NationStates Jolt Archive

There was a discussion yesterday (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388213)about the Newsweek report that the US Government was considering an "El Savador" option to fight the insurgents in IRaq with covertly funded groups of their own, perhaps including Special Forces etc. Given that many of the architects of Central American policy (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran-Contra) are in positions of power in this administration this did not seem an impossible scenario. People go with what they know after all.


It was an odd juxtaposition of news, but I also noticed this today (http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?catid=138&newsid=55553&ch=0&datte=2005-01-11)


Baghdad. An unknown militant group Saraya Iraqna has declared war on extremists acting on the territory of Iraq, reported RIA Novosti citing an article published in the Iraqi newspaper Al Ittihad. The first official message of the group says it aims at “a relentless fight against all kinds of terrorists and Wahabits in the country”.

“Our activity will not be selective. It is directed toward all terrorist organizations on the territory of Iraq, no matter what their religion or ethnic origin is”, says the message. The group promises rewards of USD 3,000 to USD 50,000 to people cooperating in the fight against terrorism.



I'm not prone to conspiracy theory, but $50K per is a TON of money in such a war ravaged country as Iraq is. That is way more than Saddam was ever accused of offering to reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with - and he was widely assumed to have skimmed billions for his own uses so could afford to pay whatever he wanted.

This has to be funded from somewhere, and the idea of a completely sect-neutral group offering to go after Kurds, Sunni's, Shiites, or whatever they deem a "terrorist" seems highly unlikely in the polarized atmosphere that seems to exist there. Having such a non-afiliated group pop up with a fistfull of reward money when nobody has ever heard of them also seems a little odd.



And so I asked myself, has it already begun? Is Iraq going to be turned into a battle-ground of relatively unmanaged terrorist groups doing battle in the back alleys? Would that really lead to stability?

It made me wonder.

I'm not prone to conspiracy theory, but $50K per is a TON of money in such a war ravaged country as Iraq is. That is way more than Saddam was ever accused of offering to reward the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with - and he was widely assumed to have skimmed billions for his own uses so could afford to pay whatever he wanted.

This has to be funded from somewhere, and the idea of a completely sect-neutral group offering to go after Kurds, Sunni's, Shiites, or whatever they deem a "terrorist" seems highly unlikely in the polarized atmosphere that seems to exist there. Having such a non-afiliated group pop up with a fistfull of reward money when nobody has ever heard of them also seems a little odd.


It does smell rather fishy put this way. I seriously hope it is just some individual billionaire trying to sort out the mess rather than a government action, but it probably is not. One would think that the USA would have learnt its lesson about funding countrer-terrorist groups after bin-laden in Afghanistan.

Funny Bin Ladin was a supply officer in the afgan resistance, and the area he operated in was one were the British had majority influence.

Read about the SEALs in vietnam, and you'll see what a well run and funded counter insurgency operation can do, or the SAS in Burma.

I'm all for it.

If you think about it from an amoral perspective:

1. It's foreign fighters fighting foreign fighters. No US troops.
2. The foreign fighters we don't like will be too busy fighting over there to deal with us.

If you think about it from an amoral perspective:

1. It's foreign fighters fighting foreign fighters. No US troops.
2. The foreign fighters we don't like will be too busy fighting over there to deal with us.
Gotta love the irony in that though.

Gotta love the irony in that though.

Yes. It is quite funny.

I'm sure even John Kerry would agree with it, as it would allow us to:

a) declare victory (after all, the Iraqis would be "fighting for their own freedom", and
b) bring the troops home

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Wouldn't using Terror on Terrorists be hypocritical, and stooping to their level?

Wouldn't using Terror on Terrorists be hypocritical, and stooping to their level?

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't.

As long as your people aren't the terrorists...

but then again, you'ld be financing terror...

but then again, it's only terror if it happens to you...

Yes. It is quite funny.

I'm sure even John Kerry would agree with it, as it would allow us to:

a) declare victory (after all, the Iraqis would be "fighting for their own freedom", and
b) bring the troops home

Sounds like a good plan to me.

No I mean using amoral justifications for a war that was nominally for moral reasons.

Wouldn't using Terror on Terrorists be hypocritical, and stooping to their level?


