THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

with black hose

stilletto

Sorry Sofia, but I don't think you've grasped the scope of the Bush administration's threat here. But we gotta start at the beginning.

First, the decision of the Bush admin to cut support to Unfpa - and now apparently WHO and Unicef as well - has nothing to do with the AIDS issue.

The Bush admin opposes any project that includes or implies an acceptance of abortion, period. Thats the background of the campaign against Unfpa. I'm sure you were in no way trying to obfuscate, but the HIV/AIDS treatment question is neither here nor there, in this issue.

That Unfpa projects do include or imply an acceptance of abortion is a highly disputed assertion, by the way. I mean, I wouldn't be too bothered myself, but Unfpa in any case strongly denies that it promotes abortion. In fact, according to the Volkskrant article I'm going on, Powell sent a team to China in May 2002 to check on the work of Unfpa there, which had been the object of conservative criticism - and it came back reporting that in the 32 districts Unfpa was working in, an end had been made to the forced abortions and sterilisations that mark China's one-child policy. But the team's report was rejected and subsidy to Unfpa suspended anyway.

That the US ceased all Unfpa contributions it had committed to, when a lot of Unfpa's work has little to do with abortions, is excusable, imho. After all, you can't pick and choose what projects your contributions go to, so if you want to avoid all risk, you have to stop entirely.

But here is where it gets scurrilous. The Bush admin didn't just cut off its own support to Unpfa. It is also retaliating against any other organisation that somehow involves itself with Unpfa. For example, in April the administration decided to for the first time in 31 years not give any money to the Global Health Council, an annual conference of US health organisations. Apparent reason: they had invited a speaker from Unfpa. The decision was made after an e-mail campaign of pro-life groups.

Thats just tuppence compared to this new threat though - and I consider this new threat simply, absolutely outrageous. You seem to have just skipped over this: the US admin is now threatening to cut off its support to Unicef and the WHO as well. Not that Unicef has anything to do with abortions. But Unicef works with the Unfpa (obviously, since they're both UN organisations). And thats enough reason.

Note. Unicef and WHO are the organisations that are now carrying out a measles immunizations on more than 2 million children in the Darfur disaster area. Unicef is the organisation thats opening a dozen centers to aid severely malnourished children in Darfur. Unicef is who is constructing those temporary classrooms in war-torn Sudan you've read about here. This work has nothing to do with abortion. Unicef's work has little to nothing to do with abortion, period.

There are few organisations in the world capable of the mass aid operations organisations like WHO and Unicef run. Yet Bush is threatening to suspend US contributions to them merely because they sometimes collaborate with another organisation that allegedly runs projects that condone abortion. Note: because they sometimes collaborate with another organisation that allegedly runs projects that condone something that in the US itself is actually legal.

Now I know that you have proud partisan loyalties - and that your overall judgement of the UN is pretty low. But I cannot for the life of me imagine how you can agree with this, I'm sorry.

zither

Sorry, nimh. I confused this conversation with another.

Should have read up to make sure I knew what I was addressing first.

I'll do so. Excuse my error.

Didnt mean to be condescending or anything - I realise I might have come across that way. Apologies. I just get really angry at this stuff. Not you, I mean, this whole - these people - this - arrgh. <shakes head>

nimh, I'm with you on this, bigtime. It may come as a surprise to some (though probably not you), but there are points on which I differ, strongly, with The Current Administration.

It should be noted, however, I find many, many more points of difference with The Opposition

I guess, the other two are the colour of the wallpaper in the Oval Office and the brand of the newly bought lawn mower for the White House's green spaces. :wink:

Touché, Walter! ROTFLMAO

Best laugh all day ... thanks

No foul, nimh. I see a personal need to redouble efforts to read thoroughly first, talk later.

You weren't offensive to me.

Hey, Sofia, my favorite agree to disagree gal -- Clois du Bois Merlot is on sale at Target right now for $11.99! Get the to a Targetry.

Yikes, Walter -- I just read your quip. I'm cleaning Merlot off the keyboard as we speak (maybe it's back to the shop again with my Sony laptop!)

THANK YOU, debonair, furry, blue creature.

(pads off to the Targetry for <shh> Frenchified libations)

I bought a case so don't expect me to be too coherant after 5:00 for several weeks.

(See, a strong indication is that I'm laughing at my own quips!)

This just in!

Cychic (prounounce it psychic ), the chances would have clearly been improved if the current administration had planned better for the probable disruptions caused by Al Qaeda, disgruntled Baathist, et al terrorist groups who are currently attempting to thwart the development of Iraq during the occupation period. It is these terrorists who are attempting to thwart reconstruction of Iraq, thwart establishing an Iraqi form of democratic government and thwart recovery and progress of the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, these terrorists are so-far quite effective in disrupting the evolution of Iraq to normalcy.

Bush's present administration should have anticipated these terrorists for lots of reasons. First, after WWII, reconstruction and rehabilitation of Germany from the former Nazis led government was also thwarted for a significant time by Nazis terrorists. Second, Saddam and Osama (or his replacement) were working together to help kill more Americans, and there was no reason to expect that Osama would limit his attention to Afghanistan and America after Saddam was removed. Third, democratization of Iraq would be an anathema to the neighboring Syrian and Iranian governments and they would likely encourage disruption of any efforts to democratize Iraq. Fourth, the terrorists formally supported by Saddam's scam of the UN Oil-for-Food fund would be highly motivated to try and regain access to that same fund.

However, Bush's present administration screwed up. They are now attempting the very difficult and uncertain process of correcting the consequences of their own mistakes. Would Kerry have done a better more effective job? Based on how Kerry has voted as a Senator and how he is campaigning, I'd say he would probably have done a far worse job. How about now? Has Kerry learned more from Bush's mistakes than has Bush? Has Kerry learned how to do to do a better job now? I'm waiting for Kerry to provide sufficient evidence that he has learned how to do a better job. We'll see.

Walter, That's one of the best come-back to timber I've seen on A2K. Thanks for the laugh. c.i.

Cychic?

It's funny, but confusing, lol.

I actually agree with your post, Icann, in a rare first for me. Except for two points:



I think that while these guys might be behind a lot of the terrorism, their ranks are formed from, in many cases, Iraqis who are jobless, family-less, homeless, whatever from the war. Jobless, to me, is a big deal; a man who works has pride in his life, stability, he can feed his family. But the man who does not, and watches Americans get the jobs rebuilding his country, has only bad feelings about the situation, which can be manipulated into insurgency.



Well, I don't really believe Saddam was working in conjunction with Al Quaeda, but it IS logical that Al Quaeda would realize that the easiest way to strike at America would be to hit them in Iraq - it hurts us politically, ties up more of our military and intelligence resources, and is convienently close to home and full of recruits. So it's not surprising that Iraq is the new home of our war against Al Quaeda - we put ourself in a vulnerable position, with plenty of military targets, right in their home territory. Hmm.

Cycloptichorn

I agree that part of the population of terrorists does include unemployed Iraqies. Some of those are unemployed Baathists from Saddam's gov't while a good number are exactly as you portrayed them.

We both seem to agree that some of the terrorists are now part of Osama's gang, so the disagreement about any prior connection with Saddam is a matter pertinent to Bush's justification or lack of justification for removing Saddam. Regardless Saddam is removed and the Al Qaeda are in Iraq. Now, some administration is going to have to fix this thing. I urge you to read the article I posted a day ago (see quote following) regarding how it might be fixed, but not which American administration is best able to lead our part of the fix.



I'd like to discuss or debate it.