UN Should DEMAND the Following From the US

They should demand that the following should be included in any new UN resolution regarding Iraq:

The administration of Iraq will be completely turned over to the UN and headed by an administrator of their (Kofi Annan's) choosing who will most definitely NOT be an American, but preferably some one from a moderate Arab state (maybe Egypt?).

Any and all previous contracts given to US Companies will be null and void. The UN will re-open and oversee the bidding process. Sorry Bechetel, Halliburton etc. You made a bad business decision, that's your problem. You will have to eat the losses.

All financial matters and disubursement of all funds from all countries (including the US) will be handled by the UN and it's civil administration. There will be an audit of all previous funding and disbursement and Iraqi assets, including the handling of the Iraqi's natural resources(oil).

An international force will take over the peacekeeping, policing and training of locals. This force can be headed by an American commander considering the majority of troops will be American. However, this commander will still have to be approved by the UN and can also be removed at the request of and answerable to the UN. I would suggest that any country sending any sizeable force have veto power over who this commander would be. IOW, no Rummy lackey will be allowed to be appointed. We need another Wesley Clark.

UN inspectors will immediately be allowed back into the country to oversee all ongoing weapons inspections and the WMD search and be allowed to investigate and verify any finds.

The US must immediately pay all past dues to the UN.

A detailed plan including a timetable for swift turnover of control of the country to the Iraqi's must be created with the UN overseeing the construction of and having final approval of said plan.

The US must issue a formal public apology to the UN for it's past actions in starting an unprovoked war and dismissing the organization as irrelevant.

Did I miss anything?

Even if they don't insist on all points at least most of them would still be good. Think Kofi is up for some hard dealing? He is in the catbird seat now.

The only negotiating room I would give is in the selection processes for the military and civil administrators in that maybe you could play around with having them vetoed, appointed and or removed by a majority of the security council or something like that.

Maybe the public formal apology could be toyed with a bit too.

Gosh, didn't ya hear that wolfowitless says that the UN is asking in, it's not the US asking the UN for help.

(sarcasm off)

:puke:

Other than that, a good list.

so that it would appear the UN is giving SOMETHING...

The sovereignty of the American system should not be given away to the whims of a foreign entity. I realize it's easy to feel this way given the current fraudministration.

Look at it this way: If Dean, Kerry, Clark or another Dem overthrows the current regime, do we really want a Dem President and his chosen diplomats and military commanders to be subjected to this as well? I say no....we should do our own laundry.

Signing on to the ICC would be the right thing to do. If we truly felt a US citizen was being treated unfairly, then the US could simply refuse to hand them over to the ICC at that time. The US should never be above international law and we have no right as a supposedly civilized nation, to claim we are.

*nod of approval*

The US took part in the negotiations regarding the ICC's formation and the sovereignty issue was dealt with quuite adequately (some might claim too much so). The ICC does not have plenipotentiary jursidiction. What that means is that as long as a nation has a viable justice system to deal with the behavior, the ICC opts out.

So, what you're regurgitating bears no relationship with the facts. I'd (generously) suggest you attempt to ascertain what source you thought 'reliable' enough to believe this and revise your assessment of its reliability.

The Rome Statute states that in a situation where a nation refuses to act on an accusation then the ICC may also claim jurisdiction. Determining whether or not an accusation has been adequately dealt with would be up to the ICC itself to decide.

The ICC is just international folly. The American justice system, while not perfect, is suitable enough to prosecute any wrongdoing Americans may do. Are we going to let foreign bodies enact laws for us as well?

Please then, tell me what US Codes apply to the behavior of Americans outside of the territorial jurisdiction of US courts. What codes, for example, apply to the behavior of US troops in Guantanimo? What courts have jurisdiction? (The ACLU and Judicial Watch may be interested in this information in light of recent federal court decisions.) Then, try to answer this: Who has "standing" to make a complaint in such a venue? Remember, the ICC is limited to jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Who will watch the watchmen? :eyes:

Uniform Code of Military Justice

... you know of none. I see. :eyes:

They also should make Bush eat french fries and french wine for a month.

he hasn't all this time!

such as:

"preferably some one from a moderate Arab state (maybe Egypt?)"
there are no moderate Arabe states...

"Any and all previous contracts given to US Companies will be null and void"
what if they win the contracts again...needless delay of needed work

"this commander will still have to be approved by the UN and can also be removed at the request of and answerable to the UN"
never happen...the US public won't want a force that big of US GIs under UN control

"US must issue a formal public apology to the UN "
never happen...too many in the US would oppose it..

by the current admin. However, this should be the UN's position and if the US doesn't go with something like this, then the UN doesn't get involved. If the UN gets involved with less than this, it's a VERY big mistake on their part.

There's no way the UN is going to get the things you outlined. They just don't have the kind of leverage with the US to force such a thing. So, they take MUCH less than that, and appear as lapdogs, or they stay home and appear irrelevent. Sucks for the UN.

The admin. loses big time if they come away from the UN with nothing and the UN is in the position now of allowing that to happen. The UN can use that as leverage. That's why this should be their position: "You want our help, we do it our way or the highway."

Just going to the UN has angered many of their supporters. Accepting any dictat from the UN would hurt them even worse. If the UN stands aloof and the infrastructure of Iraq is rebuilt anyway and a democratic government established then the US way of doing business is legitimized. What role would the UN have in the world then? I think the stakes are a lot higher for the UN than for the US.

"If the UN stands aloof and the infrastructure of Iraq is rebuilt anyway and a democratic government established then the US way of doing business is legitimized."

