the Axis of Weasels wants the UN back in!

Remove all ads!

How can't you take a post seriously that talks about the 200,000 pound bombs used by the US? MOAB and nukes are nothing compared to those.

 

Well it was something in the thousands, and a nuke would do a lot more damage than that. Like in Japan, 1 of the first ever Atom Bombs, destroyed the entire city.

 

Fabius

Lets see, we could have the US and UK head up the rebuilding of Iraq. With these two nations you would have the expertise of the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful economy in the world, and I am not sure where the UK falls at the moment in size of its economy in the world, but I would be willing to bet that per capita, its GNP is in the top 5. Two of the most successful industrialized, technologically advanced, and wealthiest nations in the world. Nope, no expertise in building a successful nation there at all!

Or we could allow an organization that has yet to build/rebuild a self-sufficient, successful, economically sound nation anywhere. Lets look at the UN's expertise, at this or anything else.

The economic powerhouse of Ghana heads the UN's security council. Ghana's total GNP is less that the budget of many American corporations. Per the CIA: Telephone system, poor to fair; 0 AM, 49 FM radio stations (I believe that there or more than 20 FM and at least 10 AM stations in the small city I live in); 10 television broadcast station (there 8 in the city I live in) and 12 ISP providers (I got tired of counting when I got to 25 in my local phone book). Yep, a modern economic powerhouse.

Lets see, the next head of the Human Rights Commission is going to be Libyan. Yeah, do I really need to go any further on that one? LYBIA wow...

Iraq was scheduled to be the next Chair of the disarmament committee (sorry not sure what has happened with that since around the middle of January), but the UN felt that given the current status of things in Iraq at the time, they decided that a co-chair would be appropriate, so the nominated Iran. IRAN? Holy crap, you have got to be kidding me! Is Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dumb making decisions at the UN right now?

Wow, you know what, I bet that if Dee or Dumb asked really nicely, and promised a couple of billion in aid, the esteemed representative from Ethiopia would be available to chair the Iraqi Rebuilding Committee!

So let me run a little scenario by you, lets say you need to hop on a plane to fly accross the Atlantic tomorrow. Only problem is, one of the engines on the 747 that you are about to fly in had a major failure yesterday. Now, do you want some mechanic from a third world country who has never even touched a 747, but knows a DC-3 inside and out, or the man who designed and built the prototypes for the engines that are on a 747 to repair it?

If you choose the first one, I'll catch the next flight, thanks anyway.

Blackhawk,

I think we need to run, not walk out the door. France really likes the UN (other than fashion it is the last world stage they have left, since they make better cheese in Oregon, and the wine and (don't want to get sued for using the French's precious C word) sparkling wine from California is consistently ranked better (sorry Sprite, I just couldn't resist, I really like a good brie myself ). I am sure that they would be ecstatic to have the headquarters of the UN in Paris. I know that I would love to see, after many long years, the UN building in NY be put to some productive use.

 

First of all, I don't see how being the "greatest" country in the world qualifies it to be the best nation builder. No two cultures are the same. A people should be the best judge of what their nation should be. If others want to help, fine. Just as long as it is helping not imposing. * Charlie thinks he must be naive. *

Second, let the US and UK lead if they want to. It's their war anyway. If it's what they want, what can anyone do? Only time will tell if what they did (rebuilding) was right or wrong. They will reap what they have sown. If they do well then they are proven right. If they do poorly the backlash will be on them.

 

US and UK will probably stay within Iraq, like what they are doing to South Korea.

 

Darkwolf wrote:

" but I would be willing to bet that per capita, its GNP is in the top 5 "

Ahm, no. Bet lost. Not even top 20.

http://www.aneki.com

And don't forget, Nazi-Germany was very rich, successfull and it's military nearly invincible. Does the strength of a military or the art of Blitzkrieg say anyithing about the morale values of it's goverment ?

(I don't want to compare America with Nazi-Germany, I just want to make my opinion clear, that "success" alone says nothing about values or general expertise in everything)

(And Germany was beaten by Russia, the UK and the Americans. Not by the Americans alone. And Russia had the biggest part in it. Remember Stalingrad ?)

Darkwolf, as Laches pointed out so well, the US-Goverment is calculating, they'll get the money of Europe and East-Asia no matter what.

And I agree with Charlie. Let the US reap what it as sown. Therefore, if the UN has not the command, it should stay out and give no money to the americans.

I don't want to see European blood unneccessarily spilled in a colonial adventure.

Why, Darkwolf, do you think that Europeans are no longer in the colony-business ? A sudden insight in moral values ? No, it just don't works anymore.

(implemented Tarsakh's proposal)

[ April 14, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago, I think the appropriate term is unessescary blood.

 

Darkwolf,
personally I have a problem with the US beeing cop, prosecutor, judge and executioner in one person. Call it a problem of conflict of interest and interest in conflict. No country is altruistic, least of all the US.

