Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Bush Looks To U.n. To Share Burden On Troops In Ir


Recommended Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/internat.../03PREX.html?hp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3202991.stm

This about sums it up...

"When you connect the dots, this report shows we cannot possibly sustain the mission in Iraq at current U.S. active-duty troop strength, even if we do get modestly more allied help," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst at the Brookings Institution.

so the painfull obvious truth, is that there are several nations that can destroy, conquer, and occupy alone, but none that can rebuild.

that is why afganistan and Iraq were both left in ruins the first time. nobody can stay there long term alone right?

but that absolutly insane part is that many pro war americans may have actually thought the US was going to do it. like when you would hear "well we are going to rebuild it, so our companies should get the buisiness". well looks like even the US wont be able to stabolize it.

anybody hear anything about WMD lately? werent they ready to launch at a moments notice?

this all proves that while it may have been worthwhile to take out saddam, the rush to war was nothing more then a power grab covered by lies. as we can plainly see, iraq was not a threat to anybody as long as inspectors were on the ground and if the US had waited untill right now, they could have invaded with true UN support in september or october. which i think would have been true leadership, instead of cowboy diplomacy then pretending you dont need help by suggesting an international role without admitting you would be screwed without it.

SirRiff

Link to post
Share on other sites

SirRiff, the Dumbo-crats and their Media are desperate to create an issue against President Bush. They have pulled out all the stops to liken this to Vietnam in the hope that they can turn the Country against him. Iraq has to be seen as a failure or the seven dwarfs now running are all done.

Watch for President Bush's speech to the UN late this month, a great many questions about WMD will be settled at that time.

The issue of more troops is again something manufactured by the Dumbo-cruds and the media, as is their generation of an expectation that Iraq could be reconstructed instantly. These people would rant and rave about God taking six days to make the Heavens and Earth - they are of the opinion that it should have been done in three!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, the WMD are really irrelevant. It was never a key clause for beginning the war. The key clause is that Saddam was in violation of 14 UN resolutions, consistently refused to comply with weapons inspectors and would provide no assurances (counter to his promises) that he was not a continued threat to the rest of the world.

That's why the coalition went to war. Sure, maybe other nations are worse, but you can't have a one-size-fits-all solution. Bush and Blair knew that the quickest and most efficient way to deal with Saddam would be to stomp on him, and they did. The same approach won't work with North Korea or even China.

As regards the reconstruction, I'm sure that Riff believes that occupying forces left Japan and Germany a few months following the surrenders. Oh no, wait, they didn't! Could it be that they were still there a decade later?

Rebuilding a whole nation takes time, Riff. You thought 12 years was too little time for Saddam to prove his innocence, but you believe that 6 months is too long for Bush to rebuild his entire country?

Oh, and the Democrats started Vietnam. The Republicans ended it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Dumbo's can't understand along with their liberal ninny media friends is that pre-emption is the only way to win the war on terror, and yes dear Canadians there is a war going on.

The entire Middle East must be redrawn. Hussein was a vital first step. Removing Hussein removes, training campes, money for terrorists, WMD capability and a threat to Kuwaiti and Saudi oil supplies. It drives a wedge into the terrorist movement.

Next will be Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria and perhaps Egypt.

The war has just started. It is not the same as the Cold War or a more conventional war. The West cannot lose. Terrorists will terrorise, bomb, maim or dislocate but they can't conquer.

We can and will. The process of dragging the Islamic world into reality has begun.

It is a process that the EU, UNO and Canada have ignored. As for Bush's plea for more UNO involvement it serves 2 purposes: 1. Shuts up the pleading Liberal media and 2. Defrays some expenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless, the WMD are really irrelevant. It was never a key clause for beginning the war.

were you listening to teh same speeches as me? obviously, WMD were the absolute central argument made for war. there is no disputting that.

As regards the reconstruction, I'm sure that Riff believes that occupying forces left Japan and Germany a few months following the surrenders. Oh no, wait, they didn't! Could it be that they were still there a decade later?

um, as far as i have heard, there was no gurilla war in germany and japan. in fact, i heard a miltiary guy say the allies didnt loose a single soldier to gurilla war in germany. so comparing germany to iraq is nonsene. different cultures, different skin color, different geography, and not to mention Americas pathetic track record in afganistan and iraq. they already scewed each nation over once, and they are already getting the itch to run out of iraq. if they were in such a rush to find all these WMDs, you would think they would be willing to stay for a while and clean up the mess.