They're not terrorists they're...er...Freedom fighters

No I mean using amoral justifications for a war that was nominally for moral reasons.

As I recall, Bush says he fights for moral reasons. And Kerry claims that he's a moral man with moral stature.

but I bet both would approve.

Yeah the whole fighting terror with terror thing sounds bloody brilliant. We will give some religious lunatics arms and financing to hunt down and kill some nationalist militant groups. It sounds pretty much exactly like what we did with Afghanistan in the 80s giving weapons to Al-Quaida to fight the USSR. I can't imagine we could suffer a horrible blowback like last time. After all lightning doesn't strike twice.

I have a much better plan to win the war in Iraq. We pick which ever group of men with guns and bombs would best serve america's interests if that group were to come to power. Then surrender to that group saying that they were too tough for us and we just couldn't take it anymore. That group would gain infinite street cred and respect with the Arab world and we could then withdraw and keep financing and arming that group so they stay in power and stay on the right course. How could it fail?

Funny Bin Ladin was a supply officer in the afgan resistance, and the area he operated in was one were the British had majority influence.

Read about the SEALs in vietnam, and you'll see what a well run and funded counter insurgency operation can do, or the SAS in Burma.

I'm all for it.

I'm not saying the Brits are any better. But two wrongs don't make a right.

I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. No offense.

I say we take off, and nuke the site from orbit. No offense.

I could scold you for being insensitive but I'd rather ask you:

If we were to nuke the middle east do you think your car would run propperly with radioactive gasoline?

Airbursts. Airbursts. Minimal fallout. Lots of scorching heat and blast, very little residual radiation.

Here, have a marshmallow on a stick...

I thought we'd all gotten over the idea of nuking a country barren twenty years ago...but it seems the sentiment still exists....

The whole idea of fighting terror with terror seems completely nonsensical to me. I believe that everyone has a right to resist oppression, but not if they do so by oppressing others. It just doesn't make sense, whether it is a government doing it, or a particular group. You can be a freedom fighter without resorting to terrorist tactics (just look at the Zapatistas for a successful example of this), and governments can deal with insurgency without resorting to paying thugs to 'eliminate' them. Using terror breads terror...you can only terrorize a population so much before they in turn use terror as a means of dealing with their situation.

I have no qualms about believing that the U.S government (who is not alone in the world in using these kinds of tactics) would pay groups to eliminate 'problems' for them. They've done it many times over, and it is fairly widely (though never officially) acknowledged that there are mercenaries in Afghanistan being paid to keep tabs on warlords, and eliminate any perceived 'threats'. How can you fight a war on terror by funding terrorists?

Well, if you would rather that we send troops over there and do it in person...

There was a discussion yesterday (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388213)about the Newsweek report that the US Government was considering an "El Savador" option to fight the insurgents in IRaq with covertly funded groups of their own, perhaps including Special Forces etc. .


Hi, we saw that today in our newspapers. Jezus they really are a stateterrorist nation now. Using deathsquads and kill innocents civilians like they did in S. America? Wow, every decent nation should ask their president/ $$führer "what about respect for human rights under your regime"? Just like they did towards other nations during the cold war. Brave western politicians, so not vazal states like the Poles should do now. They should if they have still some respect for human rights.

BTW if they plan this, it'll blow back like a boomerang in their face, just like All Quaida and other terrorist networks they sponsored/ created before.

There is a fundemental difference in the two groups. One group (the insurgents) are targeting civilians, almost at random. The other group would be targeting insurgets specifically, with the assumption taht civilians are to be left alone. I don't have any problem with it. About the only thing that I can think of that would be better is if the CIA restarted its assasin teams and sent them over there.

