|
UN to help in Iraq after all?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
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. |
|
|
| Elmo-On-XTC |
| i find it kidna funny. take the oil and let someone else rebuild iraq :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Elmo-On-XTC
i find it kidna funny. take the oil and let someone else rebuild iraq :rolleyes: |
Hey! Somebody gets paid for that oil!:D ;) |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
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 :toocool: ) In summary, the UN is a great place for discussion but a bad means for any concrete real-world action. |
|
|
| 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? that. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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? 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. |
|
|
| nic01445 |
| 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? 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? |
|
|
| failsafe |
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. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
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. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| 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. |
|
|
| failsafe |
| 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 ed up. |
|
|
|
|