Ain't gonna happen, not in a million years. The US has way way WAY more to lose if they don't get the UN on board. The UN has nothing to lose by opting out if they don't get what they want. They'd be in the same position they were in when the US did an end around them in starting the illegal war, and their credibility just went up a notch now that the neo-cons are crawling back to them asking for help. Their pre-war position has now been shown to be absolutely justified and correct.

What ain't gonna happen is that the UN make the list of demands you've come up with and make it stick. I honestly can't see ANY US administration agreeing to this stuff.

and had to have gone crawling back to the UN on it's belly. A competent admin. would have international support to begin with. Never said these demands would stick, or be accepted, just that they SHOULD.

the two sides get together, give and take and find a way quickly to help the Iraqi people. This is no time for either side to be stubborn. Bush has learned his lesson. He can put whatever spin he wants on it, he IS now asking the "irrelevant" people, the people who have "no backbone" for help. That's embarrassing enough. Just think, Rumsfeld needs help from "old Europe!"

At first I thought the UN should let him stew in the mess he created so the situation will get so bad that, hopefully, he will lose the next election, and why should other countries now send troops just to be cannon fodder, after he ignored the UN's warnings, but we should think of saving Iraq and its people.

was, you forgot:

Reinstate Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party, since they apparently must not have been in any violation of UN 1441 in any way, including concealing hidden weapon programs or technologies, documents, etc.

The French and Germans seemed to trust Saddam and company explicitly and reject US intentions reactively. It's all about money and that's what this UN resolution will be about - France, Germany, Russia - who knows, maybe even China, getting a share of what should be Iraqi rebuilding resources and petrodollars.

The UN was right and the US was wrong. If that's not clear to you, you've got something fundamentally wrong with your perception. The only way Iraq has any chance of becoming stable is through the UN at this point, and it still might be too late. The UN will only be seen as legitimate if it is NOT seen as doing the US's dirty work. If it's seen as merely a tool of the US and used as cannon fodder and PR cover, the Iraqi resistance will continue kill all foreigners, and they might do it anyway at this point.

Your fundamentalist, reactionary mindset blinds you to reality.

How do you figure that? Virtually every member of the UN agreed that the evidence indicated Iraq had WMD. Now that it turns out they don't (or didn't), you want to change history and say the UN was right and the US wrong? Thousands of bodies have been found in mass graves and "storage", and the UN was right and the US wrong? C'mon - baseless arguments made on emotion and not fact hurt us all. No reasonable person would ever make an argument that the UN is doing the US' dirtywork.

Like it or not, we're ALL better off without Saddam. Focus on the fact we couldn't build a "real" coalition. Focus on the fact it was us against the world (at least in public opinion). Focus on the fact it's taking longer to pull out than we were lead to believe (even though apparently "they" knew all along it would take longer). Remember the old addage: if you're innocent, argue the facts, if you're guilty, argue the law. Let's argue the facts.

The fact is the UN would have opted for more diplomatic resolution and to let the UN inspectors do their job. The UN preferred containment and agressive inspections. THAT'S the FACTS JACK. As it turns out, that would have been the proper course considering THERE'S NO WMD'S!! THE UN WAS RIGHT IN THEIR PROSCRIBED COURSE OF ACTION AND THE US WAS WRONG. Iraq is now a anarchic chaotic breeding ground for terrorists and insurrection making the world a far more dangerous place than it was when SH was in power. Exactly what opponents predicted and the US said wouldn't happen. Again the US was wrong.

No reasonable person would make the argument that the UN is doing the US's dirty work? WTF does that have to do with anything? The people who have to be convinced that the UN ISN'T doing the US's dirty work are the Iraqi resistance, otherwise, their going to continue killing everyone who doesn't belong in their country...

First, the name's Tony, not Jack. You are correct that containment and agressive inspections would have been the proper course. On the other hand, you're wrong about "Iraq is now a anarchic chaotic breeding ground for terrorists and insurrection making the world a far more dangerous place than it was when SH was in power". Quite the contrary, the problems seem to be focused within a relatively small area in north-central Iraq, which happens to coincide with a concentration of Saddam loyalists. Calling them the "Iraqi resistance" is giving a bit of a romantic spin, isn't it? And in case you haven't noticed, they are killing more of their countrymen than interloping occupying forces.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, but I'm trying to take the argument to a higher level.

Tony. "That's the fact Jack", is just an expression, maybe you're not from the US.

I disagree when you claim the problems are focused in a relatively small area. We don't know about or hear about the 10-15 attacks that apparently happening on a daily basis so we don't have any real clue how widespread it is. You can't make that claim without all the data. What's really going on over there is worse than we're seeing and what we're seeing is pretty bad. There have been casualties outside of the so-called Sunni triangle.

As far as killing more of their countryment than the invders, well, that's not a good thing is it? The resistance (sorry, but that's what it is, romantic notions aside) is killing perceived collaborators as well as rival factions AND US and British troops. That's a much more volatile and deadly situation than the US was prepared for or even admitted was possible. So again, the US was wrong. Additionally, that situation is MUCH worse than before we invaded when they might have a dictator but at least there wasn't a bloody civil war, which it appears there now is.

We don't know about or hear about the 10-15 attacks that apparently happening on a daily basis so we don't have any real clue how widespread it is. You can't make that claim without all the data.

Ok, let's say that's true.

What's really going on over there is worse than we're seeing and what we're seeing is pretty bad.

Given what you first said, there is no way to logically make the second statement. We don't have the data, claims cannot be made based on it, therefore the assertion that what's going on over there is 'worse than we're seeing' is unjustified and illogical.

We do have data. We don't have all the data. We have the data that there are 10-15 attacks a day that we hardly (to be more specific) hear anything about. But I've seen in several news articles that this is true. We don't have accurate data (location, number of casualties per incident), but we do have at least those data, so therefore it is logical to assume things are worse than we're seeing. Do you honestly believe the opposite to be true?