Let me see if I have this right:

If we fight terrorists with our own soldiers, we're accused of every possible violation of human rights because
a) we should arrest and try the terrorists we find, even those that shoot at us, because they have the right to a trial, and our soldiers do not have the right to kill them
b) we should be able to do this with zero soldier casualties, because we shouldn't get into a war where our soldiers suffer any loss
c) we should never kill any civilians, no matter how accidental. So if one terrorist is firing at us from the center of a crowd of non-combatants, then we can't fire at him no matter what
d) we can't even question terrorists we do catch alive, because any question we phrase in any way under any condition can be considered interrogation under torture

We can't pay other people to kill terrorists for us - who knows who they might kill - and that would be a bad thing

So, what you're really saying is that if we want to fight a war on terror, you want to place conditions on it such that the fighting is impossible without violating your restrictions. And, what you would really like is that we not fight terror altogether. Why should the US be angry with anyone? Further, even if attacked, the US should never retaliate - not without the permission of the UN.

Makes you wonder if other nations believe that the US is a sovreign nation.

There is a fundemental difference in the two groups. One group (the insurgents) are targeting civilians, almost at random. The other group would be targeting insurgets specifically, with the assumption taht civilians are to be left alone. I don't have any problem with it. About the only thing that I can think of that would be better is if the CIA restarted its assasin teams and sent them over there.

If it actually worked that way...well, even then I wouldn't support it, but it would be preferable...

The insurgents are targeting U.S and coalition soldiers who are occupying their country. They are targeting people that are perceived to be in collusion with the U.S (presidential candidates and so on). Eventually, that spreads to include civilians who are not hostile enough towards the troops occupying the region. It gets slippery and terrible quickly. The motive is to get foreign forces the hell out. The methods are horrendous.

The 'other group' of paid assassins targets 'insurgents', who are difficult to identify, and really, could be anyone. Eventually, they also start to target civilians who seem sympathetic towards the insurgents (a catch 22, seen in every nation where this is happened, as civilians who support, oppose, or take no sides get killed). Their motive is to get paid, and killing people gets them that paycheck. The dead can't prove their innocence, but it sure looks like the mercenaries are getting results.

Both situations are horrible.


Let me see if I have this right:

If we fight terrorists with our own soldiers, we're accused of every possible violation of human rights because
a) we should arrest and try the terrorists we find, even those that shoot at us, because they have the right to a trial, and our soldiers do not have the right to kill them

You infringed on the sovereignty of another nation, against the wishes of an international community to which you belong, and invaded Iraq. If the U.S was invaded, it would be assumed that citizens would fight against the invaders. Such is also the case in Iraq. If you entered my nation with your armies, against our wishes, even I would be tempted to shoot at you. Admit that you are at war with Iraq, not 'liberating it'. Not only extremists resist your presence there. In a war, both sides shoot at each other...why does this surprise you?

b) we should be able to do this with zero soldier casualties, because we shouldn't get into a war where our soldiers suffer any loss

Had you declared this a war, and were you admitting it officially now, no one would be surprised by the casualties. Unfortunately, many buy the official line and think you are there for altruistic reasons (or at least to bring stability). As this is not the case, the casualty numbers are disconcerting at best.

c) we should never kill any civilians, no matter how accidental. So if one terrorist is firing at us from the center of a crowd of non-combatants, then we can't fire at him no matter what

No, you should try HARDER not to kill civilians...you have so much money spent on your war machines, and yet you still manage to kill women and children in one building, instead of the 'terrorists' next door. What are your fancy 'smart bombs' for, if not to minimise casualties? It is terrible that civilians are used as human shields, but it is also terrible that your troops are even there in the first place, considering it was your government who put in the despot you were supposedly there to topple.


d) we can't even question terrorists we do catch alive, because any question we phrase in any way under any condition can be considered interrogation under torture

Absolutely. You should treat enemy troops (for that is what they are, though you call them terrorists) the way that you would hope American soldiers held by the enemy would be treated. You can not violate the rights of others, and then get angry when they do it to you (and visa versa). You need to be the bigger person here...if you truly believe in your ideals of democracy, equality and human rights. Suspending someone's human rights in order to torture them only suggests that your morals, your beliefs, are conditional. Why should we trust you to do the right thing in Iraq if such important values are conditional? Do not pretend that you have your hands tied because even if you ask nicely, people call it torture. Torture is

Article 5
...cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Yes, that include batons shoved in a prisoner's anus, or being urinated on, or being forced to strip and spread your buttocks while soldiers laugh at you. This isn't questioning, it's punishment.


