TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UN to help in Iraq after all?

UN to help in Iraq after all?

CNN Article

This looks like a win/win situation for the US. The UN says no or gets itself mired in politics and the US can again say "we tried." The US can then take credit for a successful Iraq or blame the lack of international cooperation on a strife Iraq. If the UN agrees to help, the US can attribute a successful Iraq to a strong base started by America and finished under international efforts. If it fails under UN support, the US can then blame it on the UN. Maybe that's me being pessimistic, but it'll be interesting to see what happens. I can't wait to see the politicing on France's part however, they're always good for a laugh.

i find it kidna funny. take the oil and let someone else rebuild iraq

quote:

Originally posted by Elmo-On-XTC i find it kidna funny. take the oil and let someone else rebuild iraq

Hey! Somebody gets paid for that oil!

Either way I would hope that we have reached the epoch of this nonsense over the relevancy of the U.N. If it was completely irrelevant I doubt that it would even be under discussion. This is a perfect way for the U.N to be directly involved and that is through the political aspect, perhaps the most important in postwar Iraq because it is from this outcome that Iraq shall move forward, hopefully.

I think the "relevancy" of the UN is in its politics. As a governing body, or as an international organization that carries any real authority, I do not see the UN as having any major impact, or hope of one in its current form. However, it is a great place for international discussion and politics to occur. If the UN comes onboard in Iraq, I really don't see it changing the situation there much, except by offering a bigger arena for debate and for the US, it gives the ability to say there is "International Cooperation" in Iraq.

If you ask me, I really don't see this lack of real UN power as a bad thing. When you hope to have every country on Earth sit down and come up with meaningful agreements or courses of action, I wish you good luck. Besides, look at the Isreal/Palestine situation and tell me how good the UN really is at being relevant anyway. (somebody's going to kill me for that comment ) In summary, the UN is a great place for discussion but a bad means for any concrete real-world action.

I think the UN should stay out. This is americas mess. they went in without UN approval, they should clean the mess they created. The yanks just want other peoples money going into rebuilding iraq. You break it you buy it. Now that all the reconstruction contracts have been filled by american companies it's time to bring the UN in? FUCK that.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe I think the UN should stay out. This is americas mess. they went in without UN approval, they should clean the mess they created. The yanks just want other peoples money going into rebuilding iraq. You break it you buy it. Now that all the reconstruction contracts have been filled by american companies it's time to bring the UN in? FUCK that.

So much for having too much concerns for the Iraqis then, huh! You would rather then see that some form of puppet government be established by the U.S. on a permanent basis and you can complain about that 5-10 years down the road, as opposed to the viewpoint of having the U.N. be a legitmate part of the political process in Iraq and can provide a system through which the Iraqis will receive their nation back in a stronger political framework that represents their interests as opposed to "evil America" Just wondering where the sentiments of people truly lie.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe I think the UN should stay out. This is americas mess. they went in without UN approval, they should clean the mess they created. The yanks just want other peoples money going into rebuilding iraq. You break it you buy it. Now that all the reconstruction contracts have been filled by american companies it's time to bring the UN in? FUCK that.

if america wanted funding from other countries, don't you think it would at least let the other countries (that did not participate in the actual war) contract in iraq?

nico the contracts are a service rendered for moeny(paying for what you get). getting un funding is cold hard currency directly into the depleted american banks.

nyctrancefan: the UN can't be americas babysitter. Everywhere the americans go the UN has to fix.

somila
yugoslavia
iraq now?

where does it end? Time for the yanks to clean up their mess. Time to continue watching the iraqi's welcome the yanks with "open arms" or more likley small arms fire.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but in both Somalia and Yugoslavia, the US went in as "UN peacekeepers," not at US soldiers, per se.

The biggest problem with Somalia is that after the humanitarian goals had been achieved, the UN generals decided to start going after war lords, that's when all the bad stuff happened, and what eventually led to Clinton pulling US troops out of there. Afterwards, the remaining UN peacekeepers from other countries that remained also decided to pull out after their loss of American support.

As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, that was also initiated by UN actions. The US did try to get the Dayton peace accords, I believe unilaterally, but the inital push into Yugoslavia was by the UN. Now it is actually NATO that is in control of the peacekeepers that remain, not the US. Just thought I'd throw that in before Iraq gets groupped with those two events that were actually both initiated by the UN, not the US.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe nyctrancefan: the UN can't be americas babysitter. Everywhere the americans go the UN has to fix. somila yugoslavia iraq now?

