Bush Demands Un Help
Melatonin
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
Babbler Join Date: 2003-03-15 Member: 14551Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">should he get it?</div> title says it all really.
bush said some pretty strong things about the UN when he was trying to undermine their authority.
now it comes to the 'cleaning up' hes back at the UN practically demaning help.
should the UN help him after he basically destroyed its reputation? or should he be left to clean up his own mess?
bush said some pretty strong things about the UN when he was trying to undermine their authority.
now it comes to the 'cleaning up' hes back at the UN practically demaning help.
should the UN help him after he basically destroyed its reputation? or should he be left to clean up his own mess?
Comments
anyways back to the topic.... i beleive the UN should help. It may have a grudge against the US but it should still help the people of Iraq. If people dont help then they have no right to critise the actions of others. The UN is a humanitarian organization/ peace keeping force pretty much so its their duty to help people. If they just sit around while Iraq needs help just cause they want to hurt the US then the UN has become obselete. just my 2 1/4 cents
I don't care if Bush will lose face, or the UN will say "why should we help you?". All involved should just realize sometimes there are more important things than silly contests of who is a bigger ___.
Whatever. I expect Bush to continue demanding UN help but offer no concessions (or few). The UN will continue to posture and say "you need to meet X requirement" blah blah blah. Much money wasted, many dead bodies on street.
When the UN general assembly voted on the Iraq question the overwhelming majority called for no war. Now is that not democracy at work? The very ideal that the US states to uphold? Saying "France and Russia stopped us in the Security Council" ignores that fact that if the veto system wasn't in place and the vote had gone ahead the US still would not have had enough support. This was democracy at work.
Now if the UN assmbly believes that the UN should only go into Iraq if power is handed over to the UN then that is the democratic result. However, Bush in his speach today seemed firmly against such a move. Kofi Annan recieved massive applause after his scathing attack on Bush whilst the US leader recieved polite clapping. Given the percieved tone of the General Assembly, the UN is still mighty annoyed that the US rode straight over them.
Should the UN help in Iraq is not so much the question as will the UN help in Iraq. In answer to the second question, yes they will, but only when the US yeilds some ground. That doesn't look like it's going to happen. Also it must be considered that many nations have no desire to place their troops in danger when it was the US who started the whole thing.
My personal view? The US started this mess. Let them clean it up. When they decided to ignore the will of the international community and run in with guns blazing they willingly isolated themselves. To beg for help from the very organisation that the US called "irrelivent" is sweet irony. The US made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.
However, Bush SHOULD give some ground, he did run over them, and hes gotta be willing to give them some control if they are going to help out.
USA wants UN to come help them so it wont take as much money/man power
UN don't want to help USA because the UN would lose much money/man power. That wouldn't be a problem if UN would have decided on the fate of Iraq.
Now UN gets no bang for its buck. USA wants to get bang for free.
/Dreads philosophy lesson no.1 <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
simple
I mean, hes pretty much twisted the fact beyond recognition in his speech to the UN;
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3132984.stm</a>
[i dont know why he does this, my theories; either for the distorting of history, or the 'masses' eat it up]
still harping on about this terror link to Iraq, all the righteous rhetoric (which is impossible to argue against unless you know the real meanings). does he really need the 'official backing' of the UN now?!
still, the US is drafting a resolution for help in Iraq, so i guess we will see what comes of this sooner than later.
But America goes in, and the iraqi citizens lives are better because of it, and France, Germany etc are attacking this as much as humanly possible.
I mean damn dude, that makes no sense. Thats like me yelling at you for diciplining your child, meanwhile your child is pimp slapping me as I condemn it....
France has economic ties with saddam, but thats besides the point. They are being attacked by bombers KILLING their representatives (multiple times now) and still they ignore it and bash the US.
Seems to me that there is some other underlying cause. Sure, we're an easy target for criticism especially given our position, but geeze.........
Personally, the UN had a point to start off with and as usual that monkey boy Bush has the arrogance to come back and demand assistance for his own military incontinence and no recognition of any of his errors. America's govt sucks the phat one again. I digress though and will pull myself back even though bashing of the US government is second only to chomping four plus marines on the trot as a skulk <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
My own opinion is that it wouldn't. The UN would suffer even more damage for America's mistakes and would be foolhardy to go in after their request. America have screwed up. They continue to kill civilians on the ground, alienate the population and rape Iraq for it's resources and the economic opportunities it offers it's companies. The problems they have created the UN would then get blame for.
The US underestimated the level of effort, time and resources it will take to restore Iraq's infrastructure and they are running scared. They have created a nightmare from which they now want the UN to come and rescue them and the fact that Bush has the cheek to sit there and say it is a moral duty and not even apologise for the errors he has made beggars belief. The fact my govt supported them fills me with a deep shame but as proved recently by by-elections and Blairs popularity rating, people realised this war was not about weapons of mass destruction or terrorism but Oil pure and simply.