We can't pay other people to kill terrorists for us - who knows who they might kill - and that would be a bad thing
Would you pay the mafia to wipe out street gangs in your own country? Would you free murderers from jail so they could hunt down car thieves? Your country doesn't want to dirty it's hands by 'going too far'. It will be able to blame rogue mercenaries for atrocities that it paid them to commit (though that money will never be traced back to the government, unless you have another Ollie North).

So, what you're really saying is that if we want to fight a war on terror, you want to place conditions on it such that the fighting is impossible without violating your restrictions. And, what you would really like is that we not fight terror altogether. Why should the US be angry with anyone? Further, even if attacked, the US should never retaliate - not without the permission of the UN.

Makes you wonder if other nations believe that the US is a sovereign nation.

Make me wonder if the U.S believes in the sovereignty of any other nation than itself.

If you wish to be part of an international community, which you do, because you desire trade and cooperation with other nations, then you need to be bound by some basic rules. That means you can not unilaterally decide to violate the sovereignty of a nation, or declare war without consequences. China invaded Tibet in order to 'liberate' Tibetans from a corrupt theocracy, yet the world censures them. So we censure you. The U.S is acting as a rogue nation does, ignoring international agreements (like the Geneva convention) that it supports, at convenience, in terms of its own troops, but not in terms of foreign troops. You are not the police of the world...you are one nation, within a community of nations. If you want to be the neighbourhood bully, then you have that right. Do not expect other nations to support you or tell you that you are right, and don't be surprised when your lack of support for international regulations causes the UN to lose all authority, thrusting you into the role of globocop. Don't whine when it costs you too much in lives, and money, because it is apparently the position you desire. And don't be surprised when a bigger bully comes around the corner to knock you off your hill.

If what you said were true, then the US would be held accountable and there would be massive economic sanctions.

It's awfully quiet now, isn't it?

I guess the rest of the world is going along with it, while muttering under their collective breath.

If what you said were true, then the US would be held accountable and there would be massive economic sanctions.

It's awfully quiet now, isn't it?

I guess the rest of the world is going along with it, while muttering under their collective breath.
Don't be ridiculous.
No country can afford to economically sanction the U.S...too many ties exist between various nations and the U.S. To do so would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

We can however oppose you in the last vestiges of an international governing body, the U.N...and we have done so, repeatedly. Unfortunately, this has no teeth, and you continue to do as you please. Neither can nations oppose you militarily, something you count on now, being the only major military power.

This does not translate into support...it translates into futile loathing...a futility that is being acted out in the only way anyone can hurt you...terrorism. Everyone knows that when conventional warfare is impossible (for who would face you, army to army?) then guerrilla warfare is the only method that improves the odds of victory and survival. I don't support it, and I do not support terrorism, but I understand why many people choose this method. You are Goliath, but enough Davids, hiding in the shadows and sniping away at you, can make you fall. It is distressing, because your citizens do not deserve to die in terrorism, any more than Iraqis deserve to be tortured or murdered by your troops.

John Browning you're one of the reasons why the world hates the US.

I beg to differ about the potential result of terror. We are currently entering a new era - an era of unmitigated and unending and unyielding tyranny - the likes of which have never been seen before in history.

These are only the first stirrings.

I beg to differ about the potential result of terror. We are currently entering a new era - an era of unmitigated and unending and unyielding tyranny - the likes of which have never been seen before in history.

These are only the first stirrings.
I'm uncertain as to your subject...do you mean the unmitigated and unending and unyielding tyranny of the U.S? In this we agree...though at some point, as China and North Korea gain more economic power, (and remain too strong to invade), you will be forced to share your despotic stage.

By the way, I suspect you are referring to the 'terrorists' which you are supposedly fighting. I simply share in history's mirth as I watch you make the same mistakes you did in Vietnam...by fighting a guerilla war with conventional troops.

I'm uncertain as to your subject...do you mean the unmitigated and unending and unyielding tyranny of the U.S? In this we agree...though at some point, as China and North Korea gain more economic power, (and remain too strong to invade), you will be forced to share your despotic stage.

By the way, I suspect you are referring to the 'terrorists' which you are supposedly fighting. I simply share in history's mirth as I watch you make the same mistakes you did in Vietnam...by fighting a guerilla war with conventional troops.