Based on military experience, I feel comfortable with the assertion that things are most likely not nearly as chaotic as the impression one might get watching only the news.

We have the data that there are 10-15 attacks a day that we hardly (to be more specific) hear anything about.

OK, let's say that's true.

But I've seen in several news articles that this is true. We don't have accurate data (location, number of casualties per incident), but we do have at least those data, so therefore it is logical to assume things are worse than we're seeing.

No, it's logical to assume that there are perhaps 10-15 attacks per day more than first believed and/or reported. The nature of these attacks, their severity, their effectiveness and what is defined as an attack are all unknown.

Do you honestly believe the opposite to be true?

Of course not. I believe I don't have enough information to make assertions in the positive.

I still maintain, based on available data, things are worse than it would appear or we are being lead to believe. If there "are perhaps 10-15 attacks per day more than first beleived and/or reported", then we're being given insufficient data on the attacks in the first place and NO data on the nature and severity of the attacks. ANY additional attacks, given the fact that an attack is NOT a neutral event, it's a NEGATVE event, would mean things are WORSE than we are being lead to believe. An attack can NEVER make things better it can only make things worse.

It always has been. Now we might also see French, German, Russian, and Chinese Halliburtons in Iraq!
I was just thinking that since no WMD have been found, it would have been in the US interest if Saddam Hussein was left in power, because it takes a dictator to keep the different groups in Iraq together.
Please don't tell me that Bush invaded Iraq because he loves the Iraqis and wanted to liberate them from SH.

The whole idea of the administration going to the United Nations is not a stinging rebuke for the United States. It's not even a fly speck rebuke. If anything it is a huge victory for the United States.

Why? Because it will legitimize the neocon vision of the United States as global hegemon and legitimize the United Nations as being firmly 10 steps behind us. IT DOES NOTHING to prevent this bunch of clowns and cynics we call an administration from doing this again. If anything, it reinforces their Machiavellian behavior. It tells them that they can waltz all over the world, destroy what they want, bring people the primitive form of freedom (you are free to be mugged by other free people, you are free to have your car stolen by other free people, and if you shoot one of them, you are free to be killed by the free relatives of other free people), and then go make some noises to the U.N. and get them to foot a portion of the bill and send in blue helmets.

It's nothing short of, pardon my English, fucking disgusting. Saddam Hussein was an evil scumbag and he is gone now...though not arrested or killed! But if the United Nations allows this country-level variety of hot-potato to be passed to it without doing SOMETHING to condemmn or punish our government, then they truly are worthless.

It's the right thing for the UN to do and it's the right thing to do to get our troops out of this mess and it's the right thing to do for the innocent Iraq people who don't have a choice. That being said, I would only support it IF it was done correctly and followed the outline I described. The UN has all the cards now and all the leverage. The admin. is in serious trouble if they walk away with nothing and the UN could give them just that and SHOULD give them just that if the US doesn't agree to do it on their terms.

Yes, I do feel that this is the only thing that the U.N. can do. They will not turn their backs on the people of Iraq in this time of need.

Dude, turning it's back on people in need is what the UN does BEST!

and insulting to the good people at the UN who are responsible for programs like UNICEF, UNFPA etc. Get a clue....

Palestine. Rwanda. Bosnia. Kampuchea. Cote d'Ivorie.

Shall I go on?

So there are trouble spots in the world that UN was unable to solve, that doesn't mean the caused them or made them worse and their are ALOT of places where they made things better. You really don't have a clue and you're UN bashing is quite revealing. The world is a better place with the UN in it. It would be an even better place if people with your attitude were not.

The hubris of * and his thugs asking the UN for help, but with one caveat "we are in charge."

Yeah, I am sure France, Germany and Russia after being dissed and humiliated are going to jump on board, especially since they were RIGHT about not attacking Iraq.

I think Egypt would be a good choice.

I would love to see what you have presented happen, esp getting rid of Halliburton. Now wouldn't that be something?

I think I've seen several cartoons that have summed up the situation nicely, one has the chimp being eaten by a shark and he asks the lifeguard (UN) to save him but only under his conditions...These people are beyond disgusting...

Because if so, they'd get my vote.

he said he wanted the troops to ALL come home, put the UN in there (the Iraqis will NEVER trust the Americans anyway) and nullify ALL the Halliburton/Bechtel sweetheart deals, and give those tasks to the Iraqi people

Now he's given me another one! Thanks.

it wouldn't happen - point #2, if made, would ensure that Bush would tell the U.N. to go fuck off.

As far as I'm concerned, the UN has a strong bargaining position here and the US has nothing...

The "well, we let them have that building in New York rent free!" bullshit that I hear all the time.

Fuck it, if I were in charge of the U.N., I would say, "fine" and move the outfit to Geneva. Much better chocolate there.

I'm not so sure about the rent-free claim anyway, I'd be willing to bet it's not so cut and dry as that.

They should demand that the following should be included in any new UN resolution regarding Iraq:

The administration of Iraq will be completely turned over to the UN and headed by an administrator of their (Kofi Annan's) choosing who will most definitely NOT be an American, but preferably some one from a moderate Arab state (maybe Egypt?).

Never going to happen.

Any and all previous contracts given to US Companies will be null and void. The UN will re-open and oversee the bidding process. Sorry Bechetel, Halliburton etc. You made a bad business decision, that's your problem. You will have to eat the losses.

Economic suicide. Never going to happen.

All financial matters and disubursement of all funds from all countries (including the US) will be handled by the UN and it's civil administration. There will be an audit of all previous funding and disbursement and Iraqi assets, including the handling of the Iraqi's natural resources(oil).