I fail to understand your logic or reasoning on this particular matter, certainly it isn't better that Iraqis should continue to be killed and political instability should take place just so that a point can be proven by those who may possess a morbid hatred of U.S. policy in its innumerable dimensions. I choose to welcome the U.N. into Iraq, especially in the political process because they stand a better chance of securing the interests of the Iraqis with legitimacy of the government, not as suspect as those of any U.S. policy. My point here is that the Iraqis need to have their nation back under Iraqi leadership, void of any questions as to the interests of its future political leaders, if the U.N. can help in administering that then so be it. Trust me failsafe I would love for the U.S. to avoid these places altogether but it usually never happens, the only hope is that Bush is sent packing in the coming months ahead.

If the UN keeps bailing the americans out when to the Americans learn to stop getting involved in these messes? Yes no doubt Iraq would be better with the UN involved. However, I think in the long run MORE countries and people will be better off if the yanks can learn not to get involved. I know they spend trillions on all these neat tanks and bombers and want to go out and play with them. Hell if I bought a $200,000 dollar sports car I'd want to go out and race every now and then. It's no fun having the toy and just driving it to pick up milk and bread. It's not good for the UN to try and fix these american messes. It makes the UN look bad for not being able to fix what isn't a UN problem. The UN should work as a team, and if the americans don't want to be part of the team then so be it, just don't ask for the team to come help you when you've fucked up.

If you want to talk about "team players" then just look at what the UN charges the US every year in dues. The United States pays one quarter of the UN's annual operating budget, and a third of its peace keeping budget. This is by far more than any other nation. The US has asked the UN on serveral occasions to lower its dues to 20%/25% respectively, even refusing to pay for two years, but the UN has said no. I know that in the "real world" if I were to pay for 1/3 of an organizations budget I'd sure as hell want them to do a few things I want them to do, regardless of the other minority owners.

If the UN continues its track record of expecting the US to pay a great part of its budget, use US soldiers as its peacekeepers 90% of the time, and then not help the US when it asks either formally or informally for asisstance on a repeated basis, I can realistically see the US leaving the UN. I think if the US does, there will be at least a handful of nations that will also leave. If this happens you'll see the credibility of the UN go from little to zero. The bottom line is that the UN has to help the US in certain situations, because the reverse has been true throughout the UN's history. Besides, look at the UN charter's preamble, "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." I think Iraq is a perfect place for the UN to help this happen.

the americans comitting 90% of peace keepers? You make me laugh. I'd love for you to find something that says the americans comit even 50%.


Furthermore, when Americans are given correct information about the actual levels of US contributions relative to other countries, a solid majority embraces the amounts contributed as fair. In the June 1996 PIPA poll, respondents were told that "In fact, UN dues are assessed according to a country's share of the world economy or GNP. The US is assessed 25% because that is its share of the world economy.


From 1957 to 2003, there were 55 UN peacekeeping missions. 13 missions were continuing at the end of 2003. 130 nations have sent troops on peacekeeping missions with troops from 89 countries deployed in 2003. Canada and Fiji have been part of almost all peacekeeping missions.

Participation:

The countries that form the core of UN peacekeeping operations are Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, India, Italy, Australia, with Canada putting more money and troops into peacekeeping than any other power. In recent deployments, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria have contributed large numbers of troops.


^^^^ wow funny if the americans deploy 90% of peacekeepers why on earth wouldn't they be listed there as a good contributor? Get your facts straight before you shoot off lies.

As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 U.S. personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers

there's the exact figure. hahahaha 1.8% of peacekeepers.... oh shit man i'm actually falling off my chair laughing so hard. you thought 90%? well only off 88.2%

better luck next time.

I would rather consider it a pretty fair tradeoff, as the largest contributor at between 24-25% annually to the U.N. financially certainly that money goes towards conducting the "peacekeeping missions" around our World. Take for example Japan who is also one of the largest contributors, as a matter of fact the second largest and what do they contribute as far as troops to peacekeeping missions. They recently sent a 30 man non-combat brigade to Iraq, but that is of course not under the UN. Here is where you fall short in your statment about U.S. troop contribution failsafe.

