Time to kiss and make up with the UN.

[Tmy]

Shouldnt the Whitehouse just welcome the UN back into Iraq. Whats the downside? We can have more people looking for WMD, its good world PR cause we wont look like imperialists (the locals are already grumbling), cost sharing, we would be taking the higher ground, and wh UN support we can dump the sanctions and begin the oil-money flow going in Iraq which will help rebuild the place.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tmy
Shouldnt the Whitehouse just welcome the UN back into Iraq. Whats the downside? We can have more people looking for WMD, its good world PR cause we wont look like imperialists (the locals are already grumbling), cost sharing, we would be taking the higher ground, and wh UN support we can dump the sanctions and begin the oil-money flow going in Iraq which will help rebuild the place. I agree. I'm having trouble understanding the US position on all of this.

The US "won" : they won the debate, in that they went to war and they won the war. Being magnanimous in victory would seem to be the way to go, if you want to reduce the risk of terrorist reprisals and stop half the world from hating you.

Instead we have Colin Powell talking about France suffering consequences (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2968775.stm) of opposing the US invasion of Iraq at a time when it is far from clear whether the invasion was justified under the US's own terms.

I must be missing something because I really don't understand what the US administration is trying to achieve.

[Richard G]

Your right. The U.N. can kiss my ass. I don't think that will make up for anything though.

The U.N. proved itself to be irrelivent. Its going to stay that way.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Richard G
Your right. The U.N. can kiss my ass. I don't think that will make up for anything though.

The U.N. proved itself to be irrelivent. Its going to stay that way.

Let's wait 'til they find those famous WMD's before we close the book on that one. And however self-important we think we are, wishing away the opinions of the rest of the world isn't an option unless you are a complete isolationist. Especially if they turn out to be right.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G
The U.N. proved itself to be irrelivent. Its going to stay that way.

Right. Tell that to all the people that are beeing fed by the UN. They might have another opinion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
Your right. The U.N. can kiss my ass. I don't think that will make up for anything though.

The U.N. proved itself to be irrelivent. Its going to stay that way.
If the U.N. was irrelivent (sic), then why should we fault Saddam for ignoring UN resolutions?

As I recall, a lot of US "patriots" were very glad for the UN when they stood behind us in our attack on the Taliban. Is it a case of "yeah, but what have you done for me lately?"

The nations of the world are going to have diplomatic relations and make joint decisions. Whether or not they do it at the UN or on the internet is not really important. What is important is that the US be a part of that diplomacy. That is, unless you advocate invading anyone you don't like.

A handful of terrorists proved that they can harm America's interests. Don't you think the combined military and economic might of all the nations of the world might be able to affect us slightly?

[Tmy]

Plus there were a number of contries that supported the invasion. Most if not all of them are part of the UN. If you want to be mad then take it out on the few high powered UN members who had a big beef about Iraq.

I'm wondering why we WOULDNT want a large UN presence. Other than hurt feelings I dont see a reason to freeze them out. Unless you want to control the money and contracts associated with rebuilding. Then you'll hear claims of imperialism and war for oil.

[ceo_esq]

I could be wrong, but I haven't noticed many Iraqis clamoring to welcome the UN. Several comments from Iraqis I've heard suggest that the UN earned the contempt of many Iraqis by, as they perceive it, standing in the way of removing Saddam.

[aerocontrols]

Why not? (http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_04_13_oxblog_archive.html#92893305)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
I could be wrong, but I haven't noticed many Iraqis clamoring to welcome the UN. Several comments from Iraqis I've heard suggest that the UN earned the contempt of many Iraqis by, as they perceive it, standing in the way of removing Saddam.
You might be right (although you didn't hear about too many Iraqis clamoring for anything prior to Saddam's removal). I suspect that the Iraqis are highly pi**ed off about the way things have gone lately and they will lash out at anyone. I doubt that you will find many who now claim that the invasion was preferable to the inspections.

It seems to be the position of the US that we need to do what is best for the Iraqi people, in spite of what they claim to want, otherwise we would simply turn the country over to the Shiites. But if we truly are/were committed to doing the best thing for the Iraqis, then it is my belief (which many disagree with) that we should have allowed the inspections and diplomacy to run it's course. We might have achieved the same results, but without all the killing.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by iain
I must be missing something because I really don't understand what the US administration is trying to achieve.

The UN has proven itself to be a radical anti-democratic group that the US needs to gather a pause about and analyze. The "UN" tried to subvert US national security just prior to US action in Iraq. Rewarding the "UN" right now is not going to happen.

JK

[iain]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The "UN" tried to subvert US national security just prior to US action in Iraq. How did they do that exactly?

Edited to add I can't believe I've wasted my 666th post on a response to JK.

[Tmy]

"rewarding" Jk? Iraq was about liberation not conquring. You make it sound like they want in on the spoils of war. Is country rebuilding so desireable. Might as well give the UN somthing construtive to do. Lets see some other countries bring in troops and money. The US has just tossed out Saddam and alreadythe Iraqis want us out. Let's share the resentment with the UN.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Richard G
Your right. The U.N. can kiss my ass. I don't think that will make up for anything though.

The U.N. proved itself to be irrelivent. Its going to stay that way.

Nonsense. The UN proved it's relevance by showing that it wouldn't be strong armed by one member into complying with an invasion they did not believe was justified.
I realize a lot of Americans have a taken a "they didn't agree with us, so they must be wrong" stance on this, but that is simply nationalistic arrogance at work.
I'm proud the UN stood up to American aggression, and I think it is more effective and relevant as an organization than ever before.

[Richard G]

All of the securtiy council, except for us, are socialist or communist states. That ideology is wrong, and against everything America is founded on. As a result, all of those countries ideas, motivations, and actions are fundamentaly flawed, and wrong. And when it effects our security, don't be surprised when we tell them all to take a hike.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Nonsense. The UN proved it's relevance by showing that it wouldn't be strong armed by one member into complying with an invasion they did not believe was justified.

You state that the UN wouldn't allow itself to be 'strong armed' by the US... But wasn't the UN being 'strong armed' by Iraq for the past 12 years? They were supposed to comply with UN resolutions, but didn't.

Originally posted by KelvinG

I'm proud the UN stood up to American aggression, and I think it is more effective and relevant as an organization than ever before.
The UN is fundamentally flawed. Its inability to make Iraq comply with their own demands (and the resulting invasion) is just one of a long list of failures for the organization.

- Failure to prevent genocide in Kosovo. (Had to get NATO to handle that)
- Additional failures in Rawanda
- Africa still can't feed itself, and seems to be decending further into problems
- The middle east is still composed of brutal dictatorships (and Libya is head of human rights)

Now, what exactly has the UN done right lately?

[Richard G]

Now, what exactly has the UN done right lately?

Obstruct the removal of a genocidal third world, murdering dictator.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G
All of the securtiy council, except for us, are socialist or communist states.

Which ones are socialist, which ones are communist? Please tell me.