Rebuilding a whole nation takes time, Riff. You thought 12 years was too little time for Saddam to prove his innocence, but you believe that 6 months is too long for Bush to rebuild his entire country?

you actually think americans are willing to put in the time? nope, sorry, nasdaq and unemployment will trump iraq any day.

Oh, and the Democrats started Vietnam. The Republicans ended it.

who cares who started or ended it? thats just a aspect of timing. it was the waste of human life from everyone involved. simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post Sir Riff. Obviously since the U.S. hasn't found the WMDs they charged into Iraq for, it's wanting out. What better solution for relief and more support than the UN? I say the UN should leave America to its own troubles in Iraq and make it clean up the mess it made. Wait, that would make the U.S. look like a fool another time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
were you listening to teh same speeches as me? obviously, WMD were the absolute central argument made for war. there is no disputting that.

The WMD became central because they were the usual subject of the 14 UN resolutions. Gulf II was a failure of the UN, either way you cut it.

Either one, you believe the war was unjust, in which case may you curse the UN for having stipulated war against Iraqi 14 times.

Or two, you believe the war was just, in which case may you curse the UN for failing to take any action and leaving it up to an independent coalition.

in fact, i heard a miltiary guy say the allies didnt loose a single soldier to gurilla war in germany.

Yeah, right, like the Germans had any fight left in them anyway, after Hitler and Goebbels had committed suicide, Goering and Himmler had disappeared, and Doenitz, final commander of the Reich, had surrendered unconditionally after most of Germany had been occupied for months. Speer's last draft order in 1945 ordered 13-year-olds and 60-year-olds into battle, so who exactly were you thinking could resist, and with what, bearing in mind that in 1945 most German regulars didn't have rifles, ammunition or even boots? And Japan didn't resist because the Emperor told them not to. Read some history.

who cares who started or ended it?

You seem to care who starts wars when it's Republicans.

you actually think americans are willing to put in the time? nope, sorry, nasdaq and unemployment will trump iraq any day.

Once again, total ignorance of history. Do you know how many billions of American dollars under the Marshall Plan were poured into Europe and Japan after WWII? Do you know that the success of postwar West Germany and Japan rested almost entirely on US support and money? No, of course not, because you don't know what you're talking about... again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, total ignorance of history. Do you know how many billions of American dollars under the Marshall Plan were poured into Europe and Japan after WWII? Do you know that the success of postwar West Germany and Japan rested almost entirely on US support and money? No, of course not, because you don't know what you're talking about... again.

Hugo, you forget that the Marshall plan and the "billions of American dollars poured into Europe and Japan" was under Harry Truman, a liberal. Surely you're not using liberal actions to support your statements are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't SirRiff would have been complaining if there was actually a decent liberal in the presidential office of the U.S. My point was, it isn't in the nature of conservatives to do such a thing, it's the liberals. Big difference. Conservatives can't take credit for liberal actions and say it's all for America.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't subscribe to the liberal media's fascination that the peace in Iraq was not planned. Any cursory reading of history will inform you that winning a war is extremely difficult and planning a peace in detail before a war is won almost impossible - the variables and pressures will change given the circumstances created by the war. Only a set of frameworks, basic plans and concepts can be planned out.

Having said that the US should have had more civilian police and control of key buildings and infrastructure assets. But being wise after the event is easy.

Bush went to the UN to share costs. The Iraqi occupation will cost - as the Administration stated before the War - $100 billion per year, minimum.

Since other countries will benefit from the Iraqi occupation they should share the costs. This is natural. I don't understand the left-liberal position that the US should bear all the costs.

But then again didn't the liberals say; 'war is about oil' [price has gone up hasn't it], 'infrastructure will be destroyed' [JDAMs anyone ?], 'it is another Vietnam' [it isn't and that was a Liberal war lost by Democrats], 'democracy won't work there' [see post WW2 Japan and Germany] and 'millions of babies will die' [good prediction, considering Hussein was murdering 20-50.000 people per year].

What a bunch of losers.

Canada and other nations will benefit from this important step in remaking the Middle East.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush went to the UN to share costs. The Iraqi occupation will cost - as the Administration stated before the War - $100 billion per year, minimum.

Since other countries will benefit from the Iraqi occupation they should share the costs. This is natural. I don't understand the left-liberal position that the US should bear all the costs.

I think it has something to do with the notion of "personal responsibility" that so-called conservatives liek to crow about. In this case, the U.S. should lead the way and clean up their own stinking mess.

