Wasn't the Democrat's biggest gripe about Iraq that we didn't involve other countries and the UN?

[Witling]

OK guys. I'm bailing to let this cool down. When ElFenix can make a statement like, "umm... they were wrong, because they refused to enforce the terms of the cease fire with iraq. the reason they refused to enforce the cease fire is because certain members with veto power were making tons of cash from the status quo (breaking un mandates themselves, mind you)." I've got to cool down.

Failing to enforce U.N. resolutions. El, there are literally hundreds of resolutions they've never enforced. I don't want to start a bash/defend Israel debate here, but there are at least several dozen resolutions against Israel. Second, El -- what do you mean by "refused to enforce the terms of the cease fire?" Do you mean that they were shooting at the planes that we were unilaterally flying into Iraqi territory without U.N. support? Wow, certain members were making money. El, do you really think that money isn't a major consideration in what we're doing. It's not the only consideration and perhaps not even the first consideration, but please note that we invaded Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons while letting millions die in Africa. Apparently atltruism doesn't cut it in Africa.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Its sad how the UN has lost its way or meaning. Instead of being a force for a better world, they look instead to whats better for them. Instead of being involved and helping Iraq become a vibrant and peaceful country free from dictatorship, they're instead asking the US "Whats in it for us?"

Yes they were bypassed a year ago, yes they were bombed and suffered victims, yes they hate Bush. But isn't helping to prevent Iraq from falling apart worth the risks? Sadly not to them because they don't get anything out of it.

Yeah OK. Maybe you can tell us what is the guideline in deciding if a country is a dictatorship and when international force is justify to remvoe the government. Who should be the judge, who should be the jury? Who has the all knowing power to decide what kind of government is best for a country, and what the people in that country want.

Or maybe you can enligten us who decides that people died in your process of helping "Iraq become a vibrant and peaceful country" is worth it and who should be in charge of rebuilding the country after you forcefully removed the previous government and creates a power vaccumn.

Maybe the reason UN is not in the business of deciding if a government is suitable or changing the fundamental political landscape of a country because those are something for the people of that country to decide and not for other nation?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Witling
Oh, Shad0hawK. That answer is unworthy from you. We tried getting them involved and they said, "No." So they were wrong and we were right (think WMD here). They were making money if it went one way and we wouldn't be making money if it went the other? We hit the bee's nest with a stick and now we want help getting the honey out? The UN might be usless, but it isn't so dumb as to feel like it has to help us out of our mess.

umm... they were wrong, because they refused to enforce the terms of the cease fire with iraq. the reason they refused to enforce the cease fire is because certain members with veto power were making tons of cash from the status quo (breaking un mandates themselves, mind you).

What are you complaining about? There wasn't a war. People were making money. The goal of getting rid of Iraq's WMD was accomplished. Saddam was keeping a lid on all the extremists in Iraq. Sounds like a win win.

who is complaining, i'm stating F A C T S. it's one thing to criticize based on reality, it's fully another to make something up to base your criticism on.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Witling
OK guys. I'm bailing to let this cool down. When ElFenix can make a statement like, "umm... they were wrong, because they refused to enforce the terms of the cease fire with iraq. the reason they refused to enforce the cease fire is because certain members with veto power were making tons of cash from the status quo (breaking un mandates themselves, mind you)." I've got to cool down.

Failing to enforce U.N. resolutions. El, there are literally hundreds of resolutions they've never enforced. I don't want to start a bash/defend Israel debate here, but there are at least several dozen resolutions against Israel. Second, El -- what do you mean by "refused to enforce the terms of the cease fire?" Do you mean that they were shooting at the planes that we were unilaterally flying into Iraqi territory without U.N. support? Wow, certain members were making money. El, do you really think that money isn't a major consideration in what we're doing. It's not the only consideration and perhaps not even the first consideration, but please note that we invaded Iraq for "humanitarian" reasons while letting millions die in Africa. Apparently atltruism doesn't cut it in Africa.

did i say we were lily white and virginal anywhere? i don't recall doing so.

 

[Witling]

ElFenix. So we get to pick and choose which U.N. resolutions we enforce?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: glenn1
If so, perhaps they should have gotten the UN on board first....