Audit of oil sales is pretty easy. There really haven't been that many. As for a full accounting of the spending. I would be happy the US Congress could get one, let alone the UN.

An international force will take over the peacekeeping, policing and training of locals. This force can be headed by an American commander considering the majority of troops will be American. However, this commander will still have to be approved by the UN and can also be removed at the request of and answerable to the UN. I would suggest that any country sending any sizeable force have veto power over who this commander would be. IOW, no Rummy lackey will be allowed to be appointed. We need another Wesley Clark.

A foreign organization will never be allowed to have their choice of American commanders. And they never should either. I don't want foreign governments having that much control of my military. Now, we could have rotating command similar to what we're already doing in Afghanistan.

UN inspectors will immediately be allowed back into the country to oversee all ongoing weapons inspections and the WMD search and be allowed to investigate and verify any finds.

This will probably happen. Agreed.

The US must immediately pay all past dues to the UN.

Ok, so should all of the other nations too.

A detailed plan including a timetable for swift turnover of control of the country to the Iraqi's must be created with the UN overseeing the construction of and having final approval of said plan.

Never going to happen. We are the deal makers in this process. All financial dealings in Iraq should be negotiated BEFORE UN involvement in order to avoid a nasty exchange later in the process.

The US must issue a formal public apology to the UN for it's past actions in starting an unprovoked war and dismissing the organization as irrelevant.

Never, ever, ever, going to happen. Chirac and Schroeder will extract a subliminal apology out of Bush. But he would never apologize for anything. The only way they're gonna get that is if they get a security council resolution condemning Bush for misleading the world. Even then, he might just laugh and call them all faregners.

Did I miss anything?

or the US gets nothing.

Chirac and Schroeder will extract a subliminal apology out of Bush. But he would never apologize for anything.

A subliminal apology....like an invite to the Lazy W?

Forcing Bush to allow French and German companies the ability to do business in Iraq is the equivelant of an apology.

Hence, subliminal apology.

The UN could run Iraq better than us? Every time the UN wanted to do something in Iraq every UN member would need to approve. Putting 40 different bureaucracies in charge of Iraq would accomplish nothing. Iraq needs its own governing council.

Yes, Iraq needs it's own governing council and you'll note that part of my suggestion includes creating a detailed plan for just that. However, credibility is important in even implementing that and the US has none. The UN would at least, under these suggestions, be able to attempt to bring some credibility to the table in Iraq in that hopefully they won't be seen as invaders looking to loot the country.

As much as it needs efficiency.

n/t

not a foreign country, and it's Iraqis who should decide who gets what contract! I understand it is the UN's plan to hold elections as soon as possible. And it wouldn't be 40 different bureaucracies in charge of Iraq. UN personnel in Iraq would be working for the UN (the world), not for their own countries.

Because, except for a coupla in-FOX-icated posters replies, this is the kind of thread I like to read.

Beetwasher, ya better be careful....your thoughts could (should) soon become a policy statement by the 44th President of the United States.

At the very least, someone at the UN is taking note, eh?

The UN is in no position to demand from the U.S. under any leadership. Trying to do so will ensure a HUGE bump in popularity to *.

None whatsoever and you have nothing to back up an assertion like that.

Much of America doesn't want any DEMANDS from the UN. If they demand and * doesn't do what they want (a virtual guarantee), then he is strengthened as being willing to stand up to the evil UN.

and the interanational community involved. He's rightfully perceived as a fuck up for not having them involved in the first place. Haven't you been paying attention?

If the UN is seen as a cooperative world institution, then Americans can support it. If it is seen as a demanding foreign power, then they will oppose it.

In diplomatic speak, they would be "non-negotionable aspects" of any agreement. You're breaking it down to my personal semantics? How petty...

Any way you slice it, it is a demand. So, it's not your wording at all. It the attitude. If the UN tries to stick it to *, he will end up smelling like a rose here.

I think you'd be wrong. He'd look weak, inneffective and like a total failure who was once again was rebuffed by the UN. This would be the SECOND time he would fail at crucial international diplomacy with the UN. Can he afford ANOTHER disastrous diplomatic failure? You are way off base with your assessment. Wishful thinking on your part perhaps?

Additionally, it seems France and Germany have already made demands.

Yeah, like I want * to do something good. Right. Nice defense of your position.

All I am saying is that Americans don't like to be told what to do. When someone does it, they get the hair up on the back of their necks. If the UN tries, it will go badly. And, assuming Rove handles it well, * will end up smelling like a rose. He'll pull us out of the UN and get congressional support including some of our own party.

* "ends up smelling like a rose," and pulls the US out of the UN. How does that help the situation in Iraq?

Whether or not Americans can support the UN, America's leader needs help, and has gone back to the institution he ignored six months ago. The UN (the world) has made demands, and it's just possible the situation in Iraq will deteriorate to the level that Bush has to agree to things he wouldn't agree to before he got in this mess!

it's "a virtual guarantee" that * will be "strenghtened if he doesn't do what they (the UN) wants?" Right now * needs the UN badly, because, I bet, he went back to the UN precisely because he can't think of anything else to do to improve the situation in Iraq.

Surely much of America must want the UN to help, because the UN can contribute to cleaning up the mess * made, which is good for much of America too, less money to spend and fewer number of troops to lose.

Why this hostility to the UN? The UN represents the world, and whether you like it or not, the US is part of the world, the only world we know. Yes, the UN has less than, shall we say, "good" members too, but that's the world, there's good and bad, and we must learn to get along. Hopefully the "good" countries can influence (not bully!) the "bad" ones. Is the US 100% "good?"