The UN should stay out, America didn't want it when the war kicked off, it is two faced standards of the highest order to now ask for them to come in and change America's torn and faded reconstruction nappy.
And I don't mean things he did that can be considered ok, just depending on how you view it. I mean actual errors.
The only thing I can really think of is maybe not having reconstruction ready and waiting this long to get things underway, and possibly the accidental killing of civilians.
Outsourcing the job to get the power back online to a failing company was a bad move too, but I suppose the logic could be seen in doing it.
Shall we now demand apologies for the errors of other countries? Or is it just the US that needs to apologise?
Whoa whoa whoa. Slow down there soldier. The Americans DID want the UN when the war kicked off, but the UN didnt want to come along for the ride. And I have no doubts as to why. Because they wish to oppose the US, they want to see the US taken down a peg. And now everything is turning out better than any of them had ever dreamed.
No popular Iraq support for the Americans. Underestimation of task at hand (probably not an underestimation as such, its just Bush didnt want to ask for more money from Congress so prolly tried to wing it with what he had). No WMD found, and dodgy intelligence is surfacing. And the UN nations that opposed the war are LOVING it.
Now the Iraqi's are suffering while the US struggles to restore order, and the UN is just going to sit there and laugh at the Americans. And I believe this demonstrates perfectly the fact that no one out there gives a sod about the Iraqi's themselves. The French/German/UN opposers wanted to leave the Iraqis under a mass murdering dictator, and now they would rather watch the Americans squirm then offer support that would ultimately help the Iraqi's.
Higher moral ground BAH! Political opportunist scum.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*bangs head against wall*
You're refering to the UN like it's some kind of unified body. Not true. The UN didn't oppose the war, the vast majority of the states who are part of the UN opposed it. Now when the US can only gather 2 other nations willing to commit troops and a total of 30 (including the US, Britian and Australia) nations willing to support the war, something was wrong with the US case for war. Look at the "evidence" that the US submitted prior to the war. It was laughable at best. And no surprises here, it turned out to be incredibly dodgy. No WMD found, no terrorist bases. No threat. Even the intelligance, examined after the war, turned out to be either plain false or full of holes.
Stop blaming the fact that the UN didn't support the war on France and Russia. The world community, voting democratically, <b>did not want this conflict and did not see a reason to invade</b>. Now until the US finds a swag of missiles in Iraq tipped with anthrax warheads with the words "Die America" painted on the side, the world community was correct. There was no threat. US intelligance was wrong. The war was illegal.
Now ask yourselves why the UN should get involved? Why should the world community get involved? They never wanted this war and the US ignored them. And now Bush expects them to come into the mess he created for himself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now the Iraqi's are suffering while the US struggles to restore order, and the UN is just going to sit there and laugh at the Americans. And I believe this demonstrates perfectly the fact that no one out there gives a sod about the Iraqi's themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yeah and the US really cares for the Iraqis. So why arn't they invading Saudi Arabia? China? Zimbabwe? Oppressed people by the truckload there. The US was shouting to the heavens about Iraqi WMD and terrorism prior to the war. Now that they're in there and found out just how much they were wrong, they're trying to justify the invasion on humanitarian grounds. But that's not a legal reason for war. I don't for a moment claim that the nations who opposed the strike at on the "moral high ground" as it were. But the US position is rather shaky as well. They're being attacked every day, not just by so-called "Saddam loyalists" but by regular Iraqis as well. These people are increasingly making it apparent that they do not want the US in their country.
If the US from the outset had said "we're going in to liberate people" they would have been laughed at even more than they are now. Australia and Britian wouldn't have even given token support to such an effort. Why? Because the world as a whole recognises that "liberating" a people is not grounds for an invasion. The US had to go in with fragile claims that Iraq represented a threat to the US and other nations. Now, as that is being shown for the lie that it was, the world community is justified in it's claim that the war was illegal.
It's a bonus that they're helped <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
besides, the UN doesn't want any part of helping people, and the US can't do it all by itself. Give it time, soon your dream of the US relieving saudi arabia, china, and zimbabwe from their oppressive governments may yet come true <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now ask yourselves why the UN should get involved? Why should the world community get involved? They never wanted this war and the US ignored them. And now Bush expects them to come into the mess he created for himself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right. The UN didn't support it. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do. Now the UN wants a say in the reconstruction. Hold on a minute there bub; you say america can't go in without UN support and then expect UN support after when we get into hard times. By that very logic, you cannot really say the UN should be asking for a say in what goes on when they ditched us in the beginning.
