http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01

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?

It is obvious that the UN is not above attack in Iraq. The UN has been pretty aloof, at the behest of GW Bush.

I think they must take a more forceful attitude towards projecting some semblance of relevance in this situation. Although I think the US was right in not waiting for the UN, the UN also has a duty to see that a possible international imbalance is averted.

It will be interesting to see what the UN response is here.

I think it may be too late for even the UN to help clean this mess up. If it's not now it soon will be. Bush needs to make a decision about bringing them in.

If we don't bring them in we won't be very successful getting any real help from other nations...maybe a token 600 soldiers here or 200 there but nothing that will be of any real help or change the look of things on the ground.

It's not like the UN can just come in and start helping, because the US doesn't want them to, because this Adminstration is dead-set against the UN and multilateralism. They should come, but I doubt that it will happen until things start getting very, very bad and Bush's approval ratings start sinking even faster than before.

The UN better. Their reputation of being a strict enforcer is on the line. They got slapped in the face and they need to face the challenge. With an attack at this scale, they can not ignore this or they will be ignoring terrorists like Clinton did. Look where it got us....a hole in the middle of NYC's financial district


Danya:


It is not Bush's decision here. The UN was attacked, not the United States. The UN was slapped, they need to decide. If they want to join in the party, fine.

WAAAIT A MINUTE. Bush Sr is the one who put US troops in Saudi Arabia in '91 and "tainted" the Muslim holy grounds. I think it's a little funny that 9\11 happened on his son Dubya's watch. We've been in the Middle East and have had NUMEROUS terrorist attacks from Muslim extremists LONG before Clinton came into office.

goamerica: Is it necessary to drag Bill Clinton into a debate about the bombing of a hotel in Iraq in 2003? Let's not forget that George W. Bush not only ignored terrorism prior to September 11, 2001, he specifically ignored - and discarded - the report commissioned by Clinton which, had it been acted upon rather than dismissed with a smirk, might have prevented that attack. The last thread on the bombing of the Canal Hotel was closed due to random, unclear, off-topic, and personal postings. Are you trying to do the same for this incarnation??

I would suggest that anyone interested discussing the bombing and its ramifications in relation to the UN should start discussing the bombing and its ramifications in relation to the UN.

Actually I think GA makes a valid comparison using Clinton's handling of terrorist attacks to the challenges facing the UN. Neither of them showed any strength when it was called for. That failure led to ever more lethal attacks. Same with the UN. Their ineptitude in security issues has helped make the world a more dangerous place. Mainly because there seems to be a belief that the UN is some all-powerful institution with a standing military that can respond to crises world-wide. Not true. Far from it. Clinton had the power, he just didn't have the resolve to use it. The UN has neither the power nor the reslove.

Fortunately, the Bush admin has both the power and the reslove. We can be confident they will take the appropriate action in response to the latest cowardly attack.

I about peed my pants! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!

Come on, Bush has isolated our allies of fifty years, back peddled the nuclear disarmament agreements and has turned America into an even more blatant opportunist for expansionism.

He may take this as an oportunity to heal relations with the UN, but it's for a common purpose, to fight terrorism. But the die has been set for our relationship with the UN in the 21st Century.

Oh right...Bush won't mind a bit if the UN comes in and starts doing things their way will he? Give me a break.

The saddest thing about this is the death of de Mello. I really liked him.

Ah - I assume you haven't heard his routine before. Granted, it's hilarious the first time - but it starts getting a bit tired after you've seen it seven or eight hundred times...

Passion51: Your posting is even more off-topic than goamerica's was. Please take your hosannahs elsewhere (if, indeed, there's a thread left to which you have not yet posted exactly the same thing).

As you apparently missed the question, it was: 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?

I think the fact that this question even need be asked (and it does) is telling, in particular the words "personal interest". It suggests that the UN has let the world forget what it is.