There I clearly prefer the flawed UN, where 5 egoists bring down their competing interests to a, perhaps flawed, compromise. ATM the US are - as a result of their military and economic strength - unwilling to compromise. All the "UN doesn't work" bull is just the excuse for that.

When this war has been successful it can't change anything about the fact that it was against international law. The US and UK gvt's are pretty alone with their perception of beeing 'justified' - only diplomatic courtoisie prevents the other gvt's and international diplomats from openly stating that.
The reason why cricic is so modest is as to not piss off the US as they then wouln't consult anyone anymore.

[ April 14, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

@ Darkwolf:
Do you really think that its all about money? Iraq has nothing resembling a civil society and they do not know how do create it. Do the US or UK know? The UNOs has a lot of experience in this matter from their work in former yugoslavia.

An what has the economy of a country got to do with the ability to lead the security council? That is a task only for represent the council and organising the actual meetings. The comissions are another matter, though.

The UNO has many flaws. But instead of complaining, your government should try reforming the structure. If you do not like it, change it, don't throw it away.

 

I am British - therefore following the absurdist logic from above (I) have won this war, and so have complete rights to what goes on afterwards in Iraq...

It would be (is going to be) an absolute disgrace when complete "control" is not handed over to the UN. Neither we nor the Americans have any right to be in the country, let alone dictate how to sell it off...

 

Here is a reason why the U.N. is needed: http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=919c5e86ce0fbfd9c80be0819ba8412a&threadid=12182 And if you read the reactions, many Muslims, let alone Middle Eastern people, are not happy with the U.S. occupation, either. For more about Arab reactions: http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=919c5e86ce0fbfd9c80be0819ba8412a&threadid=12159 America is sitting on a vast powder keg that is waiting to explode. There are reports that non-Iraqi Arabs are heading to Iraq to drive out the U.S./U.K. forces there.

 

Just an fyi going back to above, the bombs dropped were probably 2,000 pounds (assuming you got the 2 part right). That's a 198,000 pound difference - that's a whole lotta bomb.

Sorry, thought it was funny. Also, I thought it was somewhat emblematic of the "fact"/hyperbolic discussion that seems to have become the norm when attacking America.

 

Well, nevertheless it was more than enough to take out the restruant.

 

For info only:

The UK is the 4th largest economy in the world (total GDP) per the world bank and 5th largest per the OECD figures I dug out for 2001.

I don't want to be seen to question the validity of the CIA figures you gave Yago, but per my calculation their figures make the Norwegian population some 6 million which will come as a major shock up there I can tell you. Where have they all been hiding?

Per the OECD figures the UK come in per capita 16th highest.

Now on topic:

In the main I lean towards a handover to the UN for taking Iraq into this new found freedom of theirs.

The reasons are as stated by others; It's really the only way to get the Arabs and even the Iraqis on board. Well, I may be rather narrow in my thinking here, but without them I fear we're struggling more than a little both in the peace process and rebuilding stakes.

2p's worth. Short of time.

 

At Viking: Lol. I chose the CIA source for two reasons:

1. Easy to find
2. Hey, they are american sources

And I didn’t bother to look up Norway. (Oops, CIA not trustworthy ?)

And Darkwolf said “per capita”, so anyway, he has lost his bet. And I ended not to far away from your statistics, Viking. So, they made sense to me.

Sidenote: 5 biggest economies, that would be (guessing):
USA, China, Japan, Germany, UK

That would make sense.

 

Milliardo, I hope you're wrong about the non-Iraqi Arabs going to Iraq. They will meet with a bloody and painful end if they try to engage the US and British forces. I'm not saying they should die, but I know they will if they do anything stupid.

 

Yago stated:

Actually per OECD 1991 data it is (In billions):

USA $10,082
Japan $4,141
Germany $1,846
UK $1,424
France $1,310
China $1,159 (excludes Hong Kong)

By the way, the US state of California would be above China and just below France at $1,309. This Los Angeles metropolitan area would be tied with Spain for 10th.

Yago was very close! Probably only missed it on a technicality (Hong Kong).

 

Darkwolf, those stats are surprising! I wonder if there's any fiddling involved there -- I mean, China is HUGE, and has tons of natural resources, and a pretty good military if what I've read in times past is true. I wonder if they're deliberately de-valuing themselves to be either a Crouching Tiger or a Hidden Dragon

 

That is actually an interesting question, worth a topic on it's own. I read articles, that China actually is a hidden dragon. What's for sure is, that they've got an unbelievable economic growth. I am not into economics, I must confess, but when I remember right (and considering how cheap a pint in the UK is) comparisons between economies in the whole are really complicated.

 

Darkwolf - 2001 OECD figures those. Most current available. (Unless those figures are restated at a later parity value for the $)

Yago - Chinese current growth rate is 7.5-8.0%

At current rates US 2% (min) China 8% max it will be at least 40 years before China is the biggest economy in the world by GDP.

Indeed to compare economies by purchasing power might well be more meaningful. One of my Uni lecturers did it for us with Mars bars