NationStates Jolt Archive

"IRAQI Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today appealed to global leaders to help his nation defeat terrorism as the world awaited the fate of British hostage Kenneth Bigley and woke to news of more kidnappings.

Mr Allawi appeared at the United Nations and urged members to put aside their differences over the war and help rebuild his shattered nation....."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10873748%255E2,00.html

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.

"IRAQI Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today appealed to global leaders to help his nation defeat terrorism as the world awaited the fate of British hostage Kenneth Bigley and woke to news of more kidnappings.

Mr Allawi appeared at the United Nations and urged members to put aside their differences over the war and help rebuild his shattered nation....."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10873748%255E2,00.html

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.
Allawi = ex-US CIA Agent in the 90s. He does not exactly command the respect or trust in his person to make any demands, seeing how Iraq came to be in the position it is in now, it is fair to not join in the war under any circumstances. What the results will be if Iraq is made a US puppet, should be clear. After torturing and crimes against humanity by US, I do not think that anything of what they say is true.

"IRAQI Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today appealed to global leaders to help his nation defeat terrorism as the world awaited the fate of British hostage Kenneth Bigley and woke to news of more kidnappings.

Mr Allawi appeared at the United Nations and urged members to put aside their differences over the war and help rebuild his shattered nation....."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10873748%255E2,00.html

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.
I agree. The least anyone can do is to lend moral support to Iraq, but even that isn't happening.

Allawi = ex-US CIA Agent in the 90s. He does not exactly command the respect or trust in his person to make any demands, seeing how Iraq came to be in the position it is in now, it is fair to not join in the war under any circumstances. What the results will be if Iraq is made a US puppet, should be clear. After torturing and crimes against humanity by US, I do not think that anything of what they say is true.

I realise it is difficult for you to do this. But I did say, look past the political posturing and help out the innocent Iraqis caught up in this crap.

I agree. The least anyone can do is to lend moral support to Iraq, but even that isn't happening.
Oh they got moral support. No problem. But the US decided to "unilaterally" do it, now they'll have to see how to fix what they caused. Maybe it will be a suitable lesson to prevent stuff like this from happening again, although I already see developments suggesting the opposite.

I realise it is difficult for you to do this. But I did say, look past the political posturing and help out the innocent Iraqis caught up in this crap.
The US withdrawing their forces who illegally occupy the nation might help much more to fix it ;)
What happens then remains to be seen. If Iraq returns to a religious state, then so be it.

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.
How do you suggest they should get rid of the US army? Who is destabilising the entire region.

Gigatron, this was not a thread for you to post your anti-US bile. We already have 300 of those. This is a non-political thread to salvage something for the innocent Iraqi people who asked for none of this. If you are incapable of human compassion then thats your loss but quit with the rhetoric and stay on topic.

Allawi has asked for the UN to put aside its opposition to the war because that has already happened. If the UN really cares about human rights and ending the needless killing then they need to help Iraq rebuild rather than sit back and watch it unfold.

How do you suggest they should get rid of the US army? Who is destabilising the entire region.

As far as I can tell, the US is aiming to rebuild the country, not destroy it. Guess what, the war happened, can't change that. What we can change is what happens from now. You can sit back and let things go as they are, you can have the coalition forces leave and let the region descend further into the mire or we can all work together to salvage something from this mess. Choice is yours, but I know what I'd rather see happen.

As far as I can tell, the US is aiming to rebuild the country, not destroy it. Guess what, the war happened, can't change that. What we can change is what happens from now. You can sit back and let things go as they are, you can have the coalition forces leave and let the region descend further into the mire or we can all work together to salvage something from this mess. Choice is yours, but I know what I'd rather see happen.


Well, the people running the war could actually LISTEN to their commanders in the field when they say things like "please don't make us lay seige to Falluja - that would be a really stupid thing to do that would inflame the population and make our job a lot tougher". If you look at the upswing in violence over the past few months you can trace it back to some pretty dumb decisions from the top of the command chain.

You seem to be approaching this as though the military pressence is an irrelvant issue when in fact the manner in which they are being used is the single most aggravating factor in the country right now.

A statement like "the war happened" made in such a dismissive way is about as assinine as telling the American people to "forget about 9-11" and then ask them to discuss the war on terror.

Well, the people running the war could actually LISTEN to their commanders in the field when they say things like "please don't make us lay seige to Falluja - that would be a really stupid thing to do that would inflame the population and make our job a lot tougher". If you look at the upswing in violence over the past few months you can trace it back to some pretty dumb decisions from the top of the command chain.

You seem to be approaching this as though the military pressence is an irrelvant issue when in fact the manner in which they are being used is the single most aggravating factor in the country right now.

A statement like "the war happened" made in such a dismissive way is about as assinine as telling the American people to "forget about 9-11" and then ask them to discuss the war on terror.

No, the war did happen. I read about it somewhere, I'm sure you have read about it too. That is not to dismiss it, it is a plain fact.

Again, it is obvious the people of the "War in Iraq is Evil" community are incapable of seeing what is happening in Iraq as a humanitarian disaster. The war did happen, unless you possess a time machine and plan on going back and changing history. All we can do now is do what it takes to make sure the killing stops. As I said, the Iraqi civilians did not ask for any of this, yet they are the ones suffering right now.
So get of your politically motivated bandwagons and see what is happening in Iraq for what it is. The UN needs to get off its arse and do what is right, that is, to help rid Iraq of the terrorists blowing people up and kidnapping those who are there to help rebuild and assist the Iraqi people.
What do you see that is positive about the members of the UN sitting on their hands? If the US moved out the killing would continue as Iraq would descend into civil war with the contributions of external groups looking to profit on the misery of the Iraqi people.

telling the American people to "forget about 9-11".
I realy wish they would get over that little incident. It's getting old.

I agree. The least anyone can do is to lend moral support to Iraq, but even that isn't happening.