The UN is not some privately run bureaucracy, it is a gathering of nations. In the interest of the stability of the region (not to mention any moral concerns) the UN (or rather its member states, since they theoretically control it) should have long ago took it upon themselves to aid in the security situation (I assume that is the thrust of the issue). The US has asked them and a mandate has already been given under the UN resolution that ended sanctions against Iraq. This is not an issue of the Bush administration blocking UN involvement (indeed they have asked for it) it is a power struggle. Much of the UN (as represented by both member states and bureaucracy) wants the lead position in the administration of the rebuilding in Iraq (as they have in Afghanistan). It is because this attempted power grab has not come through that many states refuse to send troops.

In answer to the question: that point was reached long ago...

Wertz, don't make this thread a personal spat in your attempt to steer the topic back on track, please.

As an update the administration tries to reach out even more...


US seeks to widen Iraq force

Thank you for helping make a point: This attack is the cataclyst for getting the United Nations into this.

The UN felt that this was none of their concern because the United States was taking action and taking over so the UN said "we wil be in the background". Now that they have been attacked severly, this will change their opinion and will drag them into this conflict.

The UN has a major oblagitation to get involved since their interests have been attacked and it's personnel killed

As long as America continues to insist that they control Iraq rather than hand over responsibility to the United Nations, then I see no reason why France, Germany and other member-states should join in the occupation.

The United Nations was attacked, by in a indirect way, America was the target. By blowing up the UN headquarters and assassinating the head of the UN mission there, the terrorists were making sure that there would be no chance for a peaceful resolution to the growing crisis in Iraq.

I highly doubt that UN members would join, and certainly not as long as the US military insists on running the show in Iraq. Anyway, it seems too late now, since the original sympathy and support from the Iraqi population has more-or-less disappeared thanks to American incompetence, arrogance and cultural egoism.

You mean besides the interest of the Iraqi people and the stability of a critical region? But really, who expects the other member states to care about that? They have a petty squabble to continue

I mean it's only reasonable that the UN control the operation in Iraq because...

They do so well in Afghanistan

Do you even READ the news? Americans were not the target. The UN was the target because they were helping to rebuild, which the terrorists don't like.



That's why they need to come in and join the party. To make sure the terrorists don't succeed in scaring them away. They would be stupid to not come in. They got slapped. If they don't respond, terrorists will see that they can keep kicking them around because they know the UN won't do anything about it.



IF they don't like the way we run things, tough. We sacrificed to get this far & we are not going to let the UN screw it up like they have stuff in the past

Yes but if you look deeper it is obvious that by attacking the UN, the terrorists have humiliated America and shown up their security failings. Stop taking things at face value.

Already, the World Bank has left Iraq, clearly the terrorists want to see a growing confrontation between the bungling US troops and the Iraqi population.



Your screwing things up quite finely goamerica. The UN are better at state-building than the Yanks, face it. Not that the UN is wonderful, but they are a hell lot better than a bunch of bungling incompetants from the US military.

If the UN do as you suggest, they become fully part of the US in the perception of the Iraqi public, and frankly that isn't realistic since your public reputation is crashing to rock-bottom among Iraqis.

Thomas and goamerica - please don't make this a personal spat. I'm quite certain Thomas reads the news and I'm sure that it was not goamerica who screwed "this" up.

Let's stick to the issues, please.

Thomas, that statement lowers my opinion of you...

The UN have taken the lead in two nation building projects in recent memory: Afghanistand and the former Yugoslavia. NEITHER is anywhere near to being a "look at what we did" accomplishment.

Also, the rebuilding effort is not being run by the US military. The military supplies the security, sure, but the show is being run by Paul Bremer. Security plays a large role at his point in determining what can be accomplished, but it is not as if Tommy Franks (or his successors) is calling the shots.

The UN is good at one thing: doling out humanitarian aid. Period.

Well Afghanistan is a complex situation, America funds and supports the warlords and the UN only has five thousands international troops so they can’t do much their. Secondly, the West hasn’t delivered the money they promised, so in that context you can’t blame the UN.

In Yugoslavia, it is too simplistic to just blame the UN, Europe and America had a big role in that disaster. However, I did say that the UN isn’t wonderful, and I stand by that statement. For me the UN in relation to Iraq is a “lesser evil” to the Americans, not the brilliant success you interpreted Amlord.