And Americans DON'T necessarily view themselves as part of the world. Sure, that's changing, but there are a bunch of folks who want us to put up a wall and never hear from the rest of the global community ever again.

More than anything, Americans don't like someone telling them how to behave. If the UN tries that, it will rebound.

It doesn't matter how "a bunch of folks view themselves." They are part of the world, whether they like it or not. How ignorant can people be. The quicker they change the better. The whole world is changing, and no man is an island.

It's sad that only after 9/11 did a lot of ignorant people in America become aware of the "outside world," and now know, for example, where all the "-stan" countries are.

If you behave like a civilized person, yet your counterpart behaves as a barbarian, with only passing lip service to civilization and the Rule of Law, you'll get your ass beat every time.

So the UN better look to some of their Third World Nations on how to deal with Murders, Thugs, and Brutal Operatives such as infest the Bushevik Amerikan Empire.

Otherwise, they will get Gored, Wellstoned, Kennedyed, carnahaned or whatever Bushevik metaphor you wish to use to describe our Murderous Thug Imperial Dynasty.

And authoritarian members to be a moral authority on the rule of law. The UNs only real role is to govern relations between nations, it could really care less how governments treat their people.

UN is not moral authority on the rule of law, because it IS the rule of law. If the rule of law is considered morally good, it is up to members of UN to show they moral virtue by respecting the rule of law. AFAIK UN human rights charter is not actually internationally law, but strongly expressed wish, requirement of undespotic regime is certainly not international law, but according to UN charter military aggression against other countries without SC blessing and regime change forced from outside is certainly illegal, but civil war is not.

On the second point you are plain wrong. Highest authority on relations between nations belongs effectively to SC, but UN has many many other functions, it is e.g. UN based international law that obligates practically all countries on Earth to harrass cannabis users, so UN does care how governements treat their people. Naturally there are many more positive examples, and of course the role of UN is to be decided by it's members, there is nothing final or eternal about it, not even sovereignity of member states.

but preferably some one from a moderate Arab state

So you want non democratic police states to take over the process of building a free democratic Iraq? Perhaps you meant this as a joke?


The UN will re-open and oversee the bidding process.

Oh great, so a nation that did absolutely nothing would be granted contracts? lol that's insane.

How about we create a Iraqi state controlled oil company and give the money to those that deserve it. Don't you think that would be better then giving anything to do nothing Europeans and greedy chicken hawks?


There will be an audit of all previous funding and disbursement and Iraqi assets, including the handling of the Iraqi's natural resources(oil).

Sure right after you audit the UN controlled food for oil program.


The US must immediately pay all past dues to the UN.

Considering the US funds almost all military UN efforts I don't think they owe them a dollar of MY tax money.


The US must issue a formal public apology to the UN for it's past actions in starting an unprovoked war and dismissing the organization as irrelevant.

lol.....gee sorry UN for not allowing France and Germany to continue their business relationship with Saddam Hussien. Oh we are so so sorry.

I didn't like this war because I felt it would cause more problems for the US. But I wouldn't confuse that reality with the illusion that the European members of the UN security council had honest motives for being against this war. Both sides in this situation were defending their interests.

"So you want non democratic police states to take over the process of building a free democratic Iraq? Perhaps you meant this as a joke?"

Huh? An individual working for the UN as administrator is not a non-democratic police state. What are you talking about?

"Oh great, so a nation that did absolutely nothing would be granted contracts? lol that's insane.
How about we create a Iraqi state controlled oil company and give the money to those that deserve it. Don't you think that would be better then giving anything to do nothing Europeans and greedy chicken hawks?"

How about, like I said, the UN opens the bidding process and the most qualified, best companies get the contracts? And yes eventually an Iraqi state controlled oil company would be created, but that's not the ONLY thing their giving out contracts for you know, there's the little problem of re-building the infrastructure of the country, you do know what that is right?

"Sure right after you audit the UN controlled food for oil program."

How pathetically glib and hollow.

"Considering the US funds almost all military UN efforts I don't think they owe them a dollar of MY tax money."

What a bunch of bullshit. We're a member just like everyone else and we agreed to pay our dues when we signed up.

"I didn't like this war because I felt it would cause more problems for the US. But I wouldn't confuse that reality with the illusion that the European members of the UN security council had honest motives for being against this war. Both sides in this situation were defending their interests."

Man are you full of shit. You supported this war and you know it. Just because you may not have an ounce of selflessness and compassion in your body, doesn't mean everybody in the world is an asshole.

Huh? An individual working for the UN as administrator is not a non-democratic police state. What are you talking about?

UN administrators work for every UN country, including non-democratic police states.


How about, like I said, the UN opens the bidding process and the most qualified, best companies get the contracts?

Yes and every nation in the UN will fight to do what Bush did and award oil contracts to beneficiary companies in their own states. The UN isn't magically above favoritism.


What a bunch of bullshit. We're a member just like everyone else and we agreed to pay our dues when we signed up.

We need to assure tax dollars are spent wisely.


You supported this war and you know it. Just because you may not have an ounce of selflessness and compassion in your body, doesn't mean everybody in the world is an asshole.


You doves are the ones turning a blind eye towards Saddam's mass slaughter of Iraqi's. You're the ones who said Iraq wasn't our problem. That's compassion?

"UN administrators work for every UN country, including non-democratic police states".

So what's your point? I'm answering a criticism of the other posters that we would be putting the administration of Iraq in the hands of an undemocratic police state. The point was bullshit and so is yours. It's a non-sequitor.

"Yes and every nation in the UN will fight to do what Bush did and award oil contracts to beneficiary companies in their own states. The UN isn't magically above favoritism."