I don't think so. They didn't want a war in the first place, why is it now their obligation to support what Bush has done and get their own civilians and soldiers killed? While it'd be nice to take the burden off, it was Mr. Bush's doing all along, and the UN is not necessarily there to bail us out.

I don't think so. They didn't want a war in the first place, why is it now their obligation to support what Bush has done and get their own civilians and soldiers killed? While it'd be nice to take the burden off, it was Mr. Bush's doing all along, and the UN is not necessarily there to bail us out.

:headbang: This has nothing to do with Bush or the US or anyone else. It is to put a stop to the needless killing in Iraq. The war happened, you may or not agree with the way it was carried out. Regardless, in Iraq at present civilians are being blown up, aid workers and construction workers from many coutries are being abducted and executed. What possible gain is there for the UN to sit back and say "it's not our problem"? Who does that help? Iraqis or the terrorists?
I cannot believe the number of people who cannot see past their political rhetoric and see that the UN needs to act in Iraq. Whether they supported the invasion of Iraq or not, they need to unite to protect the Iraqi civilians and those that are there to help them rebuild their nation.

:headbang: This has nothing to do with Bush or the US or anyone else. It is to put a stop to the needless killing in Iraq. The war happened, you may or not agree with the way it was carried out. Regardless, in Iraq at present civilians are being blown up, aid workers and construction workers from many coutries are being abducted and executed. What possible gain is there for the UN to sit back and say "it's not our problem"? Who does that help? Iraqis or the terrorists?
I cannot believe the number of people who cannot see past their political rhetoric and see that the UN needs to act in Iraq. Whether they supported the invasion of Iraq or not, they need to unite to protect the Iraqi civilians and those that are there to help them rebuild their nation.
Why? The country is just now in the infancy of building it's own governmental structure. What gives the US the legitimacy to install a puppet "democracy" in Iraq? I say let them do their stuff themselves. Remove all foreign troops and see what happens. If the Iraqis want a democracy and are capable of making one out of themselves, then they can succeed. Of course only if the US remove themselves out of the picture since they've long lost the image of being the liberators.

Why? The country is just now in the infancy of building it's own governmental structure. What gives the US the legitimacy to install a puppet "democracy" in Iraq? I say let them do their stuff themselves. Remove all foreign troops and see what happens. If the Iraqis want a democracy and are capable of making one out of themselves, then they can succeed. Of course only if the US remove themselves out of the picture since they've long lost the image of being the liberators.

Why? Because innocents are being blown up by people whose only intent is to prevent Iraq rebuilding itself.
If the US left now the killing would worsen as opportunists would take that chance. I know I am wasting my time even replying to you because you cannot see past your hatred of the US.
By leaving the situation as is, you are not punishing the US, you are not punishing Bush, you are punishing the Iraqi civilians caught up in the political posturing.
If a house is burning down you would prefer to go off in search of who lit the fire and how while the house burns. I would rather the fire was put out to save the house then look for who started the fire.

:headbang: This has nothing to do with Bush or the US or anyone else. It is to put a stop to the needless killing in Iraq. The war happened, you may or not agree with the way it was carried out. Regardless, in Iraq at present civilians are being blown up, aid workers and construction workers from many coutries are being abducted and executed. What possible gain is there for the UN to sit back and say "it's not our problem"? Who does that help? Iraqis or the terrorists?
I cannot believe the number of people who cannot see past their political rhetoric and see that the UN needs to act in Iraq. Whether they supported the invasion of Iraq or not, they need to unite to protect the Iraqi civilians and those that are there to help them rebuild their nation.
The war ain't over. The mission ain't accomplished. Iraq is becoming Vietnam with less trees and more sand. Simple as that. It'll be over when the insurgency, which is growing in number, organization, and aggression, is up. I can't say that I blame the rest of the world to want to keep well away. They shouldn't get their citizens killed because the result of the American government.

I don't think so. They didn't want a war in the first place, why is it now their obligation to support what Bush has done and get their own civilians and soldiers killed? While it'd be nice to take the burden off, it was Mr. Bush's doing all along, and the UN is not necessarily there to bail us out.
If their civilians go into Iraq, that should be their choice. I really don't want other nations to contribute troops, even though it would be nice. However, I do want a multinational force to protect UN officials in the country. Anyhow, the best I expect from any nation is to relieve at least some of Iraq's debt. It was incurred under a wasteful regime. Today, Iraq is off to a fresh start. It doesn't need a substantial part of its GDP going to debt created by a person with more lavish spending habits than Marie Antoinette.

If their civilians go into Iraq, that should be their choice. I really don't want other nations to contribute troops, even though it would be nice. However, I do want a multinational force to protect UN officials in the country. Anyhow, the best I expect from any nation is to relieve at least some of Iraq's debt. It was incurred under a wasteful regime. Today, Iraq is off to a fresh start. It doesn't need a substantial part of its GDP going to debt created by a person with more lavish spending habits than Marie Antoinette.

I see what you're saying, but the US broke UN law in its invasion of Iraq, they really don't have to do anything, not to mention many world leaders don't hold President Bush in high regard.

The war ain't over. The mission ain't accomplished. Iraq is becoming Vietnam with less trees and more sand. Simple as that.

Blah, blah..political rhetoric.

It'll be over when the insurgency, which is growing in number, organization, and aggression, is up. I can't say that I blame the rest of the world to want to keep well away. They shouldn't get their citizens killed because the result of the American government.

Last I knew, the UN regarded itself as the protector of the people of the world. Well, people are being killed in Iraq by insurgents whose only aim is to maintain instability. If the UN was serious about its role in the world it would assist Iraq in ridding itself of these insurgents rather than sitting back and watching it all unfold before them.
As I have said ad nauseum, Iraqis are the ones suffering. They did not ask for any of this but thay are the ones paying the price. You can sit back and argue whose fault it is while the house burns down in front you, I would prefer we put out the fire then work out who is at fault.

