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

[Red Dawn]

Another link to Bush discussing "Nation Building" In this debate Bush speaks more in depth about "Nation Building" Now don't get m,e wrong, I'm in support of our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I just find it ironic that he mentioned the need for a Coalition, Alliance or Organization like Nato or the UN to take care of the Nation Building while our troops were to be used to overthrowing Dictators and such. Now with the Iraqi War winding down many in his Administration including himself are trying to limit the UN's role in Rebuilding Iraq. Again I'm not distressed at the attitude (of couse it depends on how much they are limited). The reason I even mentioned it had a lot more to do with the topic of this thread than condemning Bush for breaking his promises. Unfortuantely that was just an off the cuff remark made as an aside that seemed to take over this thread.

P.S. Reading those transcripts of the debates is interesting now when you compare what Bush said to what he is actually doing. It seems for the most part he is a man of his word.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Another link to Bush discussing "Nation Building" In this debate Bush speaks more in depth about "Nation Building" Now don't get m,e wrong, I'm in support of our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I just find it ironic that he mentioned the need for a Coalition, Alliance or Organization like Nato or the UN to take care of the Nation Building while our troops were to be used to overthrowing Dictators and such. Now with the Iraqi War winding down many in his Administration including himself are trying to limit the UN's role in Rebuilding Iraq. Again I'm not distressed at the attitude (of couse it depends on how much they are limited). The reason I even mentioned it had a lot more to do with the topic of this thread than condemning Bush for breaking his promises. Unfortuantely that was just an off the cuff remark made as an aside that seemed to take over this thread.

P.S. Reading those transcripts of the debates is interesting now when you compare what Bush said to what he is actually doing. It seems for the most part he is a man of his word.

That is exactly where I pulled that quote from

I think this discussion in this thread is "on topic" since it relates to the rebuilding of Iraq and the stance bush has held from day 1. Now I do agree that he was quite NATO heavy in his remarks but who wouldn't. The unfortunate thing is that the UN and NATO as a whole are weak and don't have a backbone without the USA which has affected the way we've played our cards.

I don't have a problem with a NATO peace keeping force coming into Iraq AFTER we get it secure and I also don't have a problem with the UN being involved with the rebuilding of Iraq. However until we give the all clear - both of those organizations need to sit on the bench until we call them in.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


I don't have a problem with a NATO peace keeping force coming into Iraq AFTER we get it secure and I also don't have a problem with the UN being involved with the rebuilding of Iraq. However until we give the all clear - both of those organizations need to sit on the bench until we call them in.

CkG

I agree

 

[farscape]

Humanitarian aid - well OK.

Reconstructing the nation - No Way.

Rebuilding a democratic nation - yeah right, spare me the ...

UN is the camel getting its nose in the tent - once they're there, they don't get out. They make everyone dependent on them and claim credit for everything - and DO NOTHING to lift the lot of those that they "help" (sounds like the Democratic Party, don't it?). They'd rather let them live in squaller than lift a real finger - just a band-aid - no real reform - just dependence, NOT INDEPENDENCE.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Another link to Bush discussing "Nation Building" In this debate Bush speaks more in depth about "Nation Building" Now don't get m,e wrong, I'm in support of our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I just find it ironic that he mentioned the need for a Coalition, Alliance or Organization like Nato or the UN to take care of the Nation Building while our troops were to be used to overthrowing Dictators and such. Now with the Iraqi War winding down many in his Administration including himself are trying to limit the UN's role in Rebuilding Iraq. Again I'm not distressed at the attitude (of couse it depends on how much they are limited). The reason I even mentioned it had a lot more to do with the topic of this thread than condemning Bush for breaking his promises. Unfortuantely that was just an off the cuff remark made as an aside that seemed to take over this thread.

P.S. Reading those transcripts of the debates is interesting now when you compare what Bush said to what he is actually doing. It seems for the most part he is a man of his word.

But, from that article, there's this spoken by Bush:

If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a
humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us

Which do you think the world views us as right now? I'm afraid it's mostly the former. But, I hope to see that turn around once Iraq is self-governing and our troops are out of Iraq.

 

[etech]

I found this just a little surprising.

