the United States must not permit the U.N., with its terrible record to ruin Iraq.

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
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?

Germany and Cheese Eating Monlkeys are not the UN. Like the US they are members and I can assure you that after liberating Iraq without the approval of the UN will have definate ramifications the next time we go to the UN to insure that they do the proper thing, especially if the rebuilding of Iraq is succesful. All France has done is made themselves even more irrelevant than they were before

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
[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.

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.

You could but you would be wrong IMO. I'm not advocating turning Iraq over to the UN but I am saying that they should play an important role. I also think now would be a good time to help make the UN stronger and more responsible with the emphasis on RESPONSIBLE

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

No. This is a case of we did the dirty work now the UN wants to reap the rewards and make themselves feel like they are not totaly worthless.

We have proven them to be null and void and they want a chance to prove they they are still a needed force in the world today..sorry but they are not.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

No. This is a case of we did the dirty work now the UN wants to reap the rewards and make themselves feel like they are not totaly worthless.

We have proven them to be null and void and they want a chance to prove they they are still a needed force in the world today..sorry but they are not.

What rewards? What does the U.N. have to gain by helping? You're proven the U.N. to be 'null'?
You didn't read the thread - Duh?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

No. This is a case of we did the dirty work now the UN wants to reap the rewards and make themselves feel like they are not totaly worthless.

We have proven them to be null and void and they want a chance to prove they they are still a needed force in the world today..sorry but they are not.

What rewards? What does the U.N. have to gain by helping? You're proven the U.N. to be 'null'?
You didn't read the thread - Duh?

There will be Companies that make a Profit but it will be paid for by the UN or the Coalition. Japan has already pledged 100 million dollars to the rebuilding effort. Pretty good for a country that's been in the economic doldrums for the last 8 years.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

No. This is a case of we did the dirty work now the UN wants to reap the rewards and make themselves feel like they are not totaly worthless.

We have proven them to be null and void and they want a chance to prove they they are still a needed force in the world today..sorry but they are not.

What rewards? What does the U.N. have to gain by helping? You're proven the U.N. to be 'null'?
You didn't read the thread - Duh?

There will be Companies that make a Profit but it will be paid for by the UN or the Coalition. Japan has already pledged 100 million dollars to the rebuilding effort. Pretty good for a country that's been in the economic doldrums for the last 8 years.

I understand that, but that is not why they want to help out.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

No. This is a case of we did the dirty work now the UN wants to reap the rewards and make themselves feel like they are not totaly worthless.

We have proven them to be null and void and they want a chance to prove they they are still a needed force in the world today..sorry but they are not.

What rewards? What does the U.N. have to gain by helping? You're proven the U.N. to be 'null'?
You didn't read the thread - Duh?

There will be Companies that make a Profit but it will be paid for by the UN or the Coalition. Japan has already pledged 100 million dollars to the rebuilding effort. Pretty good for a country that's been in the economic doldrums for the last 8 years.

I understand that, but that is not why they want to help out.

I know, I was pointing that out in support of your argument.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I want the UN involved. This can't be something we do by ourselves. The whole world has to see this in a positive light and if we keep it to ourselves we will be accused of empire building.

Agreed. It would be another huge political mistake to exclude the UN from this process. There are fences to be mended and this is how you start mending them.

Dave, why do we have to mend fences? Maybe it's time for France, Germany and Russia to start mending fences. And BTW, what was the first huge political mistake?

Second question first. The invasion of Iraq without a broader coalition and/or UN mandate. First question. Because we do not live in a vacuum. Because if we don't then we will be perceived as conquerors instead of liberators. Because there is still years worth of work to be done and we will need help. Because we need them as much as they need us, irregardless of whether it is trade, oil, the WoT, the WoD or the fact that something similar to this is probably going to happen wrt N.Korea. We must appear to be magnanimous in our victory or we will continue to be the arrogant bully. Why would we want our friends to see us as an arrogant bully. How does that help?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
like the empire building done in south korea/germany/france?

the US atleast has a record of creating democracies, however ungrateful they are. the UN's true record involving brutal governments is various levels of failure.

The US also has a record of supporting brutal dictators, Saddam included.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
F the U.N. We have liberated Iraq, we will prove our intentions in the coming months. We will install a democratic government for the people and get out of dodge. The U.N. had its chance.

What are you talking about?
It was your country that snuffed the U.N. Now they're willing to look beyond that and play a role in a war they didn't believe was right.
Any help is good help, and the U.N. has the best experience possible for this type of situation.

You don't SERIOUSLY believe the UN didn't take part in the war because they thought it wasn't right, do you? Think money....power instead.

Any help is NOT good help, especially in this situation.

You're logic is seriously flawed.
Ok.. I'll think about money and power... how about the large sums of money and power it is going to cost the U.S/Britain to rehabilitate a post-war Iraq.
Even if you DESPISE the U.N., its still someone else to split the bill with. Not to mention there is less chance of further confrontation with U.N. / Peace Keeping forces occupying post-war Iraq than the Coalition.