Removing debt is ok. Its just money. Although it sucks that primarily US corporations benefit from the Iraqi economy. Another reason why other nations are not overly eager to help out. There's no profit and out of the pure goodness of ones heart never works in capitalism. Thats how the US works, thats how all other countries friendly towards the US work and thus, humanitarian reasons are last. You cant blame the UN for not stepping in when even their own personnel is not safe and after the not forgotten slap in the face of the UN by Bush. Saying now that the UN "inactivity" in this illegal war is proof that the UN is powerless is a logical fallacy btw.

Blah, blah..political rhetoric.



Last I knew, the UN regarded itself as the protector of the people of the world. Well, people are being killed in Iraq by insurgents whose only aim is to maintain instability. If the UN was serious about its role in the world it would assist Iraq in ridding itself of these insurgents rather than sitting back and watching it all unfold before them.
As I have said ad nauseum, Iraqis are the ones suffering. They did not ask for any of this but thay are the ones paying the price. You can sit back and argue whose fault it is while the house burns down in front you, I would prefer we put out the fire then work out who is at fault.
The situation in Iraq has been brought about by the US with their war. The country was relatively stable before,although under Hussein's rule not much better off, it was stable and Hussein kept it together somehow. The UN is not there to fix what the US breaks, just so you can relocate soldiers to Iran next and continue your world police mission there.

Removing debt is ok. Its just money. Although it sucks that primarily US corporations benefit from the Iraqi economy. Another reason why other nations are not overly eager to help out. There's no profit and out of the pure goodness of ones heart never works in capitalism. Thats how the US works, thats how all other countries friendly towards the US work and thus, humanitarian reasons are last. You cant blame the UN for not stepping in when even their own personnel is not safe and after the not forgotten slap in the face of the UN by Bush. Saying now that the UN "inactivity" in this illegal war is proof that the UN is powerless is a logical fallacy btw.


Ignoring your continuous anti-US ranting:

What exactly is the UN's role in the world then? East Timor had nothing to do with the nations that helped out there under the UN banner. Rwanda was no-one's problem other than those in Rwanda. Afghanistan was no-ones problem other than Afghans. Why does the UN need to exist if nothing in the world is their concern? As a union of sovereign nations, do they have any grounds to act anywhere? Are you saying they are a bunch of bureaucrats with no reason to involve themselves with anything at all?

Blah, blah..political rhetoric.
Are you fucking joking? I always thought a war ends when the violence ends. Not when the "winner" says it is.

Last I knew, the UN regarded itself as the protector of the people of the world. Well, people are being killed in Iraq by insurgents whose only aim is to maintain instability. If the UN was serious about its role in the world it would assist Iraq in ridding itself of these insurgents rather than sitting back and watching it all unfold before them.
As I have said ad nauseum, Iraqis are the ones suffering. They did not ask for any of this but thay are the ones paying the price. You can sit back and argue whose fault it is while the house burns down in front you, I would prefer we put out the fire then work out who is at fault.
Last I knew, the US was a member of the UN, and thus to follow their rules and laws. If we were serious in our commitment to the UN, we wouldn't have broken Resolution 1441. And I don't know, our troops are suffering too I'd say. Extended deployments, many wounds, those aren't signs that things are fine and dandy. Not to mention now we're sending over part time soldiers and guards that are meant for emergencies only. I didn't know American soil was under attack from the insurgents. Unless you think the oil is now American oil...

The situation in Iraq has been brought about by the US with their war. The country was relatively stable before,although under Hussein's rule not much better off, it was stable and Hussein kept it together somehow. The UN is not there to fix what the US breaks, just so you can relocate soldiers to Iran next and continue your world police mission there.

Again, look past your hatred of the US. Something needs to be done to stop the needless killing of civilians and aid workers in Iraq by insurgents. It is obvious you care about nothing other than perpetuating your own hatreds. I would rather concern myself with putting an end to the bombings and executions that are impeding Iraq's movement towards freedom and democracy.

Again, look past your hatred of the US. Something needs to be done to stop the needless killing of civilians and aid workers in Iraq by insurgents. It is obvious you care about nothing other than perpetuating your own hatreds. I would rather concern myself with putting an end to the bombings and executions that are impeding Iraq's movement towards freedom and democracy.
You have to look at who is to blame for this quagmire though. We bombed neighborhoods and destroyed a few cities. OF COURSE they're going to be pissed off!

Are you fucking joking? I always thought a war ends when the violence ends. Not when the "winner" says it is.

Scroll back and see what my comment was referring to before spouting profanities.

Last I knew, the US was a member of the UN, and thus to follow their rules and laws. If we were serious in our commitment to the UN, we wouldn't have broken Resolution 1441. And I don't know, our troops are suffering too I'd say. Extended deployments, many wounds, those aren't signs that things are fine and dandy. Not to mention now we're sending over part time soldiers and guards that are meant for emergencies only. I didn't know American soil was under attack from the insurgents. Unless you think the oil is now American oil...

Again, and I apologise if this is getting repetitive. I am not talking about the US, its reasons for the war or anything at all to do with Bush and his government. I thought that would have been evident by now.
What I asking for is for the international community, including the UN, to put aside their political posturing and help out the civilians in Iraq that are being killed in attacks by insurgents trying to destabilise the progress of Iraq towards self-government and open elections.
Is that concept too hard for you to understand or do you just have an impulsive need to rant on about your opposition to US foreign policy?

You have to look at who is to blame for this quagmire though. We bombed neighborhoods and destroyed a few cities. OF COURSE they're going to be pissed off!

You look for who to blame after the fire is out. Put out the fire, save lives and then look for those that caused it.
Get rid of the insurgents, stabilise the country, let it rebuild and determine its own government. The search for those to blame should come afterwards.

