How will replacing the coalition with a UN force help?

[member 5645]

Rwanda and Srebrenica come to mind when I continue to hear people say that the coalition should be replaced with a UN force.
Those two areas had declared safe zones and in both cases 1000's of people around (and INSIDE OF) the safe zone were killed.

So, lets' look at the main complaints/goals about Iraq:

1> Nations don't want their troops there
2> security
3> humanitarian aide
4> hand over of power

Well, if the UN takes over, I don't understand where people think the soldiers will come from. It's not as if they will magically appear. Australia, S Korea, and Spain will all have soldiers there - France and Germany too.

How will security get better? The UN is there for PEACEKEEPING. It's a show of force more than anything. Many on here that support the UN role also agree that we are still in an open war in Iraq. So, how will the UN do a job that isn't what they were designed for?
Also, do you believe that somehow the insurgency will suddenly be calmed because of the UN label (who has been accused of being nothing more than a tail of the USA)? Or will the insurgency continue because those that are fighting do not want just a free Iraq, they want to have control (or a separate country).

Humanitarian aide. There is presently power and water to more homes now than there was before the war. The Redcross and other organizations are active in Iraq, and we are supplying tons of food to the populous. I have been unable to find any news stories anywhere showing that food, water, and medicine could somehow be improved any quicker via the UN (I'm open for links). Perhaps with UN support other countries will help more? Do we have any preset agreemetns of "bring the UN in, and we will offer this..."?

Hand over of power. The interim government will be taking power in June, and the UN agrees with our assesment of the ability for the country to hold elections (they aren't ready). So how will this change under the UN??

So, maybe someone here who supports the UN taking over can show me how the UN taking over will be better for the Iraqis. What the international community wants is a moot point for this thread. This is fully based on how it will help the Iraqis.

 

[Adam]

I don't think security there will improve at all if the US forces are replaced by a UN force. I think the ant's nest has been kicked over, and it won't be fixed by having troops stand around, regardless of where they come from.

Given that, another issue is responsibility. Why should the UN pay for what the US did? The US should stay in Iraq now that they have kicked over the ant nest, and pay for it.

 

[member 5645]

I don't think security there will improve at all if the US forces are replaced by a UN force. I think the ant's nest has been kicked over, and it won't be fixed by having troops stand around, regardless of where they come from.

Given that, another issue is responsibility. Why should the UN pay for what the US did? The US should stay in Iraq now that they have kicked over the ant nest, and pay for it.

So you don't support UN intervention?

 

[Adam]

No, not at all.

 

[Njorl]

The only point of a UN force that I can see would be in this circumstance:

Peace is established between the many factions. The large number of weapons available make the peace very tenuous. No side trusts the others to refrain from mobilising. The US is not trusted to maintain disarmament.

In this case, the UN would be ideal. We will need to bring about at least this uneasy peace before holding elections. Still, even in this circumstance, the UN would certainly need a force that will fight. Any faction that perceives itself as a sure loser in elections will resort to violence.

Njorl

 

[jimmy p]

UN intervention? what would that be? A lot of people bickering about what to do, USA and UK troops being sent in... so what's new?

On a more serious note, i think that Iraq will be sick of having more foreign troops who don't have a clue piling in. Frankly i don't see it changing the situation one bit, it will just cause arguements and tension and needless loss of life. I'm not saying there isn't with the coalition in because i read the news and KNOW there are losses, but potentially for terrorists, there are more troops to kill.

 

[Adam]

Installing UN forces won't make a difference. Consider the current situation. Foreign troops from countries other than the USA are already being shot to pieces all over Iraq. How will it be any different if they march under the UN banner rather than the USA banner? It won't. So, the idea that non-USA troops in there will change everything is already dealt with. Reality shows it is a mistaken assumption.

Let the USA government stay in Iraq and rebuild at the USA"s cost, until the rebuilding is complete.

 

[selfAdjoint]

That's what the empire theorists like Steven del Beste and Jerry Pournelle say. Stay in Iraq till we transform it by hook, crook or twisted arm into our image, or a suffieciently plausible imitation thereof.

 

[Adam]

Well, that was Bush's stated agenda anyway, to install "American-style democracy". Given that the USA is there, enforcing its policies by force of arms, the least good they can do is actually rebuild what they destroyed.