No, they won't fight, they will bid and be awarded contracts more based on their abilities rather than on their political contributions to team Bush. What is it about that that you don't get? Competition is good in a bidding processed as opposed to NO BIDDING PROCESSS. DUH!


"We need to assure tax dollars are spent wisely."

We sure do. Go tell it to the monkey in the WH.


"You doves are the ones turning a blind eye towards Saddam's mass slaughter of Iraqi's. You're the ones who said Iraq wasn't our problem. That's compassion?"

This is such tired old tripe and you know it. Let's invade China, OK? Then we'll talk. :eyes:

and walk around the block a few times. Spewing empty insults at people who disagree with you convinces noone; noone who reads this board, anyway.

The current US regime has perpetrated some hideous acts over the course of this war. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But that doesn't mean everyone else is squeaky clean. As right as France and Germany may have been in opposing the invasion, that doesn't mean they didn't have ulterior motives; IIRC, Saddam owed them quite a bit of money. And as much as we idealists would like to believe otherwise, the United Nations is not perfect, either. Nothing is.

Merely stating my opinion and countering nonsense. Sure, a lot of people have ulterior motives, that's why the have a security COUNCIL at the UN so people can keep an eye on each other. Not everyone is a selfish scumbag, as a matter of fact, I think many people at the UN really want to do the right thing and DON'T have ulterior motives. Kofi Anan is a good guy in my book and would trust him do the right thing. The way you make sure the right thing is being done is by taking out of the hands of the obvious greedy scumbags (that would be the Bush admin.) and into the hands of a body of diverse individuals with a track record for the most part of at least trying to do the right thing. It's not perfect, but it's better than a cabal of neo-con assholes. Or do you disagree with that?

Let's not get sidetracked. Bush and Rumsfeld badly need more troops for Iraq, and members of the UN can supply them. We'll just wait and see how long it takes for these powerful men to negotiate who gets what and how much, before they tackle the problem in Iraq.

Huh? An individual working for the UN as administrator is not a non-democratic police state. What are you talking about?

You specifically stated you would like someone from egypt. I'm sorry but I don't think nations that don't allow their people to be free should even be in the UN. Much less would I support their people taking the lead on establishing a free liberal democracy in Iraq .


How about, like I said, the UN opens the bidding process and the most qualified, best companies get the contracts? And yes eventually an Iraqi state controlled oil company would be created, but that's not the ONLY thing their giving out contracts for you know, there's the little problem of re-building the infrastructure of the country, you do know what that is right?

Maybe I'm oldfashioned but the nation that does the work gets the rewards. The nations that did nothing should get exactly what they put into it, nothing.

I would prefer that Iraq does what they can and all else is done by the nations participating. If the UN wants to send troops, at least half of all troops there not the usual tiny amount, then they can participate in the rest.

How pathetically glib and hollow.

maybe but it's also true. That money wasn't used for what it was intended and the UN was holding the ball on that play. I want them held accountable.

What a bunch of bullshit. We're a member just like everyone else and we agreed to pay our dues when we signed up.

When they provide at least half the troops and equipment I would love for the US to pay their dues. But I don't see the other nations doing shit, so I think they should pay us for our services.

Man are you full of shit. You supported this war and you know it. Just because you may not have an ounce of selflessness and compassion in your body, doesn't mean everybody in the world is an asshole.

The only one here who is "full of shit" is you my friend. I was at the DC anti-war marches and even met William Pitt there. However I don't have illusions of how the world works, nations have interests and this situation is no different.

My interest was avoiding more problems with terror, and thus prefered to demand the US give up it's role as world police and worry about the situation at home.

The UN should have taken the lead but sadly France and Germany were doing to busy protecting their business relationship with Saddam and made thus allowed him to ignore the UN. He knew they wouldn't do shit as long as he owed them money.



I have no doubt this war was bullshit, but I won't excuse the UN's constant fuck ups concerning Iraq because of it. Hopefully in 04 we get a president that can get the UN involved fairly, which is to say force them to shell out some troops in exchange for ANY power in and business.

"I'm sorry but I don't think nations that don't allow their people to be free should even be in the UN. Much less would I support their people taking the lead on establishing a free liberal democracy in Iraq."

You think wrong. If the totalitarian controll freak US acts like you say that doesn't mean other governements do the same. Harri Holkeri, the newest governor of Kosovo is certainly not controlled by Finnish governemen, but hand picked by Kofi Annan to do a difficult job. The nationality should play no role, but proven abilities to govern and help establish the form of governement the Iraqi'a want should be the only criteria. If you insist, I'm willing to compromise and exclude all US citizens from the post since according to you they can't be trusted to be free from US influence.

"Maybe I'm oldfashioned but the nation that does the work gets the rewards. The nations that did nothing should get exactly what they put into it, nothing.

I would prefer that Iraq does what they can and all else is done by the nations participating. If the UN wants to send troops, at least half of all troops there not the usual tiny amount, then they can participate in the rest."

Yes you are horribly oldfashioned and I question Your morals. What you are saying is who steels it keeps it. US has no legal authority to give contracts to anyone, only UN approved Iraqi regime has. Has the Iraqi people been asked about privatization of their property and services? Nope. Bremer is no better than a common thief.

"That money wasn't used for what it was intended and the UN was holding the ball on that play. I want them held accountable."

I'm sure you have enough evidence to back this outrageous claim and also prove UN auditors who have missed this illegality corrupted or unable to do their work?

"When they provide at least half the troops and equipment I would love for the US to pay their dues. But I don't see the other nations doing shit, so I think they should pay us for our services."

Then You must be blind, hopefully it is temporary predicament caused by overdose of US media. Also the kind of services US offers the rest of the world would be better of, in fact no one asked them so why should we pay?

And since you are such a poor nation why don't you allow rest of the world pay greater share of UN budget, as they are willing to do and suggested many times? Let's also move UN headquarters away from NY, would that satisfy you? The problem with you is that you wont a near absolute US control over UN and at the same time you wan't to blame UN for US policies. You can't eat and keep the cake.

Reading your comments I nearly hope I was cynical enough to wish you had your way and US would rot in the hell of it's own making Iraq has become. As long as attitudes similar to yours are majority in US the planetarch will remain a negative force in the world and the world will be better of when US global influence weakens day by day. Only reason for a new SC resolution will be helping Iraqi people, and that is possible only if US has minor role or preferably no role whatever in Iraq.

You think wrong. If the totalitarian controll freak US acts like you say that doesn't mean other governements do the same. Harri Holkeri, the newest governor of Kosovo is certainly not controlled by Finnish governemen, but hand picked by Kofi Annan to do a difficult job. The nationality should play no role, but proven abilities to govern and help establish the form of governement the Iraqi'a want should be the only criteria. If you insist, I'm willing to compromise and exclude all US citizens from the post since according to you they can't be trusted to be free from US influence.

1- The US is not a totalitarian control freak, we happen to have the largest economy and use it as to our advantage, just like any other nation would and do.

2- You mention proven abilities, how would a member of a non liberal democracy such as egypt have any such proven abilities? They shouldn't even be welcome in the UN much less handed leadership roles.

3- Your compromise is more shrill crap.

Yes you are horribly oldfashioned and I question Your morals. What you are saying is who steels it keeps it. US has no legal authority to give contracts to anyone, only UN approved Iraqi regime has. Has the Iraqi people been asked about privatization of their property and services? Nope. Bremer is no better than a common thief.

Show me the international law that states only the UN has such authority. Now show me where the US and the UK have accepted such laws. Otherwise you have no argument.

I'm sure you have enough evidence to back this outrageous claim and also prove UN auditors who have missed this illegality corrupted or unable to do their work?

Look up the number of deaths blamed on sanctions that took place during the food for oil program. There's your evidence.

Then You must be blind, hopefully it is temporary predicament caused by overdose of US media. Also the kind of services US offers the rest of the world would be better of, in fact no one asked them so why should we pay?

The US always provides the largest amount of troops for all UN missions it is involved in. Other nations provide a tiny percent yet demand the most.

Sorry but when the world puts more of their boys and girls on the line then you can have your money.


And since you are such a poor nation why don't you allow rest of the world pay greater share of UN budget, as they are willing to do and suggested many times? Let's also move UN headquarters away from NY, would that satisfy you? The problem with you is that you wont a near absolute US control over UN and at the same time you wan't to blame UN for US policies. You can't eat and keep the cake.

No the problem is that you want the UN to control the US and that's not going to happen. You don't like the US being the #1 power in the world...too damn bad.

And when you are the biggest dog on the block we can have your cake eat it, and you don't need anyones permission to do so.


Reading your comments I nearly hope I was cynical enough to wish you had your way and US would rot in the hell of it's own making Iraq has become. As long as attitudes similar to yours are majority in US the planetarch will remain a negative force in the world and the world will be better of when US global influence weakens day by day. Only reason for a new SC resolution will be helping Iraqi people, and that is possible only if US has minor role or preferably no role whatever in Iraq

I want the UN involved in Iraq but I don't want it to claim control over US troops. Sorry but I do not want men and women that signed up to defend the US to be under the control of bitter jealous nations.

And I agree the world will be better if the US didn't involve itself in the world so much. But then again who would, look at the mess in Africa caused by the European empires. So hopefully someone else that actually is willing to do more then bitch at UN meetings will step up so the US can get back to what matters taking care of our own issues.

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

I mean after that dramatic insulting post, the finale of a series of hysterical posts, must have been meant to make you feel better. It certainly didn't do anything else.

Wow again. You are completely part of the serious problems in this country.

yes I am a problem because I want the US to not be governed by a international body that allows unelected goverments within it's ranks.

I'm a problem because I want the US to stay the hell out of international affairs of other nations until we solve our own problems at home.

please....

Your hate, your audacity, your cruel indifference, your pereceived superiority, your sociopathic inability to admit error and distort things...This quote says it all.

all drama nothing at all to back any of that crap up.


I formally make my intention known to never communicate with you again. Good luck, you'll need it.

Get the fuck over yourself.

- UN should kick out all but the so called liberal democracies?

But then it would be no more United NATIONS but United Liberal Democracies. If you don't know why that would be utterly stupid, sorry, can't help you.

- Accusing UN of deaths caused by sanctions is truly rich.

Yes, formally they were UN sanctions, but I think even you know enough history to deduce who the real culprits were (by not allowing UN to finish arms inspections so Iraq could be declared free of WMD, meddling in the sanction regime and denying purchases of medicine on purpose, illegal fly-zones and bombings etc.): SC members US and UK, especially during Clinton and Blair. France, Russia and China would have wanted the sanctions to end so Iraqi people would have not been dependent on food given by Saddam and they could have solved their problems on their own long time ago.

Haven't you learned you can't pull this w/ me?

"You specifically stated you would like someone from egypt".

No, I didn't. I suggested Egypt and merely said an arabic country would be preferable, that doesn't mean necessary. You like being dishonest don't you and misrepresenting what people say. Why is that? Furthermore, as an administrator, whoever is in charge would be acting under the auspices of an already pre-determined plan to implement self-gov't and additionally, their boss would be Kofi Anan. I man who I personally believe is above reproach.