Fact of the matter is, these countries KNOW saddam is bad for his people, and most of them either
a) have economic ties *gasp* and understandably don't want to oust this leader because he is profitable (OMG NO, greedy people indirectly causing suffering in countries OTHER than the united states? SAY IT AIN'T SO!) or
b) don't think it's enough justification for war. Fair enough, we did though, and we went.
However, Bush's speech quite frankly reeks. The subtle ways he trys to imply links between unrelated incidents, the way he completely glosses over the details and makes the entire thing look like a rightous success for the concepts of freedom and liberty. I really do fear for anyone whose only perspective of the incident is Bush's spin machine.
The UN will help, Bush knows it. They're obliged to because they have to appear to be interested in the welfare of the iraqi people. They won't like it of course, and rightly so. Bush changed his justifications for the war on an almost daily basis, but his key argument - an increasing threat from WMDs that we were assured existed, ("We must do something now, because after they're used it will be too late") now seems sour.
Bush went against a majority vote from the UN, his public reasons for doing so have yet to be proved as anything more than hot air. However he stands infront of the UN and trumpets the war as a mighty success. Succeeding was never doubtful, the reasons the war was opposed in the first place were never that it may not succeed. It was opposed on the basis that it was unnecessary, would definately cause loss of life and would leave iraq in a serious mess (Among other, probably darker reasons). Well it did, and bush's primary reasoning behind the war being necessary has yet to be proven.
Now, having done exactly what the UN didn't want to do, and failing to prove himself right after going against the UN. He is asking them to aid him in cleaning up the mess he has made, the mess the UN didn't want in the first place. He quite simply takes the ****.
Also to note, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder just recently agreed to send substantional humanitarian help independently from the UNs actions into the Iraq. I usually consider Schröder to be on par with a mild case of leposry, but this kinda negates the whole 'Germany and France just want to see the US rot' point raised time after time.
Now to get back off tangent, should the United Nations partake in the reconstruction of Iraq?
Personally, I am convinced that they should, simply because, as DarkWulf put it "ffs, there are civilians on the ground in Iraq, and ultimately thats what it is about.".
This would, of course, mean a strong dedication of both money and manpower on the side of the states funding and providing the troops for the mission. Seeing this and that the Second Gulf War happened without of support of the UN and not a defensive war (and thus ultimately against international law), I do however not see on which ground the US government would have a right to claim the sole leading role in this reconstruction effort. If the UN engages in this project, and as I already pointed out, I can only support that, the project should also be done on the UNs terms, which does of course also mean the involvement of the United States, but 'only' in the role of a member of the Security Council. Face it, no matter how Bush is trying to word it right now, the war wasn't successful, and the reconstruction is a task the United States can just not handle. The US government <i>asks</i> for a credit, so it'll have to accept the terms it is given.
Note by the way the difference between 'reconstruction effort' and 'humanitarian help'. The latter should be sent independetly from any further question as soon as possible, if only to keep the situation from becoming even worse.
That sounds more like 'power hungry' than 'champion of the oppressed'. I think the smilie made it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stop. Who defines what is right? Any individual can say what they believe is right, but where does the overall judgement lie? I say, use the democratic system. If a majority of the world's countries thought that the war was the "right thing to do" then the US would be justified. Except last time I checked, world opinion was dead-set against the war.
Besides, if you really thought that this was "the right thing to do" on what do you base that? The non-existant WMD? The lack of any terrorists? Or rather, the question of Saddam's treatment of his people. Well as has been said, that's not a cause for war. And as has become apparent, Iraqis don't seem to want the US in their country.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Now the UN wants a say in the reconstruction. Hold on a minute there bub; you say america can't go in without UN support and then expect UN support after when we get into hard times. By that very logic, you cannot really say the UN should be asking for a say in what goes on when they ditched us in the beginning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, the UN is saying it should be in charge of reconstruction as a condition to help out. Right now they're playing virtually no part in the Iraq reconstruction, thanks to the US. Now if the US didn't want the UN to come in, they wouldn't. They couldn't. But if the US expects help from the UN, the US will have to make concessions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fact of the matter is, these countries KNOW saddam is bad for his people, and most of them either
a) have economic ties *gasp* and understandably don't want to oust this leader because he is profitable <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the vast majority of the world's countries KNOW is that Saddam posed no external threat. The Iraqi people? Why get our soldiers killed to "liberate" them? And whilst we're talking about economic ties lets mention that it was the US who put Saddam in power. And supplied him with WMD. Now, I could quite justifieably say, by your logic, that the head of Saudi Arabia is bad for his people. Yet what keeps him in power? Economic ties to the US. The fact that France or Germany may have had economic links to Iraq doesn't explain why 95% of their populations opposed the war or that the vast majority of the world's nations opposed the strike. What, Iraq, one of the poorest countries in the world, had lucrative trade connections to every corner of it? Yeah right <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->b) don't think it's enough justification for war. Fair enough, we did though, and we went. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that's exactly the kind of reasoning that will ensure that if you do get any UN assisstance, it will be when Bush gets down on all fours and kisses Kofi Anan's rump. You thought it was a just reason? Well I'm sure China would feel that it is perfectly justified in invading Tibet or Taiwan. Just because you thought it was a good reason doesn't mean that the rest of the world will agree with you. So if you do want to go it alone, don't expect help.