You look for who to blame after the fire is out. Put out the fire, save lives and then look for those that caused it.
Get rid of the insurgents, stabilise the country, let it rebuild and determine its own government. The search for those to blame should come afterwards.
Everyone knows that the one who's to blame is sitting in the White House.

I see what you're saying, but the US broke UN law in its invasion of Iraq, they really don't have to do anything, not to mention many world leaders don't hold President Bush in high regard.
I don't see it as technically a violation of international law. Resolution 1441 authorized consequences against Iraq should they fail to comply with the UN's demands, and it can be argued that they did. One can make the case that it was morally wrong, but not legally wrong. I believe it was morally right because it'll bring liberty to the region, and ultimatly, make terrorism less desirable. That's the very short version of what I believe, however. And btw, I never believed in the WMD stuff.

You look for who to blame after the fire is out. Put out the fire, save lives and then look for those that caused it.
Get rid of the insurgents, stabilise the country, let it rebuild and determine its own government. The search for those to blame should come afterwards.
The fire isn't out. The war is still being fought. Its terribly sad yes, but other nations aren't obligated in rebuilding that which they did not destroy. Yes, it'd be nice, and yes there are civilians being killed, but other countries are not going to contribute troops, because that's what its going to take to put down an armed insurgency. Troops. Not money.

Everyone knows that the one who's to blame is sitting in the White House.

So what? Try and stay focussed on the topic, Iraqi civilians are dying. The international community, namely the UN, should act to put a stop to the needless killing of civilians and aid workers by insurgents.

anything at all to do with Bush and his government

You are so wrong. It is exactly because of Bush and his government.
Without these selfrighteous asses who proclaimed that they have the mission from God to dictate how other nations have to function, this entire debacle would not even exist! Remove your forces from Iraq and let the UN deal with humanitarian problems if any arise, should the insurgency continue after the removal of the US troops. The UN can not act pre-emptively and so far what is happening there is not genocide nor war crimes. It is a part of the civilian population among them also terrorists from neighboring countries, who oppose the US occupation and installation of a US puppet government in an influential country of the middle east. Of course they do not accept the US leadership role anymore after what happened in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. No moral highground means no support. 90% of the Iraqis consider the US occupiers by now - the vast majority of the world looks down on the US as an aggressive nation with (super)power in the hands of irresponsible children! You cannot gain international support while you throw bombs on civilians, accepting their deaths as "collateral damage". As long as the US are in Iraq illegally, the UN would make itself guilty of supporting the illegal occupation of a country by forcefully apeasing the insurgency.

The fire isn't out. The war is still being fought. Its terribly sad yes, but other nations aren't obligated in rebuilding that which they did not destroy. Yes, it'd be nice, and yes there are civilians being killed, but other countries are not going to contribute troops, because that's what its going to take to put down an armed insurgency. Troops. Not money.

I never said it was out, please read before you comment. The killing is still going on, so stop with the international blamefest and do something to put an end to the killing. At present the killing continues, if the US moves out then killing will continue. We need the international community to say enough is enough and help those that need the help, Iraqi civilians.
Blame the US all you like, I don't care. The objective of this thread was not to absolve anyone of responsibility or to pass responsibility to others. It was to highlight that behind all the political posturing there are the true victims.

By your logic the UN had no reason to act in East Timor, Rwanda. NATO had no reason to act in Bosnia and Kosovo. I am well aware it would require the contribution of troops to quell the insurgents, I did not say otherwise.

So what? Try and stay focussed on the topic, Iraqi civilians are dying. The international community, namely the UN, should act to put a stop to the needless killing of civilians and aid workers by insurgents.
Handing Bush over to the "insurgents" could help. Always worth a try. Plenty of hicks left to replace him if it fails.

You are so wrong. It is exactly because of Bush and his government.
Without these selfrighteous asses who proclaimed that they have the mission from God to dictate how other nations have to function, this entire debacle would not even exist! Remove your forces from Iraq and let the UN deal with humanitarian problems if any arise, should the insurgency continue after the removal of the US troops. The UN can not act pre-emptively and so far what is happening there is not genocide nor war crimes. It is a part of the civilian population among them also terrorists from neighboring countries, who oppose the US occupation and installation of a US puppet government in an influential country of the middle east. Of course they do not accept the US leadership role anymore after what happened in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. No moral highground means no support. 90% of the Iraqis consider the US occupiers by now - the vast majority of the world looks down on the US as an aggressive nation with (super)power in the hands of irresponsible children! You cannot gain international support while you throw bombs on civilians, accepting their deaths as "collateral damage". As long as the US are in Iraq illegally, the UN would make itself guilty of supporting the illegal occupation of a country by forcefully apeasing the insurgency.
Thank you. I'm an American and I feel that its an occupancy.

You are so wrong. It is exactly because of Bush and his government.
Without these selfrighteous asses who proclaimed that they have the mission from God to dictate how other nations have to function, this entire debacle would not even exist! Remove your forces from Iraq and let the UN deal with humanitarian problems if any arise, should the insurgency continue after the removal of the US troops.
Why do you keep on trusting the UN to do something when its shown itself to be completely inept in the past 50 years?

You are so wrong. It is exactly because of Bush and his government.
Without these selfrighteous asses who proclaimed that they have the mission from God to dictate how other nations have to function, this entire debacle would not even exist! Remove your forces from Iraq and let the UN deal with humanitarian problems if any arise, should the insurgency continue after the removal of the US troops. The UN can not act pre-emptively and so far what is happening there is not genocide nor war crimes. It is a part of the civilian population among them also terrorists from neighboring countries, who oppose the US occupation and installation of a US puppet government in an influential country of the middle east. Of course they do not accept the US leadership role anymore after what happened in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. No moral highground means no support. 90% of the Iraqis consider the US occupiers by now - the vast majority of the world looks down on the US as an aggressive nation with (super)power in the hands of irresponsible children! You cannot gain international support while you throw bombs on civilians, accepting their deaths as "collateral damage". As long as the US are in Iraq illegally, the UN would make itself guilty of supporting the illegal occupation of a country by forcefully apeasing the insurgency.

