Here’s an interesting twist in the debate over UN involvement in Iraq.
Excerpts:
** "Iraq’s foreign minister accused the United Nations on Tuesday of failing his country by leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades and appealed to the world body to assume a leading role in Baghdad immediately.
In an address to the U.N. Security Council, Hoshyar Zebari, foreign minister of Iraq’s Governing Council, noted that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was opening offices in Nicosia, Cyprus, and Amman, Jordan, for international staff, who would commute to Baghdad.
“Your help and expertise cannot be effectively delivered from Cyprus or Amman,” Zebari said.
"And he accused the 15-member Security Council of being divided “between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable” and said they should overcome the deep divisions over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Appealing for unity, Zebari said, “Settling scores with the United States should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people.”
** http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4002695&pageNumber=0
So the tables are now entirely reversed. Both the US and the Iraqis want greater involvement by the UN. But members of the UN think it more appropriate to settle scores with the US than helping the Iraqi people now.
Maybe the capture of Saddam will be a catalyst for changing the mentality of “whatever helps the US, I’m against it.” If helping attain stability for the Iraqi people also helps the US in some way or bails the US out of a difficult position, so what? Is settling scores with the US worth causing further turmoil and pain for the Iraqis? Regardless of how you felt about the war and/or the decision of the US to go it alone without the UN, that’s over. The issue now is not about the US. The issue is about the Iraqi people.
Time for the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others to get over it and do the right thing.
myvoice.... hand to heart.. the current Iraqi Governing Council is as representative of Iraqis as Saddam was. So, lets get off the high horse.
The situation is tricky, no doubt. US do not want to leave Iraq at this point, without making sure all their strategic objectives are met. Iraq is a religiously divided country and breaking it up is an unappealing idea. Keeping it united will bring a pro-shia government (there was an article on Sistani on KnightRidder newspapers, may be you read it too). Anyway, so US is embroiled in a complex political struggle in Baghdad.
And till the time US is sitting inside Iraq in the role of civilian and military ruler, countries who are opposed to US lone super-power role will find it hard to bring truck-loads of aid. They are waiting for US to clean up and get out. Plus the security situation inside Iraq is no way near as good.. so UN is hard pressed to maintain offices there. Talk about a Catch-22.
The IGC is not the collection of "stooges" that many on this board appear to believe. I have previously, in other threads, posted the bios of a lot of these men and women and a good portion can hardly be described as US loving brown noses. So let's get off your low horse, OK. Are they representative of all Iraqis? No, probably not so my horse aint as high as you suspect.
I love that line about the countries just waiting in the wings for the US to "clean up and get out" before bringing in their truckloads of aid. The fact is that the "cleaning up and getting out" will go a lot faster and inflict a lot less pain on the Iraqi people with international cooperation. That's what Iraq's foreign minister was saying and that's what I'm saying.
The foreign minister went further in laying blame directly at the UN doorstep for leaving Saddam Hussein in power for decades. The appeasers who opposed the war are not free of blame for Iraq's current mess. As we learn more about the French, Russian and German involvement in dealing with Saddam over the last 12 years, more blood and pain will be revealed on their hands.
So, fact is the US, the UN, France, Russia, Germany, the Arab world and indeed the entire world can all share in the blame for what has occured to the Iraqi people for the last 25 years. Now's the time to step to the plate and stop the pain. And it is primarily the US, UK and a few other countries who have been willing to step into the batters box.
Maybe that foreign Minister needs to be reminded that Saddam was in power through out the 80s becasue of the blessing of US not UN. Then US had a chance to take him out in 91 but instead chose to punish the innocent with deadly sanctions and terrorists acts of war ...like cutting of the water and sewage supplies to Bad dad. US preped Shias to attack and left them for dead...does he remember that? Or was that also Un fault? Does he remember tha UN asked to have the sanctions lifted since 1997? only to be vetoed by US..that caused millions of children to die. So really get of your boat MV...come out of the lake and look around the land...I promise you will learn something. :)
I agree. I say make the americans bleed in Iraq. Literally and metaphorically. You dug your own grave lie in it. There is no change. The UN was responsible. Now the US is. The US attacked wanted the oil. Its time your soliders die to appease your leader.
Myvoice remember what is good for US. Screws the world.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
I say make the americans bleed in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Problem with that is that for every dead American there are at least a dozen dead Iraqis, killed by the guerrilas.
