Not enough boots on the ground

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
See, what I really want to know is when the decision to invade was officially made. It would not surprise me if it was made before 1441.

I wouldn't doubt it. The whole UN resolution charade appears to me to have been a political move designed to try and make a planned war legitimate in the eyes of those who worship the UN. 1441 had no bearing on whether the war would have happened, but it was simply an attempt to quiet people who put their faith in the UN.

You see, I cannot understand how people cannot have a problem with all this.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
See, what I really want to know is when the decision to invade was officially made. It would not surprise me if it was made before 1441.

I wouldn't doubt it. The whole UN resolution charade appears to me to have been a political move designed to try and make a planned war legitimate in the eyes of those who worship the UN. 1441 had no bearing on whether the war would have happened, but it was simply an attempt to quiet people who put their faith in the UN.

You see, I cannot understand how people cannot have a problem with all this.

What's the problem?

Iraq with Saddam at the head was like a cancer in the Middle East. He funded the Palestinian terrorists families, he had a past of invasion and a taste of acquiring NBC weapons. Sanctions and the no fly zones were hurting the people of Iraq. It was long past time for the situation to be resolved. Saddam was in breach of every UN resolution on Iraq since the Gulf War. If you think the UN is relevant than another resolution would not have been needed except possibly one to authorize "all possible means". A very good legal case can be made that 687 gave that authorization.

But all of that has been covered many many times.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

What we need to focus on right now is trying to help these people rebuild, weather they want us there or not.

Seems like you would accept any and all help that is offered if the goal was to rebuild . . . instead the US government is intent on rebuilding Iraq in the same fashion it destroyed it . . . on their terms. Guess what we are responsible for rebuilding Iraq and all it takes to get the majority of Iraqis to help is to provide security, clean water, power, and food. The US government and certainly the US military can do absolutely NONE of that well with the possible exception of security . . . we can kill some MOFOs like a champ.

International agencies skilled at humanitarian relief should be organizing and executing the VAST majority of operations in Iraq. The UN Oil for Food Program can fund their operations (plus a sizable US contribution for blowing stuff up). Such a plan would certainly work but the Bush admin is admanantly opposed b/c 1) the UN/NGOs would get credit for sustaining/rebuilding Iraq, 2) the US would STILL be on the hook for the costs, and 3) the US would likely have greatly reduced influence over the future of Iraq.

Actually if you paid attention you would know that president Bush wants the oil for food program continues on at least a temporary basis. Its infrastructure is already in place to help the people of Iraq. At the same time he wants the sanctions lifts so the Iraq can begin supporting itself.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Actually if you paid attention you would know that president Bush wants the oil for food program continues on at least a temporary basis. Its infrastructure is already in place to help the people of Iraq. At the same time he wants the sanctions lifts so the Iraq can begin supporting itself.

Actually if YOU paid attention you would know that President Bush initially wanted CONTROL over the program. When Blair balked noting most of the Council would also give that idea the Heisman, Bush/Blair endorsed giving Annan control under the auspices that he would cede much of the power to the US/UK coalition. It has nothing to do with getting aid to Iraqis and EVERYTHING to do with who has the power to control Iraqi oil revenues in the near (and possibly distant) future.

Iraq Oil for Food Program

If you believe in triskaidekaphobia, note we are in Phase XIII of the program. Bush's original plan was likely to have Garner assert control over the program b/c it would be the fastest away to defray US costs for rebuilding Iraq. Once the Occupation government had its feet under it, they would propose ending the UN program AND sanctions b/c the UN program levies a 2.2% charge for administrative costs (damn they are more efficienct than ANY American business with contracts to rebuild Iraq), 0.8% charge to pay for UN inspectors, and 25% for reparations to Kuwait. The US will need that extra cash to pay US contractors. Furthermore, the legitimate government of Iraq might be on the hook for reparations to Iran.