No, organized governments, who will eventually fall completely under the control of multinational corporations regardless of the nation. The technological means to impose this tyranny is nearly at hand, and once imposed, there will be no escaping it - or even effectively resisting it.

No, organized governments, who will eventually fall completely under the control of multinational corporations regardless of the nation. The technological means to impose this tyranny is nearly at hand, and once imposed, there will be no escaping it - or even effectively resisting it.

Ah! Yes, I agree with you, that multinationals are gaining rights, as individuals and nations lose theirs. I do not, however, believe this is inevitable, as there is substantial, and sustained resistance to the encroachment of corporate interest into the lives of citizens. Take, for instance, the elected socialist governments of Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela and Argentina...all of whom are successfully altering free trade agreements in order to guarantee the food security and social security necessary to remain self-sufficient...inroads that presuppose a corporate control in terms of sovereignty. As well, certain communities are becoming autonomous within their nations, and successfully challenging agreements made without their input or approval that directly affect their livelihoods (things like patenting indigenous people's genes, or indigenous plants). Some of those autonomous communities include, but are not limited to: Chiapas, Mexico; Los Golondrinas, Colombia; various communities in Argentina including Las Gaviotas; Gwichiin and Inuvialuit lands in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Yes, this encroachment signals a tyranny, but ALL tyranny can be resisted and overthrown...it is a struggle that will never cease, just as the desire to first impose that tyranny will never cease to motivate some.

However, that is another subject.

I am interested in what you perceive the role of the U.S to be in Iraq...not what they are actually doing, but what you THINK they should be doing (or not doing, as it may be). Your opinion.

I think it's more insidious. Corporate destruction of local businesses (the WalMart effect) - corporate destruction of local culture (McDonalds, American movies and music). And technology that makes it easy to eliminate privacy - credit files, personal histories, etc., will be part of purchasing even the smallest thing.

And with government cameras on every corner, and computers becoming more and more efficient and more internetworked, it won't be possible to hide.

It won't even be possible to drop out of society.

John Browning you're one of the reasons why the world hates the US.
No, the ideas he is speaking of is one of the reason many people in the world hate the U.S. John Browning himself (or herself, since I have no idea what this user's gender is) is certainly not the subject of any particular hatred on an international level. Nor do I think the majority of people who detest U.S policies stoop to also hating all its citizens, en masse. The tiny fraction that are too small minded to tell the difference between the government, and the people, are the ones who carry out attacks on civilians, rather than governments.

Wait. We're starting the terror now? Does this mean that there's a possibility that there might maybe begin to be some civilian casualties in the future?

When, exactly, did this memo go around? Was it lost under somebody's filing cabinet for the past couple-a-three years or what?

I think it's more insidious. Corporate destruction of local businesses (the WalMart effect) - corporate destruction of local culture (McDonalds, American movies and music). And technology that makes it easy to eliminate privacy - credit files, personal histories, etc., will be part of purchasing even the smallest thing.

And with government cameras on every corner, and computers becoming more and more efficient and more internetworked, it won't be possible to hide.

It won't even be possible to drop out of society.

I'm not trying to downplay the far-reaching nature of the threat you are describing. It IS a threat, and it IS increasing. However, I do not accept it as inevitable that we descend into a sort of 1984 style corporatocracy. For all the horror stories, there are success stories, though difficult to find in today's overly censored media (that it is censored by market pressures rather than governments makes no difference). Take, for example, the new Argentine pastime of seizing bankrupt businesses, whose owners have fled with all their profits, and turning those factories back into productive producers, owned, operated, and accountable to the workers? Resistance is possible, it is needed, and can be carried out without violence. Despair and inertia are your worst enemies.

However, that is another subject.

I am interested in what you perceive the role of the U.S to be in Iraq...not what they are actually doing, but what you THINK they should be doing (or not doing, as it may be). Your opinion.

Well, if I had been President, I probably would have wanted better intelligence information. I happen to personally believe that the CIA couldn't find its ass with both hands. So, if they came and told me what Tenet told Bush, that there were WMD in Iraq, I would say, "show me". And if they couldn't prove it, then they can't prove it.