Ok I think your logic is seriously flawed because you obviously didn't understand what I was saying. There are two different statements I'm making.

1) You must be kidding if you think the UN didn't get invovled because they "didn't believe it was right." Look at who sits on the Security Council in the UN. Look at the financial investments in Iraq, look at the desire for political power and not allowing the US to get "too big."

2) If you look carefully you'll see my second reply immediately after my first saying that the UN should ONLY have humanitarian aid invovlement in post-war Iraq.

Hear me now and understand me later.

 

[Greyd]

Ok..whats up with the double post action? Bug? I only pressed the button once.

EDITED for double post.

 

[Armoth]

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Armoth
The UN is pretty much emasculated right now. It's leadership is questionable at best. If they are going to come in and be like "We were with you all the way, let's rebuild Iraq together and make everybody happy!" That's bull. The UN should have done something about Iraq long ago, even when Clinton didn't do jack. I think Japan was pleased with how their country turned out after WWII. I think that the UN can help somewhat, but I seriously doubt that they can/should have a primary role in rebuilding Iraq. I think the country would be better off with other non-profit aid organizations coming in and helping to restore things.

Sorry, but maybe people think that American leadership is "questionable at best". The U.N. not approving military action on Iraq and the U.N. helping a country after a war are two VERY different situations. It doesn't matter. That fact that they are still willing to provide a humanitarian/peace keeping role in Iraq after being pushed aside is a GOOD thing.

Who cares who has what roles, as long as it all gets done. You're not doing the U.N. any favours be 'letting them' have a role and help clean up the country.


:disgust:

We should ditch the U.N. I don't care what people think about leadership in America as long as it is defending what is right and good, not wrong and evil. Yeah, fine the U.N. can come in and "save the day" or whatever it is they think they do. The U.N. outlived it's usefulness a long time ago. We can just fine with coalitions and third party aid organizations. The U.N. is just a black hole for funds.

:disgust:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Armoth

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Armoth
The UN is pretty much emasculated right now. It's leadership is questionable at best. If they are going to come in and be like "We were with you all the way, let's rebuild Iraq together and make everybody happy!" That's bull. The UN should have done something about Iraq long ago, even when Clinton didn't do jack. I think Japan was pleased with how their country turned out after WWII. I think that the UN can help somewhat, but I seriously doubt that they can/should have a primary role in rebuilding Iraq. I think the country would be better off with other non-profit aid organizations coming in and helping to restore things.

Sorry, but maybe people think that American leadership is "questionable at best". The U.N. not approving military action on Iraq and the U.N. helping a country after a war are two VERY different situations. It doesn't matter. That fact that they are still willing to provide a humanitarian/peace keeping role in Iraq after being pushed aside is a GOOD thing.

Who cares who has what roles, as long as it all gets done. You're not doing the U.N. any favours be 'letting them' have a role and help clean up the country.


:disgust:

We should ditch the U.N. I don't care what people think about leadership in America as long as it is defending what is right and good, not wrong and evil. Yeah, fine the U.N. can come in and "save the day" or whatever it is they think they do. The U.N. outlived it's usefulness a long time ago. We can just fine with coalitions and third party aid organizations. The U.N. is just a black hole for funds.

:disgust:

Nah being the Worlds Policeman is a Black Hole for Funds! Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

 

[razor2025]

I'm in support of Alistar. I seriously think that UN should step aside in reconstruction this time and handle the humanitarian work and monitering the democratic functions in the future. Why should UN step aside?

1. US had tried to get the UN support for 6 months. If it wasn't for French, German, Russian, and "no-vote" China, we could've gone as a UN force.

2. UN has blindly let Saddam Hussein use the Oil-for-Food program to fund his military and NBC (Nuke-Bio-Chem) programs. I've seen a chart on CNN showing how Saddam spent 59% of the money from the UN program. He had used most of the money to buy illegal weapons and NBC equipment instead of using it to feed his people and build his country. Gee, how ironic that French gets to be the banker and Germany gets to support it's meager economy by selling illegal weapons to Iraq.

3. UN wants to gain reputation and fame. That's the "reward" it wants to reap from this reconstruction. It's suppose to be a non-profit organization, so the only "reward" it can claim is those two things. Essentially, UN wants to step in AFTER we had paid the bill for the war and paid with life in fighting against the weapons Saddam bought illegally.

4. Isn't it ironic that French is now vehemently wanting the UN to govern the reconstruction? Gee... even a blind person could see that the French wants to regain whatever it lost when Saddam was toppled. They want to get as much as they can from the millions lost when Saddam went down. The only way they can reap back the millions promised to them by Saddam is through UN. So, UN becomes a gateway for these "Anti War" countries to benefit from the war they were oppose against. Who in the world gave them the right?