Even you understand any Bush admin advocacy for the UN program is temporary b/c as long as the sanctions and program are in place . . . the UN has significant influence over the future of Iraq and the US government MUST pay for the bulk of reconstruction costs. Bush is a hypocrite. Granted, the UN is full of hypocrites, too. But most of them will not go to Easter services thanking Jesus for life everlasting and saying God Bless America, victory in war, and the return of OUR troops. Every day without security, potable water, and food makes Operation Iraqi Freedom look anything but. Every day without a legitimate WMD find make Bush/Blair exhortations look like PURE BS.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Actually if you paid attention you would know that president Bush wants the oil for food program continues on at least a temporary basis. Its infrastructure is already in place to help the people of Iraq. At the same time he wants the sanctions lifts so the Iraq can begin supporting itself.

Actually if YOU paid attention you would know that President Bush initially wanted CONTROL over the program. When Blair balked noting most of the Council would also give that idea the Heisman, Bush/Blair endorsed giving Annan control under the auspices that he would cede much of the power to the US/UK coalition. It has nothing to do with getting aid to Iraqis and EVERYTHING to do with who has the power to control Iraqi oil revenues in the near (and possibly distant) future.

Iraq Oil for Food Program

If you believe in triskaidekaphobia, note we are in Phase XIII of the program. Bush's original plan was likely to have Garner assert control over the program b/c it would be the fastest away to defray US costs for rebuilding Iraq. Once the Occupation government had its feet under it, they would propose ending the UN program AND sanctions b/c the UN program levies a 2.2% charge for administrative costs (damn they are more efficienct than ANY American business with contracts to rebuild Iraq), 0.8% charge to pay for UN inspectors, and 25% for reparations to Kuwait. The US will need that extra cash to pay US contractors. Furthermore, the legitimate government of Iraq might be on the hook for reparations to Iran.

Even you understand any Bush admin advocacy for the UN program is temporary b/c as long as the sanctions and program are in place . . . the UN has significant influence over the future of Iraq and the US government MUST pay for the bulk of reconstruction costs. Bush is a hypocrite. Granted, the UN is full of hypocrites, too. But most of them will not go to Easter services thanking Jesus for life everlasting and saying God Bless America, victory in war, and the return of OUR troops. Every day without security, potable water, and food makes Operation Iraqi Freedom look anything but. Every day without a legitimate WMD find make Bush/Blair exhortations look like PURE BS.

Yes it is a much better plan to leave Iraqis oil under control of the UN, rather than systematically handing it back to the Iraqi people.

 

[Wheezer]

well I have read the oil for food program set up by the UN, it all sounds well and good except for one thing.

Saddams regime was in power to misdirect all that funding that should have gone to the people. The UN did a piss poor job of following through.

Am I saying the US will do a better job? I would certainly hope so.

Saddam is no longer in power..hopefully that means that the humanitarian aid we send will hopefully reach the intended targets.

We certainly can't do any worse than what the UN has already done.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Wheezer where during your reading of the Iraq Oil for Food Program did you find a reference to how poorly Saddam's regime utilized it? The Kurds originally opposed a US invasion b/c they did quite well under the program. The US just started sending humanitarian aid to Iraq and it is a tiny fraction compared to the aid previously available through the Oil for Food Program/World Food Program.

So when you say the UN did a piss poor job of keeping Saddam's grubby hands off oil revenue you are correct. When you imply the UN did not provide a valid mechanism for feeding the people of Iraq you are totally wrong. When you imply the absence of Saddam was a necessary condition for providing humanitarian relief to Iraqis you are wrong. When you imply the US has any reason to believe our military can do a comparable if not superior job to the UN/NGOs in providing humanitarian relief you are wrong.

Give me any evidence . . . that would lead someone to believe the US military or ProConsul Garner are capable of organizing/executing relief activities on par with the UN or NGOs!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wheezer where during your reading of the Iraq Oil for Food Program did you find a reference to how poorly Saddam's regime utilized it? The Kurds originally opposed a US invasion b/c they did quite well under the program. The US just started sending humanitarian aid to Iraq and it is a tiny fraction compared to the aid previously available through the Oil for Food Program/World Food Program.