Gigatron, if you are going to quote me, use the whole quote and use it in its correct context. That is undoubtedly the lamest effort I have ever seen for attempting to justify another of your anti-US rants.

The full quote you butchered was:

"Again, and I apologise if this is getting repetitive. I am not talking about the US, its reasons for the war or anything at all to do with Bush and his government. I thought that would have been evident by now."

As a result the rest of your rant, none of which is anything different from the usual bile you pollute this forum with, is irrelevant.

Handing Bush over to the "insurgents" could help. Always worth a try. Plenty of hicks left to replace him if it fails.

If you have nothing intelligent to add its best to say nothing.

If you have nothing intelligent to add its best to say nothing.
What? Getting rid of Bush isn't a worthy cause?

What? Getting rid of Bush isn't a worthy cause?

Reread my last comment and stop spamming this thread.

If you have nothing intelligent to add its best to say nothing.
Why don't you try stepping off your pedastel and dictating what people should do through suggestion. If the way you write leaves your views misinterpretted, tough. Learn to write better.

Why do you keep on trusting the UN to do something when its shown itself to be completely inept in the past 50 years?

One of the responsibilities of the UN from the UN Charter is:

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security"

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

So, they are sworn to unite to maintain peace and security. To me, the UN is compelled to act in Iraq to restore peace and security, regardless of who is to blame for the current situation.

Why don't you try stepping off your pedastel and dictating what people should do through suggestion. If the way you write leaves your views misinterpretted, tough. Learn to write better.

I'm sorry, you must have thought this was an intelligent contribution to the conversation?


Handing Bush over to the "insurgents" could help. Always worth a try. Plenty of hicks left to replace him if it fails.

One of the responsibilities of the UN from the UN Charter is:

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security"

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

So, they are sworn to unite to maintain peace and security. To me, the UN is compelled to act in Iraq to restore peace and security, regardless of who is to blame for the current situation.
That dosen't mean they will actually go ahead maintain peace and security, though, or that they'll do it anywhere near effectively (the Dem. Rep. of Congo being a good example). One advantage to the Iraq situation compared to others is that none of the 5 countries with veto power is likely to veto an intervention, though.

One of the responsibilities of the UN from the UN Charter is:

"to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security"

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

So, they are sworn to unite to maintain peace and security. To me, the UN is compelled to act in Iraq to restore peace and security, regardless of who is to blame for the current situation.
Right.. now that the US get their ass handed to them in Iraq and the next war needs to be fought against Iran, all of a sudden the UN is useful again. Where was this trust in UN ability to do *anything right* before the Iraq war? US remove their troops from Iraq, otherwise I do not see the UN ever agreeing to do anything in Iraq that could benefit the US in the longterm. France, Russia, China are not exactly inclined right now to help the US pull themselves out of the mess they created for themselves. It is actually a useful tool to show how weak the US truly is and how unfit for world leadership and eventually hegemony of this planet.

What? Getting rid of Bush isn't a worthy cause?
You realize if you got rid of Bush you'd get Cheney and if he died, Dennis Hastert, both of which you'd probably consider far worse than Bush himself.

You realize if you got rid of Bush you'd get Cheney and if he died, Dennis Hastert, both of which you'd probably consider far worse than Bush himself.
Beeh. Just give them all to the insurgents untill they are happy.

I'm sorry, you must have thought this was an intelligent contribution to the conversation?
No. But I don't realy care.

That dosen't mean they will actually go ahead maintain peace and security, though, or that they'll do it anywhere near effectively (the Dem. Rep. of Congo being a good example). One advantage to the Iraq situation compared to others is that none of the 5 countries with veto power is likely to veto an intervention, though.

For the sake of the Iraqi civilians, I certainly hope that the UN does get involved to bring peace and security to their country.

No. But I don't realy care.

I didn't say you did, I was answering an accusation by Genady.

I didn't say you did, I was answering an accusation by Genady.
But you were using my post. That gives me the right to comment on it. (Not that I wouldn't have anyway)

Right.. now that the US get their ass handed to them in Iraq and the next war needs to be fought against Iran, all of a sudden the UN is useful again. Where was this trust in UN ability to do *anything right* before the Iraq war? US remove their troops from Iraq, otherwise I do not see the UN ever agreeing to do anything in Iraq that could benefit the US in the longterm. France, Russia, China are not exactly inclined right now to help the US pull themselves out of the mess they created for themselves. It is actually a useful tool to show how weak the US truly is and how unfit for world leadership and eventually hegemony of this planet.

I know it is asking way too much of you to try and focus on the issue and not spout your anti-US bile but, I am looking at this from the point of view of humanity. As I have clearly stated numerous times, blame can be dealt out later. Lives need to be saved now. So quit with the anti-US crap and stop spamming this thread.

But you were using my post. That gives me the right to comment on it. (Not that I wouldn't have anyway)

I was using your quote to show Genady what I was replying to. You can comment on my post all you like. I would appreciate it if those comments were relevant to the topic.

So Tyg - since you seem to think that the US is a non-issue and that others are obligated to just come in and clean up the mess that GW made when everybody was telling him that this was going to be the result - how do you suppose they go about it?

Will GW cede control of Iraq? No. He wants help but he still wants to run the show. Other countries see how incopetently he is running the show and rightly feel that they are simply being asked to provide cannon fodder to an incompetent command, or to provide support help to an area where he can not provide adeqaute security to protect those whose help he wants.

Or do you think that the UN should kick the US out by force and take over the task? You think that fighting ANOTHER war on Iraqi soil will help the locals out?