Let us also not forget that the U.S. has troops stationed in what is that place again, yes, South Korea remember that little war started with the permission of the U.N. oh so long ago, now they spit at U.S. troops in that place. Who does that job if the U.S. pulls out, as well as troops in Europe, less significant but nonetheless there, as well as troops in Japan. But I guess that doesn't contribute to peacekeeping over all the years that troops were there, even up to this point in time today.

one point eight percent. Need I say more? Justify it all you want. I think if most countries had the money they'd rather pay with money then the lives of their peace keepers. The american troops in south korea are NOT peace keepers. They do NOT wear the bule helmet, they do not drive around in white APCs. They are not UN. America has a lot of financial intrest in korea and in japan. That is the reason for the bases, not some desire to protect the korean or japanese people. If they were trying to help save lives rawanda would have been a good spot. Guess the rawandans didn't have anything big american buisness wanted. That cost about a million lives.

All I have to say is give me your sources...here's mine.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/it...pe/pj2peace.htm

As of 1995, there were 60,000 US personnel involved in UN peacekeeping operations. True, that dropped to 26,000 in 1996, but I'm speaking throughout history, not just at this moment. Look back through the history of the UN and show me another country that has come even close to matching the amount of men and money that the US has given.

The US has a clear track record of supplying more men and material to the UN "cause" than any other country. If you're going to say that the US only pays its "fair share" because it is the largest economy and a world super power, then I believe it should get out what it pays for. What is the point of paying and giving more to an organization than any other nation, and not getting your "fair share" out. In the business world this would be a bad deal, and in politics it is the same.

As far as Japan, I would like to note that Japan petitioned to the UN assembly to have its annual dues lowered (from nearly 20% to 15.5% of the total UN budget), and their request was allowed. The US on the other hand has also asked the same and has been rejected numerous times. If you don't want the US to have a "beef" with the UN, allow it to pay a rate equal to any other industrialized country. If the UN is to be equal in its bias from member countries, it should also be equal in its funding from these countries. When the US has a clear track record of complying with most UN obligations to supply troops, people and materials while the UN has a recent history to deny such US requests, I have no problem with the US circumventing the UN. An organization that is more than happy to require the US to supply people and resources that far surpass any other nation yet will not come to the aid of the nation that gives so much should not be amazed when the US goes "over its head."

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe one point eight percent. Need I say more? Justify it all you want. I think if most countries had the money they'd rather pay with money then the lives of their peace keepers. The american troops in south korea are NOT peace keepers. They do NOT wear the bule helmet, they do not drive around in white APCs. They are not UN. America has a lot of financial intrest in korea and in japan. That is the reason for the bases, not some desire to protect the korean or japanese people. If they were trying to help save lives rawanda would have been a good spot. Guess the rawandans didn't have anything big american buisness wanted. That cost about a million lives.

You're right about one thing I wouldn't want to see one more U.S. soldiers life shed to protect anything on the Korean Peninsula. If I had my way the South Koreans would be looking elsewhere for their security guarantees. You simplify your statemtent by saying that the U.S. is there to protect their interests, what you fail to mention is that those interests have come at a heavy U.S. investment in those places over decades, they didn't just walk in over there and set up shop.

The issue in Rwanda is one of wanton disregard on the part of the entire international community, the U.N. as a whole included, for far too long, not just the USA. I don't remember any U.S. investment in Rwanda, but I do remember the Belgians having a brutal influence in that nation for a long period and after the 1962 independence the Hutus and Tutsis massacred each other while where was Belgium, they had finished plundering the nation that is what. Check the history books failsafe and you will realise that massacres were taking place in Rwanda decades before what the world became so horrified at in 1994. Your linking of the U.S. non-involvement to Rwanda is pretty one-sided indeed. Europe and Belgium(when it comes to Rwanda and Congo) could just as easily be blamed for sowing the seeds of future ethnic tensions in Africa, after all at one point with the exception of Liberia and Ethiopia all of Africa belonged to Europe for exploitation. Selective memory and short term historical accounts leave a lot to be desired in your arguments on U.S. "peacekeeping policy" or lack thereof failsafe.

Neo: there's my link

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclo...UN-peacekeeping


clearly you don't understand the difference between a soldier and a peace keeper. A UN peace keeper drives around a white APC with blue UN insignia and wears a blue helmet. you may have noticed that Americans VERY VERY rarely do that. This is because they aren't PEACE KEEPERS. I'll say it again for clairtys sake because you missed it last time by. 1.8% of total peace keepers are american. As far as the UN does go, agian it's by GDP. All countries pay roughly the same share. If you make more you pay more, that's the fair way of doing things. It's similar to taxes, the more you make the more you pay (unless your buds with dubya then you pay nothing). Japan got its dues reduced because they were being mischarged via the GDP formlua. I pretty damn sure japan doesn't have veto power either, the yanks love that, so again you pay more for good things.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.