# US wants the UN to clean up **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352 "2003-09-13T05:03:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ChaosGod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ac91a4/32.png) [@ChaosGod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChaosGod)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/1 "2003-09-13T05:03:22Z")
US wants the UN to clean up the situation in Iraq. GWB is desperate to explain how US citizens are not going to pay for all the mess, but how other countries, opposed to the war, have the responsibility to help. How are the US citizens reacting to this ? Do they still believe GWB knows what he is doing ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/2 "2003-09-13T10:21:42Z")
His ratings have dropped dramatically recently. Even his staunchest followers are starting to turn their heads a bit when he talks. He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. He made accusations that weren’t true and now they are coming back to haunt him. He’s a politician, but I can’t see a way for him to slither out of this mess without an honest confession to the world that he was wrong. Adding insult to injury, he wants some $85+ billion to continue his charade. (Politic-O-Meter reading: Needle buried to the Left) ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/3 "2003-09-13T11:06:45Z")
> [@](#): > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3098332.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3098332.stm) > > US President George W Bush has called on members of the United Nations Security Council to act quickly and approve a new resolution on Iraq. Mr Bush on Wednesday called on members to avoid past disputes about the war and “move forward”. > > The US has called for a new resolution that would authorise a multinational force in Iraq. But France and Germany - which opposed going to war - want to give the UN a larger role in Iraq’s future than Washington appears willing to allow. > > Mr Bush, in a statement regarded by analysts as conciliatory, said France and Germany may want to “fine tune” the US proposal But he added that the two countries were not opposed to the planned resolution. “We expect and hope that our friends contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq,” the US president said. > > “Let’s not get caught up in past bickering.” “Let’s not get caught up in past bickering.” ?? WTF? This is like a man raping a woman and when the whole thing is over arguing “let’s forget the whole thing, after all, what’s done is done and she’s not going to get her virginity back so taking me to court will only serve to make things worse for her - - if you care for her you should forget the whole thing ever happened.” Of course France and Germany are not going to roll over. > [@](#): > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3105382.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3105382.stm) > > US Secretary of State Colin Powell has described as “totally unrealistic” a French proposal for the United States to transfer power in Iraq to a provisional government as early as next month. > Mr Powell was speaking as he flew into Geneva for a meeting later on Saturday with his counterparts from the four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. > > On Friday, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested the establishment of a new Iraqi government in a month, a draft constitution by the end of the year and elections by next spring. > > The US has put forward a resolution to create an international force in Iraq to ease pressure on its troops. The last thing the USA wants is for Iraqis to exercise their freedom. The USA wants to keep control of Iraq but have other countries provide troops. The French are refusing to play along while Spain has sent some troops. > [@](#): > > The French are wiser than they seem > and the Spanish seem wiser than they are. > Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) How little things have changed in the building trade. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/4 "2003-09-13T11:34:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > **He’s a politician, but I can’t see a way for him to slither out of this mess without an honest confession to the world that he was wrong.** You don’t have much of an imagination. There’s an obvious solution: start _another_ war. [Iran’s nuclear deadline](http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1041307,00.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*Ultimatum over US suspicion that Tehran is building bomb \*\* > > The worsening international crisis over Iran’s suspected nuclear bomb programme escalated last night when the UN set Tehran a deadline of 45 days to come clean on its nuclear activities. Failure to comply by Iran, whose diplomats walked out of a meeting in Vienna yesterday in protest at the deadline, could lead to the imposition of UN sanctions. > > Both the US and Britain suspect the Islamic Republic of secretly seeking to build a nuclear weapon, a charge it denies. Probably won’t be long before we start hearing the Iran can be ready to launch in 45 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/5 "2003-09-13T13:42:48Z")
Don’t blame me. I was perfectly happy to let Saddam continue torturing and murdering his people as long as we could buy his oil. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/6 "2003-09-13T14:05:38Z")
