UN, US, WTF, ETC...

[DGMacphee]

I took a look at some past posts and tried to frame them in a current context, especially with the recent announcement that the US government is seeking help from the UN to maintain order in Iraq.

First, from Panda:

A final decision on whether to take action or not has not been finished, but Bush has made it clear that UN or no UN, the US will attack Iraq.

Aye, Panda's prediction happened.

And as a result the US government made a mess that's costing them x amount of soldiers and billions of dollars per month.

Now they need the UN's help.

Idiots.

From Darth Mandarb:

But the bottom line is that diplomacy failed. The U.N. failed.

And yet the US is returning (nay, sucking up) to the same organisation that has "failed".

From Karius:

Or you think Bush said to the people in Iraq "just don't blow up your oil resources" because he is thinking about the ambiental consequences it would have?

Funny how the coalition destroyed most of the hospitals and schools in Iraq, but left the oilfields.

From Evenwolf:

Pro War argument #1:

We are liberating Iraqis from an evil power. They will be happy once he's gone and they will have democracy. Assuming the majority of Iraqis wish for democracy- that sounds fine and dandy.

I especially liked how post-war the Iraqi people started looting the country.

Let's not forget the lawlessness that's causing at least one soldier a day to die from street-fire.

GO DEMOCRACY! WOO!  

Yeah, yeah, they're still continuing, but it's costing a big-ass amount of lives and cash to do it.

From Dark Stalkey:

Why has the prime minister of our country (being the UK) risked his job, his cabinet members, diplomatic relations with the rest of Europe, and general political disaster to go above the UN's head and go to war with Iraq, knowing full well all the consiquences good and bad of such a major decision?

One defense expert is dead, a spin doctor resigns, an inqury is launched and Blair is up shit creek!

"Sexing-up" my bollacks! "Lying and pissfarting" more like it!

From Darth Mandrub again:

We had/have evidence people.  For the love of God open your eyes (and your minds).

And now the CIA has spoken up and disproven most of the "evidence", especially the African urianium link that Bush mentioned very promiently in his State of the Union address.

And I also refer to the "sexed-up" dosier in the UK.

And:

The UN failed. Actually, I don't really blame the UN. I blame France. I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US. The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves.

I mentioned before that the US government is already asking (nay, butt-kissing) the UN.

But they've also got the hide to ask the surrounding international community (including France) for help, saying they're obligated -- even though THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MESS OVER THERE NOW!

Isn't that ironic? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  

And I'm sure the French would love to help out, even after all that name-calling most of the US population did during the war.

Freedom fries -- HAHAHAH! Still makes me laugh!

From CJ:

First of all they say 'Saddam might have weapons of mass destruction and must be disarmed' - but North Korea does have nuclear missiles, so why aren't we attacking them?

Funny, they've still got nukes and no one's attacked them yet.

For some reason, we're all still using diplomacy -- How fucked up is that?!

From Helm:

There's no global counterpoint to the US. imperialistic aggresiveness, since the UN has been to indecisive and not cohesive enough to act as such. This has resulted in wars in bosnia, serbia, afghanistan and now iraq (again). And in none of those countries, has there been eshtablished anything else than an 'fake' goverment after the US. intervention. Certainly no freedom has been given to the people. Merely a switch of the power structure so it's controlled by the US.

And still are.

Funny how the Iraqi people are saying "Get out of our country" and the coalition soldiers continue to block their ears.

From Bob the Hun

Who said we were done with Osama? We're still looking for him, but it's just that we don't need a large-scale military operation just to get him.

And a fine job they did too.

Only one problem: They still haven't found him!

Or Saddam.

But, hey, they killed Saddam's sons so all that military intervention and taxpayer money went to some good use.

Even though they had NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPT 11, which was why the US government started the whole war in Iraq issue.

And finally, this gem from CJ, which in hindsight reads more like a soothsayer's prediction than an opinion:

Let's think for a moment what exactly this war is going to achieve.

So lets suppose that the US charges in, and does manage to kill Saddam. Then what?

The Iraqi people are brainwashed with propoganda to such an extent that they hate the West, and are hardly likely to hail the invading troops with party poppers and champagne.

Iraq is a very unstable country. Saddam has, by his stern harsh leadership, kept it all together because people are afraid of him. If he is removed, the country will most likely descend into civil war, killing many thousands of innocent people.

And finally, if this attack goes ahead, it will only be a reason for Al-Qaeda to launch more terrorist attacks against the Western world.

That proves it!

CJ is a god -- an all-seeing and all-knowing one!



Well, what a trip down memory lane -- Shit, if I was in the UN, I'd tell Bush and Co to fuck themselves sideways and clean their own goddamn mess (only I'd state it in diplomatic double-speak, so as not to offend anyone).

(P.S. Bush is still a loser -- He can't run his own country, nor a foriegn one without the UN, and even lost a fight with a pretzel!)

(Pussy!)

