Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

How the World Can Aid Iraq Without Helping Bush*

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:52 PM
Original message
How the World Can Aid Iraq Without Helping Bush*
The UN should drive a hard bargain in exchange for bailing out the US

When George Bush addressed the UN general assembly in September last year, his message was blunt. The UN must either support his campaign against Iraq or be doomed to irrelevance. In the event, most countries refused to back him and, ignoring the UN, Bush plunged into war. Tomorrow, when Bush returns to the general assembly, his tone is expected to be somewhat less brusque.

Although Bush is loath to admit it, the US badly needs international assistance, troops and money to prevent its Iraq occupation becoming an inescapable quagmire. In other words, the UN has turned out to be anything but "irrelevant". And through officials like Colin Powell, Bush the heedless unilateralist is now emphasising consultation and an agreed, multilateral approach.

Has he seen the error of his ways? Hardly. If Bush has changed his tune, it is not because he has developed new-found respect for the UN and those who opposed his war. It is because the cost of Iraq, in terms of American lives and American tax dollars, is beginning to have a seriously negative impact on his re-election hopes. It is because ordinary Americans are critical (as ever, in fact) of his go-it-alone approach.


These and other considerations pose a strategic choice with implications stretching far beyond Iraq. Why should the international community gathered at the UN help Bush get out of his Iraq mess? Why not let him stew and, by withholding cooperation, possibly hasten his electoral demise?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Manix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. ...good article
Iraq does need help from the world but Bush will take credit for any
benefit of that help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. YUP
Bush doesn't understand anything unless it negatively affects him. F***ing DISGUSTING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bush would rather
go it alone, prolong the quagmire, and plunge the US deeper in debt than give in to the French and relinquish his political and economic stranglehold on Iraq to the UN.

After all the blood and treasure that's been spent (though not his blood or his treasure) he's not about to let go now of the world's 2nd largest (and possibly the largest) oil reserves.

Bushco's rationale for this war has shifted like the desrt sands, but there has been one constant -- the determination to privatize the Iraqi oil industry and keep it in firmly their corporate grasp.

They might give ground on some comparitively insignificant matters, but there is no way in Hell or Iraq they'll willingly let go of their oily prize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lindashaw Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. Problem is, any country runs the risk of getting their people killed...
Germany will train Iraqis, I believe, and France won't send any. Britain is doing about all it can, I guess, before Tony gets the axe. The UN can't go in without getting blown up, you can't send Indian Hindus to keep Muslim peace, (they said they won't send any, anyway), and Pakistan can't send troops or they will practically have a civil war. So who is left?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sonias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. your break it you buy it
This falls squarely on the shoulders of the US. Whether we like it or not. I do not fault other countries for not sending soldiers or money, at least not while the US insists it will be the occupying force. I agree with Tisdall on this one, the UN owes nothing to the US. If anything making sure the US is tied up in Iraq will prevent another war under the bu$h regime. That said, the Iraqi people do not deserve the miserable mess they find themselves in. The only thing that can give, is the bu$h regime, but bu$h' arrogant foreign policy will not allow for a faster transition to Iraqi self rule. It's never been about the best interests of the Iraqi people, it has always been about how quickly US corporate interests could get control of the oil. They haven't secured the prize so more people will have to die.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 22nd 2017, 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC