeing, he will dig his heels in and be stubborn rather than do what is best to reach our goals with as little death as possible.

And he really is in trouble. Estimates say we would need 500,000 troops on the ground to be successful. Let's say they are off and it's really only half of that. We don't have them. So, at this point if they aren't willing to bring anyone else in, except to do the dirty work of dying, they better think about starting the draft. Wouldn't it be a good time for NK to begin a war they think is inevitable? And of course the bin Laden warnings are scaring the hell out of me since they follow an even more chilling message from a few days ago. But when bin Laden speaks they say it shouldn't be taken lightly. Payback is going to be a bitch.
"We assert that what you saw till now are only the first skirmishes. ... The true epic has not begun. Brace yourselves for the punishment for your crimes," said the voice on the tape.

Cheney has been making fund raising speeches that do not sound like they are very concerned about any of this and he isn't the only one. All of the neocons have been making statements that make it sound like they plan to expand the war as they have always talked about. You would think they would have already figured out it will destroy this country, but at least they stick by their convictions.

Here is one:


link
Sounds like they have it all figured out. Gee, I can't wait. I'm so glad America agreed to start a new crusade and cold war all at once. That should make us safe.

A large part of the world still hides under the covers and hopes that terrorism will somehow miss them, their loved ones and friends, and their country. Thankfully, more of them awaken to the terrible danger they face each day. We will see evidence of that once the details are worked out between the US and the UN.

The most recent events in Israel serve to prove that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. The appeasers in the US can be thankful they are in the minority. World history has shown that the worst evils have been overcome not by diplomacy, but by military action. Re-building Iraq is part and parcel to military action against terrorism. This is why the terrorists are so hell-bent on not letting that happen. A beacon of freedom in their midst would undermine their efforts in a huge way.

Those at home who constantly wail against our own efforts are providing aid, comfort and hope to the terrorists. They have said as much. Think about that before you urge retreat and surrender.

Passion51 - do you have anything to add that is ON TOPIC? This is the SECOND time I've had to ask you stop. Final warning.

Debate:

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.