Baghdad may have fallen but there is MUCH work to do!

[conjur]

First, some sort of police authority needs to be put in place before looting and rioting become more than rampant and turn dangerous. This needs to be done now. Bring in the National Guard units and start bringing in some UN peacekeeping forces.

And, leading members of the Shiites, Kurds, and, yes, Baath party, need to be brought together to discuss peaceful relations amongst their people in Iraq.

 

[Tiger]

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

What's the US's record on nation building again? The UN is much better equipped to handle this situation.

 

[apoppin]

Bush made it clear that the UN will ONLY do humanitarian relief effort (period)

But you are right - there is much work to do . . . as can be seen in Basara which "fell" earlier . . . this is at least "times 5" in Baghdad.

And the Red Cross is reporting the civilian distress is almost unbelievable . . . they "stopped counting" the dead and wounded.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

What's the US's record on nation building again? The UN is much better equipped to handle this situation.

I have no problem with the UN handling this situation but I don't think France and Russia should be allowed to participate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

Well, I'll take the UN rebuilding capabilities in exchange for better relations with the other Arab countries. The sooner the US military/US-imposed gov't is OUT of Iraq, the better off we'll be.

 

[blade]

coaltion of weasel

Very well put. 🙂


As apoppin said, the UN should and will only do humanitarian relief. They deserve nothing else after we did all the work and made the ultimate sacrifices.

 

[Tiger]

What's the US's record on nation building again?

Two words, Marshall Plan. Happened before the UN.
The UN does have a role to play in the new Iraq. Primarily humanitarian aid.
They should have absolutely no political or administrative role as they did in the fubar'd Bosnia situation.

 

[conjur]

Sentiments like this is why I want the US out of any involvement in the new Iraqi gov't as soon as reasonably possible.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Tiger

What's the US's record on nation building again?

Two words, Marshall Plan. Happened before the UN.
The UN does have a role to play in the new Iraq. Primarily humanitarian aid.
They should have absolutely no political or administrative role as they did in the fubar'd Bosnia situation.

Beyond just that the US was directly responsible for writing and implimenting the consitutions of Germany and Japan. Both now prosperous free countries. The UN has built what nations? Cambodia? What a raging success that was.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Bush made it clear that the UN will ONLY do humanitarian relief effort (period)

But you are right - there is much work to do . . . as can be seen in Basara which "fell" earlier . . . this is at least "times 5" in Baghdad.

And the Red Cross is reporting the civilian distress is almost unbelievable . . . they "stopped counting" the dead and wounded.

That is not quite correct.. Bush has been playing games with words, but his most recent statement with Blair at his side (ireland):

"The UN will have a *vital* role in post-war Iraq"

Why the hell would people NOT want the UN to help? Any help is good help.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: apoppin
Bush made it clear that the UN will ONLY do humanitarian relief effort (period)

But you are right - there is much work to do . . . as can be seen in Basara which "fell" earlier . . . this is at least "times 5" in Baghdad.

And the Red Cross is reporting the civilian distress is almost unbelievable . . . they "stopped counting" the dead and wounded.

That is not quite correct.. Bush has been playing games with words, but his most recent statement with Blair at his side (ireland):

"The UN will have a *vital* role in post-war Iraq"

Why the hell would people NOT want the UN to help? Any help is good help.

Because some follow a knee-jerk reaction to the UN for not helping to topple Saddam. It's not like other countries are going to profit tremendously from this. In fact, if the U.S. lets the UN have a "vital" role (wonder if Bush is going to pull a Clinton on the definition) then the U.S will benefit tremendously by improved relations with other Arab countries as we will finally show to them that we were there only to topple Saddam and not to come in and takeover (and esp. take the oil).

There's a bigger picture here that must be considered.

 

[UltraQuiet]

"The UN will have a *vital* role in post-war Iraq"

I wonder if the same guidelines that were used to define "serious consequences" will be used to define "vital".

 

[EXman]

And, leading members of the Shiites, Kurds, and, yes, Baath party, need to be brought together to discuss peaceful relations amongst their people in Iraq.

Ummm the Baath party is not comparable to Kurds and Shiites I think you want to say Sunni as that would make more sence. Baath party is more a political group of mostly Sunni's but the Baath party can really take a hike as the Baath party is in many arab nations and is one of the most influencial groups in that region but I think Iraqi's would do much better if they kept the Bath party out of the picture.

 

[conjur]

Thank you for the correction. 🙂

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: apoppin
Bush made it clear that the UN will ONLY do humanitarian relief effort (period)

But you are right - there is much work to do . . . as can be seen in Basara which "fell" earlier . . . this is at least "times 5" in Baghdad.

And the Red Cross is reporting the civilian distress is almost unbelievable . . . they "stopped counting" the dead and wounded.

