What's being planned in Iraq isn't reconstruction

On April 6 US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz spelled it out: there will be no role for the UN in setting up an interim government in Iraq. The US-run regime will last at least six months. And by the time the Iraqi people have a say in choosing a government the key economic decisions about their country's future will have been made by their occupiers. Wolfowitz further said that the people needed food and medicine from the day one of the interim administration and that the sewerage and electricity had to work with immediate effect and thus everything relating to them was also the coalition's responsibility....

www.thedailystar.net...

what has the un acomplished anyways? somalia was a #in nightmare. hell they couldnt even push the communist all the way to china in korea. lets get rid of the UN.

I never knew that the defeat of communism or socialism or capitalism or any other political ideology was an agenda item for the United Nations.

I would like to know where that has appeared in any of their charters.

the Iraqis will fare far better under US occupation than if the UN had anything to do with it.... After all, the UN would be too busy arguing about who gets what contract for months, and during those months, who knows how many would suffer....

Obviously, Masked Avatar, the U.N. is good for nothing but siphoning my money and working against my country. You're right, the largest threats against peace and human dignity have not been confronted by the U.N. but by the U.S.

But, if you need an organization to stand by and watch over a million be slaughtered in a real attempt at genocide as what happened in Rwhanda, the U.N. is just what is needed.

I think that the US can do better. Unfortonately it seems as if the US can't do much of anything right now. For the soldiers are still being attacked by haters of the US and other Western countries. In my opinion reconstruction will be hard for any foreign nation to achieve. It isn't a mystery that Iraqis hate foreigners. YEAH I SAID HATE.

Just go ask them for yourself. Just be careful and try not to get shot while doing so. The Iraqis must learn to live with what life deals them. Many Iraqis embrace the US forces but some don't and because of that we have ourselves quite an unsolvable situation. Too bad the Iraqis can't redeem themselves alone without outside help. The fact that countries that are pressured into reform after their institutions were destroyed is hard to manage civily. For the civilians of those nations are prone to the desires of reform in their own sense of the terms and not in the form of other civil nations indoctrinations.

What this world needs to learn is how to master reconstruction. Until we can be masters of this we will see the same troubles we see in Iraq now reflect in the future with other nations of the same caliber.

Who better to do the job???

Other than God???

No nation or no organization on Earth is more capable then any other. Therefore the US is not the criminal in this situation. The only criminals are the ones who resist this effort.

Am I right or am I wrong???

Abraham

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Obviously, Masked Avatar, the U.N. is good for nothing but siphoning my money and working against my country. You're right, the largest threats against peace and human dignity have not been confronted by the U.N. but by the U.S.

But, if you need an organization to stand by and watch over a million be slaughtered in a real attempt at genocide as what happened in Rwhanda, the U.N. is just what is needed.

What Mr. T.C. said...

A few perspectives on this on the same page here, some pro-US, some anti:

www.informationwar.org...

"The report highlights the role of Mr Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping at the time, sharply criticising
his failure to act on a warning of the risk of genocide sent by the head of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda."

A clear signal of imminent danger, not responded to. Result: genocide. Global failure.

Trying to see the same quality of intelligence related to clear and present danger of WMDs to national security of US. Not there. Bad intelligence. Old news. Faked documents. Lies. Obfuscation. Corruption. Death and destruction. PNAC. Oil.

It's not the same for me. But I can see why you would want to use an anti-UN argument in your effort to justify US unilateral action.

I don't see how any of those so-called facts are conclusive. What lies????

Don't you think that the UN is worthless???

If not please explain how it isn't.

Then explain why the US and it's attempts at freeing the oppressed are null.

That would bring this topic back to life.

The US must be the next peace keeping force, because it is obvious no one else can handle the heat. Am I right or am I wrong???

Could not have said it better myself

The UN is not only not worthless but it is absolutely vital to world peace. Military action (iE Terror and Horror for hundreds of thousands) must have very good reasons for being done. Since there are different, if not opposing views in the world, a majority of countries must agree if such measures have to be taken against an otherwise peaceful country like Iraq. That's called legitimacy. And you need legitimacy in everything you do. Without legitimacy, everyone does as they please ... anarchy.

Cold Anger, hasve you heard about what nethanyu said about the pipeline to Israel getting re-opened? The Iraq pipeline to Israel has been shut off since 1948 in protest of the creation of Israel. Now, its going to be re-opened. Seems someone is getting a little recontruction, eh? Not only no more military threat to Israel from Iraq, now Israel gets to suck on that fat oil pipe along with the rest of us!

And people still believe this war was all about morality and freedom and concern for the Iraqi people. Cumon. We didnt give a rats ass about them when we were supporting Saddam, now suddenly, we care about thier well being and giving them a democracy?

Pull the other one please.

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
The US must be the next peace keeping force, because it is obvious no one else can handle the heat. Am I right or am I wrong???

No, because the UN is supposed to be world-sanctioned.
The US is NOT world-sanctioned.
Only a police force accepted worldwide is valid. Hence the UN. If it is now obsolete, that is too bad, because a lot of work (and probably a lot of war) will need to happen before the next incarnation of the UN appears and functions properly.