UN Involvement in Post-War Iraq

[Sandman]

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.

Just because they worked with the Iraqi leadership doesn't mean they liked them... Rumsfeld was cosying up to Saddam in the eighties, and you have plenty of time for dictators like the Saudis and Musharaf, even though you'd probably like to see the end of them.

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.

Like what? They spent years trying to get an oil contract, but it was never signed. What sort of bad things are you suggesting?

[Ramo]

I would definitely say that a UN occupation would be preferable to a US one. Of course, I have no illusions that they'll bring Iraqis democracy. Just as they didn't in Afghanistan.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I still say that because the UN had no stomach for war they should have no say when the dust clears. IF things had gone really bad for the US France and Russia and all the other countries who support terrorists would have been all over us complaining and whining about everything.

The US does not need them. Why oh why do they keep saying we (US) do???

[My Wife Hates CIV]

"Like what? They spent years trying to get an oil contract, but it was never signed. What sort of bad things are you suggesting?"

KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday.

there u go. does it mean anything. ah, maybe, maybe not. but this is just the start of things. it will be a flood.

my point being watch... i bet russia and/or france not only knew about these things... but they probably helped! bad russian! bad!

[orange]

Chris62 - you misunderstand...the question was two pronged showing both extremes. The one side being "UN didn't fight the war, therefore they have no right to stake a claim in postwar Iraq" the other being the opposite extreme, that without UN support, it will become a breeding ground for Imperialism. I wasn't necessarily saying that I believe that's the case.

[DanS]

The biggest think France and Russia have to win is a limitation of US' influence in the area, that'll go against their interests.

You've got to realize how silly this all seems. We have 300,000 troops in the area. How precisely is US influence going to be limited? By de Villepin going to Syria?

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

I agree. But I think the boost is not nearly as large as France and Russia make it out to be, since it relies on the US recognizing it as a boost.

[Lonestar]

They should make me Viceroy of Iraq. I honestly think I'd do just as good a job as anyone else, and better than most.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
France and Russia and all the other countries who support terrorists

Since you don't have a clue in anything, I consider there is no need to debate with you ever again. Your worldview is so absurd I cannot take seriously one word you'll say anymore.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
The biggest think France and Russia have to win is a limitation of US' influence in the area, that'll go against their interests.

You've got to realize how silly this all seems. We have 300,000 troops in the area. How precisely is US influence going to be limited? By de Villepin going to Syria?

The occupation army will be much smaller than the invasion army. Besides, in a UN's partisan wildest dream, the occupation could be taken over by UN troops, where the US have much less say, because most of occupation soldiers aren't Yanks.

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

I agree. But I think the boost is not nearly as large as France and Russia make it out to be, since it relies on the US recognizing it as a boost.

I meant : France's power at the UN is not representative of its small power outside the UN. By "boost", I meant "overpowered when compared to reality". Sure, now that the US has decided to do what it pleases without the world community agreement (face it, there would have been a vote for a second resolution despite French veto if there had been a majority), it has considerably lowered the significance of this veto.
But my point was : once the UN-led reconstruction starts, France will stop to be a veto power, simply because the decisions won't be taken by the body where it has a veto power, i.e the SC. France will be a semi-influential lobby, nothing more.

[Chemical Ollie]

As we all heard before the war that "this is not about oil" the best way to prove it is to give all the oil contacts to non-American corporations. Then we will believe you.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
France and Russia and all the other countries who support terrorists

[PLATO]

The UN is not well equipped for Nation Building because of the very things that have been discussed here. To many opposed viewpoints will lead to long term failure. One vision will have the greatest chance of success.

The UN is very well equpped to provide humanitarian assistance and to provide a conduit for financial assistance from interested countries.

France and Russia well recognize these facts. It is not so much about disagreeing with US policies, it is about preserving influence that they want in this region. The overthrow of Saddam's regime was a blow to years of careful relationship building on both of their parts. This was the primary reason for their objection to regime change.

In the greater scope of things, the only way that they can hope to preserve influence in this region is to hope for full UN control. The US realizes this as well and the UN role will likely be limited.

[Spiffor]

Tsk, Tassadar, this is what you really meant :

[yavoon]

honestly olaf I have no desire to prove nething to the rest of the(western) world nemore. if they want to hate on us at every possible corner. then they can just piss off.

and I agree w/ plato intense argument and politicing would lead to a very muddled and compromised plan. when a real, clear and concise objective is needed.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
The UN is not well equipped for Nation Building because of the very things that have been discussed here. To many opposed viewpoints will lead to long term failure. One vision will have the greatest chance of success.

The UN is very well equpped to provide humanitarian assistance and to provide a conduit for financial assistance from interested countries.

(...)

In the greater scope of things, the only way that they can hope to preserve influence in this region is to hope for full UN control. The US realizes this as well and the UN role will likely be limited.

I agree. First, a key element before we can think of any nation building is security. Since the US/UK forces are already there they are the only choice that makes sense to reach security. I don´t see UN troops handle the situation any better (rather worse) and the practical problems are to big ( for example getting equally able forces there)

So the simple presence of coalition forces there dictates a leading role for the US (if we like it or not), or does anyone think they get out in two weeks, while some UN troops move in?

And I also don´t think that the UN will be more successful in the end. Even if the US acts in self-interest (who doesn´t?) Iraq may profit in the end more than from a UN led operation, because the UN would have to balance out all the interests of the member states which could end very well in a total mess.

Of course, if the US fails it could produce the same mess, but I don´t doubt they have the capability to succeed. However, one main concern remains how the acceptance of a longer US/UK engagement in the country will develop.