Iraqi Minister scolds UN for Inaction...

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Then why link it and assert that they have numbers to back up the outstanding work they do?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Then why link it and assert that they have numbers to back up the outstanding work they do?

Sorry for the delay - I was talking on the phone whilst typing the last few posts, and the person I was talking to felt ignored (they were).

I said they are more than just the UNSC and that they do have numbers on their site. You refer to it as propaganda. I just see it as information from the source.

I *really* don't want to go trawling it and comparing sources - I'll leave that up to someone who's interested in the debate.

I only mentioned it so that you realised that there's more than "just words/propaganda" on the UN site. They quote numbers too.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

So by your logic, the French indeed have no backbone.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help?

Well according to Bush during the Presidential Campaign we shouldn't be the World's Policeman.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help?

Well according to Bush during the Presidential Campaign we shouldn't be the World's Policeman.

It's about time someone dragged Bush into this discussion.

Seriously, the discussion is not about policy or politics. It's a discussion about the UN not helping the Iraqis when they needed it.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: rchiu
Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

So by your logic, the French indeed have no backbone.

Except when they had their revolution. It takes time for the kettle to boil.

Andy

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help?

Well according to Bush during the Presidential Campaign we shouldn't be the World's Policeman.

It's about time someone dragged Bush into this discussion.

Seriously, the discussion is not about policy or politics. It's a discussion about the UN not helping the Iraqis when they needed it.

LOL, you were the one who brought up US intervening because she is the most poweful country in the world so what USA's leader has to say about our role as the Worlds Policeman was relevent.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help?

Well according to Bush during the Presidential Campaign we shouldn't be the World's Policeman.

It's about time someone dragged Bush into this discussion.

Seriously, the discussion is not about policy or politics. It's a discussion about the UN not helping the Iraqis when they needed it.

LOL, you were the one who brought up US intervening because she is the most poweful country in the world so what USA's leader has to say about our role as the Worlds Policeman was relevent.

YOu are right, it was a bit side tracked. Probably my fault anyway for hijacking yet another thread... *sigh*

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rchiu

Man, there is too many naive people in this forum.

Why should anyone fight and die for someone else's freedom? I have a wife and two sons and who is gonna take care of them if I fight and die for someone else? Get real, this is the real world we are talking about.

American fought the Brits for thier freedom; through out the history, people who wanted their freedom fought and die for it. Why should Iraqi be any different and have someone else fight and die for them? the minister should grow some back bone and instead of blaming everyone else, why not blame his own people for not fight hard enough and get rid of Hussein themselves. Yeah Saddam killed a few thousand a year who opposed him, but can he kill all 20 million Iraqis if they all stand up and oppose him?

There has never been a more powerful country on this planet than the US, and you are saying we should never help?

Well according to Bush during the Presidential Campaign we shouldn't be the World's Policeman.

It's about time someone dragged Bush into this discussion.

Seriously, the discussion is not about policy or politics. It's a discussion about the UN not helping the Iraqis when they needed it.

LOL, you were the one who brought up US intervening because she is the most poweful country in the world so what USA's leader has to say about our role as the Worlds Policeman was relevent.

YOu are right, it was a bit side tracked. Probably my fault anyway for hijacking yet another thread... *sigh*

Well if it makes any difference, I didn't agree with Bush at the time.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council table.

A myriad of UN-directed programs were discontinued b/c of Bush War 2003. But of course, that's ancient history.

I guess the selective apportionment of contracts has nothing to do with "settling scores"?!

 

[DealMonkey]

Someone in this thread brought up a good point: If we just hand the Iraqis their freedom - when they didn't really work to earn it - will they truly appreciate and cherish the freedoms they end up with? And where are all the "personal responsibility" conservatives who would tell the Mr. Zebari to stop blaming everyone else for his and his country's problems and get to work fixing it? I mean, jesus christ, we handed Iraq their freedom on a silver platter, bought with the blood and sweat of U.S. troops, can't they at least take it from here?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone in this thread brought up a good point: If we just hand the Iraqis their freedom - when they didn't really work to earn it - will they truly appreciate and cherish the freedoms they end up with? And where are all the "personal responsibility" conservatives who would tell the Mr. Zebari to stop blaming everyone else for his and his country's problems and get to work fixing it? I mean, jesus christ, we handed Iraq their freedom on a silver platter, bought with the blood and sweat of U.S. troops, can't they at least take it from here?

The immediate concern of that would be that the country would fall into anarchy. There is no central government and too many players want to reconstruct it in their desired image (US is one).

Then there is the moral issue that we tore up the country, we should put it back together.


We should however start extracting ourselves as quickly as the Iraqis can take over the functions that we are currently performing and act as a concerned big brother, not as a doting parent

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone in this thread brought up a good point: If we just hand the Iraqis their freedom - when they didn't really work to earn it - will they truly appreciate and cherish the freedoms they end up with? And where are all the "personal responsibility" conservatives who would tell the Mr. Zebari to stop blaming everyone else for his and his country's problems and get to work fixing it? I mean, jesus christ, we handed Iraq their freedom on a silver platter, bought with the blood and sweat of U.S. troops, can't they at least take it from here?

The idea of personal responsibility does not preclude one from helping a defenseless person who is being tormented and abused by a person holding a gun to their head.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Someone in this thread brought up a good point: If we just hand the Iraqis their freedom - when they didn't really work to earn it - will they truly appreciate and cherish the freedoms they end up with? And where are all the "personal responsibility" conservatives who would tell the Mr. Zebari to stop blaming everyone else for his and his country's problems and get to work fixing it? I mean, jesus christ, we handed Iraq their freedom on a silver platter, bought with the blood and sweat of U.S. troops, can't they at least take it from here?

