The US, UN & Iraq II

Don't forget Steve, the middle east gets a new police force, Bush gets re-elected, the taxpayer gets screwed, (I could go on) papa Bush gets exonerated, yes, papa's got a brand new bag.

Saddam and Usama, just like Pauncho and Cisco, ride off into the sunset ..... history will remember Bush as as as ... hell, a war monger .... I guess

Timing and location determined which buildings could be protected before they were looted. It was an operational matter, not political ... but go ahead and hang on to that straw ... there haven't been a lot of such straws to grasp, have there? The Attack went astoundingly well, Iran and North Korea show signs of having noticed, The Iraqi People appear increasingly grateful and cooperative, The UN watches in frustration, The Arab Street is quiet, The Axis of Weasel are scrambling to stay in the game and franticly trying to grab a piece of the Post-Saddam Pie, Global Terrorist Activity is way down, The Dow and the FTSE are up for the year, and Bush the Younger's Domestic Approval is around 70% over all, and above 60% among Democrats (Recent Poll Summary). The Nay-Sayers and Critics have not been very well supported as events have unfolded, there is little reason to expect their fortunes to change. Its hard to argue with success.... what more comment do you need, snood?

That straw appears to be made out of solid gold! Coincident, me thinks not!

What's to loot at an oil ministry?

1.


2. UN international staffs begann returning on Monday.

3. What exactly do you expect, timber?

A Solid Gold Straw floats about as well as a Depleted Uranium Straw. Don't hang on too long, BillW. Incidentaly, Gel, as to the pragmatics of preserving the Oil Ministry building, the records contained therein will likely provide information inconvenient to those who sought to subvert and evade The Sanctions, while where else but The Ministry of Defense would one expect to locate documentation pertinent to military considerations? After all, this was sort of a War Thing, wasn't it?

Timber wrote



I don't dispute it was a success. It was the biggest and most successful armed robbery in history. Just because America and Britain won (hands up those who thought Iraq would be victorious) it doesn't mean it was right to do it. Yes of course the markets are up. Yes of course everyone in their right mind is pleased Saddam is gone - although gone where is another question. But you can't get away from the reality of what is happening in Iraq, and those people who persist in deluding themselves that Operation Iraqi Freedom was something to do with Freedom for Iraqis are naive to the point of imbecility.

I expect there will be those who continue to object and criticize while The US gets the job done. BTW, the UN Staffs returning are by and large Humanitarian ... cool. They do that well. When it comes to politics, The UN has done rather less well, and is unlikely to be given much opportunity to muddle things in Iraq. The UN as a body is faced with a difficult choice; Oppose and alienate The US, a tack which will serve only to render The UN increasingly irrelevant and further insulate it from Realpolitik, or to "Get With The Program" and remain a more-or-less viable diplomatic forum. Without explicit US support, The UN is an impotent debating society.

That's our business? We are there to free the people right? Or regime change , or was it WMD. How about 'rationalization du jour'

Just to be flip and irreverent, "Whatever Works".

Timber -- Your glowing rah-rahs may be meant to keep some "balance" in this forum, OR they could be evidence of your own opinion. I don't know. But I hope you will factor in the use of the media and the military to keep folks like you saying rah.... rah.... rah.... over.... and.... over.... again....

Well, you may be correct, timber.

Did you ever look up, what the founders of the UN thought, it should be?
I can't find anything saying about an "UN army" to invade other countries, change regimes or something like that in the UN statues.
Which were created, btw, among others, by the USA, too.

Timber wrote



If so why did the US go to such lengths at the UN to secure the so called 2nd resolution? It was only after the UN failed to endorse the American attack on Iraq that it became irrelevant.

There are those who believe that without explicit UN support, the US is a dangerously out of control rogue state.

Just a note here ... I DO play "Devil's Advocate" with some regularity ... just to keep things stirred up, otherwise this would be more or less a Mutual Admiration Society ... if the idea is to exchange divergent viewpoints, its beneficial to have a few divergent views.

Walter, frankly, I'm very disturbed by what this whole mess has done to The UN. I sincerely hope that, after the current turmoil, it emerges stronger, more defined, and able to deal effectively with the issues of the new world in which it finds itself. There are lessons to be learned, and benefit to be had ... by all parties involved.

The problem with the UN is the same problem we have with liberals and do-gooders and enemy combatants and all those folks. First you assign to them a role they've never played, then you take up a lot of time and space in the media denouncing them for playing that role. It goes: lie, denounce, misrepresent, denounce, set up straw men, denounce. If you ever have the privilege of actually listening to W's speeches, or Limbaugh's programs, or Fox TV, you can easily catch the rhythm of this demagoguery. The Security Council (what the liars and denouncers are really attacking when they attack "the UN") was a little like our Electoral College -- a way the elite dreamed up for keeping the hoi polloi from being presumptuous. No doubt reform is needed there. But the UN -- acting as our agent and that of many countries -- is the salvager of cultural heritage, children, economic justice, education and other things only yahoos think are a waste of time. It is the place where countries can come together to do what needs to be done -- very effectively over the years.

If you are disturbed by the manner in which the US has undermined the authority of the UN, I share your concerns.

Me too, Timber and Steve.

I gotta think "The Second Resolution (actualy, The 18th, but the larger number is inconvenient for some to consider ... I. and many others, happen to think 17 Resolutions were 16 more than enough; as far as I'm concerned, the operative resolution is UNSCR 687, and what's come about is just a finishing of business the UN has proven incapable of resolving) was a sop to Tony Blair primarily, and a hushpuppy tossed to to the pack in general ... I sincerely doubt there was much weight or reliance placed on it by The Current Administration.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Bush owes Blair a mighty debt of gratitude over Iraq. How will Blair call in that debt? By insisting on more contracts for British firms? That the US supports the ICC? Kyoto? Missile defense contracts? Dropping import tariffs against British steel? No. What Blair will insist on is that the US deals in an even handed manner over Israel and Palestine. Only the US can push through a peace solution, but Blair is going to insert the political will into the Americans to get it implemented.

Bush won't like it, and Sharon will obstruct it but we are going to insist that if British lives have been lost in removing the major threat to Israel, then Israel if necessary will be forced to make a peace with the Palestinians.

Steve, All good points as usual. <g> Colin Powell is now speaking on t.v. He's claiming that the UN will remain viable. c.i.