The thing that I can't understand is why the UN would pull out? In Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah, life sucks.. but that's the whole point of the UN, unless it really is just a forum for tea parties. The UN should be digging in. If they don't like the situation they need to work harder to change it, not give in until there's a Starbucks on every block. This is the kind of situation where the UN is needed most if they truly fit the role they claim. So far they're not living up to their end.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Maybe that foreign Minister needs to be reminded that Saddam was in power through out the 80s becasue of the blessing of US not UN. Then US had a chance to take him out in 91 but instead chose to punish the innocent with deadly sanctions and terrorists acts of war ...like cutting of the water and sewage supplies to Bad dad. US preped Shias to attack and left them for dead...does he remember that? Or was that also Un fault? Does he remember tha UN asked to have the sanctions lifted since 1997? only to be vetoed by US..that caused millions of children to die. So really get of your boat MV...come out of the lake and look around the land...I promise you will learn something. :)
[/QUOTE]
You really have got to stop relying upon telepathic transmissions to learn about current events and world history. Read a few of Ohio Guy's posts to get a good history lesson on why Saddam was not taken out in 1991. Don't try to spread garbage that takes the responsibility for this decision away from the UN, the Arab world and the rest of the then united coalition (including the US). The betrayal of the Shias following Gulf War I is one of the darkest, most tragic, inexcusable chapters of this story and the blood extends well beyond the hands of the US.
The sanctions following that war was the alternative recommended and supported by such Administration hawks as Chomsky and his appeasement loving cohorts including the peace-loving French.
Virtually every Iraq resolution regarding sanctions has been unanimously approved by the Security Council. Please identify for me the UN Security Council Resolution(s) that were proposed which would have lifted Iraq sanctions since 1997 that the US vetoed. I will learn much more from your disclosure of these resolutions than I will leaving the friendly confines of my boat which is floating around in the tranquil lake where I reside.
CM: I agree with Spoon. In this circumstance, the attitude you express kills, maims and harms a 100 (maybe 1,000) more Iraqis than is represented by the death of one American soldier.
MV, it is not my responsibility to educate a brain washed, living on the boat hodlum. Go read a book, here is a good one for starters Iraq in the eye of storm. It will list all the resolutions that were brought up in UN and vetoed by US. It will show you how US controlled what went in and out of Iraq during the 90's. It will show you how the UN inspectors betrayed UN and spied for US. So dont spread your dirty grabage of clear lake around here or it will be dumped in Galveston as deserved.
Re: Iraq Official: U.N. Failed us and Should Help Now
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
So the tables are now entirely reversed. Both the US and the Iraqis want greater involvement by the UN. But members of the UN think it more appropriate to settle scores with the US than helping the Iraqi people now.
Maybe the capture of Saddam will be a catalyst for changing the mentality of "whatever helps the US, I'm against it." If helping attain stability for the Iraqi people also helps the US in some way or bails the US out of a difficult position, so what? Is settling scores with the US worth causing further turmoil and pain for the Iraqis? Regardless of how you felt about the war and/or the decision of the US to go it alone without the UN, that's over. The issue now is not about the US. The issue is about the Iraqi people.
Time for the UN, France, Germany, Russia and others to get over it and do the right thing.
[/QUOTE]
That sums up not only the policies of the UN, France, Germany and Russia but most of the anti-American posts on gupshup. It's never about what's best for the Iraq people but rather what's worse for USA.
For every american that bleeds, there is less chance of an innocent iraqi dying. How many iraqis have died due to some schmuck of a GI and how many due to these freedom fighters. The numbers arent even comparable.
Btw do yo hear the people complaining against these freedom fighters? No. They complain against the US all the time. Why? Because they support these fighters.
Spoon the aim of the UN is consensus. Something the US laughs at. The UN is not there for reconstructing countries that the US demolishes in “Shock and awe” genocides. That is the IBRD’s work
Tell me which agency of the UN does reconstruction of a country fall under. Which part of the charter does it cover? Has it happened before? Did they do it with East Timor? Did it do it with any of the Trusteeship countries?
The UN is there to stop wars. Not to stand silent when the US is the aggressor and destorys countries than is forced to clean up the mess when too many GIs die and the dumbass administration sinks your budget.
