the Axis of Weasels wants the UN back in!

Remove all ads!

So, right or wrong, the US and UK have essentially put an end to Saddam's regime. We spent our resources, and the lives of our military personnel, and now the French, Germans, and Russians want the UN to sweep in and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030411-701955.htm

I don't think so! I know, "it would go a long way to repairing the harm the US/UK have done to their reputations, and undo some of the damage done to the UN". HOGWASH! This is about the axis of weasels trying to make money. The US and UK will never recover what we spent in liberating Iraq, but there is no way in hell we should share what we do recover. I don't believe that we should rape the Iraqi people in the rebuilding of their country, but there is more than enough wealth there to pay for the rebuilding of the nation and take care of the people.

Sorry but there is no valid reason for the UN to have any part in the rebuilding. If the UN wants to help, they are welcome to provide aid to the people of Iraq, but not one contract should go outside of Iraqi or Coalition companies!

Here is another good link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003327

[ April 12, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Great point. I agree. The U.N. has demonstrated itself to be a weak and ineffectual organization. Essentially they are the League of Nations - but only powerless due to its own cowardess.

Oh well.

I say let them have Iraq. During the reconstruction, I have little doubt that the fanatics will come in droves and commit acts of terrorism. Who do you want to be murdered? A brave U.S./U.K. Soldier or a French Soldier? j/k

 

You bomb them, you destroy their houses and then you decide you who is going to rebuild their country and take their money. Great. I guess they have to pay and the ammunition you have spent. Right?

 

BOC,

How many Iraqi citizens were targeted, and how many homes were targeted by the coalition?

NONE!

We brought them freedom, or at least their chance to grasp it if they choose.

To the victor go the spoils, only thing is, in this case we will not get any spoil, and are not asking for any spoils. We will simply provide to them services that they cannot provide for themselves at the time. And yes that is the cost of freedom. Why shouldn't the US, UK, and those that supported us get the benefit of an inevitable cost? Why should we reward those nations who were not bold enough to take a stand with us?

Like I said, we will never recover what it cost us to wage this war. The Iraqi people will be better off after the war and its expenses than they were under Saddam. Sounds like a more than fair deal to me.

 

Darkwolf

If I remember correct the estimated civilian casaulties are 4000 dead. This number does not include the wounded who will die because of the lack of proper medical care or the people who will die in the later years because of the radioactivity of DU shells. Do you know how many were the civilians causalties in Afghanistan? I was watching an interview of a university professor yesterday (I think he was from the New England University) and he said that the civilian causaulties in Afghanistan are estimated between 20000-50000. If this is true, don't you think that the same number could apply to Iraq, since the same weapons were used? As for the houses, ask those mutilated children in Bagdad, where were they when the bombs and missiles exploded.

I thought that the 1441 resolution was about disarmament and not liberation. Realy how do you explain this shift of focus from the weapons of mass destruction to the liberation and to the fall of the regime? Also, since C.I.A, MI6, Mosad or any other secret service were able to locate the shelters where Saddam was hiding, how they could not find the locations of the forbidden weapons?

Because this war was illegal and if you fail to find forbidden weapons this war will have not a single justification. These nations were bold enough since they tried to prevent you to open the Pandora's box, even if they fail. Like it or not, these countries will never let you legalise the war now and the future iraqi regime has to be accepted by these nations if it wants to survive.

 

I don't see the UN as being discredited by this war.I don't think anyone had any doubt the US would win.These countries have valid reasons for not wanting to invade another country.

Unless we find real weapons of mass destruction I am afraid it may be the US that is discredited.After all if he never had the weapons we claim,what is are justification for invading.It was never about liberation of Iraq until the world would not back the states in its effort.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The UN is not discredited because of the fact that we went to war, and succeeded with out the UN. It is discredited because of the fact that it is meaningless in its intended purpose, and lost its last opportunity to prove itself otherwise. Over the course of 12 years it threatened, and cajoled, and warned and begged Saddam Hussein to allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. When more than enough time had passed, and it was readily apparent to all that Saddam was not going to do anything the UN demanded, the US asked for, and by the way is the only nation in history to ever ask for, the UN to back up its rhetoric. Well, the special interests of the French and Russians got in the way, so they held then entire thing hostage for their own gain.