Jamie, sorry I meant the Americans, not goamerica.

As for Paul Bremmer he doesn’t seem to have done much yet. If that UN chap had been allowed to run the country from the beginning, this sad disaster facing Iraq may never have happened.

Yeah, the buffoon would have been dead months ago, since he thought that a "no security" policy would keep him safe...

What I was getting at is that the UN has absolutely NO successful history of any kind of nation building (granted, neither do we). We have no reason to believe that the situation would be any different if the UN were in charge. What makes you think the situation in Iraq is any LESS complicated than that of the other two examples?

It isn't, it is MORE complex, since so much is riding upon it. If the UN can demonstrably not succeed in less complex situations, why give them the benefit of the doubt in a more complex one?

The situation IS complex, no one has EVER EVER EVER said that rebuilding Iraq would be quick OR easy. The situation is currently manageable.

I do believe that the UN needs to assert a role here, however. Not tuck its tail between its legs and run (it withdrew 1/3 of its staff after that explosion).

They didn't embarass anyone. The U.S. OFFERED security. The UN didn't take it.




Excuse me?? The UN has a history of failures.




Maybe the UN should open their pocketbook a little more and send more soldiers instead of being scared & impotent

The U.S. is probably the only aid giver to Afghanistan. The EU members are deadbeats just like everyone else.




The only thing he was put there to do is to work on basic needs stuff. Also, if the UN would have accepted OUR SECURITY FORCES, may be IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED

Instead, Annan goes on International TV and BLAMES THE US for HIS mistakes

Talk about petty squabbles...if the US isn't profiting from running things in Iraq why on earth would they use such an iron grip to be in control? Why do they view Iraq as some big prize instead of what it really is?

A country home to millions of people isn't a prize to be protected? Why hand it over to the UN anyway? Why would the US lose control over a situation when they will be blamed for whatever goes wrong regardless of whose at fault? The US has an interest, why not protect it?
It is the UN grabbing for power here not the other way around. Why do they want it so much if it's not a prize?

US seeks troops for UN force but refuses to cede control

As for this:

Pathetic

Thomas.

It really is not a good idea to criticize Americans.
They get VERY upset .

The victims in this case were UN personnel called in by America.
The VERY same UN that some Americans, including dubya, told the World that the US didn't need and would go it alone.
Even better, there were plenty posting in AD prior to the Invasion that America should pull out of the UN.

The going is now getting a bit rough in Iraq and Americans want to go home and dump the problem on someone else, as per normal.
Afghanistan and Kosovo as starters.
Hence the pleading for the UN to put troops in.

America WILL NEVER HAND OVER CONTROL because they will lose control of the prime reason for invading..THE OIL.... until the mythical WMD's are found of course .

So we have a situation wherein America wants to get out but retain control and the UN doesn't want to be in without control.
A 'Catch 22' situation and the only winner will be the hard line terrorists.

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

I have yet to see any calls from the administration for a pull out of Iraq. America still has the vast majority of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is not likely to be any different. It was made clear throughout (and before) the effort that UN troops (or troops from member states) would be more than welcome. This has nothing to do with events in Iraq. It has everything to do with a power grab by the UN. I note you don't care to try and give a reason as to why the UN wants control so badly? Care to give it a shot?

First of all the country doesn't BELONG to the US. Second, we don't control it NOW anyway and it isn't likely we will gain control if things continue this way.

Why in the world SHOULD France or India or anyone else send in their troops and be led by the US when the US is doing such a poor job running things? You think these other countries trust us with the lives of their soldiers? Why should they when we can't protect our own soldiers or the UN or the Iraqi people? They would be idiot's to just come in and help without the US giving them some freedom and control to help in the way that's best for the international community and Iraq instead of just for the US.

1. Afghanistan and Kosovo don't belong to the UN either, "straw man" argument...

2.Control is relative, we don't control everything but we are the leading force in Iraq militarily and economically. If we didn't control reconstruction, the UN wouldn't be asking for control now would they? As to the likelihood of more control in the future, I'm not particularly interested in crystal-ball predictions...