So I probably would not have ended up in Iraq. I need a better reason, or more evidence.

As for UN inspectors, etc., I think the UN is a corrupt organization run by the swill of the earth's sluice gates. I would have stopped all US funding of the UN the moment I was sworn in.

I would not have invaded Afghanistan permanently, nor tried to put a government in place. I would have conducted raids in certain areas, and probably used tactical nuclear weapons to contaminate small areas of that country to kill al-Qaeda personnel. I would then have sent people in after the radiation subsided and tried to assess whether or not we got Bin Laden.

I would order the US Ambassador to the UN to veto every motion passed by the Security Council, without further comment.

But, seeing as none of this is the case...

We're in Iraq. You either have to take the place and straighten it out (which means killing a lot of people, innocent or otherwise), or you have to leave (which means leaving a lot of people to their deaths, innocent or otherwise).

We can't ask for more UN involvement, because it's a useless organization. We can't ask for more EU involvement, because they don't want to be involved for all the reasons anyone can think of.
So...

I would stay. Which means I might be a little more draconian than the current administration. Not that I would hire it out (no creating terror groups, no hiring mercs). If I needed those mercs, I would have them put in the regular service by executive order (I don't think anyone would argue with me). I would also go there to see for myself what's going on. You can't trust a bureaucrat or an underling.

I would fragment the country. Kurdish north. Sunni central. Shiite south.

I would show the immediate benefit you get from cooperating with Americans and forming your own government quickly and efficiently. It makes the Americans leave. We would probably leave the north very early on - which would give the remaining two great incentive to cooperate.

I bet we would be out of the north and south within six months, and the center by the 12 month mark.

Wait. We're starting the terror now? Does this mean that there's a possibility that there might maybe begin to be some civilian casualties in the future?

When, exactly, did this memo go around? Was it lost under somebody's filing cabinet for the past couple-a-three years or what?

I'm assuming you are American, though I apologise if that is not the case.

I never said you started the terror. Terror has always existed, and been used by governments throughout history. However, what is new and unique to world history is the special position your country holds on the international stage. Not only are you the sole military power (that has yet chosen to flex its muscles), but you are also an economic powerhouse who has no need for direct physical colonisation, but rather operates from a financial position of dependence that saves you the problem of holding territories you don't need in order to extract the resources you desire.

This alone would create envy, and likely would spark ill-feelings and negative actions toward you. That, you could brush off as sour grapes.

However, in the process of making economies ripe for the plucking, your nation has also interfered again and again with the sovereignty of nations. You have installed, supported, smoothed the way for countless dictators, because dictatorships are economically stable, and once in power, beholden to you. The suffering of their citizens can be attributed not only to the actions of those dictators, but also to your government. The anger arising from these injustices are more than sour grapes...they stem from a desire to be the masters of their own fate...the desire to mould their futures without your interference, much as you were able to once you escaped the clutches of the British. You claim you wish this for the world, you champion ideals that are certainly lovely in their scope and humanity, but then you systematically undermine those very ideals in your pursuit for economic supremacy. Your country could not be the world leader it is now if you did not constantly shape the world to your liking. Your standard of living is unsustainable, and deep down you know that if the rest of the world achieved it, the world's resources would be depleted at an astronomical rate, leaving you with nothing, all too soon.

The terrorism you have spread is in the reaction...the natural reaction to tyranny, both economic and military, of a nation much too strong to attack head on. People will use what tools they have, whether they be stones, rockets, or airplanes in their attempt to alleviate the terrible inequalities that have been forced upon them so that one nation (though you are not alone in this) can eat its full.

You didn't train (all, for you HAVE trained many) of those terrorists, but you have given their cause legitimacy in millions of people's hearts. For that, I am deeply saddened.

Wait. We're starting the terror now? Does this mean that there's a possibility that there might maybe begin to be some civilian casualties in the future?

When, exactly, did this memo go around? Was it lost under somebody's filing cabinet for the past couple-a-three years or what?

If it's some CIA guys idea, someone better sit on it. They thought there were WMD in Iraq, and look where that got us.