The USA was certainly happy “to let Saddam continue torturing and murdering his people as long as we could buy his oil”. That was what the USA did for decades. In fact, the USA helped Saddam Hussein acquire and use poison gas and do other dirty deeds. Reminds me of “I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out there is gambling going on here”. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/7 "2003-09-13T14:40:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sailor \* > The USA was certainly happy “to let Saddam continue torturing and murdering his people as long as we could buy his oil”. That was what the USA did for decades. In fact, the USA helped Saddam Hussein acquire and use poison gas and do other dirty deeds. Reminds me of “I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find out there is gambling going on here”. \*\* And the world seemed happy enough to go along with us. I guess I have to ask what you political geniuses suggest as a solution to the whole Iraq issue. You don’t think WE should be in Iraq. You don’t think the UN or the rest of the world should help us out in Iraq. You complain that we haven’t provided ENOUGH security in Iraq. No wonder everyone tunes you out. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/8 "2003-09-13T14:56:09Z")
Another thing is that the US for the most part doesn’t really impart such wisdom and trust in the UN as much of the world does. They’re just another bunch of ineffectual bureaucrats, swanning around New York City in their limos, ignoring parking tickets, and using their diplomatic immunity to get their rapist sons off the hook and out of the country. The steady drumbeat of routine condemnations of the US and its friend Israel throughout the 70’s and 80’s made many of us think of them as a Third World propoganda machine, beholden to an outmoded mix of vague socialism and tired and cynical dictator-coddling realpolitick. Not that UNICEF wasn’t cool. Programs like that we used to raise money for as kids and I don’t think most of us want the whole UN to disappear…it’s just that their moral authority is sort of weak. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/9 "2003-09-13T15:22:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > I guess I have to ask what you political geniuses suggest as a solution to the whole Iraq issue. You don’t think WE should be in Iraq. You don’t think the UN or the rest of the world should help us out in Iraq. You complain that we haven’t provided ENOUGH security in Iraq. The problem was created by the USA invading another country illegally and with no justification whatsoever. It is the responsibility of the USA to clean up the problem the USA created in the first place. It is not the responsibility of other countries who were opposed to the USA creating the problem in the first place. Now the USA has the gall to ask for help from the other countries while still wanting to be the boss and run the show. Some nerve! > [@](#): > > No wonder everyone tunes you out. Who tunes who out? The only ones tuning out are those who do not want to be faced with the reality of the situation. The USA tuned out the UN calling it irrelevant. Well, they made their bed, now they can be fucked in it. Most of the cost of the first Gulf War was paid by other countries, not by the USA. that’s what happens when you do things right and have allies. This time around the arrogance of the US government led them to think they could go against the world. Well, the rest of the world just wants to pull up a lawn chair and watch while the USA is dragged through the Iraqi mud. That’s what you get when you are arrogant and aggressive. It’s not like this was an unforeseen event. (Except to the idjits running the US government) ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/10 "2003-09-13T15:41:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by msmith537 \* > \*\* > > I guess I have to ask what you political geniuses suggest as a solution to the whole Iraq issue. You don’t think WE should be in Iraq. You don’t think the UN or the rest of the world should help us out in Iraq. You complain that we haven’t provided ENOUGH security in Iraq. No wonder everyone tunes you out. \*\* No one said the UN has no business there. The point is, if someone flouted my admittedly limited authority in some area, declaring me “old” and “irrelevant”, then came back asking for help when it blew up in their face, I’d give it to them, if I gave it to them at all, on MY terms, not theirs. Our pseudo-leader wants to prance around as though he’s got the right to tell the rest of the world where they ought to be and when, without admitting his grave errors, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. Boo-F\_\_\_ing-Hoo for him. The solution WAS to not start this war in the first place, since we already had our hands full in Afghanistan, which is now going to hell at the same time as Iraq, only more quietly, media-wise. The only reasons to open a second front in Iraq this past year would have been an imminent catastrophic threat, or a mind-numbingly greedy bid by a “former” oilman for US control of some mideast oil fields during a time of world political uncertainty. Since GWB couldn’t just come out and admit the latter, he had to invent the former. Bush had an ample number of people telling him that there would be no good solution in Iraq if the US went to war. The fact that he did go ahead with it should have been backed up by a solution no one else had thought of. We’re still waiting. This pathetic attempt to dictate how the UN ought to bail us out of Iraq against their own better judgement just further proves what an embarassment he is. We can only hope we will be smart enough next November not to elect a “good drinking buddy”. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/11 "2003-09-13T16:33:02Z")