Don't turn Iraq over to the UN
Elizabeth Nickson
National Post (Canada)


"Glad to hear that George Bush is still lukewarm on the United Nations. It appears that the age of bending over for this crowd of quasi-legitimate, whining third-rate bullies is fast drawing to a close. The sooner the better, for the Third World especially, since you and I can dodge the UN quite well thanks. So to George W., I say, let them hand out food and organize medical aid. Anything else? You do it, you're competent. And for heaven's sake, if there are Canadians begging to be included, like I don't know, say, Stephen Lewis, how about a nice firm loud bog off.

The UN appears, when judged on its results, to be the ultimate invention of the Canadian intelligentsia of the last 40 years, all hot air, organizational charts, inexorable hyper-inflation of self-righteous bureaucracy, endless re-writing of completely unreadable mission statements, opposition to anything that smacks of capitalism and endless strident demands for more cash. Looks very pretty, sounds very egalitarian, postures that the UN is the hope of mankind and devastates everything in its path. One could list pages of inept, compromised, expensive-for-us decisions based on bad sociology, worse science, and crazed geopolitics.
..."

 

[BarneyFife]

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.

And in about 5 years, Iraq will be under control of another dictator since the people in Iraq cannot handle democracy.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

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.

And in about 5 years, Iraq will be under control of another dictator since the people in Iraq cannot handle democracy.

Why don't you think the people of Iraq can handle democracy? I'm not saying it will be easy but long term, why?

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

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.

And in about 5 years, Iraq will be under control of another dictator since the people in Iraq cannot handle democracy.

Why don't you think the people of Iraq can handle democracy? I'm not saying it will be easy but long term, why?

It's a complicated issue but the main reason why I think Iraq will fall into chaos within 10-20 years is that Arab people have a hard time of getting along with one another (Just look at all the Arab conferences that turn into shouting matches and arguments) and they aren't exactly open to other religions and nationalities. When you have various groups of Muslims that hate each other, you have the Kurds to the north that the Iraqi's hate, you have various tribal leaders and Muslim clerics, etc... This isn't the United States or Europe where people act in a rational and civilized manner. Just look at that Cleric that got hacked to death with axes last week. This country will be split into various ethnic groups and I will not be surprised if it turns into another Afghanistan. One thing is certain that the only way that Afghanistan and Iraq were kept in check was with a dictator. I doubt anyone will change these people after thousands of years.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Phuz

I will take our historical record over the UN's anyday, just another chance to show the world how to do things right.

aaaaahahahahahahahaha.

Why don't you look at Haiti today. The US used force to restore a democratically elected leader back to power and then turned things over to the UN. Do you even know what is happening there today? Nope, you have no clue.......

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
The United States must not permit the U.N., with its terrible record in the Balkans, among the Palestinians, in Africa, in Cambodia, and elsewhere, to inflict its incompetence and neuroses on the people of Iraq. Iraq is fighting for its freedom, after the long brutalization it has endured. America the liberator must prove that we meant what we said about the freedom and prosperity of the Iraqi people--while the U.N., the E.U., and their associates preferred the status quo. Iraq deserves better--and so do we, for the sacrifices we shall have borne. The first step is to recognize what not to do in postwar Iraq. And the name of that tragedy is Kosovo. interesting article on UN and iraq

i'm sure you can find a shorter article listing the UN's failures .. cambodia etc etc etc. u get false image of the UN as some successful nation builder from the media

Yeah, just like the great job we did in Afghanistan. And in regards to the Palestinians, don't we share a lot of the blame for their pathetic state of affairs? After all, we build and pay for the weapons used to subjugate them, as well as for the settlements built on their land, the ones that the UN deemed illegal. But how anti-semetic of the UN to say stealing the land of others could be illegal, after all, it's such an irrelevant institution.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Alistar7 I would suggest US efforts in Japan were more successfull anyway...

Is there really any similarities between the situation with Japan and the one in Iraq?

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.

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.

Another difference is based on what you just said, unlike Japan and Germany, Iraq does not have a homogenous society. There will be a lot more conflict based on religious and ethnic lines, so claiming that what worked for the former will work for the later is shortsighted. There will always be a power strugle, and anyone in power, while the US is occupying, will be perceived as being puppets. Another problem is that Germany and Japan were relatively free societies before the war. Iraq has an entire generation of people who have not known anything but despotism. You cannot just throw democracy at them, the previous system was just too different, they or anyone for that matter, will run wild with their new found freedom. Democracy would work in this region if it occured slowly, if Afghanistan is any indication, a "one day totalitarian, the next day free" plan is doomed to failure.