Its quite obvious now that the US is finding the Iraq situation VERY unpleasant politically and would very much like the UN to come in and ease the military and financial burden. However, what would the US have to give in return to get the UN on board?
My thoughts are a combination of the below:
[ul]
[li]Letting the UN take an active role in re-construction. (Why exactly is this benificial? Prestige? or something else as well?)[/li][li]Easing or elimination of Farm subsidies (Obvious economic benifit)[/li][li]Joining the Kyoto protocol[/li][li]Releasing the prisoners at Guantanamo? (does anyone care about them anymore?)[/li][li]Awarding certain contracts for re-construction to non-US companies[/li][li]Making Iraq honour the French/Russian oil contracts?[/li][/ul]
I think the UN will come on board if they get the LEAD role, not just an active role. As in THEY decide who gets the contracts, what the rebuilding strategy is, what the troop deployment is, where to look for those elusive WMD’s, etc…
They, IMO, don’t want to come in with the cash and troops and be in the GWB show. I think they have a point.
yola, the United Nations is not some “nice nations only” club with an exclusive membership. It is a forum where all nations can come together and first exhaust diplomatic efforts to find solutions to mutual problems before agreeing that war is absolutely necessary.
It can only “work” with the cooperation of pretty much all its members, especially its most powerful. The UN is its member states.
Human conflict is, alas, epidemic in a world of cheap assault rifles (exported by whom?), but even so you are overestimating here - what was your source?
I doubt you seriously believe that dissolution of the UN would decrease the number of wars, you are merely pointing out the UN’s failure. And, if the UN is its member states, and the US is its most powerful member state, and the US is directly responsible for the most recent of these wars, who is really to blame for a UN failure?
My memory not being what is used to, I seem to have forgotten how the US regarded the UN´s wishes when they invaded Iraq in the first place. For some reason I have a distinct feeling that the US basically said “We are going to invade Iraq and if you don´t aggree then we don´t care about your opinion” but you probably all remember this better than I do…
Say I was right about this, it seems a bit strange for the US to be asking the UN to help now that it´s obvious that the US is in way over it´s head.
Giving the detainees at Guantánamo a fair and speedy trial would go a long way towards improving relations with western countries but it ain’t gonna happen. What if it turns out the detainees were not guilty of anything after all? Oh, the shame.
For the sake of the people of Iraq, the UN should not play to hard to get. Afterall handing things over to the UN seems to be a possible solution - while the current status is not.
But of course what Bush is offering (or rather demanding) right now is ridiculous. But he still is of the opinion that the rest of the world let him down and not that he affronted them.
I don’t know, should I shout “wake up” or “grow up” ?
Bush might be playing “pass the blame” game too. He “asks” for help… in ridiculous terms… and then when Iraq goes total chaos he will tell US voters that the UN “had a chance” to help out and let it slip. That the “crucial” UN help wasnt forthcoming and the chance was “lost”.
Don’t look at us (the USA). Kalashnikov Arms isn’t one of our companies.
Hey THAT is the job of the UN. It is in everyone’s best interest to have an Iraq that doesn’t become a lawless haven for terrorists.
Not sure if this will help, after all Europe still has their subsidies.
Let it go already.
What am I, taking crazy pills here? It’s not like they plucked these people off the street.
Maybe they should just put the jobs up for bid like any other project.
Yeah…how about France and Russia eat shit. They didn’t want to take part in the risks of in liberating Iraq. They shouldn’t receive the benefits.
What do you making, a Christmas list?
I would like to see:
-The US maintains military control over our troops
-The UN assists in distributing aide, rebuilding vital infrastructure and establishing some form of legitimate government in Iraq
-Some kind of exit strategy for removing our troops and turning control over to Iraq so they can begin buying DVD players, Coca-Cola and Spongebob Squarepants action figures.
Maybe if we dressed GWB in a John Wayne cowboy suit and had him sing Dennis O’Leary’s “Asshole” song to the UN assembly and let them shoot spit wads at him?
That’s the point. They don’t want the “benefits” of putting money and soldiers into Iraq while the US calls the shots but the USA wants them to share those “benefits” of having their soldiers killed and of spending money in the reconstruction. But the USA wants to be in charge and run the show. Is that unrealistic or what? The US government must be on crack lately. There is no other explanation.
Yeah…We are going to spend $80 BILLION to “plunder” some fraction of that value in oil.
I am not the one who wants to “Make Iraq honour the French/Russian oil contracts”. It’s Iraq’s oil to do with as they see fit.
We are “going solo” in Iraq (with Britain mostly) because none of our “allies” wanted to participate when we asked them in the first place.
Why do we want to “run the show”? Because maybe we don’t want the UN to simply say “oh…ok…you’re in charge…you’re the new government in Iraq” to the first group that can amass enough power to threaten humanitarian operations. That would be great to go through all that hard work just so we can end up right back where we started.