GW has to indicate a willingness to cede control for it to be a worthwhile venture for others. So far, he has repeatedly stated a refusal to entertain that idea. I'm sure the situation will degenerate to the point where he will, but then he will simply pull his support and turn an even bigger mess for the rest of us to clean up while he sits and blames the rest of the world for it.


Your attempts to absolve the US of creating a situation that they insist of maintaining control of while simultaneously blaming the rest of the world for not exerting an independant initiative when the US itself would not allow it in the first place is a nice try to put the blame on others - but ultimately a dishonest position to take.

And this has nothing to do with partisanship. Just an assessment of the situation we find ourselves in.

So Tyg - since you seem to think that the US is a non-issue and that others are obligated to just come in and clean up the mess that GW made when everybody was telling him that this was going to be the result - how do you suppose they go about it?

The UN, by its own charter is obliged to assist in restoring peace and security to Iraq. It is not to clean up the mess the US made, it is to minimise the numbers of civilian deaths in reaching the common goal of bringing peace to Iraq.

Will GW cede control of Iraq? No. He wants help but he still wants to run the show. Other countries see how incopetently he is running the show and rightly feel that they are simply being asked to provide cannon fodder to an incompetent command, or to provide support help to an area where he can not provide adeqaute security to protect those whose help he wants.

I am calling for the UN to take control of the process and work with the US forces in the region. It would come under a UN operation.

Or do you think that the UN should kick the US out by force and take over the task? You think that fighting ANOTHER war on Iraqi soil will help the locals out?

No, don't be a complete moron. The UN would work with the US and other coalition forces to force the insurgents out. How is it ANOTHER war? There is already a war on. All I am calling for is for the UN to now put aside the bickering and do what is right to protect the Iraqi people. That is, get the job done faster to reduce the number of needless deaths from the current activity by insurgents in Iraq. Is that so hard to follow?

GW has to indicate a willingness to cede control for it to be a worthwhile venture for others. So far, he has repeatedly stated a refusal to entertain that idea. I'm sure the situation will degenerate to the point where he will, but then he will simply pull his support and turn an even bigger mess for the rest of us to clean up while he sits and blames the rest of the world for it.

I was unaware of your clairvoyant talents. I will just deal with what we know now and what can be done to make things better for the victims of the current situation. Bicker and moan about Bush all you like but I am talking about looking beyond the political rhetoric and actually doing what is right by the Iraqi people. We cannot change what has happened, only what is to happen in the future. If you are too locked into your political mindset to do something positive for the people in Iraq, the people who did not ask for Saddam, did not ask for the wars and did not ask for insurgents to blow them up, then I think you need to have a look at where your priorities lie.

Your attempts to absolve the US of creating a situation that they insist of maintaining control of while simultaneously blaming the rest of the world for not exerting an independant initiative when the US itself would not allow it in the first place is a nice try to put the blame on others - but ultimately a dishonest position to take.

I have not attempted to absolve anyone from anything. If you have actually bothered reading anything I have posted I have not said anything about blame or lack of it. I have said that rather than standing around bickering while people are killed, lets do all we can to fix the situation then worry about who to blame and what for. Stop making up crap and stick to the issue. I know you can do it.

And this has nothing to do with partisanship. Just an assessment of the situation we find ourselves in.

It is all about partisanship. You can not put aside your hatred of Bush to see the true victims of this situation. You cannot see past your political rhetoric to see what I am trying to say. Instead you make up rubbish about what I have said and join the dots with your own version of my statements.

Iraq doesn't need any help, and haven't since May 1, 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg

The UN, by its own charter is obliged to assist in restoring peace and security to Iraq. It is not to clean up the mess the US made, it is to minimise the numbers of civilian deaths in reaching the common goal of bringing peace to Iraq.



I am calling for the UN to take control of the process and work with the US forces in the region. It would come under a UN operation.



No, don't be a complete moron. The UN would work with the US and other coalition forces to force the insurgents out. How is it ANOTHER war? There is already a war on. All I am calling for is for the UN to now put aside the bickering and do what is right to protect the Iraqi people. That is, get the job done faster to reduce the number of needless deaths from the current activity by insurgents in Iraq. Is that so hard to follow?



I was unaware of your clairvoyant talents. I will just deal with what we know now and what can be done to make things better for the victims of the current situation. Bicker and moan about Bush all you like but I am talking about looking beyond the political rhetoric and actually doing what is right by the Iraqi people. We cannot change what has happened, only what is to happen in the future. If you are too locked into your political mindset to do something positive for the people in Iraq, the people who did not ask for Saddam, did not ask for the wars and did not ask for insurgents to blow them up, then I think you need to have a look at where your priorities lie.



I have not attempted to absolve anyone from anything. If you have actually bothered reading anything I have posted I have not said anything about blame or lack of it. I have said that rather than standing around bickering while people are killed, lets do all we can to fix the situation then worry about who to blame and what for. Stop making up crap and stick to the issue. I know you can do it.



It is all about partisanship. You can not put aside your hatred of Bush to see the true victims of this situation. You cannot see past your political rhetoric to see what I am trying to say. Instead you make up rubbish about what I have said and join the dots with your own version of my statements.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the two central facts:

1) You insist that the UN take over.
2) GW refuses to cede control.

This is an impass, and as long as it is the official Washington position then you cannot expect much help. I don't know what planet YOU live on, but on THIS planet nobody "takes over" a US military operation without the approval of Washington. And WAshington hold the position that it's troops will never operate under the direct authority of a foreigner, so either they maintain control or they get out. You seem suprised that others sometimes hold similar views - especially in the face of such inept leadership.

You can pretend that this impass does not exist if you like and stick with a lame blame-game falsely attributed to "partisanship". But that does not change the facts.

