expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq

[Annie]

How about, for starters, the power to do something in a country without that countries express consent or a UNSC resolution (which are hard to get). Or maybe the power to raise their own army, as opposed to having to depend on states to always contribute forces that are under varied commands. Or how about the power to have a court to try human rights violators without the US trying to undermine it.

Oh I see what you mean. The US should allow the UN dominance on all fronts, because of the assumption they have everyone's good at heart? No political problems from the UN, like the nasty US?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I prefer self determination and it wasnt me who ever thought Suddam was worth backing but thats exactly what the US did for the monster for many years. Maybe if we just had stayed OUT of their politics from the beginning we might all be in a better situation. You do realize the US were a major factor in helping Suddam to gain power right? You do realize that when he was at his absolute worst, the US was supporting and even supplying him.

Sadly, we did help saddle the Iraqis with Suddam but they would be the ones who needed to remove him and to do so in their way and in their time. We just needed to stop propping him up and learn from our mistakes and stop supporting so many brutal dictators. It never turns out good.

How can you bomb a neighborhood with homes, schools and hospitals but expect that we didnt "target" them? How do you bomb a neighborhood and NOT bomb those facilities? How do you bomb cities, towns and villages and NOT destroy their water and power infrastructure?

The people in an occupied Iraq have no more voice in their lives and govt than they did under Suddam, the problem is that now their situation is even worse.

Congradulations to my country, we have proven that things COULD actually be worse than Suddam.

Your ignorance is appalling. WE did not supply him, the Russians, France, Germany and Belgium supplied him. We sold him 4 unarmed civilian helicopters. We had nothing to do with his coming to power and only "helped" him with Iran because Iran was our enemy, our help consisted of intel on Iranian movements. I suggest you learn a little history.

 

[Larkinn]

Oh I see what you mean. The US should allow the UN dominance on all fronts, because of the assumption they have everyone's good at heart? No political problems from the UN, like the nasty US?

Thanks for proving my point. You want them to have no power and then condemn them when they are powerless.

 

[Annie]

Thanks for proving my point. You want them to have no power and then condemn them when they are powerless.

You did not address the point. The UN actually makes the US look altruistic when it comes to sending troops or diplomats abroad. All one needs to look at are the sex and oil for food scandals. Not only was no one brought to trial, in many cases they are sent somewhere else, after a promotion.

 

[Larkinn]

Your ignorance is appalling. WE did not supply him, the Russians, France, Germany and Belgium supplied him. We sold him 4 unarmed civilian helicopters. We had nothing to do with his coming to power and only "helped" him with Iran because Iran was our enemy, our help consisted of intel on Iranian movements. I suggest you learn a little history.

As Iraq-Kuwait relations rapidly deteriorated, Saddam was receiving conflicting information about how the U.S. would respond to the prospects of an invasion. For one, Washington had been taking measures to cultivate a constructive relationship with Iraq for roughly a decade. The Reagan administration gave Saddam roughly $40 billion in aid in the 1980s to fight Iran, nearly all of it on credit. The U.S. also sent billions of dollars to Saddam to keep him from forming a strong alliance with the Soviets.[20] Saddam's Iraq became " the third-largest recipient of US assistance" [11].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_hussein#_note-11

 

[Larkinn]

You did not address the point. The UN actually makes the US look altruistic when it comes to sending troops or diplomats abroad. All one needs to look at are the sex and oil for food scandals. Not only was no one brought to trial, in many cases they are sent somewhere else, after a promotion.

It does not make the US look altruistic. And actually, yes, some have been brought to trial. Not enough, but unfortunately there is no easy way for the UN to try people from individual countries. Unless, of course, you would advocate giving them this power as well?

 

[Larkinn]

You did not address the point. The UN actually makes the US look altruistic when it comes to sending troops or diplomats abroad. All one needs to look at are the sex and oil for food scandals. Not only was no one brought to trial, in many cases they are sent somewhere else, after a promotion.

And actually the original point was showing how your condemnation of their failure in Lebanon is hypocritical. Which I think I've done admirably. So might want to change one of your hypocritical viewpoints.