Now, I agree that UN did had some success, albeit very few. Comparatively, it had much more failure. I would say, let the Iraqi decide. They can pick between US, the people who sent the troops to liberate them, or UN, the organization that would've prevented their liberation from happening.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

 

[Armoth]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Armoth

Originally posted by: Phuz

Originally posted by: Armoth
The UN is pretty much emasculated right now. It's leadership is questionable at best. If they are going to come in and be like "We were with you all the way, let's rebuild Iraq together and make everybody happy!" That's bull. The UN should have done something about Iraq long ago, even when Clinton didn't do jack. I think Japan was pleased with how their country turned out after WWII. I think that the UN can help somewhat, but I seriously doubt that they can/should have a primary role in rebuilding Iraq. I think the country would be better off with other non-profit aid organizations coming in and helping to restore things.

Sorry, but maybe people think that American leadership is "questionable at best". The U.N. not approving military action on Iraq and the U.N. helping a country after a war are two VERY different situations. It doesn't matter. That fact that they are still willing to provide a humanitarian/peace keeping role in Iraq after being pushed aside is a GOOD thing.

Who cares who has what roles, as long as it all gets done. You're not doing the U.N. any favours be 'letting them' have a role and help clean up the country.


:disgust:

We should ditch the U.N. I don't care what people think about leadership in America as long as it is defending what is right and good, not wrong and evil. Yeah, fine the U.N. can come in and "save the day" or whatever it is they think they do. The U.N. outlived it's usefulness a long time ago. We can just fine with coalitions and third party aid organizations. The U.N. is just a black hole for funds.

:disgust:

Nah being the Worlds Policeman is a Black Hole for Funds! Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Yeah, if we can the UN that's one less black hole for funds. Currently, we put lots of time, money, and effort into the UN AND are the world's policeman at the same time. Which promise are you referring to? I don't recall him promising not to stand up for what's right or go after evil. Things have sorta changed since the campaign too ya know.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

They were also pre-911.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

I looked and couldn't find anything about it but I keep hearing analysts hinting at it but no outright quote of what Bush promised, and that's what I want to find and you need to PROVE before your accusations hold any water

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

I looked and couldn't find anything about it but I keep hearing analysts hinting at it but no outright quote of what Bush promised, and that's what I want to find and you need to PROVE before your accusations hold any water

CkG

He said it during the Presidential Debates with Gore. Check the transcripts of the Presidential Debates if you are really interested. If not then don't expect me to do your research for you.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

I looked and couldn't find anything about it but I keep hearing analysts hinting at it but no outright quote of what Bush promised, and that's what I want to find and you need to PROVE before your accusations hold any water

CkG

He said it during the Presidential Debates with Gore. Check the transcripts of the Presidential Debates if you are really interested. If not then don't expect me to do your research for you.

Come on you know how it works around here, you made an accusation and I'm calling BS asking for proof

I'll go back over what I skimmed and see if I can't find it but the burden is still on you since you are the accuser

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

I looked and couldn't find anything about it but I keep hearing analysts hinting at it but no outright quote of what Bush promised, and that's what I want to find and you need to PROVE before your accusations hold any water

CkG

He said it during the Presidential Debates with Gore. Check the transcripts of the Presidential Debates if you are really interested. If not then don't expect me to do your research for you.

Come on you know how it works around here, you made an accusation and I'm calling BS asking for proof

I'll go back over what I skimmed and see if I can't find it but the burden is still on you since you are the accuser

CkG

Well I guess you are assuming that it matters to me that someone such as yourself calls it BS or not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

OK - Here is a direct quote of what Bush had to say in the debates about "nation building":
<snip>
And so I don't think our troops ought to be used
for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be
used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to
help overthrow a dictator that's in our -- when it's in our best
interests.
</snip>

What did he break again?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Also a Broken Campaign Promise by Dubya.

Hmm Moony seems to have rubbed off on you What campaign promise is Bush breaking? If you can support your claim then I will gladly be pissed at him about it like you are but until you back it up - I call BS.

I looked through a bunch of campaign 2000 stuff and couldn't find this "promise" or "platform" you both claim he has broken. The ball is in your court - serve away

CkG

Not to be the World's Policeman and get in the business of Nation Building. I'm not pissed because we are doing that as I felt those pledges were Naive and said just to get votes.

OK - Here is a direct quote of what Bush had to say in the debates about "nation building":
<snip>
And so I don't think our troops ought to be used
for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be
used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to
help overthrow a dictator that's in our -- when it's in our best
interests.
</snip>

What did he break again?

CkG

That's exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the right thing to do.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
That's exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the right thing to do.

Iraq is a Military WAR in which we are using our troops to overthrow a Dictator. That doesn't conflict with any "promise" Bush made. Now Afghanastan could be viewed as Nation building because there wasn't a declared WAR, but in my interpretation our actions in Afghanistan are more along the lines of vigilante justice than "Nation building".

Are we going to have to rebuild Iraq - yup because of WAR, which Bush said is a legitimate use of troops.

CkG

EDIT - My whole point Red was Moony and your use of "broken campaign promises" - I don't feel he has done that with the current Iraq conflict.