So when you say the UN did a piss poor job of keeping Saddam's grubby hands off oil revenue you are correct. When you imply the UN did not provide a valid mechanism for feeding the people of Iraq you are totally wrong. When you imply the absence of Saddam was a necessary condition for providing humanitarian relief to Iraqis you are wrong. When you imply the US has any reason to believe our military can do a comparable if not superior job to the UN/NGOs in providing humanitarian relief you are wrong.

Give me any evidence . . . that would lead someone to believe the US military or ProConsul Garner are capable of organizing/executing relief activities on par with the UN or NGOs!

start here Oil for Food, Money for Kofi

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the U.N. has greatly expanded the Oil-for-Food program, in 1998 raising an initial ceiling on Saddam's oil sales, and in 1999 removing it entirely. With higher revenues (until interrupted by the war), the scope of imports has also expanded, subject to a distribution plan inside Iraq that the U.N. explains is "prepared by the Government of Iraq and approved by the Secretary-General."

Along with the usual meals and medicine, Oil-for Food last year introduced such items--approved by Annan this past December--as $4 million for air conditioners, phones, and vehicles to support the workings of Saddam's so-called Ministry of Justice. Annan also signed off on $50 million to supply Baghdad's totalitarian Ministry of Information "with television and radio studio systems, mobile broadcasting vehicles, television, and radio transmission equipment"--all for the use of the same Saddam propaganda machine that coalition troops have been risking their lives to knock off the air.

Another intriguing item approved by Annan last December was $20 million earmarked for "a project of Olympic sport city," complete with a sports hotel and $10 million worth of "sports supplies and materials." It bears noting, though the U.N. report does not do so, that the person infamously in charge of Olympic sports in Iraq has been Saddam's son Uday, long known for his sadistic ways. According to a gruesome report in Sports Illustrated, Uday has tortured athletes who disappoint him with beatings and amputations

Beyond that, if you like Enron-style transparency, you have to love Oil-for-Food. At any given time, the program oversees billions in Iraq's money, awaiting the sludge-slow U.N. process of allocation and disbursement. For the first few years the U.N. parked the cash in a French bank, the Banque Nationale de Paris. More recently, it diversified the funds--currently totaling some $13 billion--among a handful of banks. But the U.N. provides no bank statements to the public, does not disclose the names of the banks, and won't even say what countries they're based in. Auditing is an in-house affair, conducted by government employees of a rotating trio of member states, chaired this year by France.

It will not be hard to do better than this oil for food program.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Wheezer where during your reading of the Iraq Oil for Food Program did you find a reference to how poorly Saddam's regime utilized it? The Kurds originally opposed a US invasion b/c they did quite well under the program. The US just started sending humanitarian aid to Iraq and it is a tiny fraction compared to the aid previously available through the Oil for Food Program/World Food Program.

So when you say the UN did a piss poor job of keeping Saddam's grubby hands off oil revenue you are correct. When you imply the UN did not provide a valid mechanism for feeding the people of Iraq you are totally wrong. When you imply the absence of Saddam was a necessary condition for providing humanitarian relief to Iraqis you are wrong. When you imply the US has any reason to believe our military can do a comparable if not superior job to the UN/NGOs in providing humanitarian relief you are wrong.

Give me any evidence . . . that would lead someone to believe the US military or ProConsul Garner are capable of organizing/executing relief activities on par with the UN or NGOs!

Ummmm...I would say the 300+ million they found might be a good place to start.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Could you be a bit more specific than . . . the 300+ million they found?

Do you really think DOD running this operation will make it run MORE efficiently? We didn't invade Somalia or Ethiopia . . . even the Iraqis that were dissatisfied with their rations were getting SOME food on a REGULAR basis plus had reliable access to SOME water and most had electricity.

When has the US spearheaded a successful humanitarian operation for 1 million people let alone 24 million?! There is not a US agency which has ANY experience with such an endeavor . . . US AID gives money to organizations who provide relief . . . it NEVER actually does the work. Every time the US AID website says "we" . . . they mean we gave someone some money that knows how to do it.

