BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?

Subject: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 03:18 AM

It seems almost a done deal at the U.N. but the question remains - When???

Will they go in under U.S. command? I hope not. I would think that the U.S. would have to withdraw first but who knows...?

I think they should only go in if the U.S. apologizes for acting unilaterly. Seems to me that if a partner decides to go renegade, there should be some kind of punishment. I mean thats a pretty big crime against humanity, if you ask me.

Do they still get to be members? Why doesn't the U.N. just kick the U.S. right out?

Why should the U.N. go in and 'mop up' after the devastation the U.S. created?

This was all so predictable. Bush thinks he can buy France with contracts. I think he has already had contract talks with Canada.

Of course the U.N. will go in and when Iraq erupts, they will be blamed.    ...and the Americons will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Rant, rant, rant ..............

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 03:23 AM

dianavan:

The UN will not go in, unless there is no conflict. The memebr nations may choose to send troops, but the UN HAS no troops. The "Peacekeepers" are drawn from the member countries.

And the US will never be kicked out of the UN- We pay too large a percentage of the entire budget.

Seems to me that if a signer to a ceasefire decides to go renegade, there should be some kind of punishment. But I guess you don't think so....

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 12:48 PM

I agree with Dianavan,

I would not bow to GWB. I would insist that the UN will participate only on its terms and that would mean under UN command.

Bush the actor is now singing a completely different tune to one year ago. Gone are the insults and threats to those European countries who refused to be bullied by him. There are no more insults about the old Germany or France being a problem. I would let him crawl and insist that he apologize for his elbow behaviour. Above all I would not give him any opportunuiy now before the election to score any political points in terms of international diplomacy. As for that war crimes mongrel Rumsfeld, he has become noticably quiet.

JB

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 12:54 PM

France and Germany have already made it clear that they won't send troops no matter what happens with UN resolution. The most the US is likely to get is a weak sanction for the troops already there.

I don't expect that to change no matter who's president.

"Why doesn't the U.N. just kick the U.S. right out?"

Interesting idea. The US's decision to stay out of the League of Nations was part of what killed it. Since the UN is essentially a debate club for rich countries trying to prevent things they don't like from happening (as opposed to trying to accomplish anything), I can't imagine it would make much difference one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:00 PM

Dianavan: surely you jest. The UN kick out the U.S.? You provided me with the biggest laugh I've had in ages.

The Iraqi government will take over governance of their country on June 30, 2004 (what? The U. S. is NOT going to annex Iraq? What about all of those oil fields George W. Bush was going to steal?). U. S. troops and other coilition troops will remain until the Iraqi Army and police force can provide for the country's security. This will probably take two or three years, then we are out of there.

I agree with part of Strick's last paragraph. The part I don't agree with is that "the UN is essentially a debate club for rich countries trying to prevent things they don't like from happening." I see the U. N. as a organization that is corrupt (see refrences to the Oil for Food program in Iraq)from the top down. An organization that has accomplished little other than spewing a lot of rhetric. One that passes resolutions it has absolutely no intention of enforcing, and were it not for the fact that it's probably a good idea for them to continue to be based in the U. S. so that an eye can be kept upon them, I believe they should vacate our country and settle somewhere else. Say the Netherlands?

And just what does the U. S. have to apologize for? Getting rid of Saddam? His sons? Making it possible for Iraqis to govern themselves?

I don't know what you have been reading or listening to, Dianavan, but in my opinion you should try reading or listening to some reports that present a view of the U. S. that is a bit more balanced. Try the Fox News Network for example.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:18 PM

A tightrope artist gets the best balance with weights at both side. Doug, I guess your argument has come out a bit shorter than it was meant. You must have meant that someone who only gets his information from one particular side could balance that by adding Fox as a big weight on the other side, must you not?

The way it came out in print it looked like you really would think Fox alone was unbalanced.

Wolfgang (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:23 PM

"The part I don't agree with is that 'the UN is essentially a debate club for rich countries trying to prevent things they don't like from happening.' I see the U. N. as a organization that is corrupt (see refrences to the Oil for Food program in Iraq)from the top down. An organization that has accomplished little other than spewing a lot of rhetric."

Our views are not inconsistent. I was thinking more about probability of a resolution contrary to the interests of one of the five veto powers getting approved regardless of how right or beneficial it might otherwise be.

This doesn't paint a very pretty picture of them, either.

Sex, drugs and UN peacekeeping

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Once Famous
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 02:32 PM

Good job, DougR.

I applaud you. The women seethes with American anger it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 03:24 PM

I thought that was what I was saying Wolfgang. I re-read it and still don't read it as you do. It appears to me that Dianavan forms most of her opinions about the U. S. by reading or listening to media sources that hate the U. S. Were she to read or listen to media sources that present an opposite view, her opinons of the U. S. might be less harsh. But realistically, I doubt it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 04:03 PM

Doug and Martin...The US dosnt have to steal oilfields,why must you always over simplify?    All the US needs is the old way...Install a puppet govt,that can be bought and manipulated at will.
They thought themselves on course for that, but have been outflanked by the Shia clerics, who have their own ideas for an Iranian style republic.
The war will be ultimately against Islam,and the US will have no stomach for that fight,as these people cannot be bought...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 05:19 PM

Ake: what planet do you dwell on?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 08:41 PM

Beardedbruce - "Seems to me that if a signer to a ceasefire decides to go renegade, there should be some kind of punishment. But I guess you don't think so...."

Can you please explain this remark? To whom are you referring?