Why? The country is just now in the infancy of building it's own governmental structure. What gives the US the legitimacy to install a puppet "democracy" in Iraq? I say let them do their stuff themselves. Remove all foreign troops and see what happens. If the Iraqis want a democracy and are capable of making one out of themselves, then they can succeed. Of course only if the US remove themselves out of the picture since they've long lost the image of being the liberators.

I have to admit agreement. If Iraq does want democracy we can't force it. To force democracy is to deny themn democracy at all.
Democracy is about choice without choice its just a Saddam government. Saddam wasn't a religious but a secular govt. We seem to be creating what we destroyed.
Otherwise look at France, they gave us victory in American Revolution against England. Now many (mostly reoublicans) despise them.
If history is any good indicator, Iraq will despise us if we keep fighting like we are.
I bet you if we pull out for a whole month and the insurgents don't leave we would regain our credibility.
Maybe UN will agree that we may return and finish the job legitamitly.

So why not? I mean Come on, come on.(South Park Episode with Bloods and Crips)

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the two central facts:

1) You insist that the UN take over.
2) GW refuses to cede control.

This is an impass, and as long as it is the official Washington position then you cannot expect much help. I don't know what planet YOU live on, but on THIS planet nobody "takes over" a US military operation without the approval of Washington. And WAshington hold the position that it's troops will never operate under the direct authority of a foreigner, so either they maintain control or they get out. You seem suprised that others sometimes hold similar views - especially in the face of such inept leadership.

You can pretend that this impass does not exist if you like and stick with a lame blame-game falsely attributed to "partisanship". But that does not change the facts.

I insist the UN and US put aside their political blusterings and do what iis right for the people of Iraq. By that I mean the UN makes it their business to make a resolution to assist the interim Iraqi government to drive out the insurgents that are hindering the process of of democracy that is being attempted.
Yes, in order for this to happen the US has to come to the party and work with the UN. This battle in Iraq needs a united front. The UN is compelled by its charter to do what it needs to do to stop these groups blowing up civilians, police and aid workers. To stop them from abducting and executing people who are in Iraq to help the Iraqis rebuild or to help provide them medical assistance.
I am not saying they take over the US military operation. I am saying both the UN and the US work together. Preferably under a UN resolution.

Again, what is my blame-game? I have not blamed anyone about anything because I see no point in squabbling over things that are not important while people are dying. You may be so caught up in your own political beliefs that you are happy to sit back while people are being killed by insurgents but I am not. Then again, you were the person whose only comment on the Beslan massacre was that it took the edge off the RNC media coverage. So it is probably a sad truth that you do cherish your political rhetoric and point scoring over human life. I feel sorry for people like you.

"IRAQI Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today appealed to global leaders to help his nation defeat terrorism as the world awaited the fate of British hostage Kenneth Bigley and woke to news of more kidnappings.

Mr Allawi appeared at the United Nations and urged members to put aside their differences over the war and help rebuild his shattered nation....."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10873748%255E2,00.html

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.

Prime Minister Allawi....how did he get that then? Who voted for him? He exists purely because the last US puppet proved such an embarrasement that he was even accused of being an Iranian spy!

Perhaps if the United Nations had been listened to in the first place we would not have this mess.

And think of all those US troops that could have been used to find Osama bin Laden and fight al-Qaeda.

And the Australian troops that could be fighting against JI.

We all know who did the "political posturing"....the same people that claimed the war was about WMDs.

"IRAQI Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today appealed to global leaders to help his nation defeat terrorism as the world awaited the fate of British hostage Kenneth Bigley and woke to news of more kidnappings.

Mr Allawi appeared at the United Nations and urged members to put aside their differences over the war and help rebuild his shattered nation....."

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,10873748%255E2,00.html

I think its time for the nations of the UN to put aside the political posturing and help Iraq rid themselves of the insurgents destabilising their attempts to rebuild their country.


Iraqis arent permitted by the US occupation force to "rebuild their country," only pentagon approved political donor contractors are allowed to try to do that. They have failed miserably.

Also, Iyad Allawi is not the leader of iraq, he is an appointee of the bush administration who was a hitman for the Baath Party in europe and england.

Prime Minister Allawi....how did he get that then? Who voted for him? He exists purely because the last US puppet proved such an embarrasement that he was even accused of being an Iranian spy!

Perhaps if the United Nations had been listened to in the first place we would not have this mess.

And think of all those US troops that could have been used to find Osama bin Laden and fight al-Qaeda.

And the Australian troops that could be fighting against JI.

We all know who did the "political posturing"....the same people that claimed the war was about WMDs.

Still playing the same old tunes Smeagol, good to see you back.

If you read what I have said carefully you will see I am asking for the UN and the US to put aside the politics and save lives. The longer this insurgency and counter-offensive situation goes on, the more innocent people die. Can't make it more clear than that. We are where we are now. Can't change history, can change the future.
So for the sake of this thread, leave your political rants for other threads and try and concentrate on the issue I am raising. It is not a political issue, it is a humanitarian issue.
This is neither absolving nor attributing blame for anyone. You can sort through and find those you wish to blame later. I want the UN and the US to start doing what is right and work together to make Iraq secure enough to hold elections and as a consequence decide their own destiny.
I could not give a rat's arse who Allawi is and who appointed him. It is irrelevant. He is asking, on behalf of his country, for the UN to help out.

Iraqis arent permitted by the US occupation force to "rebuild their country," only pentagon approved political donor contractors are allowed to try to do that. They have failed miserably.

Also, Iyad Allawi is not the leader of iraq, he is an appointee of the bush administration who was a hitman for the Baath Party in europe and england.

As I said to Smeagol, I could not care less who Allawi is, who appointed him or what he did in the past. He has appealed to the UN to help his nation rid itself of insurgents to provide a secure enough environment to hold elections. I see nothing wrong with this request and hope the UN and the US do put aside their politics and do the right thing here.

