Why getting the UN into Iraq would be a disaster.

[Kamika]

I don't see what this would accomplish. The Iraqui people hates the UN about as much or even more then they hate us.

Remember it was the UN not us that forced them to live in poverty for 10 years just to get bombed to pieces by us.

I think the bombing of that UN headquarters earlier this year proved it.

Anyway getting the UN in wouldnt make anything easier. The Iraquis would hate all UN troops because of this (and because they see it as a pawn by the US)

The solution is really to get individual countries to help us. I read an article how mongolian troops were seen as friends because they arrived after we did, to help build not occupy I think that's the solution.

I see alot of stuff like "get the UN in and our troops OUT" well that would not accomplish anything. First off alot of the UN soldiers would be American, and then add that they hate the UN generally and it's just a waiting time-bomb

[Brucey]

1. If some other country invaded the US and then

occupied the US, what would you recommend for a solution? We should get the hell out of Iraq and let them create their own society. That's what people all over the world do. They are people. They have ideas, views, abilities, resources. Let them do it themselves. We can give them money, tools, equipment, teachers, architects, engineers, etc. if we'd like. But we shouldn't be occupying their country and stealing their resources. If they want some other countries to help them, or want the UN, they can ask. Let them be self-determining and help them when we can.

[Bombtrack]

6. the gangsters and despots who control almost every

aspect of middle east governments don't allow there people to do those things. To have ideas, and be independant etc.

The US is occupying Iraq but it is not oppressing it and stealing there resources as you just said. Obviously you disagree and hate the Neocon/globalist solution to Iraq, but frankly the US not following through and giving on what we have committed to would be foolish beyond comparison.

Most republicans are assholes, but very few of them are evil. This distinction is lost so much of the anti-war movement.

The motivating reason for the BIPARTISAN call for war in Iraq was the belief that the US and Briton(and whoever else wanted to help) could help the Muslim world to become illiberal, democratic, and free.

The GOP/corporate/defense establishment's self-serving interests were a PERK, a perk that is hampering our ability to succeed and leave Iraq ready to thrive, but NOT the primary factor for the war

[leftofthedial]

11. that's right, the "primary factor for the war" was a bunch of lies

This was a neocon neocolonial geopolitical grab for strategic territory AND oil. Period.

The "bipartisan-ness" of the run up to the illegal invasion was based on lies and coercion by the Bush GOPNAC Cabal.

Your description of the motivqating reason is after-the-fact bullshit concocted by Rove, et al in the face of Murka's dawning realization that we
d been lied to and dragged into an illegal, unjust, and grossly ill-advised war to provide Bush's bankrollers with what you call "PERKS."

[La_Serpiente]

2. If anything, it was the US who would block any

UN resolution to lift the sanctions. Russia and France wanted to lift them I believe.

And if we got the UN in, the French, Germans, and probably Russians would lift the debt and send in their troops.

The French have gotten rid of the debt of more than 40 poor countries. The literally "buyback" those countrie's debt.

And I don't think the Iraquis or terrorist that bombed the UN hate the UN really. I think they are really pulling scare tactics to get them out. Why would the Iraquis hate the Red Cross? Nothing in my mind as to why.

And true, we could get other countries in Iraq. But I don't think a lot of them would like them.

Iraquis hate the Turks because of the Ottoman Empire, and I don't think it would be too wise to send in the Wahaabis from Saudi Arabia. Need I say more?

I don't know, but that's my take on it.

[Bombtrack]

3. Not all the Iraqi's hate us

or even a majority. Does that mean they love us? Of course not. But almost all of the attacks are coming from either Sunni Saddam loyalists/bathists(who benefited from saddams criminal totalitarian), Shi-ite extremist fundementalists, and Shi-ite foriegn terrorists.

The violent Iraqi's are the exception to the rule

Although you're right about the UN sanctions

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

16. If the majority of Iraqis don't hate us how can the resistence operate?

Why don't the majority of Iraqis turn these people in? Or even stop the attacks themselves? Do you really think people appreciate being colonized by America? I don't, because I would not want to be colonized by another country. Are Iraqis inherently different than me?

Don

[Bombtrack]

19. The co-allition is occupying, not colonizing

to a government that is free. If you believe that the US and British governments are in any way as evil, corrupt, and free of concious as was Saddam's you are insane.

If we are 5 years down the line and we are taxing, exploiting, and enforcing our own laws on the Iraqui people policed by hundreds of thousands of troops then your "colonizing" argument will have some merrit. But it has not even been a year. Try to have an open mind. None of the democratic candidates who have a chance at the nomination believe what you believe so our countries goal is clear. You can either root for it to succeed or fail.

My opinions have nothing to do with Rove or after-the-fact-spin. I read Gore Vidals book. I read Fareed Zakarias book and I read most of Chris Hitchens book.