Um, the intelligent people in our nation wanted the UN involvement from the outset, not just after Baghdad had fallen and civil war became almost a foregone conclusion.

Bush, Sr. and James Baker spent months working the phones calling other nations and generated a true worldwide coalition of over 100 countries.

Bush, Jr. just went in guns a-blazin'. Bush, Jr. has managed to bite off more than he and his adminstration can chew. He has no idea how much more hatred toward the U.S. exists now. He refuses to see the truth. He fell right into Al Qaeda's recruitment propaganda by invading and occupying an oil-rich Arab nation.

Bush/Cheney '04 - Four More Years (of terror)

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Its sad how the UN has lost its way or meaning. Instead of being a force for a better world, they look instead to whats better for them. Instead of being involved and helping Iraq become a vibrant and peaceful country free from dictatorship, they're instead asking the US "Whats in it for us?"

Yes they were bypassed a year ago, yes they were bombed and suffered victims, yes they hate Bush. But isn't helping to prevent Iraq from falling apart worth the risks? Sadly not to them because they don't get anything out of it.

Yeah OK. Maybe you can tell us what is the guideline in deciding if a country is a dictatorship and when international force is justify to remvoe the government. Who should be the judge, who should be the jury? Who has the all knowing power to decide what kind of government is best for a country, and what the people in that country want.

Or maybe you can enligten us who decides that people died in your process of helping "Iraq become a vibrant and peaceful country" is worth it and who should be in charge of rebuilding the country after you forcefully removed the previous government and creates a power vaccumn.

Maybe the reason UN is not in the business of deciding if a government is suitable or changing the fundamental political landscape of a country because those are something for the people of that country to decide and not for other nation?

What the hell are you talking about? When did I say the UN can go around removing governments by force? WHEN? Thats the US job.

I'm saying the UN should do its job which is being a force for good by helping in disaster relief. They go in to war torn countries and mediate cease-fires, peace, rebuilding. They provide money, assistance, humanitarian aid, workers to help put countries ravaged by war to get back on its feet. Yet where are they in Iraq? The UN has suffered before in other countries yet they stayed and persisted and kept on. But with one bombing in Iraq, they ran away scared. They didn't support wars in places like Liberia, Congo, Sudan, yet they still went in and stayed, trying to help, but not so in Iraq. Why? maybe its because they're bitter at the US, but that is still not a reason to stay out of the country. They say they fear their safety, I think thats just an excuse. They went into many strife-ridden areas where they're safety wasn't guaranteed and they still stayed to do their job. Isn't helping Iraq from falling apart worth that risk? Which is why I'm saying the UN has lost its way or meaning. Its like a doctor looking at an incoming patient and saying "Its not my problem."

The UN would be a great force for rebuilding Iraq. Without the UN, Iraq just might revert back to dictatorship after the US leaves. Many religious clerics are joustling for power right now, trying to be the next leader, some like Sadr are doing it by force, trying to gain influence in hopes that they could rise to the top later on. With the UN there, it could help Iraq decide what all of its people want, not just what the people with AK-47s want. With Iraq you have so many factions, kurds, sunnis, shiites. The UN would be a good, independent institution which could help mediate farily to ensure that all the factions views and opinions are discussed and decided on. They could be there now to help Iraq rebuild to become a vibrant and peaceful country.

But sadly they aren't. Instead of being a humanitarian and helping patients no matter what. They've become the doctor that looks at a person carrying a bleeding victim into the room, stretches out his hand and says "Whats in it for me?"

 

[Klixxer]

Powell went before the UN and ridiculed himself and the US with obvious disinformation, the UN experts knew better, no WMD's have been found to this day yet people still claim that the US was right and the UN was wrong.

I'm sorry, but at the time the US invaded, the inspections were working (naturally the US would claim they weren't as they didn't find anything except for the al-samoud missiles that the UN were destroying when the US invaded) and Iraq was no threat to anyone.

Now what has been done has been done and there is no way of fixing past mistakes but i can understand UN's reluctancy to be involved in Iraq when foreign civilians are being shot or taken hostage. Hopefully the situation will improve soon and the UN can return to help the Iraqi population.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
What the hell are you talking about? When did I say the UN can go around removing governments by force? WHEN? Thats the US job.