Still playing the same old tunes Smeagol, good to see you back.

If you read what I have said carefully you will see I am asking for the UN and the US to put aside the politics and save lives. The longer this insurgency and counter-offensive situation goes on, the more innocent people die. Can't make it more clear than that. We are where we are now. Can't change history, can change the future.
So for the sake of this thread, leave your political rants for other threads and try and concentrate on the issue I am raising. It is not a political issue, it is a humanitarian issue.
This is neither absolving nor attributing blame for anyone. You can sort through and find those you wish to blame later. I want the UN and the US to start doing what is right and work together to make Iraq secure enough to hold elections and as a consequence decide their own destiny.
I could not give a rat's arse who Allawi is and who appointed him. It is irrelevant. He is asking, on behalf of his country, for the UN to help out.


Quite simply, Allawi has no right to be asking anyone for anything.

It really is that simple.

It is not irrelevant, it is the entire point of the matter.

It is pathetic to be now going to the UN after spurning their advice before the invasion.

The hypocricy is only matched by the lies we have been told. To ask that we now forget that we have been lied to and "help out" is insulting.

Otherwise, amused to see that you are still playing the same tunes, but we all know who the composers are, and more are learning not to dance to these particular tunes.

Too many people find that they are missing their seats when the music stops!

Quite simply, Allawi has no right to be asking anyone for anything.

It really is that simple.

It is not irrelevant, it is the entire point of the matter.

It is pathetic to be now going to the UN after spurning their advice before the invasion.

The hypocricy is only matched by the lies we have been told. To ask that we now forget that we have been lied to and "help out" is insulting.

Otherwise, amused to see that you are still playing the same tunes, but we all know who the composers are, and more are learning not to dance to these particular tunes.

Too many people find that they are missing their seats when the music stops!


Can you firstly show me where Allawi "spurned UN advice" before the Iraq invasion and, secondly, explain to me what anything you have said has to do with helping out the Iraqi citizens caught up in this?

Can you firstly show me where Allawi "spurned UN advice" before the Iraq invasion and, secondly, explain to me what anything you have said has to do with helping out the Iraqi citizens caught up in this?

Allawi never spurned any advice, as he was never asked or consulted.

His political masters spurned UN advice re WMDs, not once, but repeatedly. You do remember WMDs don't you - that's what we went to war about - I know there are those who wish we all would forget, but some of us are not that silly.

Allawi was not the first choice of the Coalition - do try to keep up.

If the Coalition was proposing to turn over control to the UN until a Iraqi government could be established, then possibly they would have some credibility - they are not, they merely seek help in the mess they now find themselves in.

Please advise how continuing to leave an army of occupation, including the previous colonial power, is helping the "Iraqi citizens caught up in this".

The statistics show that more Iraqi citizens are being killed by US forces than by the insurgents. Source : http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753303.htm

And is it not the same Iraqi citizens who have been tortured by the same occupying powers - or are we supposed to forget this as well.

Sorry, I am unable to perform the required mental gymnastics, even being familiar with their depiction in Orwell's "1984". Doublethink and rewriting history are unacceptable.

Allawi never spurned any advice, as he was never asked or consulted.

So your first point was a lie, thank you.

His political masters spurned UN advice re WMDs, not once, but repeatedly. You do remember WMDs don't you - that's what we went to war about - I know there are those who wish we all would forget, but some of us are not that silly.

Irrelevant to the topic being discussed and proves you have failed to grasp the crux of this thread. Then again, you never really did read anything anyone else posted. Because you struggle with the concepts I will point out the topic again. Civilians are dying in Iraq because of insurgency. Allawi has asked the UN to help rid his country of the insurgents to pave the way for an Iraqi government to be elected. I am saying that the UN should help out and both the UN and the US ahould get together and solve this problem because it will save lives. I have said they should put aside their political rhetoric and blustering and do what they need to to save some lives. Now, if you can focus on that topic, that is refrain from rambling about irrelevant crap such as WMD and "Allawi's political masters" and focus on the actual topic.
Because, as I have also said many times in this thread, we cannot change history only the future. So I am calling for the UN and the US to do the right thing and work together because in the end it will save lives. Understand?

Allawi was not the first choice of the Coalition - do try to keep up.

No crap, who said he was?

If the Coalition was proposing to turn over control to the UN until a Iraqi government could be established, then possibly they would have some credibility - they are not, they merely seek help in the mess they now find themselves in.

This is was I am calling for if you had taken the time to read this thread. For the UN and the US to work together to get rid of the insurgents and to establish an Iraqi government. Do try and keep up.

Please advise how continuing to leave an army of occupation, including the previous colonial power, is helping the "Iraqi citizens caught up in this".

Again, try reading the thread before commenting. You are wasting my time.

The statistics show that more Iraqi citizens are being killed by US forces than by the insurgents. Source : http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753303.htm

And? If the insurgents are driven out then the US would have no reason to bomb anywhere. Therefore, the civilian deaths stop. The only difference between leaving things as they are and what I have proposed is that the insurgents are driven out sooner resulting in less civilian deaths. Is that clear enough for you to understand yet?

And is it not the same Iraqi citizens who have been tortured by the same occupying powers - or are we supposed to forget this as well.

And this has to do with the topic, how? Oh, thats right. Its you posting random comments again that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. You see the title at the top of the page? "Allawi Seeks Help Against Terror".

Sorry, I am unable to perform the required mental gymnastics, even being familiar with their depiction in Orwell's "1984". Doublethink and rewriting history are unacceptable.

Can you provide me with an example from this thread that requires mental gymnastics? I haven't mentioned history so cannot see where I have rewritten it. I thought it was a fairly simple concept that even you could understand. The fatal flaw is that you have not even read the thread, you jumped in at the end posting irrelevant crap. As I said, you still play the same tunes, all out of your backside.