3. I've already referenced the issues of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region and I think you know that. The UN doesn't do the job any better than the US (so experience shows us) in fact if you look at Afghanistan, why would the US want to go there again (troops in one city?!) We all know Iraq is dangerous, clearly that won't change if the UN takes over, so let's stop blaming the US for all the attacks shall we? They simply cannot be expected to stop all of them, no one could. There are a number of (twenty-seven) nations already in Iraq trusting their soldiers lives so to speak, they won't be any safer under the UN.

More..and being gradually replaced.... but hardly VAST
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/081...12afghan12.html

Regards.........Alan

About 63%, my mistake

But hardly a pullout that leaves it up to the UN, let's remember the US is a single nation as opposed to the UN...

Bush is pulling troops out? Did i miss a news story or something?

Afghanistan is becoming a failure because the UN is afraid to commit. The Germans are scared to advance outwards from kabul so we basically have to do the work ourselves again. The UN, as a national body has an obligation to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq. If it is scared to get dirty, then we can tell the Iraqis that there are some in the UN who don't care about a future for Iraqis and that they won't be getting help. That'll sure sway some opinion about the UN in Iraq.




Couldn't resist that oil crap could ya? We don't want to hand over control because every project the UN has touched, has FAILED. The United States army lost good kids to liberate Iraq and we aren't gonna let the UN SCREW IT UP.

Danya:


Well then who does? There is no active government except for a small council & no president to run it. The only person in current administrative duty in Iraq is Beamer.



The UN needs to prove it's worth the real estate it occupies in NYC. If they can't do a damn thing to HELP like the UN was created to do, then they might as well move out of the building and let a company that lost office space on 9/11 occupy it. I'm sure someone from Cantor Fitzgearld or AT&T will gladly pay to occupy a few floors each for office space.

turnea.

No worries mate

Regards....Alan

Whoa there buddy ..............You put yourself there in the first place if I remember

Regards.........Alan

You shouldn't demand their help either then. We're doing a find job of screwing things up all by ourselves.

My point is that we want other nations to send troops in to die for a mission they knew would become a quagmire...yet you want them to come in on OUR terms. Why should they risk their lives to come and help us clean this mess up without having any say in deciding how they do it? If you think people will jump on board with Rumsfeld calling all the shot's, when he obviously didn't even have a plan for what happened after major combat ended, all I can say is don't hold your breath.

The country does not belong to us...it belongs to the Iraqi people and they are trying to take it back. They do not believe we are working in their best interest and the only way for them to see this as anything but an American occupation is if the country is not completely over taken by America alone. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. It was true before the war and it's still true today. You can keep fighting it all you want but things are not going to improve until reality set's in.

I really am having trouble understanding some of the convoluted thinking going on here.
It appears that GA honestly expects other countries to join in something they didn't want anything to do with, the UN especially.
Ignoring all international advice America, and a few hangers on, stomped off to war hurling abuse over its shoulder directed at the UN and anyone else who wouldnt play.

Anyone remember these little nutmegs? 'That's old Europe", "We'll go it alone" and the derision hurled at France and Germany for a few.
The reasons were ostensibly to protect the world from international terrorism. In fact it was very urgent indeed because Iraq could launch their WMD's within 40mins.....remember??.

So what do we have now?
We have a World in turmoil.
Americans blaming everybody but themselves for the fix they are in, overstretched and running out of money.
Tony Blaire and his party in deep poo.

America suddenly needs the UN and one or two others of that "Old Europe" Mr. Rumsfeld sneered at.
Is it no wonder they are not too keen.

Regards....Alan

Ok, how would the UN do a better job of policing Iraq?

The UN did not authorize an attack, REMEMBER? So, tell me how you figure they have any responsibility taking up any of the slack in Iraq? We decided we didn't need them when we invaded. We said we could do it ourselves along with our Coalition Of The Willing. If that weren't true why did Bush get us into this mess in the first place? If he just assumed everyone else would HAVE to jump on board he is more reckless and stupid then I thought.