EDIT: I see that Monse is reading this. Welcome back <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not ready to join this discussion yet, but I do want to correct a point of fact: There are plenty of other nations providing troops besides the US, UK, and Australia. There are Poles, Danes, Lithuanians, Latvians, Roumanians, Albanians, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovakians, Dominicans, Italians, New Zealanders, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, and Ukranians. They may not have thousands of troops there (well, the Poles do), but they are all making a contribution.
Source: <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/</a>
Now carry on with your discussions. And thanks for the welcome back Ryo, I appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I agree. Majority should rule.
Course, if it did, black people would still be sitting in the back of busses. Women wouldn't have the right to vote. Iraq would still be ruled by a dictator and their people would still be dying with no end in sight.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You thought it was a just reason? Well I'm sure China would feel that it is perfectly justified in invading Tibet or Taiwan. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taiwan is not led by a dictator who is letting his people die to fuel anti-chinese sentiment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What the vast majority of the world's countries KNOW is that Saddam posed no external threat.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No threat. k.
A terrorist group with no home country, no GDP, and not 1/100th the resources that Iraq can tap has PROVEN to be a threat on one morning in september.
And your saying there's not a damn thing saddam could do to hurt us?
It boggles the mind.........
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why get our soldiers killed to "liberate" them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why? Because no one else will. And that's a shame.
I'm not ready to join this discussion yet, but I do want to correct a point of fact: There are plenty of other nations providing troops besides the US, UK, and Australia. There are Poles, Danes, Lithuanians, Latvians, Roumanians, Albanians, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovakians, Dominicans, Italians, New Zealanders, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, and Ukranians. They may not have thousands of troops there (well, the Poles do), but they are all making a contribution.
Source: <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/</a>
Now carry on with your discussions. And thanks for the welcome back Ryo, I appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And they are thinking of sending troops even from Finland. Blah, back stabbed by my own government <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
...but they are for peace keeping, not for attacking so one can not say that all those countries were on behalf of the war only because they send troops to maintain peace. Or then all of those countries were part of the aggression and no one told me. Which wouldn't be too surprising <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
All hair-splitting aside, they are armed forces sent by their governments to shoot people that are bad. Otherwise, they would have sent hairdressers - much cheaper and you get a nice new doo.
Point being: once the mess is made you can't undo it. By standing aside and watching the mess grow is not going to do any good for anyone, so it's better to help with the mess that just watch there. And hope that it wont happen again.
Now that's not my opinion. Imo the one who makes the mess should clean it. That's the best way to teach a lesson but I guess there is a point in sending 'peacekeepers' in Iraq. Though I don't know if it will result in more or less violence.
Edit: I just read my own text and it's...messy, so I'd better go get some sleep and come back in about, 11hours.
I'm not ready to join this discussion yet, but I do want to correct a point of fact: There are plenty of other nations providing troops besides the US, UK, and Australia. There are Poles, Danes, Lithuanians, Latvians, Roumanians, Albanians, Spaniards, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovakians, Dominicans, Italians, New Zealanders, Czechs, Norwegians, Dutch, and Ukranians. They may not have thousands of troops there (well, the Poles do), but they are all making a contribution.
Source: <a href='http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/' target='_blank'>http://slate.msn.com/id/2086108/</a>
Now carry on with your discussions. And thanks for the welcome back Ryo, I appreciate it very much. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Omg, I love people say that these countries support us, they only support us because bush paid them off.
Second of all, and just say this with me. We invaded a country that did absolutely nothing to us and killed thousands and thousands of their population, and for what, to take saddam out of power because he was bad for their people. Sure he was bad but I mean, he didn't kill thousands of HIS people(and by his, I don't mean the Kurds, cause thats a different faction IN Iraq trying to take it over). He may have killed a couple here and there, but nothing near the hundreds or thousands, and the only time he did kill people were times when they tried to overthrow the goverment.
You can say and manipulate whatever you want, it still doesn't change the facts. Even though everyone may not be able to clearly discern what the facts are, over time when empires fall, the truth comes out.