"Maybe I'm oldfashioned but the nation that does the work gets the rewards. The nations that did nothing should get exactly what they put into it, nothing".

Maybe you're just incredibly insane, not oldfashioned. Or reactionary? Fundamentalist? I dunno what you are. So, the US illegally and against the will of the UN invades another country, fucks it up, and then has the audacity to ask the UN to bail them out while they loot it? "Hey, UN, can you provide some bodies for me while I loot this country? Yeah, just put them right in front of the bullets." Incredible, you actually believe this tripe...

"maybe but it's also true. That money wasn't used for what it was intended and the UN was holding the ball on that play. I want them held accountable."

Personally, I don't think you have a clue how the UN works. That much is pretty obvious and this is a red-herring anyway and you know it. Go take it up w/ the UN. I've get a better idea, why don't you actually research the story and see what you find. I want the people who lied about WMD's to start a war of conquest held accountable. If the UN can help do that to some degree, more power to them.

"When they provide at least half the troops and equipment I would love for the US to pay their dues. But I don't see the other nations doing shit, so I think they should pay us for our services."

Well, of course their not doing shit. Isn't that the whole point? They should pay us for our services? We fucking broke it and they should pay us to fix it?!? We don't need them unless we need them and they have to do it on our terms? This is truly the reasoning of insane people, it's downright crazy talk! Are you sure you want to argue this? Think about what your saying. "Help me! But here are my demands first!" That's insane, don't you get it? Good lord...

Finally, all I have to say is, I remember our conversations before the war. You supported it and you know it. You should have the balls to admit you were wrong. It's truly pathetic you trying to re-write history...

Haven't you learned you can't pull this w/ me?

I learned only that I have to run fast to keep up with your spinning and backpeddling.


No, I didn't. I suggested Egypt and merely said an arabic country would be preferable, that doesn't mean necessary. You like being dishonest don't you and misrepresenting what people say. Why is that? Furthermore, as an administrator, whoever is in charge would be acting under the auspices of an already pre-determined plan to implement self-gov't and additionally, their boss would be Kofi Anan. I man who I personally believe is above reproach.

calling me a liar is a poor defense. You specifically stated *YOU* would like someone from egypt. You suggested them. Trying to say you didn't say 'exactly that' is garabage.

Maybe you're just incredibly insane, not oldfashioned. Or reactionary? Fundamentalist? I dunno what you are. So, the US illegally and against the will of the UN invades another country, fucks it up, and then has the audacity to ask the UN to bail them out while they loot it? "Hey, UN, can you provide some bodies for me while I loot this country? Yeah, just put them right in front of the bullets." Incredible, you actually believe this tripe...

So you think that nations that stood against a war intended to remove a dictator in order to defend their business interests are more deserving then nations that remove a dictator to advance their business interests?

Please.

Personally, I don't think you have a clue how the UN works. That much is pretty obvious and this is a red-herring anyway and you know it. Go take it up w/ the UN. I've get a better idea, why don't you actually research the story and see what you find. I want the people who lied about WMD's to start a war of conquest held accountable. If the UN can help do that to some degree, more power to them.

Personally I couldn't give a shit what you think about how clued in I am on this issue. I don't ignore the obvious, I prefer being honest about what I see. It has been often said that sanctions killed oh so many Iraqis, well funny how much of this happened while the UN was supposed to be making sure Saddam was spending his oil money on supplies for them, if he wasn't he should've ben cut off. Was he? No.

As for the WMD thing, Bush exagerated the threat, the claim of nuclear tech, and to the extent that such things were weaponized. However the UN was the org that said he had WMD.

Well, of course their not doing shit. Isn't that the whole point? They should pay us for our services? We fucking broke it and they should pay us to fix it?!? We don't need them unless we need them and they have to do it on our terms? This is truly the reasoning of insane people, it's downright crazy talk! Are you sure you want to argue this? Think about what your saying. "Help me! But here are my demands first!" That's insane, don't you get it? Good lord...

You are all over the place here. I stated that we shouldn't pay our UN dues because we finance every cock eyed UN action around the world with our equipment and our troops making up the vast majority of forces used. Now you want to pretend I am asking to be paid for rebuilding Iraq? whatever.

What I'm saying is that if the UN wants in on this they need to send troops so that my friends can come home. No handing out contracts to nation offering no real on the ground 'in the action could be killed tomorrow' support.

Finally, all I have to say is, I remember our conversations before the war. You supported it and you know it. You should have the balls to admit you were wrong. It's truly pathetic you trying to re-write history...

Either you have your facts wrong or you are making shit up. I did not support this war at anytime before it began. I thought it would cause more problems for us, and I have been proven correct. I did not however oppose it on moronic notions that the UN has the final say on what is and is not legal internationally. I have very little respect for a international body that allows non democratic states in.

Perhaps if the nations that opposed this war didn't have their hands in Saddams pockets I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. I will not ignore the reality of why France, Russia, and Germany opposed this war so that you can play good guys and bad guys. In global politics there are interests to be gained and lost and nothing else.

Yes - 70% of the American people would deny any and all of the above.

US and British soldiers gave many lives to remove Saddam and the UN refused to go along. The UN is being given a chance to join again to rebuild Iraq and should be pleased to get any role they can.

Bush is asking the UN to save his ass and demanding they do it on his terms. You haven't been paying attention. This non-sensical neo-con spin ain't flying anywhere. Have you noticed his approval numbers lately?

The UN is NOT "being given a chance to join again to rebuild Iraq." The UN is being asked for help - member countries are being asked to send troops because it's getting too much for the coalition.
Do you think the US would ask for help from the UN if it didn't have to, and if the Iraqis have welcomed them with flowers and kisses, and few or no troops have died?