The UN would be perfectly justified in allowing us to call a draft and go bankrupt fixing our own mistakes. Regardless of how difficult it is we are the ones responsible for the safety and rebuilding of Iraq and will continue to carry the entire burden of that responsibility as long as we are unwilling to let go of any of the power. The two go hand in hand.

One thing is certain...any international leader that will allow his troops to join us without having any say over his own troops, after what's gone on for the last four months. would not be a leader in his country for long. Here's a reality check from today's news:

QUOTE(goamerica @ Aug 21 2003, 08:18 PM)

If it is scared to get dirty, then we can tell the Iraqis that there are some in the UN who don't care about a future for Iraqis and that they won't be getting help. That'll sure sway some opinion about the UN in Iraq.

You don't have to tell the Iraqi's anything. They are quite capable of reading and of understanding much more than you give them credit for. Besides, they are experts at recognizing spin after living decades under Saddam.


America has made 16 attempts at nation building. Germany, Japan, Panama and Grenada succeeded. But the seeds planted in 11 others, including Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, were overgrown by dictatorship, corruption and autocracy. Look no further than Afghanistan for an idea of this administration's ability and commitment to nation building.

Even if no one else pitched in to help in Afghanistan it was never an issue of getting or needing international support - we would have gone to war there without it. The only reason it was even offered was out of sympathy for 9/11. Unlike Iraq, the international community never questioned Afghanistan's ties to the attack. In Iraq the ties are more in doubt than ever. We then soured our relationships with many of those that offered their help and took on some of the burden. Then we simply lost interest in our own battle...Bush failed to even mention them in his budget proposal last year. And yet GA has the gall to point fingers at the rest of the world for not doing enough to finish our war on terror against the Taliban and Al Queada.

Even if it were true that the UN screws up every project it touches (which I'm not conceding it is) their record is our record since we are a part of the UNSC and those missions. Saying THEY failed is the same as saying WE failed.


I'll give it a shot. Because the US has screwed things up so badly they may feel we're not competent enough to entrust with the lives of their troops/peacekeepers. If you're just expecting more cannon (or RPG) fodder to replace our own soldiers we might as well start the draft because no country is going to be dumb enough to just hand them over to be commanded by Rumsfeld, Bremmer, et al. now. If it were Russia or Japan who went against our wishes and attacked another country, resulting in bloody guerilla warfare, we'd never send our troops to serve under their command either.


There would be less resistance to an international force in charge of the occupation and security. We are failing at things they think are simple such as building infrastructure and fixing the electricity...they think even Saddam did better after the last war with even less resources. They believe we are purposely making them suffer. True or not you can see how bringing in a new group...one that didn't just bomb the hell out of their country...might relieve some of that tension. There would be increased resources with increased help meaning our job get's done alot faster. That's just to start.

[quote=Danya,Aug 22 2003, 07:05 AM] [QUOTE=goamerica,Aug 21 2003, 08:18 PM]The UN, as a national body has an obligation to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq. [/QUOTE]
The UN did not authorize an attack, REMEMBER? So, tell me how you figure they have any responsibility taking up any of the slack in Iraq? [/quote]
They were just attacked. If they don't want to look weak, they better act. The UN is mad because it won't get control over the military. WHY SHOULD THEY? They didn't do all the work getting from Umm Qasar to the Kurdish area in a month and a half.


[QUOTE]The UN would be perfectly justified in allowing us to call a draft and go bankrupt fixing our own mistakes.[/QUOTE]

You keep speaking of mistakes. WHAT MISTAKES? The only mistake we made was not guarding the borders of Syria and Iran and preventing terrorists from spill into the country.


[QUOTE]One thing is certain...any international leader that will allow his troops to join us without having any say over his own troops, after what's gone on for the last four months. would not be a leader in his country for long. Here's a reality check from today's news: [QUOTE] Poland, which is to take military control of Iraq's central sector, signalled yesterday that it was handing back some territory to US troops, because of the heightened security risk after the bombing of UN headquarters. In Spain, opposition parties called for the withdrawal of the 1,300 troops committed to Iraq for peacekeeping operations, after the death of a naval officer in the attack. [/QUOTE]

Like i said...they are afraid fo getting dirty. Poor babies.