 

[Annie]

It does not make the US look altruistic. And actually, yes, some have been brought to trial. Not enough, but unfortunately there is no easy way for the UN to try people from individual countries. Unless, of course, you would advocate giving them this power as well?

They do not deserve the ability to have the powers that you wish to 'give.' In all honesty, yes I wish that the US would withdraw from the UN. They serve no purpose in international affairs. They have done well, with some serious scandals still occurring, when it comes to humanitarian projects.

Then there are the problems they have with timeliness, such as the tsunami disaster, if the US military hadn't come in nearly immediately, the death toll would have been much higher, that was done in the midst of the military being stretched way thin, with two wars raging.

 

[Ruby]

Your ignorance is appalling. WE did not supply him, the Russians, France, Germany and Belgium supplied him. We sold him 4 unarmed civilian helicopters. We had nothing to do with his coming to power and only "helped" him with Iran because Iran was our enemy, our help consisted of intel on Iranian movements. I suggest you learn a little history.

Actually I think you just showed how much ignorance you are carting around.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.

By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.

Reagan took him OFF the terrorist list so that he could then be sold weapons and chemicals for weapons. Why help a terrorist who is a brutal dictator invade his neighbor?

This link has a great deal of info on it.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2006/0420usassistance.htm

Meanwhile, the CIA fed highly classified tactical intelligence to Iraq. The US also supplied Saddam with technical equipment so Iraq could receive satellite intelligence assessing the impact of its air strikes.

“During the 48 hours after Bush's visit with Mubarak, Iraq flew 359 missions over Iran. Over the next few weeks, Iraqi planes continued to strike deep into Iran, bombing oil refineries, including the oil facilities on Sirri Island, 460 miles from the border, a daring feat for Iraqi pilots who were running out of fuel.

“In addition, to intelligence, there was money and [the] contention, [according to a former US official], that "the US aspect of Iraq's war effort...must be somewhere in the neighborhood of .0001% of the total" vastly understates the US role in helping Iraq. All told, the Reagan and Bush administrations provided Saddam with more than $5 billion in loan guarantees.

Then theres this

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0127-10.htm

Mokhiber: The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a number of major American corporations -- including Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel -- helped Saddam Hussein beef up its military in the 1980s.

And also the Washington Post last month in a front-page article by Michael Dobbs said the United States during the '80s supplied Iraq with cluster bombs, intelligence and chemical and biological agents.

In that same article, they reported that Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, went to Baghdad in December 1983 and met with Saddam Hussein, and this was at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions.

We are giving him loan garauntees, we are giving him military intel, weapons, cleared the way for him to buy more of it all including the materials for chemical weapons...thats a whole lot more than a few helicopters.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1230-04.htm

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

The govt specifically approved those sales even AFTER it was known that he was using chemical warfare on Iran.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20614FF3D550C758DDDAA0894DB404482

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Iraq, in Dec declaration to United Nations, reportedly identified American Type Culture Collection, Virginia-based biological supply house, and France's Pasteur Institute as source of all foreign germ samples it used to create biological weapons that are still believed to be in its arsenal; UN has never made public full extent of sales nor has there been any public suggestion that Iraq depended almost exclusively on supplies from United States and France in 1980's to develop biological arms; shipments were approved by US; table of biological agents; drawings

Are you honestly not aware of this information?

 

[Larkinn]

They do not deserve the ability to have the powers that you wish to 'give.' In all honesty, yes I wish that the US would withdraw from the UN. They serve no purpose in international affairs. They have done well, with some serious scandals still occurring, when it comes to humanitarian projects.

If you believe that, then kindly refrain from condemning them when they fail at endeavors because they have not the power to complete them. Besides the fact, that they are the single best humanitarian organization in the world.

Then there are the problems they have with timeliness, such as the tsunami disaster, if the US military hadn't come in nearly immediately, the death toll would have been much higher, that was done in the midst of the military being stretched way thin, with two wars raging.

Maybe because the UN has to ASK countries for aid, since it has little ability to provide them itself. The UN military, being as its nonexistant, is stretched much more thinly than the US military.

 

[Annie]

If you believe that, then kindly refrain from condemning them when they fail at endeavors because they have not the power to complete them. Besides the fact, that they are the single best humanitarian organization in the world.

