If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Internationalisation of security in Iraq
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Christopher Shays, a republican senator just back from Iraq has just been on newsnight. He said: "other countries don't want us to succeed in Iraq as much because they don't want us to think we can do things ourselves". Yet another golden soundbite from a republican. No mention of the fact that these " other nations" want to be involved because it would actually dampen the agressive feelings in Iraq, or that these countries might actually help in any way. No, no , no. The world is against america, they wont let us succeed. We don't need to let them succeed, because the fact is they won't anyway. Similarly, the americans refuse to allow the UN to have more than a minor role in Iraq. Yet i suppose in many ways this is only a good thing, as it may prevent the UN being the place where america dumps its unwanted problems.
0
Comments
It is not much concerned by peace and order, and that is why it doesn't see what help could the UN offer.
I just wish that when the US government finally asks for help the international community calls Bush and his cabinet "cheeseburger-eating surrender monkeys" and let them suffer for a few more days before moving in.
Well, since they did not want to participate in the dirty work why should they reap the rewards now?
Actually, the United Nations is very good at one thing, the distribution of humanitarian aid. Can you give me an example of a successful UN peace keeping operation? I mean one that actually achieved its mission of restoring peace.
I remember it was not very many years ago a little crisis on your continent in Yugoslavia (Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo) where NATO would not act without a US commitment. Our troops are still there.
I could dredge up history from 60 or 95 years ago but for now I'll let it slide.
It is true the ultimate goal is the establishment of a democratic style government in Iraq.
How many other democracies reside in the Middle East?
I can think of one.
Is this part of he reason the area is in such turmoil?
Perhaps you would have preferred a man in power in Iraq that made attempts to control over ½ of the worlds oil reserves. (Iran-Iraq war, 1991 invasion of Kuwait, excursion into Saudi Arabia)
It might have been fine with you until the lights went out.
Do you feel that the world is a better place now that Saddam is no longer in power?
Just for the sake of accuracy, Christopher Shays is a Congressman (Not a Senator) (R) Connecticut.
Shays quote:
Praising our military effort in Iraq as "an 11 on a scale of 1 to 10," National Security Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Shays is calling for that same dedication and resolve in our rebuilding efforts.
Mass graves largely containing the bodies of soldiers killed in the war against Iran which Saddam fought for his then masters in Washington, in case youve chosen to forget our complicity in those crimes.
Then of course there is the oft demonstrated collusion on our part for having willfully sold him not only the precursors for Bio/Chem weaponry, but also for having provided the technical know how to weaponise them and the finances to fund production.
So are you ready to admit that members of this current administration, certainly Rumsfeld, should thus be dragged to the Hague for crimes against humanity, complicity in genocide and other such crimes commonly used to justify an illegal war 20 years after the fact?
Actually, not really. Just another example of hypocritical power politics which will, as it has always done, cozy up to other equally barabric and murderous regimes and even create new ones to serve the vested interests of the corporate elite.
The Iraqi's have neither been liberated nor will have they have anything resembling legitimate and self determinant democracy whilst we occupy their land, dictate who may and may be involved in the governing process and, most importantly, whilst illegitimate pampered frauds from Dearborn Michigan remain the majority voice in the reconstruction process over that of true Iraqis who's families remained and suffered under over a decade of crushing sanctions.
That is one opinion. One which has now long been undermined by revelations of the lies and deceit used to propagandise the public into support for a military action that runs counter to both international law as well as, and more importantly, against the very nature of the American way of life making us no better than countless expansionist regimes rhetorically condemned for invading their neighbours.
I suggest you consider carefully these words of wisdom, their implication for the future security of our nation (if such truly is of concern to the neo-con agenda) have far reaching implications...
In the end, this new UN resolution is just another ploy from an administration which made a charade of going to the UN in first place prior to the invasion, with every intention of invading regardless of international law or the repercussions it would create for our future national security as well as peace in the region. Now when it has become the financial and military quagmire the administration was warned it would become by countless world leaders and millions of anti-war protestors, they cook up this supposed 11th hour deference to include the international community in order to gain political coverage so that further blame for the mess might be shunted off onto those states who would conceivably join in the mess.
Nevermind the drain that this conquest has contributed and continues to contribute to an eroding economy an d spiraling budget deficit.
It was the myopic bravado of Neo-con hawks that exacerbated this mess in the first place and they alone should be left holding the bag for all the electorate to see.
Maybe then my countrymen will return to their senses and the true values that have made America great and restore responsible governance to Washington.