That is not quite correct.. Bush has been playing games with words, but his most recent statement with Blair at his side (ireland):

"The UN will have a *vital* role in post-war Iraq"

Why the hell would people NOT want the UN to help? Any help is good help.

And "humanitarian aid" is not *vital*?

I'd say it is crucial - the UN will have a part . . . money is always welcome (even French money)! 😉

 

[BDawg]

go

Originally posted by: Tiger

What's the US's record on nation building again?

Two words, Marshall Plan. Happened before the UN.
The UN does have a role to play in the new Iraq. Primarily humanitarian aid.
They should have absolutely no political or administrative role as they did in the fubar'd Bosnia situation.

The situation of the Marshall plan is so different from this situation that it in no way applies.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, I'll take the UN rebuilding capabilities in exchange for better relations with the other Arab countries. The sooner the US military/US-imposed gov't is OUT of Iraq, the better off we'll be.

I agree but I think we are both asking to be disappointed.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

And, leading members of the Shiites, Kurds, and, yes, Baath party, need to be brought together to discuss peaceful relations amongst their people in Iraq.

Ummm the Baath party is not comparable to Kurds and Shiites I think you want to say Sunni as that would make more sence. Baath party is more a political group of mostly Sunni's but the Baath party can really take a hike as the Baath party is in many arab nations and is one of the most influencial groups in that region but I think Iraqi's would do much better if they kept the Bath party out of the picture.

As long as humanitarian and infrastructure problems in the country persist, Chalabi said, the country will remain unstable, despite the coalition's military progress. Referring to Iraqi's ruling Baath Party, he called for "de-Baathification" of the country.

"There will be no absolute security with the current situation. The U.S. troops have defeated Saddam militarily. That was never a problem. The issue is the Baath party and the remnants of the Baath party who will continue to pose a threat."

From CNN (shoot...lost the link)

found it

 

[conjur]

Ayup...

Calls for a restoration of law and order

 

[ruazn2]

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

Why bring in any1 at all? Wasnt the point of this war to free Iraq and let the Iraqis live in a democracy? So let them elect their own leaders and US should be happy right? Oh oops, what if they don't elect some1 thats pro-US? Or what if civil war breaks out? Or what if Kurds wants independence and that pisses off Turkey? Right we dont' want that, make US looks bad. Yes you are right, we shall put our leaders in.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ruazn2

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

Why bring in any1 at all? Wasnt the point of this war to free Iraq and let the Iraqis live in a democracy? So let them elect their own leaders and US should be happy right? Oh oops, what if they don't elect some1 thats pro-US? Or what if civil war breaks out? Or what if Kurds wants independence and that pisses off Turkey? Right we dont' want that, make US looks bad. Yes you are right, we shall put our leaders in.

Guess Morph didn't get an IP ban or changed it.

Anyway...the U.S. military is there now and can act as a peacekeeping/police force to restore order after Saddam's henchmen have all fled. And, since Iraq has never had a democratic government, just how do you propose they create one? Stop by al-Barnes and al-Noble Booksellers and pick up a copy of How To Create A Democracy For Dummies?

 

[ruazn2]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ruazn2

Originally posted by: Tiger

UN peacekeeping forces.

Absolutely not!
Not one single chance for the coaltion of weasel to work their way into the situation.
There is some work left to be done but it will be a whole bunch easier to do with a helpful populace.
What's left of Saddam and his 40 thieves are now up against the coalition and a few million pissed off Iraqi's.

Why bring in any1 at all? Wasnt the point of this war to free Iraq and let the Iraqis live in a democracy? So let them elect their own leaders and US should be happy right? Oh oops, what if they don't elect some1 thats pro-US? Or what if civil war breaks out? Or what if Kurds wants independence and that pisses off Turkey? Right we dont' want that, make US looks bad. Yes you are right, we shall put our leaders in.

Guess Morph didn't get an IP ban or changed it.

Anyway...the U.S. military is there now and can act as a peacekeeping/police force to restore order after Saddam's henchmen have all fled. And, since Iraq has never had a democratic government, just how do you propose they create one? Stop by al-Barnes and al-Noble Booksellers and pick up a copy of How To Create A Democracy For Dummies?

I dunno who Morph is and I'm pretty sure they can get those kind of boosk at al-Borders or al-Amazon.

 

[conjur]

Well...good...they better get reading then!

43 Iraqi exiles/citizens to be in meeting

2/3 will be people currently living in Iraq.

 

[ruazn2]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well...good...they better get reading then!

43 Iraqi exiles/citizens to be in meeting

2/3 will be people currently living in Iraq.

Yes they better! So what difference would it make if we have the UN peacekeeper or the US military in there? You just need some troops to take care of public order until their own government is in place, and if your intent is to free Iraq then it shouldnt' matter who be the police is because its only temprary?