Right, other than the US prevents them from doing so, at least to make it appear that the US military can do so better and faster, as you are about to make clear:

Maybe because the UN has to ASK countries for aid, since it has little ability to provide them itself. The UN military, being as its nonexistant, is stretched much more thinly than the US military.

Nothing here other than UN apologies. The UN has the wherewithal to deliver relief and you know it. If they lived in 'fear' of the US, there wouldn't be the issues there were regarding Iraq, France would not have been allowed to backstab. Seriously, one can argue for the need for a 'global organization' while recognizing the UN is a pile of rot.

 

[Larkinn]

Right, other than the US prevents them from doing so, at least to make it appear that the US military can do so better and faster, as you are about to make clear:

Coherent sentences please. I have no idea what the hell you mean.

Nothing here other than UN apologies. The UN has the wherewithal to deliver relief and you know it. If they lived in 'fear' of the US, there wouldn't be the issues there were regarding Iraq, France would not have been allowed to backstab. Seriously, one can argue for the need for a 'global organization' while recognizing the UN is a pile of rot.

I do not apologize for anyone. The UN does NOT have the wherewithal to deliver military relief, and they have nowhere near the resources as the US military. Sorry, but those are just facts. Who said they lived in fear of the US? You need to do a bit of research on the UN and how it works. Any binding action done by the UN can be vetoed by the US. It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with power. And backstabbed? Are you really so stupid? France has no obligation to support the US's petty wars, and they have as much official power (although unofficially they have much less) in the UN as the US does.

The UN has its problems, and they are major. But I find it supremely hypocritical that people constantly bash them for not doing things that they do not have the ability to do . You want to give them the power to do those things? Go for it, I am all for it. But until you do, shut the **** up about whining when they don't do them.

 

[Annie]

Coherent sentences please. I have no idea what the hell you mean.

What you found 'incomprehensible' was in response to your comment:

Besides the fact, that they are the single best humanitarian organization in the world.

In which you were referring to the UN, AFTER saying the US military could do more...

I do not apologize for anyone. The UN does NOT have the wherewithal to deliver military relief, and they have nowhere near the resources as the US military. Sorry, but those are just facts. Who said they lived in fear of the US? You need to do a bit of research on the UN and how it works. Any binding action done by the UN can be vetoed by the US. It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with power. And backstabbed? Are you really so stupid? France has no obligation to support the US's petty wars, and they have as much official power (although unofficially they have much less) in the UN as the US does.

The UN has its problems, and they are major. But I find it supremely hypocritical that people constantly bash them for not doing things that they do not have the ability to do . You want to give them the power to do those things? Go for it, I am all for it. But until you do, shut the **** up about whining when they don't do them.

Again you said the UN is the best at relief, except they aren't, which you again say. You are the one that needs to read more, about the UN/France. Until you do, STFU

 

[Larkinn]

What you found 'incomprehensible' was in response to your comment: In which you were referring to the UN, AFTER saying the US military could do more...
Again you said the UN is the best at relief, except they aren't, which you again say. You are the one that needs to read more, about the UN/France. Until you do, STFU

No, I said they are the best humanitarian agency, which they are. The US military is better at aiding massive sudden disasters on a scale such as the Asian Tsuanmi, but overall the UN is a much more effective, efficient, and existant humanitarian agency than the US military.

And stunning response of telling me to read more without telling me why or providing details about how you believe I am wrong.

 

[Annie]

No, I said they are the best humanitarian agency, which they are. The US military is better at aiding massive sudden disasters on a scale such as the Asian Tsuanmi, but overall the UN is a much more effective, efficient, and existant humanitarian agency than the US military.

And stunning response of telling me to read more without telling me why or providing details about how you believe I am wrong.

As you did, it's not my job to educate, just pointing out that those that read more, know more. Right now, you are one of the sheep of the left, every bit as sheepal as RSR is known to be on the right.

 

[Larkinn]

As you did, it's not my job to educate, just pointing out that those that read more, know more. Right now, you are one of the sheep of the left, every bit as sheepal as RSR is known to be on the right.