> [@](#): > > US wants the UN to clean up the situation in Iraq. > GWB is desperate to explain how US citizens are not going to pay for all the mess, but how other countries, opposed to the war, have the responsibility to help. > > How are the US citizens reacting to this ? My reading of the situation is… rather different. First, note the timing: the new “UN Friendly policy” came only after the UN was attacked. I have heard some reports tha the UN bureaucrats were chocked and apalled at the bombing, and perhaps came to a more US-friendly view. Aditionally, the bombing and subsequent offer by the US gives countries sitting on the fence a chance to save face at little cost. Secondly, the opposittion of France and Germany provides more evidence that neither of those nations really cared about the Iraqis. For them, this has always been about keeping America down, and now its becoming even more obvious. Third, The wording of the resolution makes it quite clear that the US will be in control, but like Japan after WWII, there is a use in the polte fiction of international cooperation. Betcha didn’t know they used the same lie then, too. Fourth, any help means we don’t have to pay for it, although we well can afford it. ---
**Author:** ![ccwaterback](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@ccwaterback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ccwaterback)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/12 "2003-09-13T16:43:22Z")
Foreign policy in a nutshell: [http://www.thelawparty.com/AmericanForeignPolicy.htm](http://www.thelawparty.com/AmericanForeignPolicy.htm) ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/13 "2003-09-13T16:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\*My reading of the situation is… rather different. > > First, note the timing: the new “UN Friendly policy” came only after the UN was attacked. I have heard some reports tha the UN bureaucrats were chocked and apalled at the bombing, and perhaps came to a more US-friendly view. > \*\* I have heard no such reports. Where are they from? This makes no sense. A nation destabilizes another country and gets several of my professional colleagues killed, so now I’m more friendly to them? Gotta see it to believe it. > [@](#): > > **Aditionally, the bombing and subsequent offer by the US gives countries sitting on the fence a chance to save face at little cost.** Save WHAT face? Who’s chagrined because of our unmitigated success in Iraq, either in terms of proving our sense of threat correct, establishing a stable peace, or securing the oil flow? All the countries who didn’t join our “coalition of the willing” are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to deal with the quagmire. > [@](#): > > **Secondly, the opposition of France and Germany provides more evidence that neither of those nations really cared about the Iraqis. For them, this has always been about keeping America down, and now its becoming even more obvious.** I agree that those two governments have no more concern than GWB over the fate of Iraqi civilization, which is next to none. Their self-interest however, is that they had oil contracts with Iraq that the US has now effectively nullified, and he’s offering nothing in the way of a replacement deal in exchange for their help. What’s in it for them? > [@](#): > > Any help means we don’t have to pay for it, although we well can afford it. \*\* The Congress certainly has doubts of our ability to afford it, on top of all the other things the government should be dealing with. What do you know that they don’t? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/14 "2003-09-13T18:01:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > My reading of the situation is… rather different. > > First, note the timing: the new “UN Friendly policy” came only after the UN was attacked. I have heard some reports tha the UN bureaucrats were chocked and apalled at the bombing, and perhaps came to a more US-friendly view. Aditionally, the bombing and subsequent offer by the US gives countries sitting on the fence a chance to save face at little cost. This is hilarious. If anyone is trying to save face desperately it is the USA. > [@](#): > > Secondly, the opposittion of France and Germany provides more evidence that neither of those nations really cared about the Iraqis. For them, this has always been about keeping America down, and now its becoming even more obvious. And this is as cynical as you can get. Do you even bother reading what has been posted? The reason France and Germany are giving for not going along with the US proposal is that they want to guarantee a return to Iraqui rule as soon as possible and the USA will not go along with that. Hypocrisy at its finest. > [@](#): > > Third, The wording of the resolution makes it quite clear that the US will be in control, but like Japan after WWII, there is a use in the polte fiction of international cooperation. If the USA wants to be in control it can fucking well pay the bill > [@](#): > > Fourth, any help means we don’t have to pay for it, although we well can afford it. Well, then, why doesn’t the USA stop begging at the UN? Begging is so unbecoming you know. Read the news and stop your wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > [http://www.msnbc.com/news/966069.asp](http://www.msnbc.com/news/966069.asp) > Iraq war costs escalate sharply > Toll on troops, equipment will mean higher spending for years > “This $87 billion is really just a down payment,” said Scott Lilly, the Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and a military procurement expert. > It is a point that military officials emphasize. > “We assumed that