The idea of personal responsibility does not preclude one from helping a defenseless person who is being tormented and abused by a person holding a gun to their head.

That would make sense if Saddam was actually still in power and holding a gun to Mr. Zebari's head. But since that's not the case your analogy doesn't pan out. Plus, I think you're misunderstanding my point.

 

[351Cleveland]

Difference between policing and arresting. I would consider policing more preventative and arresting more reactive. We did both in this case.

 

[351Cleveland]

I think the (potentially) million people dead and buried in the middle of the desert are currency enough.

The Iraqi's did rise up once. We abandoned them and they were slaughtered. I think we owe them one.

EDIT: I think the minister's point was that, despite all that needs to be done, the UN is not doing anything, and has LEFT Iraq with its tail between its legs. The UN is more concerned with self preservation than it is helping those who need it (typical of most bureaucracies). Even Coffee (I know I spelled it wrong) doesnt debate the merits of the minister's speech, instead he wants to put the whole matter aside and not address it.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Yes, I think the UN should do good around the world. What is it supposed to do while a government is killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens? COme to think of it, what exactly is the UN for anyway?

I thought one of the aims of the UN was to prevent further global war. i.e. war between countries, as opposed to within them. I'm sure you/I/someone can link to the UN charter. It's all there.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: Do you think as many people would sign up for the military if they thought they would die defending someone in a foreign land who - most probably - wasn't a threat to them, their family or their country? I don't think they would.

That force would have to be staffed by people such as yourself. I admire you if your conviction is that strong.

EDIT2!: Your idea may work for the first war or two IMHO. But IMHO after a bloody nose or a series of wars, support will fall real quick.

Cheers,

Andy

Do you think any of our armed forces today signed up thinking that they would actually be directly defending US soil? Do you not think they KNOW that the odds are thousands of times better that they will be freeing the people of a foreign land?

I read what the troop have to say about what they are doing in Iraq. I dont think they are as resentful as you make it sound.

 

[Fencer128]

Do you think any of our armed forces today signed up thinking that they would actually be directly defending US soil? Do you not think they KNOW that the odds are thousands of times better that they will be freeing the people of a foreign land?

I think directly or indirectly people sign up to defend the US. Look at the rush of enlistings post 9/11 for instance. That was a response to the US being a target for terrorism. I don't agree with the odds as you put them. Again, I think we should hear from a few enlisted Anandtech members to help clarify.

I read what the troop have to say about what they are doing in Iraq. I dont think they are as resentful as you make it sound.

Did I say they were resentful? I said that if the main point behind the Iraq war was liberation, rather than national security then there are plenty of deserving targets left. I would not, and wouldn't expect the armed forces to be committed to, and to die for, a series of "liberations" that had absolutely nothing to do with the national security of the USA. I don't *think* the soldiers would want to constantly put their lives on the line for that either.

Cheers,

Andy

EDIT: I suggest adding to the title in order to attract the attention of serving members of Anandtech.

 

[Insane3D]

Iraqi Minister scolds UN for Inaction...

/iraqi minister

*points finger*

"Bad UN...baaaaaaaaaad!" :|:frown::disgust:

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I would not, and wouldn't expect the armed forces to be committed to, and to die for, a series of "liberations" that had absolutely nothing to do with the national security of the USA. I don't *think* the soldiers would want to constantly put their lives on the line for that either.

Which operation had less to do with national security--Bosnia or Iraq?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I would not, and wouldn't expect the armed forces to be committed to, and to die for, a series of "liberations" that had absolutely nothing to do with the national security of the USA. I don't *think* the soldiers would want to constantly put their lives on the line for that either.

Which operation had less to do with national security--Bosnia or Iraq?

Bosnia - unless it erupted throughout the Balkan region and maybe started something in Albania, etc. then it may have been a concern for the US. However, wasn't that a NATO campaign and so the US was fulfilling a NATO commitment, as opposed to deciding to do it itself?

Do you agree that troops should be committed to liberation efforts where there is no real national security issue? (I'm not saying Iraq was pursued as a liberation effort - please read my earlier posts)?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Do you agree that troops should be committed to liberation efforts where there is no real national security issue?

No, I do not agree...the purpose of the U.S. military, as Reagan put it, is to fight and win wars...period.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Do you agree that troops should be committed to liberation efforts where there is no real national security issue?

No, I do not agree...the purpose of the U.S. military, as Reagan put it, is to fight and win wars...period.

Well, then I agree with you. I can't ask someone to die on someone else's behalf when they most likely joined the armed forces to protect the interests of their family and country.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[EagleKeeper]

Preventive action to stabilize an area can prevent a flare-up to could spill over to other regions and ones own country. that is one of the reasons for the military, protection does not have to be standing on the shores waiting for the enemy for come from the sea.

Example.

The US was not specifically targetted by Germany in WWII as long as we retained our isolationist attitude.
We went into the European was because is was felt that is was right.

Japan came to Pearl Harbor due to the fear that we would stop them in Asia. We were already threating them with economic embargo.
Had we left Japan alone in Asia, China may not have existed as a power and Russia would be in a world of hurt (two front war which evenutally destroyed Germany).

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Preventive action to stabilize an area can prevent a flare-up to could spill over to other regions and ones own country. that is one of the reasons for the military, protection does not have to be standing on the shores waiting for the enemy for come from the sea.

Are you addressing the Bosnia snafu? If so, let me ask you this: Where was the 'conflict' going to "spill over" to? Russia? Germany? France? Were these nations going to let it spill over into their backyards? Wait, don't answer that...