UN Involvement in Post-War Iraq

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Still... why should the US work with the likes of Germany, France and Russia. They will undermine any efforts of the US that do not fit into their plans. Which is fine - the US is no better. But, the US is the one who took the risk, paid the cost and won the war. Screw the rest of them. The US does not need the UN in any way shape of form to complete what's needed in iraq. If the UN plays a part (other than handing out food and water) nothing will get completed. Just like three months ago up to the start of the war. The people of Iraq will suffer beyond what they are now if the UN gets involved.

Russia and France care in no way about the people of Iraq. I do think the US cares - a little bit more. Russia and France should drop the debt iraq owns them. The Iraq people did not see any of that money. Why should they have to pay it back. I'm hoping Bush and the leaders here have the balls to say - too bad so sad Russian and France. that's what you get for dealing with someone like Saddam. Russia... worthless.

[C0ckney]

Whether you believe the UN to be a joke or not, the idea that the US will promote democracy and freedom in Iraq without promoting its own interests first is a joke and this is quite obvious to the world already. We need an objective authority in Iraq.

something that seems very off with what some people have been posting on this subject. treating 'freedom and democracy' and 'american interests' as if they mutally exclusive, it's silly. surely the primary interest the amricans have is to establish a government which has western values, at the core of that are the ideas of freedom and democracy.

[Sandman]

I'm a bit disturbed by the American claims at ownership of Iraq because they lost some soldiers there. With the UN involved, these claims would be weakened, at least.

[Chris 62]

Re: UN Involvement in Post-War Iraq

Originally posted by orange
What should the UN's involvement be in post-war Iraq? Should the UN not become involved, as it is was not a war faught by the UN, or sure it take an active role in creating workable democracy to prevent US/British Imperialism?

My thoughts are you taint the thread before it begins by posting a biased comment.

How am I supposed to discuss the topic, which I wanted too, when you begin with childishness?

UN/Bush Imperialism? We have an emperor? An empire?

As for the UN not being involed in the war, it sure was, as every nation in the coalition was a member, and it was the foot draggers that showed the TRUE "Imperialism", meaning they had deals with Saddam, and cared nothing for the people.

They must be kept FAR away from any postwar Iraq, and will be.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm a bit disturbed by the American claims at ownership of Iraq because they lost some soldiers there. With the UN involved, these claims would be weakened, at least.

France and Russia can not be trusted. They do not trust the US. How can anything come from the UN with things starting like this. Russia worked with the Iraq leadership... we'll see how much 'help' the iraq people want from russia and france once the details start flooding out.

This is the very reason France said they would veto any resolution having anything do to with iraq and war. They know some rather bad things are going to be made public. Guess one can't really blame them - for trying to cover things up.

[Kirnwaffen]

I am very much opposed to the UN taking a lead role in Iraq. If you think that the UN would be objective in any way, shape, or form, you are out of your mind. France and Russia have a much greater interest in screwing the Iraqi people than the US does, and we all know how good a job France has done with peacekeeping. Of course, France and Russia would be unlikely to contribute anything to that particular effort. They just want their money back.

[yavoon]

humanitarian aid. otherwise keep ur filthy ugly hands outta iraq.

note:its possible there is a role or two Id agree w/ that I haven't thot of yet, but as of yet this is it.

[gsmoove23]

It seems that people have the mistaken belief that the UN serves the interests of France, Germany and Russia. No nation can be counted upon to be objective in dealing with Iraq, which is why the UN representing a collection of nations should run the reconstruction. For selfish reasons Bush should allow this because it will be far more difficult to successfully reconstruct Iraq then it was to invade it. By giving the responsibility to the UN he then has somebody to blame for all the failures. Simple enough.

[yavoon]

yes but u see bush isnt like that. he actually does things, and wants the responsibility and the risk.

it took balls to invade iraq, big ones. so I dont see him shying away from responsibility now.

[Chris 62]

Selfish reasons?

Like sabotaging UN resolutions to protect sweet oil deals?

Like selling Iraq prohibited items?

France and Russia did that, spare me the "US is selfish" clap-trap, that nonsense doesn't wash.

[gsmoove23]

Uh, the US did all those things too.

[Chris 62]

Oh really?

Where?

Sure wasn't Iraq.

[gunkulator]

Yes, but the US has changed its ways with regards to Iraq. If France and Russia had their way, they'd still be cozy with ol' Saddam whilst raking in the big bucks. They've shown very recent disregard for Iraq's people.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'It seems that people have the mistaken belief that the UN serves the interests of France, Germany and Russia. '

France and Russia have veto power. And get real, the UN is a tool for each country to serve its own interests. It can't work for Iraq. It has yet to work for Iraq. How many resolutions had to be passed just so the US could act OUTSIDE the UN. It's a failed system.

[Spiffor]

The real domain where France, Russia etc. have a say in the UN is the security council, i.e the one where they have veto power. France and Russia will most probably ask for the UN to take part in the reconstruction process in exchange of good deals (especially regarding debt), but once the SC has decided on the precise role the UN has to take, France's and Russia's boosted power is no more :

- The UN decides what budget it gives to iraqi reconstruction, from its own funds.

- The specific mission for rebuilding Iraq will decide of the specifics there, far away from New York's SC. They'll recieve pressure from UN bureaucrats, who are indirectly pressured by diplomats, but not by the SC : France will be a mere lobby in that regard, NOT a veto power.

- The biggest think France and Russia have to win is a limitation of US' influence in the area, that'll go against their interests. If the UN takes over the Iraqi reconstruction, the US won't locate their puppet government, won't have the same accomplices in Baghdad's new leadership, etc.

- Should the UN participate in the reconstruction, France and Russia will indirectly pay, like the US, Japan or Solomon Islands do, through their UN cotisations.

MyWifeHatesCiv :
Of course the UN is a tool used by the powerful nations. Wasn't it surprising how Blair laudated the UN when he learned no british company would be involved in the reconstruction as per Washington's plan ?
The point is : France and Russia don't advocate the UN in order to pilfer the Iraqi people, they do so in order to limit as much as possible Washington's influence in the area.