Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Dude you wanted one example and I gave it to you. How about Kuwait? As part of the UN the US had primary roles in Freeing(or Defending)and rebuilding in both countries. I'm not saying that we should turn it over to the UN, but working with the UN to rebuild Iraq makes sense. This is going to be a difficult task and we can use the funds and expertise of other countries. I feel as wary of Neo Conservative Dregs like Wolfofwitz as I do of Cheese Eating Monkeys
Why do you always answer people with more questions?
Do you even understand the function of the U.N.?
The U.N. was established after WW2 with much reason. The U.N. is successful in dramatically reducing violence, saving lives, etc.
Each peace operation has a mandate.
Typical mandates are to supervise ceasefires and troop withdrawals, observe elections, humanitarian aid, and monitor human rights violations.
Examples: S.Korea, West New Guinea, Cambodia, Suez Canal, Namibia, El Salvador etc.
Sure. The leaders were both nuts, thought themselves to be gods, and both had warriors that would engage in suicide attacks against their enemies.
We had to rebuild the government in Japan, set up economic infrastructure, rebuild a lot of damage to the cities... there are plenty of similarities.
The last time I checked, Japan was doing fairly well for a nation that we blew the hell out of and reconstructed. We also have very good relations with them, the last time I checked.
The U.S. effort in Japan and the current situation in Iraq have entirely different political circumstances.
Whoa there, tiger.
Where is this glowing success in reducing violence, saving lives, etc.? Ask the 3 remaining living Rwandans how helpful the UN was in stopping genocide. Where was the UN?
Alistar7 is trying to make a point with his questions that you are obviously too obtuse to understand. What troops does the UN have to deploy, if not ours?
The UN is, was, and will always be a paper tiger. It is nothing without the support of US $$$ to fund its operations and our troops to carry out their "mandates."
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
But the main difference and the most important difference is that in Japan we were an occupying force with free will do do as we pleased without the worry of bordering countries. We beat the Japanese people not just their government. In Iraq we defeated the Regime not the people.
I asked for SUCCESSFULL examples, nice of you to list their failures though. Notice their fine effots in the Congo right now. The French are there also offering some more of their astute inernational diplomacy, somehow they have BOTH sides pissed at them.
How has the UN been succesfull Rwanda? Their purpoase and their actual actions are hardly the same. The point I was making about SK was that WE provide the esssential force that gurantees their sovereignty, not the UN. It is our presence, not their purpose.
Please answer my question. Why do you think we need to mend fences with the countires that opposed our action, especially since they are the ones making the effort. Explain how to me how our dependence on them is so great we need to cater to their view.
They both involve the reconstruction of nations and systems of government. Both involve nation building.
Would you care to argue that our reconstruction of Japan was not a shining example of how it should be done? Would you care to argue that Kosovo is?
Iraq and Japan are very similar, both were productive societies with intact infrastructures and an educated people. Japan had an industrial base to build wealth with, Iraq has natural resources.
We already have the people of Iraq behind our eforts, unlike Japan, and their ability to generate revenue quickly separates them as well.
I agree Japan had far more serious political ramifications, while they were active aggressive force, we also used a nuclear bomb on them, the need to rebuild that country was even greater for this reason.
Uhg, again, you don't know what you're talking about. I'll repeat my examples.
Cambodia: Assisting the Rebirth of a Nation 1992 - 1993
Accomplishments: Conducted peaceful, free and fair elections. Helped establish new constitution and government. Investigated ceasefire violations and illegal return of forces. Destroyed weapons caches and demined major roads. Monitored human rights violations while providing human rights training for military police and judicial personnel. Achieved limited disarmament. Provided humanitarian relief, and helped repatriate 370,000 Cambodian refugees.
El Salvador: Ending Civil War & Holding Free and Fair Elections 1991 - April 1995
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented peace accord, ending 12 years of bloody civil war. Disarmed combatants and created conditions for free and fair elections. Monitored human rights abuses while dismantling existing security forces and beginning creation of a civilian police force. Provided buffer, police and humanitarian observer force to implement peace accord and monitor elections. Helped maintain public order pending the creation of a national civilian police.
Kuwait: Deterring Violence 1991 - present
Accomplishments: Monitored withdrawal of armed forces. Monitored Kyawr 'Abd-Allah waterway and the borders at patrol bases in the demilitarized zone. Provided technical assistance to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission and assisted relocation of Iraqi citizens from Kuwait to Iraq.
Suez Canal, Sinai: Silencing Weapons and Keeping the Peace 1973 - 1979
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and facilitated separation and withdrawal of troops. Monitored borders and carried out inspections through checkpoints along buffer zone. Provided communication, delivered humanitarian aid, and helped exchange prisoners. Maintained ceasefire during operation.
West New Guinea: Assuring Peaceful Transfer of Power 1962 - 1963
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented all provisions for the peaceful transfer of power in West New Guinea. Assured peaceful negotiations between the Netherlands and Indonesia throughout transition process. Maintained order and improved economic, health and education services in West New Guinea.
And there are more.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Alistar, you asked for some examples and I gave them too you. Of course the US is a major part of the UN and had a primary role in both SK and Kuwait. But that doesn't mean the the UN failed in either case (try telling that to the widows of the Turkisyh Troops that Dies in SK or the Saudi Pilots who died in the Gulf War)
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
But the main difference and the most important difference is that in Japan we were an occupying force with free will do do as we pleased without the worry of bordering countries. We beat the Japanese people not just their government. In Iraq we defeated the Regime not the people.
So where were they in Cambodia when millions were slaughtered? Rwanda? Nice to see them in the game after the horror but that's not providing a solution.
I would suggst our military presence insures the safety of the nation of Kuwait.
You seem to be missing the fact that with the exception of Germany and France the other countries are making every effort to kiss our butt, who needs who?
I would suggst our military presence insures the safety of the nation of Kuwait.
You seem to be missing the fact that with the exception of Germany and France the other countries are making every effort to kiss our butt, who needs who?
Having the people of Iraq behind us from the start just makes it easier. Our mission is still very similar, invade, occupy, rebuild and change the govt and get out...
The UN is too reacitve a body in most cases. I saw little play given to a BOMBSHELL Bush dropped in the speech the night before the war. He alluded to giving US troops to a UN force, that would be historic and not a bad idea. If the UN had any teeth it would be able to intervene BEFORE situations got out of control, instead of waiting for the killing to start and then trying to help mop up.
The UN is too reacitve a body in most cases. I saw little play given to a BOMBSHELL Bush dropped in the speech the night before the war. He alluded to giving US troops to a UN force, that would be historic and not a bad idea. If the UN had any teeth it would be able to intervene BEFORE situations got out of control, instead of waiting for the killing to start and then trying to help mop up.
You could say the same in Iraq. We have defeated the Sunnis that supported the government, liberating the Kurds and the Shiites.
We are an occupying force to some extent. I don't think that the absence of bordering nations is really that important.
Especially in light of the reaction of the Iraqi people I would prefer we go this alone as far as rebuilding, if the UN wants to provide humanitarian aid, great, let them. If they wish to help monitor elections even better, other than that I see no need for them to intervene at this point.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter