UN and Iraq: Are We Forgetting Something?

[Plaid Adder]

I sure was, but a friend pointed this out to me a few days ago:

The U.N. is what's been enforcing the economic sanctions that have been sucking Iraq dry for the past 12 years. So they are not exactly popular on the ground there, nor probably are they seen as an honest broker. Are we kidding ourselves about how useful a UN takeover would actually be?

I mean, I would like us out of Iraq as fast as possible, please, but I would also like that not to make the situation worse.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Solomon]

1. Good Point.

You're right. We have forgotten about this little sticky detail. It appears that France and Germany just moved up in the spoils rankings.

[el_gato]

2. the UN has always been a US tool

I say get rid of the UN, IMF, WORLD BANK, and every other tool
that is used by the globalizing fascists.

It's the constant manipulating that produces these problems.

Colonialism in any form is bad.

[bryant69]

5. Hmmmmm.

Well, what is your solution? No trade at all between nations?

[Maple]

10. I'm amazed by the idea

the US thinks it has the power to just 'get rid of' world bodies.

There are 6 billion people in the world ya know...the US is only 300 million of them. It doesn't run any of those groups.

I'm afraid you can't eliminate the other 190 countries because you find them inconvenient.

[Beetwasher]

3. It's usefulness would be as PR cover for the admin.

that's it. They would love to get the UN in there as replacement targets so that US troops stop dying by March. Additionally, when things continue to go wrong in Iraq, the admin. can blame the UN. Simple really...I can't imagine the UN going along with the admin on this, they can't be stupid enough not to see that this is what's going on...

[MuseRider]

4. Yes, it is good cover

but it will also free us up to do some more invading I am afraid. Gotta bomb someone else to get those polls back up.

[Cocoa]

6. the UN's opposition to the war may have helped its credibility

which would be extremely ironic, since Bush said the opposite, he said they had to go along if they wanted to stay relevant.

[Aidoneus]

9. publically opposed the war, sure,

but rubberstamped the occupation afterwards. I'd think no real brownie points there..

[damnraddem]

7. It didn't excape the Iraqis, some of whom spoke out after the bombing.

But the UN still has the experts at peacekeeping. The U.S. is not making things better in Iraq; but the UN might.

[Clete]

8. It's a trade off.

The UN was behind enforcing the sanctions because Saddam was obstructing the weapons inspectors. It placated the USA, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the "lesser of two evils" model. Sanctions were deemed to be better than war. Neither is very humane as someone always suffers. I thought it was shortsighted myself. I am not a hawk but in Gulf War I, I believe we should have cleaned out Saddam, his sons and the Baath party then. Saddam and company should have been turned over to the Hague for trials and a new Iraqi government formed.

We don't know what the real reason that Bush,Sr. changed his mind and stopped the invasion of Iraq in Gulf War I. Knowing how the BFEE operates, there was self-interest involved no doubt. The official reason was to maintain the balance of power in the ME and to keep Iran in check.

[briz]

12. Sanctions

Actually the sanctions resulted in more than a million deaths of Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children. With this in mind I say war would be preferential because as of now those dead Iraqis will never come back. And if some way *is* invented to bring them back, well this would be even worse. Can you imagine the logistical problems we would have by having 2 million Iraqi Frankensteins roaming the countryside??? It would be ucked up. A guy like Edward James Olmos could get lost in a crowd.

[newyawker99]

14. Hi briz!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sandnsea]

11. With the pressure of the US

That's the position we were at, force the issue about Saddam and the weapons or lift the sanctions altogether. The sanctions were causing harm. Leaving Saddam with the ability to restart weapons productions without the sanctions didn't seem to be a good idea. What to do, what to do.

A UN takeover now would most likely mean more companies from more countries would go into Iraq. I don't think it follows that Iraq would continue to suffer because the sanctions wouldn't be the same. But if you mean the US would be putting money into Iraq and the UN might funnel that money to France or Germany, gasp, that could happen. But we're not supposed to be over there on a power grab in the first place, right? This was to liberate the poor Iraqis, right?

We need to get the UN back in, no matter how much money we lose to do it.

[briz]

13. Liberate Irap?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA!! Bush putting Yankee lives in harm's way to "liberate Iraq". You slay me!

they hate our freedom, in the hunt, smoke 'em out, bring 'em on, yee freaking haw!

[sandnsea]

15. Do you recognize sarcasm?

Or maybe it's me who doesn't recognize it?