DougR - One thing I rarely do, is listen to U.S. news media. To get a balanced perspective, one must look beyond the propaganda. I have occasionally listened to FOX and was astounded that Americans could stomach that so-called news. I listen to and read alot of news coverage, I then form my own opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 03:24 AM

dianavan:

In case you were not aware, the FIRST Iraq war ended in a ceasefire. Peace was only for as long as the terms of the ceasefire were observed, or until a treaty was signed by both sides ( UN and Iraq). NO treaty was ever signed, and there were numerous violations of the ceasefire terms on the part of the Iraqis. The US was only implementing previous UN directions when it invaded in 2003.

Note that this seems to be happening in N. Korea, as well- there is NO PEACE TREATY!!!!!! Only a ceasefire.


We all may wish for the world to be different than it is, but wishing does not make it so. Action does. If you want to work for peace, try getting the countries that are causing the problems to change their behaviour, rather than to insist that nothing be done until it is too late for anything other than an all-out war.

I saw far more protests over the US asking for more UN resolutions than I did for any of the violations that Iraq had done over the 12 years before.

No-one on the left has ever explained how a country whose military was so totally destroyed back in 1991 had ANY forces. What do you think they did with the Oil for Food money? So it is the US at fault because Iraqis were starving and had no medicines? Where were the street protests then? Where were YOU???????

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:00 AM

Dianavan,

You obviously have not got the slightest clue as to how UN Peacekeeping forces operate. Before coming out with the sort of drivel you opened this thread with, I would suggest you read up on it.

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:09 AM

dianavan:

"One thing I rarely do, is listen to U.S. news media. To get a balanced perspective, one must look beyond the propaganda. I have occasionally listened to FOX and was astounded that Americans could stomach that so-called news. I listen to and read alot of news coverage, I then form my own opinions. "

So you only listen to the propaganda that you agree with?

If you listened to both sides, propaganda included, you MIGHT be able to see what the facts were. By listening to only one side ( EITHER ONE) you get a distorted view. Is that how you form your opinions? By deciding what to listen to, to reinforce what you have already decided must be so?

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:31 PM

I read about the U.S. from news agencies outside of the U.S. U.S. news is not really news. Its just hype and propaganda. British and Canadian reports are far more enlightening than the drivel coming out of the U.S. Anyone not living in the U.S. knows this.

I know very little about the U.N. except its early beginnings.   
Thats why I'm asking.

As to Iraq ignoring the ceasefire, isn't that why the U.N. started the food for oil program? It may not have been an adequate response but then again, they weren't given much time to correct the problem before Bush decided to "go it alone." As far as I can see, the U.S. did nothing to correct the problem except make it worse.

So is the U.S. in Korea as a U.N. peacekeeping force?

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:49 PM

Oh, I forgot that there was a U.N....

Isn't that the organization that Bush just drove a stake thru the heart? Nah, maybe I'm confusing that with swomething else he has screwed up....

Bottom line, what credibility the U.N. had was reduced to that of the League of Nations, when Bush told them to screw themselves, that the US could attack anyone it wanted just because it could...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:10 PM

dianavan:

"As to Iraq ignoring the ceasefire, isn't that why the U.N. started the food for oil program? "

gee, isn't that strange, that we should try and cut off the funding he was using to rebuild the military?

It may not have been an adequate response but then again, they weren't given much time to correct the problem before Bush decided to "go it alone."

NOT MUCH TIME???????????????


HOW MANY YEARS WOULD YOU LIKE THEM TO GIVE???????????????

"As far as I can see, the U.S. did nothing to correct the problem except make it worse."

Such as???? LOOK AT THE PERIOD 1991-2002.

This I have to agree with:

"Bottom line, what credibility the U.N. had was reduced to that of the League of Nations"

BUT ONLY BY ITS OWN LACK OF ACTION FOR SO LONG.


Sorry if I am shouting, but some of you people seem to have a very distorted world view.

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:24 PM

Your shouting, my friend, only reinforces our views. If you have to shout it then there's more than likely not a lot ot meat to your views...

And, BTW, how familiar are you with Scott Ritter? Oh, yeah, he has distorted views, too, I guess...

And one heck of a military that Saddam built with that money...

What?

Oh, he didn't have any money or he would have built a real army? Gee, he certainly had tons of money for building very elaborate homes and castles....

Ahhhh, maybe you'd like toanswer your own question. How much time? Ahhhh, like until what? Iraq was going to overtake the US as the world's Super power? Well, I reackon a little longer than Condi Rice had it figured. Bush had the problem figgured equally poorly when he turned in his test paper with the "45 minutes" answer...

Hmmmmm?

Bobert

ps. Please excuse my distorted view of the world... Facts is stranger than fiction and sometimes they will appear distorted... Kinda like the message on the right side car mirror that reads "objects may appear further away than they actaully are"....

Subject: RE: BS: When will the U.N. go into Iraq?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:52 PM

your distorted views are noted, but not excused. As I have stated before, I do not doubt the good intentions of most of the people, just the unintended results that they do not seem capable of seeing.

The "How much time" was in reference to how long the oil for Food program was in effect.


If Bush was wrong, there are tens of thousands of dead. Far less than the 5-7 million ( see US news & World Report) of the Saddam regime.

If YOU are wrong, there could be Tens of MILLIONS of dead.


Saddam did have some trouble in getting arms- only the French, Germans, and Russians (you know, the ones who did not want the US to invade) were still selling him any prohibited materials, and that was clandestine.

So, spending the Oil for Food money on palaces and castles was ok by your standards? It is not my fault that he was stupid as well.

And most of what I see posted here to critisize the US actions is short on facts, and very long on unsubstantiated statement- It is very strange that since you all know exactly how someone would act, you have not been able to turn that knowledge into anything useful.