# Why are there only 25 election monitors going to Iraq? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 23, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400 "2004-12-23T22:55:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/1 "2004-12-23T22:55:05Z")
For the U.N.‘s treatment of the Iraqis, which has been ungiving at best lately let us pass over the Oil for Food program scandal and Kofi Annan’s description of their liberation as "illegal’. Let us contemplate on the fact the organization plans to send 25 election monitors (perhaps a few more), far less than the 300 it dispatched to East Timor in 1999. I wonder, why is this so? Does the UN and its Secretary General have so much animosity towards the Bush Administration and the Iraqi situation in general that they would rather see Iraq crash and burn, with a government without proper legitimacy just to say ‘I told you so?’ Really doesn’t surprise me. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/2 "2004-12-23T23:12:30Z")
More like, the UN doesn’t believe the Bush Administration’s claims about “safe and secure” elections, and want to minimize the number of their folks who’ll get killed in the crossfire. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/3 "2004-12-23T23:28:00Z")
I may be mistaken but weren’t the East Timor elections officially overseen by the UN? In which case, how can the numbers be directly compared to the US-dictated Iraq elections? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/4 "2004-12-23T23:30:14Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Does the UN and its Secretary General have so much animosity towards the Bush Administration and the Iraqi situation in general that they would rather see Iraq crash and burn, with a government without proper legitimacy just to say ‘I told you so?’ > > Really doesn’t surprise me. Why doesn’t it surprise you? What basis do you have for thinking Annan and the rest of the world (which is what the UN pretty much is) have feelings of simple animosity? There are many more emotions available, including all the ones you’d feel about the neighborhood bully going on a rampage. What basis do you have for thinking that the legitimacy of the prospective Iraqi government would come, not from the consent of the governed, but from the UN? If that is in fact your view, that the legitimacy of nation-building efforts comes from the UN, how do you feel about Bush’s engaging in it _in spite of_ the UN’s wishes? How, in your view, can this US-created election, such as it is, have any legitimacy with anyone anyway? And how do you think you can get away with blaming it on the UN? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/5 "2004-12-23T23:38:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Why doesn’t it surprise you? What basis do you have for thinking Annan and the rest of the world (which is what the UN pretty much is) have feelings of simple animosity? There are many more emotions available, including all the ones you’d feel about the neighborhood bully going on a rampage. Well its nice to know the UN would rather see the Iraqi people and its state go down the toilet than offer help to prove a point. > [@](#): > > What basis do you have for thinking that the legitimacy of the prospective Iraqi government would come, not from the consent of the governed, but from the UN? Its not that, the election monitors would be more of a symbol of international acceptance rather than anything else, it would be a good way of telling the Iraqi people they aren’t forgotten just to prove a point to an American administration. > [@](#): > > If that is in fact your view, that the legitimacy of nation-building efforts comes from the UN, how do you feel about Bush’s engaging in it in spite of the UN’s wishes? How, in your view, can this US-created election, such as it is, have any legitimacy with anyone anyway? And how do you think you can get away with blaming it on the UN? Sod it, if you want to see the Iraqis go destroy themselves because the ‘criminal Bush’ happened to liberate occupy etc etc them, then go ahead. The thing is, even though it may of been wrong for him to invade, the UN should of at least offered some real support for the people on their way to try and reach a transistion of democracy. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/6 "2004-12-23T23:43:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why doesn’t it surprise you? What basis do you have for thinking Annan and the rest of the world (which is what the UN pretty much is) have feelings of simple animosity? There are many more emotions available, including all the ones you’d feel about the neighborhood bully going on a rampage. All I can say to this is…people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. European outrage especially leaves me singularly unmoved considering their history of pretty much doing what they pleased when and where they pleased without reguard to anyones opinion on the matter…especially in the ME region. IMO they’d still be doing it if they hadn’t killed each other off in job lots this past century and wiped out their respective economies. I’m not going to say that I think the invasion was a good idea because it wasn’t…but the fact that the World™ didn’t support makes absolutely zero impression on me. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What basis do you have for thinking that the legitimacy of the prospective Iraqi government would come, not from the consent of the governed, but from the UN? Well, I certainly agree with you here. I can’t think of anything less legitimate than a mandate from the UN. Legitimacy will derive (or won’t derive) from the Iraqi people…I could give two shits if the UN sends 25 or 0 representatives to oversee the election. > [@GorillaMan](#): > > I may be mistaken but weren’t the East Timor elections officially overseen by the UN? In which case, how can the numbers be directly compared to the US-dictated Iraq elections? I think you are correct, and this is probably the answer to the OP if so…though rjung has a good point (blind squirels and acorns :)) about the UN probably not wanting to risk too many people in what is a very unstable and dangerous situation. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2004, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/7 "2004-12-23T23:49:40Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > More like, the UN doesn’t believe the Bush Administration’s claims about “safe and secure” elections, and want to minimize the number of their folks who’ll get killed in the crossfire. They _did_ get burned pretty badly [the last time they ignored security concerns.](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/19/sprj.irq.main/) It’d be foolish of them to step into the meat grinder again, now that the situation has gotten worse. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/8 "2004-12-24T00:22:50Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Well its nice to know the UN would rather see the Iraqi people and its state go down the toilet than offer help to prove a point. That is hardly the only possibility, or even the most likely one. Tell us, what “point” do you think they’d be making? Do you really think most of the world’s governments are on the level of “nyah, nyah”? That’s called “projection” in some quarters. > [@](#): > > The thing is, even though it may of been wrong for him to invade, the UN should of at least offered some real support for the people on their way to try and reach a transistion of democracy. If that is a realistic possibility, you’re right. If it isn’t, as the facts on the ground suggest is likely, if the election is a Bush sham to try to portray the Allawi collaborationist government as somehow legitimate, then the UN has no reason to throw away its credibility supporting it. > [@xtisme](#): > > European outrage especially leaves me singularly unmoved considering their history of pretty much doing what they pleased when and where they pleased without reguard to anyones opinion on the matter…especially in the ME region. Repeat the “projection” comment. Europe has a _much_ more intimate knowledge of the effects of war and of authoritarian government than, we (including you) do. ---
**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:** [December 24, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/9 "2004-12-24T00:24:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I certainly agree with you here. I can’t think of anything less legitimate than a mandate from the UN. Legitimacy will derive (or won’t derive) from the Iraqi people…I could give two shits if the UN sends 25 or 0 representatives to oversee the election. -XT Well that’s exactly the point of sending in Election observers isn’t it ? So that elections and the power given through them are in fact “derived from the Iraqi people” and not US military power. If there were no international observers in Ukraine you would have a dead Yushenko and a pro-Putin puppet right now and the west wouldn’t be the wiser. Now if the US is willing to play dirty is unlikely, but Iraqis mostly certainly will try some tricks. So certainly its just as important that things be viewed as fairly done as the election being defacto fair. Now imagine trying to keep safe 300 UN observers and voters ? Its beyond the means in Iraq… ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/10 "2004-12-24T00:27:24Z")
> [@](#): > > If there were no international observers in Ukraine you would have a dead Yushenko and a pro-Putin puppet right now and the west wouldn’t be the wiser. Now if the US is willing to play dirty is unlikely, but Iraqis mostly certainly will try some tricks. So certainly its just as important that things be viewed as fairly done as the election being defacto fair. Hence the reason why the UN should be there. > [@](#): > > Now imagine trying to keep safe 300 UN observers and voters ? Its beyond the means in Iraq… But not beyond the means of her allies who are helping her. ---
**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:** [December 24, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/11 "2004-12-24T00:29:16Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If that is a realistic possibility, you’re right. If it isn’t, as the facts on the ground suggest is likely, if the election is a Bush sham to try to portray the Allawi collaborationist government as somehow legitimate, then the UN has no reason to throw away its credibility supporting it. The sad part is that all sorts of international organizations are being accused of supporting US invasions… Doctors without Borders (Medecin sans Frontiers), the UN and other charities. Its sad that the middle ground is quickly become scarce… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/12 "2004-12-24T00:53:53Z")
Didn’t Medecins sans Frontieres pull out of Iraq a few months ago? You know how deep the shit would have to be for _that_ to happen. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/13 "2004-12-24T00:55:23Z")