Actually, the better solution would be to remove control of the CPA from the U.S., turn it over to a duly delegated UN representatives and withdraw the bulk of U.S. troops (who are overdue for a rotation back to the world anyway), send in a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, the restoration of services and, hopefully, acheive some measure of stability. Then the west should get the hell out of Iraq and the business of imperialism altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Black Dog, If I had any belief that there was even a fifty percent possibility that it would be effective, I would be all in favor of your suggestion:

Actually, the better solution would be to remove control of the CPA from the U.S., turn it over to a duly delegated UN representatives and withdraw the bulk of U.S. troops (who are overdue for a rotation back to the world anyway), send in a multinational peacekeeping force to oversee the rebuilding of the Iraqi infrastructure, the restoration of services and, hopefully, acheive some measure of stability."

Reality intrudes to prevent my acceptance of your solution. Would you please indicate where this UN sort of action has been successful anywhere in the world? If your immediate thought is to name the Balkans, please take a look at their actual performance there to date. If you exclude the building of palatial compounds for UN Staff, there is little which can be mentioned as a success. Let's look and compare apples to apples: take a look at the UN record on restoration of electric power and basic clean water services. You do the search, you look at the figures and "success" (?) rate; do you wish to recommend this as an acceptable solution to the problems of Iraq? How about another UN Solution like Cambodia?

How on earth can you expect an organization mainly composed of Dictatorships and special interest organizations to instill democracy in Iraq?

To be blunt, the entire Middle East is a sewer - it's been blocked for quite a while and for lack of anyone else able and willing to do the job, and mainly because the accumulated sh1t from that area is flowing towards America, we have been forced to clean the swamp.

Because the politics of Old Europe and the UN are preventing some of those who wish to assist us in this dirty task from acting, President Bush has , yet again, gone to the UN to , yet again, provide an opportunity for that pathetic organization to redeem itself and justify its continuance. It should be remembered that we Americans are not a greatly patient people when faced with constant opposition and the UN, as it currently exists, is damned close to receiving an eviction notice.

The UN has a last-chance opportunity to redeem itself an name our actions in Iraq as a UN Certified mission under US/UK control. This will provide the political cover and justification for those who wish to assist but can not due to domestic political needs for a UN Stamp of Approval.

There are others who have claimed that the lack of a "UN Stamp" is their reason for inaction: "Oh, we would like to help but..."; they will fiercely resist this UN action because its passage will reveal their true colors!

Democratization of Iraq is a worthy goal - that America is leading the way should not be an excuse to oppose that result for the people of Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Security through pre-emption is valid. Waiting to get terrorised is pathetically supine. The Middle East as Ned says is a sewer and to clean sewers you need to get dirty. Canada and the EU and the UNO, do not have the tools or the courage to get dirty. They would prefer to wait for da proof of da proof dat is proven, in the incoherent jibberish of the Cdn PM, so that a smoking nuclear blast somewhere confirms our suspicions that the Militant Islamists really did not like us. Then the UNO will dither over a resolution resolved to put forward another resolution to look at resolving the crisis.

Good Grief.

Action is paramount. Leaving innocents to be murdered is unthinkable.

The Middle needs to be cleansed - as Churchill said of Nazism, 'we will not rest until Hitlerism is sponged clean from Europe'.

Indeed. The same applies to Militant Islam in the Middle East.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree with Mr. Read's penultimate post that the issues of rebuilding are far more complex than 'an executive order'. There have been several comments throughout this thread that have been based on ignorance, and I shall try to clear them up.

Dear Hugo, Albert Speer was a great man in the most horrific of circumstances, and I urge you to read his memoirs. "Inside The Third Reich, The Memoirs Of Albert Speer" was indeed a condemnation of a regime by a man caught in the middle, for he started as a simple architect, yet he was the ONLY ONE who did not try to deflect the blame from himself. The Russians counseled the death penalty, but he got 20 years. He felt he and all the others deserved it, and he wished only to deflect the blame from the German people, not from the Nazis.

Dear FastNed,

America supports brutal dictators such as Gen. Suharto, 'Papa Doc' Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, etc when it is in their economic interests to do so. When the US does not profit from a dictatorship, they hold it up as an example of 'evil' I must hold the US up as an 'example of evil' for they only serve profit, not 'democracy' or 'freedom' like they claim. They even support SLAVERY, in this day and age, when they can get away with it. (The manager of a factory in the south pacific producing goods for JC Penny was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison for it). To suggest that the goal of democratizing Iraq, anathema to Islam, is a misguided venture and a waste of effort to say the least. Only by 'lifting the carpet' shall you find the cockroaches, but so many of America's and the USSR's dirty secrets are also under there it will not be done in our lifetimes, unless someone with the intestinal fortitude comes along.