Now, international treaties are somewhat like contracts. If a contract is signed, but neither party attempts to enforce the terms of the contract, and in fact do business outside of the terms of said contract, it becomes null and void after a given amount of time. China, Russia and France have all undertaken military actions in foreign nations to protect their interests without even requesting comment from the UN. In the grand history of the UN there are only 3 conflicts that were ever approved, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and most recently Afghanistan. Funny that the US was the lead in all of them.

As all parities involved in said Treaties have ignored the terms of the Treaties, they are no in fact void, hence the UN as an international governing body no longer exists, and the US is in no manner bound to its whims.

I don't think they need that big building in New York to complete their charity work, since that is the only meaningful role left for them, so please, and I mean this in the most polite way possible, UN, get the hell out of my country!

BOC,

France, Germany, and Russia would accept Satan himself as the absolute ruler of the rest of the world if he would offer them a couple of billion US$ in trade contracts.

 

Edit - not quite as on point since while i was writing there were other responses, oh well.

I can think of two valid reasons just off the top of my head without really thinking about it for the rebuilding of Iraq to be under the UN umbrella:

1) $$$$$. It is easier for the UN to get contributions than it is for the US.

2) world perception generally but middle eastern perception specifically.

Question: why did the US led coalition attack Iraq?

Stated Answers: WMD's, terrorism, human rights. Am I missing any? (these were stated reasons I listed remember.)

Well, if there are WMD's there they'll be dug out as easily under UN control as US and if that's the concern I am sure the UN would have no problem negotiating people acceptable to the US into this position. With respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

If the reason is terrorism then the fact that the overall hostility to the US will be greatly lessened by the UN taking over helps reduce the recuiting power of the terrorist organizations. Besides, the stated terrorism fear is the transfer of WMD's to existing terrorists and that's addressed above. So, with respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

If the reason is human rights, then again, the UN taking over seems preferable. The UN has more experience in recent years than USAID in managing the type of humanitarian difficulties faced in Iraq. Further, as mentioned above the UN taking over will make the Arab world happier, lead to a decrease in the tensions etc will lead to a reduction of the danger of terror attacks that would creater further crises. So, with respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

Now, I think that pretty much covers the stated reasons for the war: WMD's, terrorism, human rights. I don't see why if those reasons were the objective it would be disadvantageous to the US to turn over the rebuilding to the UN - well, I do see one big reason right off the top of my head. The UN's recent track record for rebuilding is pretty mucked up and it is in the best interest of the US to get this thing rebuilt right. But, with the high profile of this particular problem and the exorbitant resoruces likely to be poured into it, the UN would be far more likely to get it right this time. Besides, the US' recent track record in nation building isn't something to thump our chest over - what's the situation in Afghanistan like right now?

Oh, and did I mention that a good reason for the UN to take over is $$$$$$? It'll cost the US far less to allow the UN to take over. Check out generally articles all over Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune etc to see references to this. That's one of the primary reasons the US is trying to involve the UN right now even in a limited manner. Common sense really. If the rebuilding effort is going to cost a minimum of 60 billion (the more commonly accepted long term estimates are over 100 billion) would you rather that be divided up among the international community or shouldered just by the US? Keep in mind that Iraq can brings in about 25 billion a year and is the most in debt nation in history with over 40 billion in compensation owed to Kuwait alone not to mention 100's of billions in debt. If the UN takes over they'll get debt relief, if it is just the US they won't. Hey! Is that a new reason or just a subsection of the old?

More generally with regards to the UN, 58 years was a good run but it lacks teeth.

 

Laches,

The UN is welcome to provide as much aid as they would like.