To paraphrase a correspondent to one of the papers yesterday, an over-stretched US army is a good thing for the world. Remember that not so long ago the mad murdering Texan and his death squad (sorry, cabinet) were confidently talking about which country would they "liberate" next. I very much doubt the Imperialistic moron would think of invading Syria or Iran now, while his troops in Iraq are barely coping. So from that point of view, let them struggle.
On the other hand however the Americans are absolutely hopeless at peacekeeping (not to mention peacemaking) and hated by the Iraqis to an incredible degree. The only way in which a lasting peace resulting in a true democracy representative of the people of Iraq is going to take place is if the Americans were to withdraw and lose their grip on the infrastructure and government of Iraq, and let an UN-led international force take charge.
But of course the US is extremely reluctant to do such a thing, since the ONLY reasons it went to war were to install a puppet regime and to have total control of the oil revenues.
Yea, I didn't think so.
and the UN is better at helping the people as a whole there get thier lives together
*hopes the US pays for the UN's help and give up on the oil but sighs*
The UN has had considerable success in managing peacekeeping throughout the Cold War era (perhaps before your time) due to the cooperation of its most powerful members. Where cooperation and a true will to resolve matters through multilateral mechanisms exists, the UN will have the requisite forces, mandate and ancillary support (political and financial) to bring about a cessation of violence and maintain order whilst addressing rebuilding needs.
In the climate of antagonism and international beligerence created by the Washington hawks and their Project for the New American Century (with its inherent isolationistic principles), such cooperative support for multilateral methods of conflict resolution are all but non-existent.
Thus, it isnt the UN which is the problem, but the prevailing arrogance and bully boy tactics of the current US administration.
Once we are rid of Bush and his cohorts, the sooner we can return to the sort of international cooperation and integrity that America has long stood for.
East Timor.
Congratulations sir,
It seems in all the UN failures at keeping the peace you have found one small success. (Done with Australian, British and US troops I might add after much haggling with Indonesia.)
Can we think of another, in a more conspicuous location maybe, perhaps in the Middle East somewhere? :chin:
All the examples in the world don't lessen the roster of ways in which Bush and co have betrayed their offices and the nation in their bid for even greater elitest control and economic plunder.
But you keep on trying, sycophany suits you well apparently. :rolleyes:
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Iraq 2003
Well?
OK how about the Lebanon, yes I know there has been violations on both Israelis and Arabs over the years but on the whole I would say that mission has been successful.
By the way, I wouldn't say I found a small success, I found more but you asked for one, so I chose this at random.
Perhaps I should have pulled out the Korean War, I'm sure you wouldn't have wanted to belittle the efforts of the many soldiers that died over this.
And your point is?
This has nothing to do with the United Nations ability to function as a peace keeping unit.
More on point, in a Gallup poll released this week 60% of Americans feel the UN is doing a poor job. The highest negative ratings in Gallup Poll history.
6 in 10 Americans say UN doing POOR job
OK how about the Lebanon, yes I know there has been violations on both Israelis and Arabs over the years but on the whole I would say that mission has been successful.
That assumption is very debatable, sir.
All assumptions are debatable, you could assume that a couple who have been married for a long time have a great relationship but even that could be debatable on closer examination.
I'm not going to go through every UN peace-keeping operation because its pointless. I just believe that only if its given help and support by the major powers does it has a chance to be successful.
Does not providing the support when I see people trying to help give me a reason to criticise its results.
Bandito, I'm looking at the wider picture here, the main given is because the UN failed to support the US action in Iraq. But it could be said the US failed to allow the UN inspectors to continue their work in Iraq, being honest we could go round in circles here.
An interesting point is that despite this US negative rating, '61% of Americans believe the United States should continue to fund the United Nations at current or higher levels' Hmmm
Also I see that 'Bush Job approval rating drops to 52%'
Could it be that like myself, the American public wish to see the politicians and organizations just do a better job than they are doing at the moment?
I thought you were Jamaican?
My point is that no matter how bad the UN might be at peace-keeping (not nearly as bad as some would have us believe), it will still provide a trillion times better chance of lasting peace and democracy than the US government, which only seems to specialise in bombing countries and living them in ruins only for the local warlords to take control.
Well what could you expect. By happy coincidence a similar number of Americans think that Bush is doing a good job :rolleyes: and that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Which only goes to show, I'm afraid, that 60% of Americans don't have the slightest clue.
English born, Jamaican parentage, just read my last post again, I'd better edit for clarification.