To those that think the US should get support from the rest of the world in paying he bills for a war that the US/UK alone started, I can say only this:

If one is to throw morals to the wind in favour of greed or power, the only thing left to keep that in check, however saddening, is the law. If one throws the law out also, in favour of their own personal goals, only the basest element will be on you side. Amoral lawyers and profitters shall be your bedfellows in hell. (not that I believe in that 'heaven and hell claptrap)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, America is based on Idol worship. From actors and soap opera stars to pro athletes refusing 15+million dollars a year, the US expects every nation to worship the same idols it does. Mammon. Even more odd, the Taliban, bastards though they are, fought against idol-worship. Could it be that mankind shall ever polarize itself, with the middle ground unattainable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even more odd, the Taliban, bastards though they are, fought against idol-worship.

You think Mullah Omar fought against his own personality cult? What about Ayatollah Khomeini? Those countries have just as much idol worship, but Tom Hanks and Michael Jordan are not telling people to take up arms and fight the infidel for heaven awaits those who die in battle for Allah. Quite the opposite, in fact. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oddly enough, America is based on Idol worship. From actors and soap opera stars to pro athletes refusing 15+millionĀ  dollars a year, the US expects every nation to worship the same idols it does.

"One nation under God"

"We the people"

"All men are created equal"

"In God we trust"

"Innocent until proven guilty"

"Justice is blind"

"Give us your tired and weary"

Based on actors and rock stars? No, many small thinking unimportent individuals may attatch disproportional importence to sports stars and their lives but hardly fits your theory of how the nation revolves around them. George Washington didn't cross the Patomac in order to get Boz Skaggs's autograph nor did the Firemen charge up the Towers to sniff Hal Berry's undies. I think you are on the wrong track here Lonius.

As for the US expecting others to worship the same idols they themselves do; no, they don't. They try to make dictators, reigiemes and religious leaders who exert tryanny over the downtrodden starving masses to embrace liberty and democracy but to many it means relinquishing power. Hollywood is an image of America that those who cannot fathom freedom see. Kind of like if you don't get out much you think that all girls look like Shianna Twain and all moms look like Mrs Brady.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the UN want some of the control in Iraq? They didn't do squat in helping take out Saddam....they didn't front any of the risk so therefore shouldn't get any of the spoils. I say if we want the U's help that we leave Iraq with the threat to them that if Saddam or any other wacko takes over and they can't put together a democracy of some kind that we'll come back again and clean house again. When we pull out, the UN will go in and take care of it cause they'll have to. Yeah we'll take heat but who cares?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

You forgot (or purposely neglected) to add Mammon as the idol of worship in America in in your quote of my post.

America does not embrace democracy, freedom or liberty outside their own borders IF it does not 'enable them to worship Mammon'. Brutal dictators and regimes are supported, encouraged and sometimes trained by the USA if it is in the USA's interests to do so.

If those dictatorships squash the locals and trample democracy, and it leads to more US multinationals 'maximizing profits', then they are supported by the US.

If a country wishes to have it's own people be employed and get rich from it's own resources, and it's own labour, it is a hideous communist regime which needs a good squashing, in favour of a US-friendly regime, brutal dictatorship or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
George W Bush only needs to say two words to the UN:

"I'm sorry."

normally i would agree about humiliating stupid world leaders, but considering how dangerous Iraq is to the stability to the world, we just need anything to make sure it doesnt go to hell.

its costing america 1 Billion a week, adn even the rich US cant keep that up for years. thus the UN NEEDS to get other nations in there or iraq will go to hell, iran/syria could go to hell, then we will all suffer for it.

it would be nice to teach the US some international humility, but it would be at the cost of innocent human lives both american and iraqi, so it would be unethical.

SirRiff

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does the UN want some of the control in Iraq? They didn't do squat in helping take out Saddam....they didn't front any of the risk so therefore shouldn't get any of the spoils. I say if we want the U's help that we leave Iraq with the threat to them that if Saddam or any other wacko takes over and they can't put together a democracy of some kind that we'll come back again and clean house again. When we pull out, the UN will go in and take care of it cause they'll have to. Yeah we'll take heat but who cares?
Spoils(pl): 1. (a) plunder taken in time of war (B) any goods, property, etc. seized by force

Interesting you would put things in terms of looting the country. A Freudian slip or finally some honesty?

Security through pre-emption is valid. Waiting to get terrorised is pathetically supine.

No it's not. it's a violation of the principles of international law set down a half century ago. Based on this principle, Iran, North Korea, etc, would be perfectly entitled to launch nuclear strikes against the U.S, a country that has openly entertained notions of hostile military action against those nations.

I'll have to get back to this another time...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...