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

[glenn1]

If so, perhaps they should have gotten the UN on board first....

 

[Witling]

This post seems like a situation where somone starts to walk a pasture full of cow flop. There are people who know something about it say, "Whoa, Dude. Better take the path around the pasture." We say, "Kiss my grits." Now we have cow flop on our shoes and Glenn1 seems to be surprised that the U.N. is reluctant to jump in and clean it off our boots. Is that a reasonable summary of the linked article?

 

[Shad0hawK]

the UN is useless. other than as a debate society.

we tried getting them involved at the start and a few countries and high placed individuals in the UN itself were making money from the status quo in iraq did not want it to change.

now kofi anan says there is too much fighting for the UN to go in. i share his amount of faith in the UN in hostile situations. which brings me back to my orignal point, the UN is useless.

 

[glenn1]

Glenn1 seems to be surprised that the U.N. is reluctant to jump in and clean it off our boots. Is that a reasonable summary of the linked article?

No, I'm not surprised at all. And I'm not advocating the UN come in and "clean it off our boots." I don't really have a strong position on it one way or the other, and my personal POV isn't really what I intended this thread to be about.

What I was saying is that the idea of bringing in the UN does seem to be the position of Kerry, however. Regardless of whether this is a good idea or not, I feel it does beg the question that I posted. If Kerry believes that the UN should have been/should now be involved in the Iraq situation, doesn't it seem reasonable to point out that perhaps he should take into account the willingness of the UN to be involved?

 

[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.

 

[maddogchen]

The UN will go running at the first sign of danger. Kerry's never gonna get them to stay and help in Iraq.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
the UN is useless. other than as a debate society.

we tried getting them involved at the start and a few countries and high placed individuals in the UN itself were making money from the status quo in iraq did not want it to change.

now kofi anan says there is too much fighting for the UN to go in. i share his amount of faith in the UN in hostile situations. which brings me back to my orignal point, the UN is useless.

There is no UN force in Iraq to defend the UN personell. US/coalition forces have failed to do so. They've failed to defend their own civilian contractors too. What do you want the UN to do, send workers with noone guaranteeing their security?

 

[Witling]

MadDog The U.N. has done some significant peace work. Remember, they don't have their own armies. They'll stay as long as their member states will stay.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
the UN is useless. other than as a debate society.

we tried getting them involved at the start and a few countries and high placed individuals in the UN itself were making money from the status quo in iraq did not want it to change.

now kofi anan says there is too much fighting for the UN to go in. i share his amount of faith in the UN in hostile situations. which brings me back to my orignal point, the UN is useless.

There is no UN force in Iraq to defend the UN personell. US/coalition forces have failed to do so. They've failed to defend their own civilian contractors too. What do you want the UN to do, send workers with noone guaranteeing their security?

Actually it was the UN that failed to defend the UN headquarters from the bombing. When US forces told the UN to upgrade their defenses, they said no, that they wanted to give an impression of welcome not the fortress like impression of your not welcome like US bases. They also did not want US soldiers guarding the UN headquarters because it might be interpreted as they were not independent but under US influence. Both these factors lead to the bombing. It was their own damn fault. Thats why they had the security guy resign at the UN.

 

[Shad0hawK]

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.

personally i think we do not need the UN. besides it has it's own "mess" to worry about.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Witling
MadDog The U.N. has done some significant peace work. Remember, they don't have their own armies. They'll stay as long as their member states will stay.

Yes, they have done significant peace work. But I don't think they'll get involved in Iraq because if they ask member states to supply troops to protect them in Iraq, I doubt there would be enough of a response for them to send in teams. No country not already there wants to be involved after this month's mess. Thats why I think Kerry won't be successful in getting UN help.

edit: bad grammar.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
the UN is useless. other than as a debate society.

we tried getting them involved at the start and a few countries and high placed individuals in the UN itself were making money from the status quo in iraq did not want it to change.

now kofi anan says there is too much fighting for the UN to go in. i share his amount of faith in the UN in hostile situations. which brings me back to my orignal point, the UN is useless.

There is no UN force in Iraq to defend the UN personell. US/coalition forces have failed to do so. They've failed to defend their own civilian contractors too. What do you want the UN to do, send workers with noone guaranteeing their security?

Actually it was the UN that failed to defend the UN headquarters from the bombing. When US forces told the UN to upgrade their defenses, they said no, that they wanted to give an impression of welcome not the fortress like impression of your not welcome like US bases. They also did not want US soldiers guarding the UN headquarters because it might be interpreted as they were not independent but under US influence. Both these factors lead to the bombing. It was their own damn fault. Thats why they had the security guy resign at the UN.

The point is noone can guarantee security for the UN for them to be able to do their work. If they are just gonna sit bunkered up at some base, they should just stay at home, because it won't do anyone much good. Could UN send in its own independent force to defent its workers, or would it only be as part of the coalition?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

The point is noone can guarantee security for the UN for them to be able to do their work. If they are just gonna sit bunkered up at some base, they should just stay at home, because it won't do anyone much good. Could UN send in its own independent force to defent its workers, or would it only be as part of the coalition?

I'm pretty sure if the UN does send in workers, it would be protected by its own UN force (but very very few countries would be willing to provide troops).

I'm not sure if the UN sends in 100,000 UN troops they could guarantee security for their teams. If I walk into the bad part of my city, and ask a cop to guarantee my safety tomorrow, he'll probably say there's no guarantees.
You gotta take the risks. And I don't think the UN has the cajones to take that chance, even if Kerry gets on his knees and begs.

 

[Zebo]

I thought thier biggest gripe was you don't start an offensive war. The UN was simply another road-block they chose to place on the path to a seemingly inevitable war.

 

[SuperTool]

I think it's too late to get the UN on board. That time was before the invasion.
You don't ask people to bet when all the cards have been shown.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

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.

personally i think we do not need the UN. besides it has it's own "mess" to worry about.

Hey, who needs UN when we can just kill all those who opposes us. It's probably better to do it without UN anyway so that those Human Right commission won't b!tch about all the killings.

 

[Witling]

MadDog, I refer to your post that said, "The UN will go running at the first sign of danger. Kerry's never gonna get them to stay and help in Iraq." If it's a simple statement of two facts, I agree. If it's a criticism of the U.N. not coming in, see my previous posts. Assuming that you ment to state the first alternative -- seems like a good UN decision to me!

 

[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:

 

[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).

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Witling]

MadDog, you say:

"I''m not sure if the UN sends in 100,000 UN troops they could guarantee security for their teams. If I walk into the bad part of my city, and ask a cop to guarantee my safety tomorrow, he'll probably say there's no guarantees.
You gotta take the risks. And I don't think the UN has the cajones to take that chance, even if Kerry gets on his knees and begs."

Substitute the word "stupidity" for "cojones" and you've got me on board. Macho pi$$ing contest at an international level is pretty inappropriate. "Cajones" is a concept that's appropriate to individials, after all, if you get wiped out you've improved the gene pool. It's not appropriate for whole populations and governments.

 

[Witling]

MadDog, I read your post of 4:45 p.m. I'll bet a dollar you aren't out of your 20's yet. I double dog dare you to try and collect on this bet. Note that I've got PM, something you seem to be too shy of having.

Edited for typos

 

[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.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Witling
MadDog, I read your post of 4:45 p.m. I'll bet a dollar you aren't out of your 20's yet. I double dog dare you to try and collect on this bet. Note that I've got PM, something you seem to be too shy of having.

Edited for typos

Well Witling, you would have won that bet. Good thing I didn't bet. So is there anything you disagree about my post at 4:45pm?

edit: damn grammar. in a rush to get off work.