operations would cease a lot earlier than they have,” said an Army official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “They haven’t ceased. The planning process was always to downsize, for the operational tempo to drop dramatically by now. The surprise is, we continue to operate at a very, very high op tempo with a very, very large force.” > Army officials say they will need more than $16 billion to repair and replace worn and expended military hardware and reconstitute a force that has been exhausted by simultaneous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The “reset” involves more than 50,000 wheeled and tracked vehicles, every aviation system deployed in the Middle East and 300 different computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems. > “The dollar cost still slaps you in the eye,” the Army official said. Read the freaking news. You are living a dangerous fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/15 "2003-09-14T15:24:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ccwaterback \* > \*\*Foreign policy in a nutshell: > > [http://www.thelawparty.com/AmericanForeignPolicy.htm](http://www.thelawparty.com/AmericanForeignPolicy.htm) \*\* WOW !! Great stuff ! ---
**Author:** ![owlofcreamcheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@owlofcreamcheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlofcreamcheese)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/16 "2003-09-14T16:08:18Z")
FIRST he wants them to help, NOW he wants them to help, won’t he make up his mind? ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/17 "2003-09-14T16:25:18Z")
Next he’ll want a multinational force in there. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/18 "2003-09-14T20:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scotandrsn \* > No one said the UN has no business there. The point is, if someone flouted my admittedly limited authority in some area, declaring me “old” and “irrelevant”, then came back asking for help when it blew up in their face, I’d give it to them, if I gave it to them at all, on MY terms, not theirs. > \*\* So what business does the UN have there? Will they cruise around in their white tanks and blue helmets for a couple of months until a few peacekeepers and aide workers are blown up by terrorist bombs and then pull out? Maybe the solution was to not invade Iraq in the first place but it’s a little late for that. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/19 "2003-09-14T22:10:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese \* > FIRST he wants them to help, NOW he wants them to help, won’t he make up his mind? Yeah, first he said “just do as I tell you and shut up!” and he was told to take a hike, now he says the same thing and he gets the same response. Won’t he ever learn? He wants other countries to blindly help and follow orders on American terms. Other countries believe that they should have a say in how the show is run. If the USA wants to call the tunes then the USA can pay the band. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352/20 "2003-09-15T00:51:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah, first he said “just do as I tell you and shut up!” and he was told to take a hike, now he says the same thing and he gets the same response. Won’t he ever learn? Man, history gets revised quickly these days. Proper timetable: 1. U.S. goes to U.N. and asks for a new resolution saying Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions. France balks, fearing that the U.S. will go to war without a second resolution if they grant this one. 2. U.S. compromises with France, saying that they will seek a second resolution before using force, as long as France agrees to give an honest hearing to the second resolution and support the U.S. if the U.S. can make its case. 3. Colin Powell makes ‘devastating’ presentation to the U.N., widely seen by many as a ‘slam-dunk’ case. U.S. seeks a second resolution authorizing force. 4. France suddenly announces that under no circumstances will it entertain a second resolution, and puts its veto on the table as a certainty before a vote can be taken. This is widely seen by many as a betrayal of the U.S., and a deception given their promise during negotiations for the first. Colin Powell is reportedly spitting mad at the French and feels personally betrayed, since he was the one who got the U.S. to go down the second-resolution path after getting assurances from the French. 5. U.S. withdraws resolution, and claims legal right to use force without it, and goes to war. This is not a United States thumbing its nose at the U.N. This is a United States doing everything in its power to go the ‘U.N. route’, and being shafted by essentially a unilateral action by France, or perhaps a bilateral action by France and Russia. So having tried to get U.N. cooperation the first time around and failing, the U.S. is now trying to get U.N. cooperation again, and being stymied by… France. All other arguments about the war aside, this should be seen for what it is - a power play by France. France is trying to set itself up as a leader of the EU, with the EU being a check on American power. Britain, on the other hand, has a vision of the EU being an ally of the U.S. So this was all about France attempting to set itself up as a major world player by using the U.N. as leverage. This had very little to do with the inherent rightness or wrongness of an Iraqi invasion. Aside from the realpolitik France engaged in, it had a vested interest in seeing Saddam stay in power. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-wants-the-un-to-clean-up/201352.md?page=2)