The UN is not the tightest ship on the block but to contend the US will do better than the UN and/or NGOs is ridiculous bluster from people who know nothing more about these organizations than a blurb on their favorite website . . . FOX, Heritage, AEI.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Could you be a bit more specific than . . . the 300+ million they found?

Do you really think DOD running this operation will make it run MORE efficiently? We didn't invade Somalia or Ethiopia . . . even the Iraqis that were dissatisfied with their rations were getting SOME food on a REGULAR basis plus had reliable access to SOME water and most had electricity.

When has the US spearheaded a successful humanitarian operation for 1 million people let alone 24 million?! There is not a US agency which has ANY experience with such an endeavor . . . US AID gives money to organizations who provide relief . . . it NEVER actually does the work. Every time the US AID website says "we" . . . they mean we gave someone some money that knows how to do it.

The UN is not the tightest ship on the block but to contend the US will do better than the UN and/or NGOs is ridiculous bluster from people who know nothing more about these organizations than a blurb on their favorite website . . . FOX, Heritage, AEI.

Have you bothered looking up what the UN has done in Haiti after the US restored their democraticaly elected leader and turned the reins over to the UN?

Our history of rebuilding is better than theirs, far from perfect, but still far superior.

Who cares if the work is done by themselves or by hired experts, they foot the bill.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Could you be a bit more specific than . . . the 300+ million they found?

Do you really think DOD running this operation will make it run MORE efficiently? We didn't invade Somalia or Ethiopia . . . even the Iraqis that were dissatisfied with their rations were getting SOME food on a REGULAR basis plus had reliable access to SOME water and most had electricity.

When has the US spearheaded a successful humanitarian operation for 1 million people let alone 24 million?! There is not a US agency which has ANY experience with such an endeavor . . . US AID gives money to organizations who provide relief . . . it NEVER actually does the work. Every time the US AID website says "we" . . . they mean we gave someone some money that knows how to do it.

The UN is not the tightest ship on the block but to contend the US will do better than the UN and/or NGOs is ridiculous bluster from people who know nothing more about these organizations than a blurb on their favorite website . . . FOX, Heritage, AEI.

Have you bothered looking up what the UN has done in Haiti after the US restored their democraticaly elected leader and turned the reins over to the UN?

Our history of rebuilding is better than theirs, far from perfect, but still far superior.

Who cares if the work is done by themselves or by hired experts, they foot the bill.

Another great example of US Rebuilding, Japan!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Do you have any idea of what US policy towards Haiti was like during the 100 years leading up to our "Liberation" of the island? Can you comprehend that US administrations essentially ceded territory to the Japanese as long as they didn't exceed agreed upon limits?

Everybody wants to start history with a bookmark that satisfies their ideological bent. If you wanna dress US foreign policy in a silk dress . . . feel free. While you enjoy delirium, the rest of the world will highlight the swine's ears. Both are true and both contribute to the complicated international conditions which will NOT yield to simpletons like Bush who lack historical knowledge or the inclination/ability to consider geopolitical realities. We've proven that we can blow things up in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We have NOT proven an ability to build anything except ill will.

When MOST people are freed from oppressive regimes they can do great things on their own. Even more so with considerate help. What does it take to be considerate? Knowledge and a desire to help without worrying about who gets the credit. US foreign policy rarely satisfies those criteria. The only advantage Bush has over Clinton is that Bush will stay the course once a path is chosen. Determination can be a wonderful character trait but its alter ego (Stubborness) can be a horrible character flaw.

 

[etech]

Lifting the UN sanctions now that the Saddam regime is gone would be a good place to start. It's a shame that some countries want to politicize that measure so that the people of Iraq have to suffer even more.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: etech
Lifting the UN sanctions now that the Saddam regime is gone would be a good place to start. It's a shame that some countries want to politicize that measure so that the people of Iraq have to suffer even more.

Sadly the world is filled with politicians who are all grasping for power and the world stage.