 

[kat]

Well, that was Bush's stated agenda anyway, to install "American-style democracy".

Really? I must of missed that one...can you show me the quote where he stated his agenda is to "install American-style democracy"?

 

[member 5645]

Let the USA government stay in Iraq and rebuild at the USA"s cost, until the rebuilding is complete.

Then no problems with contracts going to only coalition countries?

 

[Adam]

Contracts should at least be up for tender, rather than being immediately awarded to companies which are backed in part by Bush and Cheney. Most companies of appropriate size and capacity are multinational anyway.

Kat, I'll try to find it.

 

[kat]

Kat, I'll try to find it.

I don't think you will, because I think it's a figment of your imagination...but I look forward to seeing it if you do.

 

[Adam]

Nup, this is what I've found so far:

"Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

"We reaffirm the resolve of our two countries, with many friends and allies, to complete the process of bringing freedom, security, and peace to Iraq."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031120-1.html

"On year after the armies of liberation arrived, every soldier who has fought, every aid worker who has served, every Iraqi who has joined in their country's defense can look with pride on a brave and historic achievement. They've served freedom's cause, and that is a privilege... Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq... The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty, and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040319-3.html

"Our coalition is helping the Iraqi people to build a secure, hopeful, and self-governing nation which will stand as an example of freedom to all the Middle East."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030927.html

"Because the Baathist regime is history, Iraq is no longer a grave and gathering threat to free nations. Iraq is a free nation."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html

"We will expect a higher standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of democracy we have begun."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html

"We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031119-1.html

"America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq."
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm

"The United States and other nations are working on a road map for peace. We are setting out the necessary conditions for progress toward the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. It is the commitment of our government -- and my personal commitment -- to implement the road map and to reach that goal."
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm

"It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife."
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm

"By the resolve and purpose of America, and of our friends and allies, we will make this an age of progress and liberty."
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_022703.htm

"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."
http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_030703.htm

Of course, I'm sure some of you believe he meant he wants to install Martian style democracy and such, rather than American.

And a couple of hilarious things:

"Free nations are peaceful nations." - George Bush.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031009-7.html

"We will succeed because when given a choice, people everywhere, from all walks of life, from all religions, prefer freedom to violence and terror. We will succeed because human beings are not made by the Almighty God to live in tyranny. We will succeed because of who we are -- because even when it is hard, Americans always do what is right."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040204-4.html

Huzzah for Manifest Destiny.

 

[Adam]

I'm checking with a friend at ICG for more Bush quotes.

 

[Njorl]

Nup, this is what I've found so far:

Of course, I'm sure some of you believe he meant he wants to install Martian style democracy and such, rather than American.

Most likely is, ironically, a French style of democracy. The US system has too much power vested in one man to make it a good idea for Iraq. A parliamentary system, with each member of a coalition of ruling parties gaining some cabinet posts would be more feasible. (note, I say French rather than British because the French have a written Constitution, and the British do not.)

Just shooting it out until one group is left standing works too. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Njorl

 

[NateTG]

In response to the inital prompt:

It seems likely to me that the reason that brining the UN in would help is strongly related to the reason that Bush et al. don't want to give control to the UN -- the UN would be inclined to run representative elections which are currently likely to lead to a result that the US descisionmakers do not want to see.

In a more pragmatic sense, the US has lost tremendous amounts of credibility in the world because of the lousy diplomacy and ludicrous claims associated with the march to war in Iraq. Moreover, the US's apparent lack of an ongoing/exit strategy in Iraq isn't improving anybody's confidence. Putting the force under UN control provides non-US military powers with reassurances about the nature of the action. If the US wants international help with Iraq, rebuilding credibility is essential.

Moreover, the credibility problems that are causing US allies to be unwilling to engage troops in Iraq are also the type of problems would make the Iraqis themselves doubt the intention and policy of the US government. Thus improving US credibility by involving the UN is likely to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq.

 

[kat]

can you show me the quote where he stated his agenda is to "install American-style democracy"?

Still waiting...

 

[Adam]

Um... Did you miss the many Bush quotes about waging war to eestablish "freedom and democracy"? Go back and read again.

Then (I know it's difficult, but try) think for a moment. In the many quotes I provided, does he say "I will establish something I don't think is freedom and democracy, but which someone else might"? Or does he say he will establish freedom and democracy? Obviously "freedom and democracy" is what he thinks it is, in his speeches.

 

[kat]

ah Adam, Adam, Adam.

Your a slipper li'l devil aren't you?
No where...in any of those quotes is there a Bush quote stating that his agenda (and you did say "stated agenda') was installing "American-style democracy".
Americans don't have the market cornered on Freedom or Democracy, there are other "styles" of democracy.

Does this sound American to you?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--------------
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

I remember distinctly Bush using the word "democracy" with respect to Iraq, a couple of days before the shock-and-impress attack. If he said "American style" or whatever I don't know but he definitely said "democracy." Mostly he sticks to "freedom" for Iraq, which is a cute way of saying 'anarchy.' There's no freedom if you get shot by radical muslim fundies for selling a beer, or you have to wait for 8 hours to get a gallon of gas & the punishment for buying gas on the "black market" (free market) is 2 years in prison...

 

[Adam]

Americans don't have the market cornered on Freedom or Democracy, there are other "styles" of democracy.

Congratulations! Please tell president Shrub that.

No, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure Shrub, in those many quotes, is talking about installing something completely unknown and alien to his own ways.

 

[kat]

Congratulations! Please tell president Shrub that.

No, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure Shrub, in those many quotes, is talking about installing something completely unknown and alien to his own ways.

No, I'm sure that you still have not supported your statements. Assumptions (yours) just don't cut it. You know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

 

[Adam]

You mean, you are assuming Shrub wishes to install "freedom and democracy" of a type he does not approve of?

 

[Zero]

Get back on topic, please.

 

[jimmy p]

yeah, despite what you think, USA is PART of the UN... they don't rule it...

 

[member 5645]

yeah, despite what you think, USA is PART of the UN... they don't rule it...

ummmm, who are you talking to?

 

[jimmy p]

no-one in particular, just babbling. I know that the majority of you guys are American, but it always seems that these threads are steered into arguements about Bush, so i suppose i was venting a little bit of frustration, because i like to read people's opinions on these world affairs, and not about what Dubya is planning to do/say next.

Sorry... :)

 

[FZ+]

No, I'm sure that you still have not supported your statements. Assumptions (yours) just don't cut it. You know what they say about assumptions, don't you?

Restate my (and I assume Adam's) assumptions:

1. The Bush administration keeps a finger on the press and the media.
2. Following his speeches, the media was full of praise and criticism for American style democracies, across the political spectrum.
3. The Bush administration made no effort to correct this.

Therefore, even if this was not directly said, it was a clear implication that was met with approval of the administration. Who's being slippery?

In a return to the topic, why we need the UN in Iraq...

1. Examples of 1000s of people dying etc are moot, since 1000s of people are dying in Iraq right now. Nor are the cases comparable.
2. The prime importance of the UN is political. The rhetoric with the resistance in iraq is that they are opposing an army of occupation, together with all that infidels etc religious claptrap. The involvement of the UN would undermine these protests, as would the implicit approval (since they are part of the UN) of Iran, Jordan, Egypt and the other Arab states.
3. The UN took no part in the invasion itself. Switching or placing the troops under the aegis of the UN would hence lend credibility to the administration's claims that the real conflict is past, and we are moving onto a new phase in Iraq's development. Keeping a full and national armed force in there is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
4. Experience. The UN has greater experience in dealing with these situations.

Consider this: Why did the bush administration go to such an effort to assemble the coalition in the first place? The answer is to provide a replacement to the UN, a sort of UN-lite that they hoped would be sufficient for the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

[kat]

Well then, I'll ask again:

Does this sound American to you?

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

--------------
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The UN brings with it the air of International legitimacy, legal ligitimacy, as if all of the rest of the countries of the world agree, hence what's wrong with Iraq that it is against the entire planet...

The logisitics are another thing all-together...right now I don't think anyone knows with certainty what will happen after the deadline passes if the US Does pull out it's troops, civil war?? religious war?? (an oxymoron?) three new (tribally/faction based) Nation states?

Lets just hope that the killing stops...that was, after all, the reason for going to war, to stop the killing...right? cause you cannot stop the "threat of a killing"...