[Barcik]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

[DGMacphee]

To be honest, Barcik, you shouldn't.

Iraq is just as dangerous as it was before the war.

Instead of one dictator, there's now no real leadership, which just creates utter chaos and anarchy.

And I don't think the soldiers who are stuck in the country are feeling any safer, considering they're still getting shot at even after the war "ended".

Let's not forget those mythical WMDs, which haven't been found.

Iraq has the same nuclear capabilities it did before the war -- Sweet bugger all.

And now it's an even poorer country.

[Barcik]

"I" is an egoistic term. I do not feel safer for the Iraqi people, or for the American soldiers. I feel safer for myself. I know many other people who feel the same way. The main potential immediate threat to the existence of my country has been disabled.

[Pumaman]

Hehe, nice trip back in time there DG. It is funny how things turn out.

The problem now is that the coalition forces are in a catch 22. The Iraqis want them out, but if the troops leave then the country will most likely descend into civil war and anarchy. If the troops stay, they will continue to be attacked.

They're in a pickle alright, but they should have thought of that before invading in the first place.

In fact, this whole Dr Kelly suicide and the resulting enquiry has been quite a spectacle. Mr Bliar being called to give evidence about his role in the death, and also as you say all the evidence coming out about the dossier being sexed-up, would all be quite funny if it hadn't involved countless hundreds of people dying.

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

But should you? Saddam may have had the capability, but in all likelihood he'd never actually have done anything. Since the Kuwait invasion, he's seemed more of a talker than a doer.

Now, instead of Iraq's weapons (admittedly not of mass destruction) being controlled by Saddam, they are most likely being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

Does it make you feel any safer that an anonymous terrorist might now posess the weapons, rather than a regime which could have been held to account for anything it did with them?

[Darth Mandarb]

Oh boy ... here we go again!!  

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

I think it's a smart thing to get the UN involved now. Of course the rest of the world will see it as 'crawling back' ... it's typical.

It's still pathetic that France didn't help out.

Also, as I stated in another thread, I was against all the 'freedom fries' and boycott on French products ... but of course that didn't get quoted  And I believe it was 'liberty fries'

And DGM - It's Darth MANDARB ... not Mandrub  I hope that wasn't intentional.

dm

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

So what happens if one player decides to do something stupid, runs towards the opposing team with the ball but with no support, against the will of the other players, and just generally makes an ass of himself?

[Darth Mandarb]

Archangel - I'll get back to you on that a little later ... I'm enjoying some liberty fries right now  I'm just kidding.

That's a great analogy.

The only thing I can say in response is that we (the people watching in the stands) can't really do anything to stop the player from doing something 'stupid' like that.  So I guess we just sit back and watch it happen and voice our opinions in forums on the internet

cheers,
dm

[Gonzo]

In my eyes, France came out of that sorry mess of a build-up to war looking far less 'pathetic' than the US. They stuck to their guns, and they've been vindicated because they didn't contribute to creating the Iraq we're looking at now. The UN failed because the US somehow decided it was for the greater good. If it had been used as it was meant to be, nobody would be pointing the finger at France and Iraq wouldn't be in this state.  Also, IMO, we would all be a bit safer than we are now, and a lot less people would have died.

As for 'crawling back' to the UN, the UN should never have been ignored, but now the damage is done, I'm glad to see some sanity prevailing. Iraq needs to be sorted out, and the UN is probably going to have to be involved for the job to be done well.

As for Darth Mandarb's quote in DG's post:
"The UN failed. Actually, I don't really blame the UN. I blame France. I'm disgusted by France's unwillingness to help the US. The 56,681 Americans who died liberating France in World Wars I and II are rolling over in their graves."

That's ridiculous...the World War comparisons that sprung up at the time of the war and are still kicking about now are totally irrelevant. It's as bad as the one about if Churchill had appeased Hitler. It's a totally different situation. You can't imply that countries have some kind of debt in blood to one another either.

[TheYak]

It all plays out how the majority of us thought it would.  I'm from the US and from the onset was disgusted by the use of Bush of September 11th to propogate a war upon Iraq.  Hey! While the American people are looking the other way, pissed off about the terrorist acts and mourning their loved ones, let's use this opportunity to take out the guy my dad failed to take out back when he sucked in office too!  

Really, if you UN-people (It's odd to consider that the US could even still be part of this organization since it thumbed its nose at the UN months ago) want to be helpful... do something about Mini-Bush for us.

[Ali]

we (the people watching in the stands) can't really do anything to stop the player from doing something 'stupid'

The football analogy parts with reality here because we SHOULD be able to, that's the essence of democracy. But as long as U.S. elections are crooked, I guess that's true.

I think by now, Blair is quite safe because, the whole issue becomes duller and moves further from the point by the day.
The Hutton Inquiry has almost fully directed the media and the public's attention away from the war itself, and towards Dr Kelly's mystery suicide and the '45-minute claim' in the September Dossier.
Watching national news, you'd think that Kelly's death was more significant than the casualties of the war, and that the inclusion of the 45-minute line was the only mistake this government made.