I've read a lot about the UN, I took courses in IR and IL, I've been to the UN in both Geneva and NYC, to the CoE, and helped facilitate several courses in International law taught to HR advocates at UNSW in Sydney. You seem to lack even a basic educational understanding of how the UN functions, much less have anything intelligent to say about the more complex dealings of it. So really, spare me the crap, and learn a bit about the UN. Hell read the Wikipedia article about it, nothing terribly complicated, I'm sure even a cursory understanding of it will benefit you, and even more importantly might cause you to rethink your blatantly hypocritical, foolish, and downright stupid views you have about the UN.

 

[Annie]

I've read a lot about the UN, I took courses in IR and IL, I've been to the UN in both Geneva and NYC, to the CoE, and helped facilitate several courses in International law taught to HR advocates at UNSW in Sydney. You seem to lack even a basic educational understanding of how the UN functions, much less have anything intelligent to say about the more complex dealings of it. So really, spare me the crap, and learn a bit about the UN. Hell read the Wikipedia article about it, nothing terribly complicated, I'm sure even a cursory understanding of it will benefit you, and even more importantly might cause you to rethink your blatantly hypocritical, foolish, and downright stupid views you have about the UN.

Considering that I've, (please note the importance on ME, sorta like YOU), have extensive background on international relations, that surprise, surprise, included the UN, I'll back up my 'background knowledge' to yours, anyday.

As easily anticipated, you try to frame an argument based on zero:

You seem to lack even a basic educational understanding of how the UN functions, much less have anything intelligent to say about the more complex dealings of it.

Not so, nothing posted could lead you to such a conclusion, other than an assumption of ignorance/stupidity from anyone that disagrees with you. Too bad that's just not the case.

If you know as much as you claim, you already know what I was referring to earlier. But you don't. You are a shill.

 

[Larkinn]

Considering that I've, (please note the importance on ME, sorta like YOU), have extensive background on international relations, that surprise, surprise, included the UN, I'll back up my 'background knowledge' to yours, anyday.

You'll back it up any day...but yet you haven't. "extensive knowledge"...wow, very impressive. The details are stunning in their abscence.

As easily anticipated, you try to frame an argument based on zero:

Actually I was framing it on facts, few of which you responded too.

Not so, nothing posted could lead you to such a conclusion, other than an assumption of ignorance/stupidity from anyone that disagrees with you. Too bad that's just not the case.

Actually I'll name several things.

The implication that the US Military does more and better humanitarian work than the UN. Condemning the UN for failure to do things which they do not have the ability to do. The inability to recognize that the UN is not a single entity, but rather is more a loose confederation of states with some individuals acting as representatives of the whole.

If you know as much as you claim, you already know what I was referring to earlier. But you don't. You are a shill.

What is it you were referring to earlier that I was supposed to know?

 

[Annie]

You'll back it up any day...but yet you haven't. "extensive knowledge"...wow, very impressive. The details are stunning in their abscence.



Actually I was framing it on facts, few of which you responded too.



Actually I'll name several things.

The implication that the US Military does more and better humanitarian work than the UN. Condemning the UN for failure to do things which they do not have the ability to do. The inability to recognize that the UN is not a single entity, but rather is more a loose confederation of states with some individuals acting as representatives of the whole.



What is it you were referring to earlier that I was supposed to know?

Seriously, this post is way lame. The claim that the UN is a first responder, is proven wrong, from your own posts.

Here's the main question: Name one world hot spot, where actions from the UN helped the situation?

 

[Larkinn]

Seriously, this post is way lame. The claim that the UN is a first responder, is proven wrong, from your own posts.

You think first responder is the only part of humanitarian aid? And you had the nerve to tell me to go get educated?

Here's the main question: Name one world hot spot, where actions from the UN helped the situation?

Tsunamis, Darfur, East Timor, Rwanda, India, etc, etc.

They saved lives in all of those places. Merely because they did not completely stop the problem/massacre/deaths does not mean they did nothing to help relieve it. Their political power is very weak because of people like YOU. However as a humanitarian organization they do a LOT around the world. UNICEF, UNAIDS, UNHCR, UNDP...all these organizations do tremendous aid work around the world. But you don't see it because you are so obsessed with hating them you can't see past that.