world pisses laughing about US

www.nytimes.com...

U.S. May Be Forced to Go Back to U.N. for Iraq Mandate
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS


ASHINGTON, July 18 � The Bush administration, which spurned the United Nations in its drive to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq, is finding itself forced back into the arms of the international body because other nations are refusing to contribute peacekeeping troops or reconstruction money without United Nations approval.

With the costs of stabilizing Iraq hovering at $4 billion a month and with American troops being killed at a steady rate, administration officials acknowledge that they are rethinking their strategy and may seek a United Nations resolution for help that would placate other nations, like India, France and Germany.

Administration officials contend that they are being practical, but within their ranks are policy makers sharply critical of the United Nations and those who would consider it humiliating to seek its mantle after risking American lives in the invasion that ousted Mr. Hussein.

The administration's quandary deepened today, when Russia announced that it would consider sending peacekeeping troops but only with a United Nations mandate that set out a specific mission and timetable.

President Bush's meeting this week with Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, was part of a flurry of consultations in recent days between administration and United Nations officials. Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, reached out to diplomats on the Security Council, and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell emerged from a meeting with the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, saying he was discussing ways to expand international support for the Iraq occupation, including seeking a new United Nations resolution.

Mr. Powell said Security Council Resolution 1483, which was approved in May and calls on all members to assist in Iraq's reconstruction, should be enough "cover" for countries to claim an endorsement from the United Nations. But he acknowledged that the nations that matter most are not buying that.

"There are some nations who have expressed the desire for more of a mandate from the United Nations, and I am in conversations with some ministers about this, as well as with the secretary general of the United Nations," Mr. Powell said.

The discussions reflect a growing sense that the reconstruction of Iraq will require a new international alliance. For all their rapid success in the military phase, the American-led forces are struggling to establish stability and normalcy in Iraq. A Pentagon advisory panel that just returned from Iraq reported a pressing need for international assistance.

Even supporters of the administration's policy say its efforts are in jeopardy, and minute military planning gave way to disarray once the major combat ended.

"It's increasingly clear there was really some underestimation of the number of people who would be required after the regime fell, and the length of time required to stay there," said Paul Saunders, director of the Nixon Center, a nonpartisan research organization whose honorary chairman is Henry A. Kissinger.

Mr. Saunders said there were two reasons for the United States to go back to the United Nations.

"It would be helpful to diffuse responsibility for this massive undertaking, and share any dissatisfaction with others and not be the sole target ourselves," he said. "Externally, it's also helpful in rebuilding some of the relationships that were strained in the dispute over going in."

Several nations have chafed at the idea of submitting their troops to American-British control. Others, which clashed with the United States and withheld support for a resolution authorizing war, want to tweak Washington for disregarding them.

India dealt the administration a sharp blow this week, refusing to send peacekeeping troops unless they operated under the auspices of the United Nations. The administration, which had lobbied New Delhi strenuously, had been hoping for a full division of 17,000 peacekeepers, which would have made India the second largest military presence in Iraq after the United States.

The administration had been particularly eager to enlist the Indians, because their presence is widely seen as a bellwether for numerous other developing countries.

Well, I'm not laughing, but the Bush administration has got to go - for the good of themselves (after they repay illegal war profits), the U.S. and the world.

Yeah, I guess one can look at it as a 'slap' in the face or that some of the nations are laughing.

I think one needs to keep in mind that France, Germany, etc., have stated that they will gladly send troops but that they won't do it till the UN passes a resolution authorizing it. Hence the US going to the UN.

There is an old saying here in the US called "every dog has its day." The word used to describe the hesitation of other nations participating......"chafed".......leaves much to be desired, unless, of coarse, one goes along with the mentality of the article.

Be assurd, especially with this administration, that deeds like this, as with France, etc., will not be forgotten....nor by the American people.

Yep, we might be getting what some have deemed as "what we deserve". But the funny thing about 'time' and history, is that its not long before the "shoe is on the other foot" and those nations are seeking aid from us.......

regards
seekerof

the people will realise this was all for naught. anyway, in iraq, the longer we stay there, the more of us are going to die. so i say, we do as much as possible, get out, and close the beaches, because this is only going to increase antiamerican sentiment in the middle eastern world, one thing i've noticed, is that when trying to make friends, beating the errr liberating the crap out of people doesn't help, it makes people respect in fear, not respect you actions in honor, so that is a bad thing. anyway, with each new place we jump, we dig ourselves deeper into a hole leading us towards hell.

Originally posted by phoenix_cross
the people will realise this was all for naught. anyway, in iraq, the longer we stay there, the more of us are going to die. so i say, we do as much as possible, get out, and close the beaches, because this is only going to increase antiamerican sentiment in the middle eastern world, one thing i've noticed, is that when trying to make friends, beating the errr liberating the crap out of people doesn't help, it makes people respect in fear, not respect you actions in honor, so that is a bad thing. anyway, with each new place we jump, we dig ourselves deeper into a hole leading us towards hell.

I agree, whole-heartedly. Bush has many questions to answer, for which he probably never will have to answer. But the sooner we get our troops home, the better.

regards
seekerof

An effective summary in my opinion, phoenix_cross.

George W Bush response to date:

"BRING 'EM ON."

A more sophisticated statesmen there never has been.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
An effective summary in my opinion, phoenix_cross.