However, all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq that are beyond the capabilities of Iraq at the present time should be awarded to the nations that in some manner, monetarily or militarily, supported its liberation. The US and the UK are not going to cover these costs; these costs will be recouped from the sale of Iraqi oil.

This is why Russia, Germany, and France are meeting to try to get the UN to run the show, they want some of the money and they certainly are not going to accept any of the costs.

 

I can't believe this!
Now the US have set their own rules, international law don't fit their interests so they dump it.
New rules are: we launch war against who we want when we want regardless of what the rest of the world thinks; either you're with us or you're a weasel or a terrorist. We exploit local resources for ourselves and let UN do the Samaritan's job.
The war cost a lot of money to US/UK no doubts of that, but whose money was it? Taxpayers' money. Money now made in Iraq won't go back to the American people but to industry giants (let's pick one randomly, Halliburton). The war costs lives and money to the average US citizen, the war makes money for armament industries and oil drillers. How fair is that?
Russia and France had placed interests in Iraq before the war, so US gets in, kill people, exploit oil instead of the "weasels" and now France and Russia are the bad guys who only think about money ... how hypocrite is that!

 

Yago is totally confused because he totally agrees with laches.

I am personally totally against any commitment of the UN. The only thing I think the UN should to, is to get the most needed care into Iraq and that's it.

I understand the american argument. It was their plan, it was their blood and now they are in charge.


On the other hand, I don't see why the other rich nations of the world should give financial aid to the americans. The one who pays has to say, how things have to be. If leadership of the UN is for americans not acceptable, so be it. They unleashed the dogs of war, now they have to take responsibility for it and pay for the costs, alone.

Sidenote: I saw a TV-interview with "Pearl" (or whatever his name is) and he said, the americans would be very happy to pay for everything needed.


And there is another consequence of not involvment of the UN in decision-making. Blair has promised to the British that the UN will take the leading role. If this promise is not fullfilled, the British will get out of there asap. Because theiy will not be willing, to let their soldiers spill their blood for a lost cause.

Funny, once upon a time the USA had lots of allies. What happened ?

That's exact the reasoning of the US-Goverment. Therefore my opinion is clear, no UN-Involvment. The US-Goverment calculated, that the UN will move in whatever, because they want to prevent a catastrophe. But I think, they should refuse to be puppets on a string and make deals with the devil and let the americans pay alone.

Hm, I see Budget - D e f i c i t

Too bad.

[ April 13, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

I think, the UN and the so-called "coalition" should work together. Neither one has the rescources (and I am not only speaking of money) to rebuild Iraq alone. The military is needed for keeping up order (although I have doubts about soldiers being able to execute policing task). But the US IMHO have no experience in "nation-building". The diverse UN-Organisations do have that experience.

@Darkwolf: It wasn't Vietnam, it was North-Korea.

 

yes, that's why they count on the belgians. But I don't see, why the Belgians should do the work for them, while the Americans lean back and wouldn't even bother to thank them.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040903.cfm

"hunting for weapons of mass destruction"

3 Month and expecting to be still searching ? Oh, those lousy CIA-reports.

"terrorist cells"

What terrorist cells ? Ah, the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnites.

"Protecting infrastructure"

Protecting oil

"secure large cities"

Prevent peaceful demonstrations against the occupation and Ghandi like no-cooperation movement.

"establishing a free Iraqi nation"

A goverment by, from and for the americans

"spreading democracy throughout the Middle East"

Operation basis Iraq for new wars (Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Iran).

[ April 13, 2003, 21:23: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

3000 Americans die for the beliefs of half the world, it's a tragedy.
4000 Iraqis die for the beliefs of Bush and Blair, it's an unavoidable consequence of war.

Need i say more, bring the UN in, we need someone with a pulse to rebuild this war torn country.

