Why the hatred for the UN?

Originally posted by specialasianX
The UN should tell the USA they will help but all contracts the USA has in Iraq have to be cancelled and the UN can negotiate the new contracts, that way its not the US firms that benefit from the Invasion, but (hopefully) local Iraqi contractors...

Local Iraqi contractors are working full-time. In fact, they're being maxed out -- and paid by the U.S. Of course, U.S. companies are there in force too. After all, there are 30+ years of neglected infrastructure to repair or rebuild. (Except for Heussein's palaces, which were in top-notch shape before the U.S. entered Iraq.)

As for your other suggestion -- you want those that didn't work hard and make the sacrifices to free the Iraqi people to profit from Saddam Heussien's demise? Those that work hard shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts? Sounds like socialism to me... and that makes sense, considering it's the U.N. we're talking about here.

Thundercould... the US has worked hard to destablise the country and throw it into anarchy... What i said (and if you would actually read the post and not just take the bits you want) was if the USA wants the UN to help fix the mess they made (and dont deny thats what Bush is doing this week at the General Assembly) they should concede much of the financial interests to the UN or other nations... why should the UN go in there (moral reasons aside) and put its staff at risk to fix a mess the USA has made, and let the USA reap all the profits... it works both ways buddy.

[Edited on 23-9-2004 by specialasianX]

Originally posted by specialasianX
Thundercould... the US has worked hard to destablise the country and throw it into anarchy... What i said (and if you would actually read the post and not just take the bits you want) was if the USA wants the UN to help fix the mess they made (and dont deny thats what Bush is doing this week at the General Assembly) they should concede much of the financial interests to the UN or other nations... why should the UN go in there (moral reasons aside) and put its staff at risk to fix a mess the USA has made, and let the USA reap all the profits... it works both ways buddy.

The U.S. has worked hard to depose Saddam Heussien -- a terrible dictator (well, that's a redundant statement, it's not like there's any such thing as a good dictator) that spent the last 30 years killing his own people, attacking or threatening his neighbors, and paying off terrorists for doing their dirty deeds in other countries -- and replace his regime with a democratic government that respects its neighbors. This is a bad thing? Also, saying "the US has worked hard to destablise the country and throw it into anarchy" makes no sense.

I am confident that, in time, Iraq and Afghanistan will be democratic governments that respects its own people and its neighbors. It's just going to take time, and in the Internet age people have grown impatient. How long did it take to convert Germany, Japan, and Italy from warmongering dictatorships to democratic governments that respects its own people and its neighbors? I think it took about a decade on average. It's been what, barely a year now in Iraq, and barely two years in Afghanistan?

Hey, I quote the bits I want to comment on specifically because the moderators don't want us over-quoting. Besides, it's not like they can't just scroll up and read the original post.

Why should the U.N. go in there? For one thing, because they shouldn't keep moral reasons aside... the U.N. is supposed to be a humanitarian organization, after all. Also, the U.S. pays for 1/4 of the U.N. anyway. If the U.N. were a corporation, then the U.S. alone would own 1/4 of the stock!

As far as the idea that the U.S. "concede much of the financial interests to the UN or other nations," I'll grant you that it goes both ways, but I think that the U.S. should only concede that which is proportional to the help offered by the U.N. or other nations. Does the U.N. want to contribute, say, 15% of the soldiers to keep security and 15% of the civilians to rebuild Iraq? Then let the U.N. have 15% of the financial interests... We can change the percentage here to any, but you get the idea.

I agree there Thundercould in the sense that the UN shouldnt get it ALL (money wise)... but keep in mind that if the UN were to take control i'm sure the job would be easier just for the fact that the UN hasm ore respect internationally right now than the USA has... so the UN taking control would automatically make other countries more obliged to help out... so that sould be considered in distributing 'the spoils of war'.

As for a good dictator... they do exsist... in fact i lived under one once... the Sultan of Brunei... he has complete control, and although he strictly keeps his country islamic, he does good by his people (he opened a theme park arguably bigger than disney land and made it free for a year, had a free michael jackson concert, both for his birthday, and theres no income tax)

As for Italy being a funstional democracy... so you know how much of the media is owned by the italian president (or prime minister, i'm not sure what they have there)... they vote... true, but they dont really get both sides of the story... the italian system is rife with corruption... and i doubt Iraq and Afghanistan will suceed because its only a matter of time before whoever takes charge either pisses the USA off and get invaded again, or there is some revolt that will oust the elected government (as is common in countries with so many armed factions vying for power), or the elected government will become rife with corruption and a dictatorship will reform again... democracy doesnt work too well in these types of countries, the only way to control the masses there is to be a hardass... i hate to say it but to control the armed factions you need to be a total and utter asshole (i guess bush should be sweet )

I only have one thing to say about the above post,

Ever heard of a country called JAPAN!?!?!?!?

Seems to me that they were pretty extreme and mostly poor prior to US "intervention". Look at them now. Hardly a third world country that we "invaded again".

People have a real short term memory...and the media doesnt help the situation...

Originally posted by Fry2
I only have one thing to say about the above post,

Ever heard of a country called JAPAN!?!?!?!?

Seems to me that they were pretty extreme and mostly poor prior to US "intervention"

. Look at them now. Hardly a third world country that we "invaded again".

Nah, you can't compare this. Japan wasn't a poor country before "US intervention". They always had good factors supporting its growth. Good climate and landscape as well as hard working people. WW2 was just a short breakdown for them but not a new era given with the help of the USA.

But take the other easy example and it's true what you are talking about. Germany was turned into good by bombing it into pieces.