What do you think? If they asked for Jimmy Carter, would he go? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/14 "2004-12-24T00:56:24Z")
And Poland! Don’t forget about Poland! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/15 "2004-12-24T01:19:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Didn’t Medecins sans Frontieres pull out of Iraq a few months ago? You know how deep the shit would have to be for _that_ to happen. It’s not just the do-gooders leaving. The [capitalists are getting cold feet too:](http://www.realestategates.com/Articles/23122004/contract_Contrack53534756809.html) > [@](#): > > Contrack International Inc, an Arlington based engineering and construction company, has become the first major U-S firm to pull his contract from a rebuilding contract in Iraq because of the high danger to work in the country. > > The company led constructions firms assigned to reconstruct Iraq’s transportation system, including building of new roads, bridges and railways. The contract for Iraq rebuilding could have been worth as much as $325 million. > > “I think when people bid on a contract, they do it with the understanding that it would be a permissible security environment,” ”, Eric Schnaible, Lt. Col. of the Pentagon’s Project and Contract Office in Baghdad, said. [More on Contrack International Inc.](http://www.public-i.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=10) ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/16 "2004-12-24T01:32:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If that is a realistic possibility, you’re right. If it isn’t, as the facts on the ground suggest is likely, if the election is a Bush sham to try to portray the Allawi collaborationist government as somehow legitimate, then the UN has no reason to throw away its credibility supporting it. Of course not. What the US is doing in Iraq is obviously evil, and I can’t see why the UN would want to have anything to do with what is going on in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Nietzsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8dc957/32.png) [@Nietzsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nietzsche)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/17 "2004-12-24T03:32:32Z")
Wait, I thought this was a “Coalition of The Willing” production. Why does the UN have any monitors going? If the war is seen as being illegal by the UN, then why are they sending monitors to oversee an election that would also be illegal? And I thought the U.S. administration was saying the UN was irrelevant a while back. How did they become relavant all of a sudden? No, I think the U.S. should ask for Eritrea and Uzbekistan to send election monitors. > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > For the U.N.‘s treatment of the Iraqis, which has been ungiving at best lately let us pass over the Oil for Food program scandal and Kofi Annan’s description of their liberation as "illegal’. Perhaps that would be because it _is_ illegal based on the rules of the UN? You remember those, right? The ones that were called irrelevant and “quaint?” The U.S. recently threatened to retaliate against the UN by [withholding funds](http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L18687253.htm) unless it changed some of those bad mean things it said. The sheer contempt the Bush Administration has shown the UN should be enough to answer the OP’s questions. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/18 "2004-12-24T03:40:19Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But not beyond the means of her allies who are helping her. Have you been watching the news, Ryan? What evidence do you have that the US can keep UN observers safe when they can’t even secure their own frickin’ mess halls? The U.S. simply DOESN’T have the means to keep everyone safe there. The reason the UN sent 300 observers to East Timor and will only send 25 to Iraq - well, one of the reasons - is that there was hope for a real election and democracy in East Timor. The Iraqi “election” is merely an affirmation process for the currently favoured Quisling. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/19 "2004-12-24T08:30:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Have you been watching the news, Ryan? What evidence do you have that the US can keep UN observers safe when they can’t even secure their own frickin’ mess halls? Its got the means to keep everyone safe within reason. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2004, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400/20 "2004-12-24T08:32:38Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > Of course not. What the US is doing in Iraq is obviously evil, and I can’t see why the UN would want to have anything to do with what is going on in Iraq. :rolleyes: Unlike Saddam? Give me a break. ‘Blame America’ the new endevour for World unification. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-there-only-25-election-monitors-going-to-iraq/281400.md?page=2)