I've heard both sides and I believe that you're arguments are unsubtantiated

[JanMichael]

4. Actually the French, Germans and Russians, could probably do it.

The irony would be too rich though:eyes:

[Padraig18]

5. I actually think the EU would be a better choice.

The EU would be seen as an 'impartial' force, plus it would have the benefit of bring their needed capital and expertise into rebuilding Iraq.

[Paschall]

7. I disagree

I don't see anything to support your claim that the Iraqis "hate" the UN. Where do you get that information?

I think the Iraqis are fully aware that it was the US (and the UK) who almost singlehandedly prevented the lifting of sanctions thanks to their veto power on the Security Council.

Sixty percent of the Iraqi population had--prior to the invasion--been getting food aid regularly from the UN. The UN was also providing aid through a dozen other programs. I don't think there's a grudge there. Before the recent UN HQ blast, the UN had never been targetted by violence in Iraq.

<snip> The UN and its specialized agencies continue efforts to assist the Iraqi people

OCHA - UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
ESCWA - Economic & Social Commission for Western Asia
OHCHR - Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNDP - UN Development Programme
UNEP - UN Environment Programme
UNESCO - UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Org.
UNFPA - UN Population Fund
UNHABITAT - UN Human Settlements Programme
UNHCR - UN High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF - UN Children's Fund
WFP - World Food Programme
WHO - World Health Organization </snip>

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

[Kamika]

10. dont you see the double standard

The UN helps IRAQ while at the same time pose sanctions on it??

You really think the Iraquis dont see the doublestandards here?

Maybe if there were no Sanctions they wouldnt need any help. from the same damn organisation

[Spazito]

13. Bottom Line is...

they sure as hell wouldn't be as bad as what is already there, imo. The support, financial and in terms of peace-keeping from the rest of the world, the UN would return Iraq to the Iraqis, including their resources which is a hell of a lot more than the Bush administration will EVER do.

[htuttle]

8. Too Late

Iraq already IS a disaster.

There's no way to 'fix' things.

Now it's a question of 'least damage' I think. The first step is causing further 'least damage' is to get all the gung-ho, shell-shocked US soliders out of there, so fewer Iraqi civilians die (Note: I did not say 'none'), and we stop rubbing salt in a couple of ancient wounds the US has reopened. In addition, we need to stop allowing Bush and Cheney's corporate cronies to rape both Iraq's infrastructure and the US economy.

Face the facts: the best solutions to the situation in Iraq aren't that good. The US should never have invaded in the first place, and it can't be undone.

[Capt_Nemo]

15. Absolutely right, htuttle!

[leftofthedial]

9. I disagree

'"get the UN in and our troops OUT" well that would not accomplish anything'

It would accomplish getting our troops out. This is a US war.

UN presence is not a final solution, it is a transition to full Iraqi self-rule. Even when the Iraqis do rule themselves, there will be Iraqis who hate those Iraqis. I don't see a tranquil future for that country no matter what.

[alcuno]

14. Give them 40 billion and say we're sorry.

I don't really care who we turn it over to; it's their damn country. Let them fight it out. THAT'S THE WAY THINGS SHOULD BE DONE. If democracy is important to the Iraqis, they'll fight for it. If becoming an Islamic Fundamentalist state is important to them, they'll fight for it.

We invaded a country under false pretenses. We looked for the weapons and apparently they are not there. I say we give them 40 billion dollars, a big "We're sorry," and a promise not to do it again.

[ex_jew]

18. Staying longer is counter-productive

We're only creating collaborators who will be speedily executed later on.

Why not leave so the Iraqis can say "things were better before the Americans left" ?

[Malva Zebrina]

17. Except that Saddam lives!

Supposedly. Giving them 40 billion , only to have Saddam re-emerge as the leader, would be too much for little boy Bushie to take--as well as all the rest of the warmongers in his pathetic pack -- best thing to do--remove Bush from office. It won't be long before will have a chance to do that. Bush's pals are already running scared in Iraq, knowing that they have failed again by backing another Bush. Vote in someone who will pledge to try to clean up the mess Bush made in Iraq and give us an honest assessment and a workable plan to relieve the Iraqi people of their suffering, not make it worse as Bush does. Thousands of lives that were murdered by Bush who lied about his godam war and invasion, cannot be brought back from the grave,--families will be forever changed because of Bush's lies and subsequent murder of their loved ones, but someone should be able to come to the forefront, kick Bush in his smelly conservative neo-con ass and eject him from the White HOuse. Steer him back to Texas; to his 1,600 acres of scrub brush, away from any form of civilization, which he is incapable of recognizing anyhow, where he and the lump can enjoy BBQ's fascism and barbarism over their herd of cows. Let them both rot there after they are ejected--and let us go on toward rebuilding ourselves and our country with Democratic principles instead of selfish, greedy, dishonorable barbarism.

[leftofthedial]

20. your post does not indicate getting the UN in would be a disaster

at worst, you say it wouldn't change anything.

I say get the UN, give them some money and get the hell out.

Tomorrow if possible.