Prove to me how useful the UN has been in any situation and I’ll accept what you’ve said.
Well like the US has been mighty useful lately… except for AQ propaganda purposes…
The UN isn’t perfect. Still it does have a reasonable track record of pulling back countries that were in bad shape. Usually it takes an awful long time… and money… but they’ve managed better than the US for sure.
Ideally I agree that the UN should give the Iraqis a decent chance at an election… (I think this is the sticking point that Ryan is trying to bring up) but with Fallujah and the fighting I’m not sure the US and naturally the insurgents wants to give them a decent chance either. So the UN shouldn’t needlessly, as powerless third party, risk the lives of their members.
Not gonna be easy to break through that schoolyard-level belligerence of yours, but ignorance is here to be fought. Learn about UN peacekeeping missions here, for instance, then consider all the places in the world you don’t see in the news anymore and the number of blue helmets you’ll find there. Then learn about the UN’s accomplishments in general.
No, it isn’t perfect, but unless you have a totally different and superior alternative, the solution is to fix it.
Elvis beat me to it.
I’d like to add to his reply that in regards to Iraq in particular, the UN also sent Sergio De Mello to assist with the rebuilding of a government early on. This despite the U.S. administration’s openly hostile stance towards the UN.
Perhaps if the U.S. administration hadn’t been so focused on guarding the oil wells and had provided security to the UN team in Iraq, more election monitors would be forthcoming. As it currently stands, the UN has been further sidelined by the U.S. administration and the security situation is worse.
But I have a question for you. If the UN is as “ineffective” as your question implies, why are you asking them to send more election monitors? You want to add more “ineffectiveness” to what’s already there?
And why wouldn’t they? I think its only the insurgents who want these elections posponed.
Why do you think everyone else wants to have them? How about those who think they’ll be a sham and they won’t matter?
Anyway, [urll=http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/12/24/safety_woes_mean_most_observers_of_iraq_vote_will_work_in_jordan/]here’s more detail about the security problem from the AP:
As much as you post about Iraq, I am continually shocked that you don’t really seem to follow events there very closely.
Adnan Pachachi has called for a six month delay in the elections. Link. But Mr. Pachachi is no insurgent. In fact, just a few months ago, he was the United States’ favored choice for the president of Iraq. Cite. I don’t know if you eatch Fox News over in Manchester, but you really ought to invest in a better source of information about Iraq than whatever you’re now using.
Well I’ll accept the fact that some prominent politicians don’t want the election to go ahead, is there anyway in which Sunni seat could be left vacant until the security situation is stablised? For example the current people who hold onto the seats in Sunni dominant areas remain there until the situations hindering their elections are resolved? Would seem a lot more viable and accepting for that minority.
That Saddam was evil doesn’t mean that what the US is doing in Iraq is not also evil. Would you argue that Stalin became a Good Guy after he became an enemy of Nazi Germany?
The thing is, the US isn’t transporting 14 million of its own citizens to slave labour camps to boost economic and military output for a bankcrupt ideology.
I’ve never argued that. But then would you consider what the US did to Japan in world war two an act of evil, or necessity?
Umm- no, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, remember. Saddam didn’t.
The answer is pretty simple, IMHO. Until the security situation is a hell of a lot better, the elections will be meaningless. Any government that arises from the constitutional congress that is about to be elected will be serving as long as the US is enforcing its edicts. I do not think that the security situation wil get any better until we leave.
It is probably true that things will get worse in the short term after our departure, due to the power vacuum that will exist. We do not seem to be setting up an effective force to replace us after we leave (GWB has admited this, I do not think I need a cite).
Since this does not seem to be happening, an eventual civil war seems the most likely outcome regardless of who gets elected. Unless of course the people placed in power come with their own army. If you already have that, then why bother with risking assasination while running for office. You are already most likely to run the place after the US leaves.
The 25 election monitors the UN are sending now are so they can at least say they tried, I suppose.
BTW: I do not care what Mr Liam says in response to this. Since he wonders why the UN is not participating, but thinks they are ineffective. If he does reply I will giggle at whatever he does say, but I am not gonna reply to him. Does anyone else see a reason why this is not the most probable course of events?
Cite?
I mean, those are cheap words from someone who isn’t there. Perhaps the UN doesn’t share your misplaced optimism.
Right. There was no necessity for the US to invade Iraq. Now if Saddam had been bombing US soil, or destroying US ships, that would be a different story. However, Saddam wasn’t doing that. And if anyone wants to argue that invading Iraq was a Good Thing because it was ruled by a nasty person, if the US extends that policy worldwide the troops are gonna have to be invading a LOT of countries in the near future.