GA, Danya is completely right, no leader will send their troops to Iraq if the US insists that they are controlled by the US military command.

This effort to create a multi-national force is pie-in-the-sky, I'm afraid you made this mess and your stuck with sorting it out.

BRING BACK THE DRAFT!

Seriously, if no meaningful military help comes from other countries, will the US have to bring back the draft? That could lead to Vietnam like domestic crisis in America, perhaps GA could volunteer?

The UN never wanted to be there in the first place. They have nothing to lose by pulling out...indeed they ARE pulling out one third of their staff. If you think they are going to retaliate just because that's what WE would do you better think again. Retaliating will get them no where...and we have already called them irrelevent so why should it bother them if we now decide to call them 'weak'?

And winning the 'invasion' part of the war was the easy part for us...we had all the bombs and supplies necessary to do it in a short time. Which is why Iraq was really never a threat to us in the first place.


Planning for the peace, planning an exit strategy, taking the looting seriously in the beginning, anticipating that we would be welcomed, bad intelligence, broken promises, going in without enough support, the list goes on and on.

Have you even considered that those promised troops Rumsfeld and Powell keep talking about have also reconsidered helping us? And what about the humanitarian groups that help us with things that go beyond security?





Calling them babies is your response to all of this?

clearly a dire threat to the leadership in Spain and Poland Reconsidering obligations is not the same this as facing a loss of leadership. Spain may have it rougher politically then most. But there is no reason to believe Aznar won't pull through. How about we stop acting like there are no international troops in Iraq?

Security council split on Iraq
The only deaths from these countries (except the UK) that I have seen is the death of one Danish solider.


I suppose recognition of a common threat doesn't fit in there anywhere.

The UN has troops in one city in afghanistan, one. How many nations do you suppose it'd take to get thems to station troops in two cities?

Yes our inability to stop all attacks against our soldiers during a war is a sign of abysmal incompetence

No country?! Twenty-Seven
And more on the way...

Maybe you didn't get my point...which is any ELECTED leader that wants to keep his job will be extremely reluctant to put himself in political jeopardy to help us without any control or incentive in exchange. If these nations are reconsidering obligations it will be interesting to see the administration backpeddeling on their claims of coming support which is what I've heard being demanded from both sides of the aisle in Congress.



How about we stop acting like there are ENOUGH international troops in Iraq instead? I wonder how many Mongolian, Macedonian, and Italian troops we have on the ground? Care to guess?


We can forget Japan for the time being. I wonder how much longer until the rest drop out or 'reconsider their obligations'. But you're saying it won't matter because we have so many international troops on the ground right now, aren't you?


Sure, if you don't count journalists, humanitarian aid workers, civilians, or UN staff. What's your point? That the US troops are doing about 97% of the dying of all the troops now stationed in Iraq?


They have their own terrorist groups. Al Queada is only a threat to some of them...but they are our biggest threat. Most of those nations were doing us a favor and the war on terror looked a lot different when it was about tracking down terrorists and not about invading a country that wasn't a clear threat to anyone.

It also looked a lot different after our pilot's were exonerated in the deaths of those Canadian soldiers. You don't think that caused any bitterness?


I don't know...but I don't think calling them babies is the best way to go about it. Besides...our gratitude to them has been non existent so why bother...if Bush didn't think they were important enough to add to his budget maybe they decided it wasn't important enough to risk additional lives or include in their budget's either.


No. Not being able to stop major attacks on civilian's and aid workers after our macho President declared 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' while dressed as a fighter pilot is what is making us appear incompetent. If the military combat wasn't over what the heck was that all about?


Where are those Latvian soldiers anyway?


Unless the current drop out trend continues...