You know, it's that kinda talk that makes people around the world lose respect for the US. It's that arrogance thinking the US and it's leaders can just force their values on others around the world, like they know what's best for them.

I've traveled a lot in the past and even lived in quite a few places while I worked there and I can tell you that some people I've talked to are sick and tired of being force feed American values and are sick of watching the US telling them and others how they should live and what kinda governments they should or shouldn't have. And quite frankly, when I see a comments like that, I can't say I blame them.

The US might be the only super power left, but that does not mean other counties or people like being told how to live by it's leaders or people.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: maddogchen
What the hell are you talking about? When did I say the UN can go around removing governments by force? WHEN? Thats the US job.

You know, it's that kinda talk that makes people around the world lose respect for the US. It's that arrogance thinking the US and it's leaders can just force their values on others around the world, like they know what's best for them.

I've traveled a lot in the past and even lived in quite a few places while I worked there and I can tell you that some people I've talked to are sick and tired of being force feed American values and are sick of watching the US telling them and others how they should live and what kinda governments they should or shouldn't have. And quite frankly, when I see a comments like that, I can't say I blame them.

The US might be the only super power left, but that does not mean other counties or people like being told how to live by it's leaders or people.

That last line "Thats the US job" I threw in as a sarcastic joke. But yeah I know there are a lot of people tired at hearing the US telling them what to do. I understand that. Its like back when I was young, after 16 years of it, I started hating hearing my parents tell me what to do or what I should do. But that doesn't mean what they were saying was never right. After a few years living on my own, I've come to realize that hey some of what they said were right and I should have listened to them back then. Now I'm not saying that the US should shove it down people's throats American values or what kind of governments they should have. I'm saying that they shouldn't just shut their ears to everything the US has to say, some of it is from American experience when they've done mistakes(such as pollution and corporate scandals that led to bankrupcy) and had to work hard to fix them, and if they listen, they won't make these same mistakes again.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Witling
ElFenix. So we get to pick and choose which U.N. resolutions we enforce?

did i say that either? no.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: maddogchen


That last line "Thats the US job" I threw in as a sarcastic joke.

Ah, I see. Now wouldn't be nice if you could see the another persons body language when they're being sarcastic on the net?

Reason I reacted to it, is because I've noticed a lot of times people actually mean it when they say things like that. But, oh well, if you say it was sarcasm, I'll take your word for it.

But that doesn't mean what they were saying was never right.

Of course, and no one is claiming (no sane person anyway) the US, it's leaders or people are always wrong, or always out to force their values down their throat. But often that's the impression people get.

Now I'm not saying that the US should shove it down people's throats American values or what kind of governments they should have. I'm saying that they shouldn't just shut their ears to everything the US has to say

Only the partisan hacks and extremists are shutting their ears to everything the US has to say. Still, people have to be careful when they make comments like the one you did, specially in places like the middle east. A place that's been plagued by occupation from one foreign power after another. I doubt they'd enjoy hearing that kinda comment.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Chaingang
I think that we should wipe our boots on the UN because they would never build up the courage or the fortitude to wipe it off of our boots. Kind of like the liberals war plan... DUCK AND RUN, DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,DUCK AND RUN,:disgust:

Kinda like Reagan in Lebanon?

Hey Reagan invaded Greneda as an aftermath of that Bombing in Beruit!!!

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: glenn1
If so, perhaps they should have gotten the UN on board first....

On a related note, here's an interesting perspective from the Toronto Star ( a Canadian paper - wonders never cease):

While the Americans have been trying to get Iraq turned around in the right direction for only a year, the U.N. and Atlantic alliance have been at work in the much smaller society of Kosovo for almost five years now.

Kosovo's economy, though, is probably weaker than Iraq's despite the ongoing insurgency in the Middle Eastern country. Kosovo's only successful "industries" (not counting those working for one or other of the many international agencies there) are prostitution, drug smuggling, money-laundering, illegal immigrant smuggling and car theft.

[...]

But if the U.N. and others want the U.S. to do less on its own, they are going to have to do far, far better while doing it multilaterally.

A glass house full of cracks