Sin, it was a joke. War = Terror. When you bomb or occupy someone's country, you're inciting terror, whether you call it terrorism or not. I think it's a little dumb to say that terror starts . . . (wait for it) . . . now.

John, I agree with you on a number of points.

The United Nations is a corrupt organisation, formed out of the League of Nations, which was an idea proposed by Lester B. Pearson, the then Prime Minister of Canada. It was a sort of glee club for the victorious nations, and has continued to champion the 'haves' in favour of the 'have nots'. The power of veto, given to a select few, guarantees that it can never be a truly global organisation. The U.S invasion of Iraq was the last straw, and not only has the U.N now lost it's teeth, it has also lost whatever shreds of credibility remaining to it after disasters like the genocide in Rwanda.

I would like to see a truly democratic, accountable international organisation with the power to enforce resolutions. The power could not be held solely by the industrialised nations, nor could it be 'dropped out of' at will. It should not be housed solely in one nation, but rather in many, on a rotating basis. Ahhh...dreams....

I also agree with you in terms of Iraq. You are there, and there's no changing that. Pulling out now might not be worse than staying, but it certainly isn't a good option...just look at Afghanistan.

I like your ideas about splintering the country, though it smacks of the divvying up of Africa....nonetheless, creating the right environment for self-rule is key. I can not, however, imagine how one could go about successfully doing that. I think it would take a certain amount of humbleness in asking for international aid...by admitting it wasn't the greatest idea, and that you need help in setting it right. Again...dreams....

Sin, it was a joke. War = Terror. When you bomb or occupy someone's country, you're inciting terror, whether you call it terrorism or not. I think it's a little dumb to say that terror starts . . . (wait for it) . . . now.

I re-read your post after, and detected the humour...but I wasn't counting on it since so many people here say the craziest things and really mean it:) I do think the opinion you were making fun of does exist in force, and is held by a great many people, despite the inherent contradictions...a rose is a terrorist is a freedom fighter by any other name....

John, I agree with you on a number of points.

The United Nations is a corrupt organisation, formed out of the League of Nations, which was an idea proposed by Lester B. Pearson, the then Prime Minister of Canada. It was a sort of glee club for the victorious nations, and has continued to champion the 'haves' in favour of the 'have nots'. The power of veto, given to a select few, guarantees that it can never be a truly global organisation. The U.S invasion of Iraq was the last straw, and not only has the U.N now lost it's teeth, it has also lost whatever shreds of credibility remaining to it after disasters like the genocide in Rwanda.


Actually, the UN was an idea formed as an improvement to the League of Nations and championed by the leaders of Britain, China, the US and the USSR who, under intense pressure from the press and public, discussed the details of a post-war organization when the failure of the League of Nations to prevent WWII was under debate.

You might have figured out that Prime Minister Pearson was unlikely to be the driving force as you describe simply by noting that he was not elected to be the Prime Minister of Canada until 1963.

Anyway, in 1944 representatives of those four countries met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC and prepared a blueprint for a new international organization. Towards the end of the war representatives of 50 countries gathered in San Francisco between April and June 1945 to hammer out the final text of the UN Charter. Ambassador Pearson WAS involved in this effort as a representative of Canada, but our contribution to the text was minimal as the primary authors were the US and Britain.

IF Pearson is to be credited in any way with proposing the idea for a major international body, it is NATO. He drafted the speech for Prime Minister St Laurent in which this organization was first described.

He was elected to office in '46, appointed as Secretary of State for External Affairs in '48, served as President of the UN General Assembly from '52 to '53, and won the Nobel PEace Prize in '57 for his work in establishing the first international peacekeeping effort in the Suez before becoming leader of the Liberal Party in '48 and then Prime Minister from '63 to '68.

A great Prime Minister who managed to solve problems in the middle east. Not cause them.

Anyway - feel free to blame Canada if it makes you feel better. Just bear in mind that the UN is actually YOUR creation, not ours.

It does smell rather fishy put this way. I seriously hope it is just some individual billionaire trying to sort out the mess rather than a government action, but it probably is not. One would think that the USA would have learnt its lesson about funding countrer-terrorist groups after bin-laden in Afghanistan.
shit, USA learn its lesson about funding terrorist organizations? NEVER