When troops go into a hostile situation, they can expect to get injured or die or neither. That is part of war. If they can't stand getting a casuality or 2, then they should not have even bothered. Heaven forbid, a truck blew half the UN building away, guess we should evacuate. Run out of Iraq like scared mice and leave everyone else to do their job and the job that was left from the runners. Poland and Spain got scared so they left the U.S. to do what they were assigned.

Do you see American Troops running to mommy after the UN explosion? no. Why? because we have guts unlike some big talking buttheads in the International Community.

Spain and Poland are weaklings. No guts to hang around when the going gets tough.

If this is what the International Community has become, God help every nation that needs international help

I don't see any big mouthed French or German troops enter Liberia. Why? maybe they don't like the humidity. Or maybe they are just SCARED to get a casuality. Meanwhile, US troops get cheers from Liberians while the Germans hide under their beds & the French make more white flags for any other wimp who wishes to give up

Danya: We have countries from all over the world, as easy as it is to make fun of the Latvian army, it makes just as much sense to say that the mighty French army wouldn't have done much good to us anyway.

CP

We don't have the luxury of evacuating. This is our war and we wanted it that way. We've made our bed now we can either lie in it or we can admit we need help and give up our dreams of running Iraq as if it's the 51'st state of the US.


No, but I do see them committing suicide, getting pregnant, shooting themselves in order to avoid going and lot's of other stuff that makes it clear they are just as human as the rest of the buttheads in the international community.


Maybe they have brains where their gut's should be and maybe we have the same problem in reverse.


Who needs God when the neo con's are falling all over themselves to involve our troops in everyone elses business? They are going to save the world with the blood of our son's and daughters...they've made that pretty clear.


Look again...the French have entered Liberia...and helped evacuate American's while they were there.

You sound so brave and tough which begs the question...How come you're not fighting in Iraq right now? They can use people like you who are eager to be there and believe everything the Whitehouse says. Why don't you go and relieve the guys who have been begging to come home and who have no idea why they are still there?

And then they left



Any link for proof?




Seeing as we are the only ones who CARE. I never saw France stick around after they evacuated our embassy personnel or i never heard Germany speak up and say they will be part of the helping peacekeeping force to Liberia.

hell...the Germans are scared to expand out of Kabul when they said they were so they could relieve some of the pressure off the U.S.

I saw only the US get concerned about the people in Kosovo & it took all of Clinton's erfforts to get NATO to go along with it.

After we, the u.s and the rest involved did what happened at the u.n do you think any nation will operate on its own really, what if Germany decides to do Liberia, but goes against some interest of say the u.s, or would we be happy with china being the worlds police! All of those "little" nations for the most part are still sticking to the u.n, a coalition by legal definition only requires two nations to participate, that’s all we really have, that and our coalition of under populated poor nations we are most likely paying for their name. Nobody in the u.n rejected immediate action and had the resolve to do it with Afghanistan, this same criteria did not hold with Iraq, we opted to attack some massive imminent threat to the u.s, we made the mess of our own decision, Iraq is worse then ever before and the anarchy is very pleasant i am sure, but why should other nations or the u.n buckle to a u.s made crisis? any real reason except they should not be cowards or see the light?

There are still a few, it appears, who are still refusing to acknowledge the obvious.

Although Danya beat me to it here are my shots



Point by simple point.

1...America got ITSELF into this mess against all international advice AND for its own selfish ends.
2...The American administration publicly abused and degraded the UN and other nations who refused to help.
3...The American administration consistantly lied to the international community to justify its actions and is no longer politically trusted.
4...The American administration bribed, twisted arms and generally monstered countries to gain allies.(Other than UK).
5...The American military, not for the first time, is showing itself totally incompetant at anything else other than destruction..Shock and Awe.

Bear in mind also that Americas main partner in these fiasco's has pulled troops out already and Mr. Blair is due to stand before a parliamentry commitee to publicly explain the lies he, Dubya and Rumsfeld told their people.
As for one other ally, Australia, Our PM down here is due to do the same.

Are Dubya and Rumsfeld going to do the same?????

When we look at these five points is it no wonder that the World looks at America, shakes its head and doesn't want to play with you any more.
You get us into trouble and its best to stay clear.
Regards......Alan