George W Bush response to date:

"BRING 'EM ON."

A more sophisticated statesmen there never has been.

I don't think anyone thought they were getting a sophisticate when they elected GWB- that was part of the point....no more glibness.

"Be assurd, especially with this administration, that deeds like this, as with France, etc., will not be forgotten....nor by the American people."

What does that mean ? What deeds ? That everyone knew since September 2002 that bush is full of # when he adresses the world and the american people? (Except, of course, for the american people themselves) Is that a "deed to be remembered"? Could you please expand on why the US attempted to destroy the international system and why that is the fault of all other nations, except the US ?

(just as a reminder : no wmd, no alqaeda, no threat to US or Israel, no nothing)



[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]

Ok.

All this bickering begs the question: What ideas do those opposed to the Bush/American evil empire suggest for a path to terrorist reduction and the stabilizing of Iraq???

Simple, honest, no ; just want some constructive input....?!

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

I think you know full well what I was implying Moku!
I don't think French wines and cheeses, etc., are making a comeback to the US for quite awhile..........you knew exactly what I was implying.

You think that India backing down on sending troops is something people are not talking about.....
You dont think the fact Portugal said they would send troops and then sent mere police officers is not being talked about.......
You dont think the fact that France and Germany says they will send troops BUT won't do so till a UN mandate is made is not being talked about........
You dont think the mere reasons for France calling on the US to 'aid' in Liberia isn't being talked about.....

Hell, I ain't heard nothing from the freedom loving country of Spain yet........
Your claims of US trying to destroy international system can be skewed to fit many a different views, as is obvious with your utilizing of its meaning.

Again, you plead for someone to understand the views of the "other" person (meaning yourself) but you you lack hesitation in jumping me in a 'slight' comment........
LOL, if anything, I figured that I would have been attacked for it by MA, but he let it slide, and made his comment......where's that leave you Moku? Still seeking understanding for your hatred and anger.......

regards
seekerof

Seekerof,
It is unending and blood pressure raising to stay engaged.


I'm still waiting for alternatives from our most erudite contributors.

Reduction in Islamic-based terrorism rests in a fuller understanding of Islam and co-operatively breaking down its destructive tenets.

Stabilising Iraq definitely involves UN-backed activity, and getting profits out of the hands of Cheney/Halliburton/US-UK cartel.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Reduction in Islamic-based terrorism rests in a fuller understanding of Islam and co-operatively breaking down its destructive tenets.

Stabilising Iraq definitely involves UN-backed activity, and getting profits out of the hands of Cheney/Halliburton/US-UK cartel.

Ok. Now that was great MA!!...the last bit was a stab....

Class! Any one else want to expound??

No, not really a stab... I think Iraqis would be happier to know that their resources are under management in a transparent, accountable way - not what we have at the moment.

Another tack would be:

If we allow France, who is soooo mad at us for cutting off their ties with SH, and Russia, who had sweetheart deals with cuddly Sadaam, back in the picture [ulterior font]- do you think oil won't be on their minds also??? And I wonder if anything would be transparent in these days....?

I guess seeker got a headache.....

There are those that get spent in the field of battle, and those that carry on.

I have no doubt the Iraqi-on-the-street and the whole world will carry suspicions about foreign involvement in restructuring the Iraqi oil supply system for years to come. I can't see it being a U.N. function but for some reason that I can't quite fathom it doesn't sit well under Cheney Energy Policy Initiatives either...

Bush handled the situation better than Gore would of anyway. He might be a texas fist, he might of lied about his intentions on certain occations. We dont know for sure. The only thing I do know for sure is that I saw 3000 americans fall from the sky in my city. I witnessed it. Non of you stand over Bush in the oval office watching his every step. So to make an assumtion about the way he goes about running this country is totally from what you observe in domestic media and international pig slop press.

who gives a fluck if they laugh at the US over seas. they have to live with the fact that they are saps for the rest of their lives. The french can shuv their heads up their a$$ for all I care, 50% of their population is middle eastern, ofcource they laugh at the US. Dont get me started on Germany. English need to deport a bit of their own before they start laughing. USSR, well thats a lost country anyway, black market controls everything down to the toilet paper. No economic stability. They are too depressed to laugh at the US.

US will get complete justice. Bush isnt finished. Saudis should be next on the grocery list. Too bad we depend on them for oil. I would love to see them go down. Oh hell, bring down the entire middle east. Just for the hell of it.







[Edited on 19-7-2003 by kitty]

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by kitty]

Well, we can agree it is a mess in the toilet bowl at least.

I think the coalition partners may have some crude thoughts as well....

I really hope the Iraqi man/woman in whole will be better off one day under their own power.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
An effective summary in my opinion, phoenix_cross.

George W Bush response to date:

"BRING 'EM ON."

A more sophisticated statesmen there never has been.

The amazing thing is that such a line is used as if it is a bad thing so many times. It indicates to me that those who are Bush-haters have little and what they have is so mundane, they have to try and puff it up and use it often.
As a matter of fact, the Commander-in-Chief says "Bring it on!" and the dems act as if its a bad thing. You'd be surprised how many of the troops echoed his sentiment. They may be sick and tired of Iraq,who wouldn't be, but they don't want the enemy that is still hiding among the women and children to get the wrong idea.