[Matt Brown]

thanks for bringint this back up DG...I've been doing a lot of thinking about it, and was about to make a thread about it myself.

I have a question though, thats been bugging me.
I've made a policy now, (to get me into the mindset that I need to pursue the studies and job of my choice) that im going to try not to critize anything politcal unless I can think of a better idea. When war broke out, I was hoping that this would happen, (by this, I mean go back to the UN), since the way I see it, its the only conflict can end.

if you guys were the US, what would you do now? you are all smart people, I'd like to know.

If I was the UN, I'd like to tell bush to screw himself...it would serve him right. but his choice effected millions of other people besides americans. This is now a global conflict, or at least has the potential to be one. isnt that the UN's job? to help with these?

I hope the UN helps. The USA needs some sort of accountibilty for what it did, (unless of course, it turns out that there actually was WMD...we wont know for a while.), what exactly I don't know.

Im hoping that us tradional allies can burry the hatchet, and work to solve this, as I really dont see the US being able to do it themselves.

what do you think?

[jason]

I can't wait until Bush is out of office, assassinated, dies of a drug overdose, or explodes from constipation... It's very depressing to come home, turn on the TV, and see a monkey (Bush) leading the US. I cringe everytime I see him giving a speech.

[Squinky]

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

Arguing that life would be better without bush is like saying life would be better without saddam, and thats worked out great so far...

[Archangel (aka SoupDragon)]

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

Arguing that life would be better without bush is like saying life would be better without saddam, and thats worked out great so far...

Firstly, Gore might seem silly in this predicament, but you have to remember that this is a predicament OF BUSH'S MAKING, that he could so very easily have avoided.

Secondly, since when has life with Saddam been "working out great"? Not only have British and American troops been dying since the 'end' of the war, but we have produced a hundred thousand new terrorists, who in about 10 years will be wreaking havoc on the Western world.

[Squinky]

My point was really that no matter who's in charge, no matter if saddam is there or not, it's all screwed up anyway...

It was really an answer to panda, I can't think of any good solution...

[Barcik]

I would just like to point out, that, however meaningless it is, I feel safer now.

But should you? Saddam may have had the capability, but in all likelihood he'd never actually have done anything. Since the Kuwait invasion, he's seemed more of a talker than a doer.

Now, instead of Iraq's weapons (admittedly not of mass destruction) being controlled by Saddam, they are most likely being sold on the black market to the highest bidder.

Does it make you feel any safer that an anonymous terrorist might now posess the weapons, rather than a regime which could have been held to account for anything it did with them?

For years, the biggest budget in the IDF (which is the government body with the biggest budget) belonged to the defensive systems against the Iraqi threat from the East. The Hetz (Arrow) system, for example, was far from cheap, even with massive US help.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore. Guerilla fighters cannot command an army to send long range ballistic missiles. Terrorists, on the other hand, are something Israel handles every day in various forms, for good or for bad, and it's hard to believe that they can buy something they don't have already, or come in larger numbers than thay do now. The terrorist threat has stayed much as it was, but the shadow from the East (what a cute LotR reference  ) has been removed.


I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance. Arguably, it's most important decision was of the foundation of two independent states on the Land of Israel. The UN is to weak a power to be able to solve this problem.

[MrColossal]

You can't imply that countries have some kind of debt in blood to one another either.

that.... is a gorgeous statement

if you can say france is pathetic cause it didn't help when the US helped them in the 40's than can't we also say that the US is pathetic for training the Taliban or for putting Saddam in power or for the slaughter of native americans. If we're going to go back 50 or so years to World War 2 and dredge up things countries did, why not go all the way?

The soldiers from the Revolutionary War must be spinning in their graves.

[Ali]

Barcik, you say that you feel safer now that the treat from Iraq has been removed, and that Israel has been facing terrorist threats for a long time, and I wouldn't dispute that. But while you feel safer, shouldn't you be concerned that the Iraq war was (apparently) fueled by two key issues: the threat of terrorism and the threat of WMD?
Neither of those dangers have been removed, your statement shows that terrorism continues and WMD appear not to have been a threat from Iraqi quarters to begin with.
Perhaps you are more secure following the fall of Iraq, but isn't that something of a side effect? And isn't the fact that the US and Britain can win a war without resolving any of the issues which started it more worrying?

[Barcik]

As I said, "I" is an egoistic comment. I acknowledge the points you brough up. I fully understand that this really is just a side-effect and that it alone cannot justify the war.
Still, I think that terrorism did receive a blow with the downfall of a regime supporting it. It was far from fatal, but a serious blow nevertheless.
As for the WMDs, I still believe they are somewhere out there, for the sole reason that I do not believe Saddam didn't have them.
But I do think the US and Britain have done many mistakes, and thus caused a lot of harm - not in their decision to invade Iraq, but in the way they have done it. But it's a rather sensitive topic I rather not touch.