 

The UN, due to it's inhomogenic power structure - dependent on the will of 5 superpowers has a significant advantage over the US: When the superpowers avoid putting too massive verbal pressure on it, the world might perceive the UN, unlike the US which has domestic interests, as neutral - that has been a key to success, like in Cyprus, Sinai and other places.

This might also be an advantage elsewhere, given the UN gets all the political support it needs.

 

I think that the Japanese would disagree.

Ragusa,

Your last statement is 1/2 of what makes the UN meaningless. The 5 nations that have veto power rarely politcally agree on anything, so it will never get all the political support it needs.

 

That really is a bad example, Darkwolf(as is germany btw). That was over 50 years ago and under very different conditions. And I doubt that many people who took part in that project are still alive. So were is the experience?

 

Wow this is an interesting discussion. Much more multi-national than talking with the old men at the barber shop on Saturdays.

Since the war started ive watched alot of news coverage in the morning before work and when I get home in the evenings. Its as real as reality TV can get. Noone gets shot at on "The Bachelor".

First, I believe that the "coalition" is justified in its actions in Iraq and I support them. I think that the weapons inspectors should have been give more time to look but not an indeffinite amount of time. Saddam has been toying with the UN for 12 years and in that time had ample opportunity to hide his weapons very well. Why we think that the UN inspectors would have ever found them im not sure?

Im no fan of war. Its not a video game. People die in wars and you cant go back to a save game to correct it. Both innocent civilians and military personnel die in war. How many civilians have died during our "evil occupation"?
How does this number compare to how many civilians Saddam and his fanboys have tortured and killed during his reign? Unlike the genius above stated, any time there is mass civilian mortality for any reason it is a tragedy. According to some reports, since bombing started, 70-100,000+ Iraqi military personnel have been killed. Someone above stated that about 4000 civilians have been killed. Id say we are making a huge effort to avoid killing civilians. Unlike the world trade center bombing where civilians were the target.

I hope that we are able to find Saddams weapons and that his regime didnt already smuggle them out of the country. It wont matter to many in the world except us. Do you think al-jazera will broadcast this information or that the media in France or Russia will note that the US found the smoking guns? The US military will probably be accused of "planting" whatever is found.

I laughed so hard I almost cried when I saw on the news that France, Germany and Russia felt the UN should have the lead role in rebuilding Iraq. While I do not disagree that the UN should have a role, it was US and British troops that died in Iraq. It was the US and Britian and to a lesser extent Spain that fronted the costs of the war. Why should the UN get the lead role? Someone above mentioned that it would be because the UN would be seen as neutral and not the coalation. How is the UN neutral? Countries are members of the UN to help protect their "interests". Before they were members of Nato and the League of Nations to help protect their "interests". How can a body with a vested interest be seen as neutral. France, Germany, and Russia want to help protect oil contracts and trade agreements with Iraq. That is why they are pushing for UN involvement.

Maybe when this war is over (an I hope soon, rebuilding will take a long time) we can build a big glass parking lot with a big Wal-mart just outside of Baghdad. We could hire Iraqi people who have been impoverished for so long by Saddam. Everyone knows Walmart has the cheapest prices in town so maybe France, Germany, and Russia would want to shop there. That should help their "interests". (This last paragraph is a joke cept the part about hoping the war is over soon.)

 

Darkwolf -

I just have to say that you speak the truth.

Do you agree with the rising feeling amongst Americans to actually drop out of the U.N.?

 

Sir Dargorn, many of the Iraqis died only by a calculation fluke on both parts not their beliefs. For example, the restruant scene, four 200,000 pound bombs dropped, flattened the resturaunt, which was tipped off by an anonymous source that Saddam was inside, the bombs also destroyed an entire block, and shattered all glass objects within a 3 mile radius. The first bodies that were found were of a three year old child. And then there's the killing of a boy's father, in front of the child. The two were driving past a US checkpoint, a US bullet comes through the window, straight through father's head, and the boy is drenched in his father's blood. Their crime? Buying bread, so the could eat the first time in five days.