UN Irrelevant?

[HungDaddy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3130880.stm

Dubya is planning a speech to the UN Assembly. From the sounds of it, he will basically dismiss the UN's desire to takeover adminstrative duties in Iraq, and yet at the same time seek validation from the UN for the US backed Iraqi Council.

I guess this is a step forward from Rummy's comparisons of the UN to the League of Nations and the infamous "old Europe" comments. However, it still irks me that Dubya believes that he can go it alone (with lap dog allies in tow) in his "war against terror".

Whatever the disfunctions of the UN, it is currently the only body that can come close to claiming it represents world opinion. America was foudned on the notion of democracy: that the will of the people is paramount. If democracy is so important at a domestic level, shouldn't it be equally important at an international level?

[Harald]

Anyone care to pipe up about why the UN should not take administrative control of Iraq?

I can think of one reason: because the French (and other non-American corporations) may get some of the reconstruction contracts.

[Scott]

Problem is "world opinion" is just about useless. Remember opinions are like asshole. Everyone has them and they all stink. And world opinion is one planet sized asshole.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Scott
Problem is "world opinion" is just about useless. Remember opinions are like asshole. Everyone has them and they all stink. And world opinion is one planet sized asshole.

Presumably "US opinion" however is totally valid.

You are a lunatic.

[bunge]

Get rid of the vetos on the Security Council.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by bunge
Get rid of the vetos on the Security Council.
Vetos of the security council sucks, but in his current state, UN canno't function without it.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Vetos of the security council sucks, but in his current state, UN canno't function without it.

That's true, but getting rid of the veto should be a goal. I like the idea of full memberships for democratic governments but only half-memberships for countries that don't. With a system like that the veto wouldn't be necessary because the dictators of the world wouldn't have a say.

The only problem would be getting China on board.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by bunge
That's true, but getting rid of the veto should be a goal. I like the idea of full memberships for democratic governments but only half-memberships for countries that don't. With a system like that the veto wouldn't be necessary because the dictators of the world wouldn't have a say.

The only problem would be getting China on board.

that's right it should be a goal. I think that UN is the a sort of benchmark of the world. The more civilised, democratic and balanced the word is, the more UN works. In the contrary it's just the reverse.
Saying that UN is irrelevant or worthless, just reflect how in poor shape the world is.

[Moogs]

Just waiting for the day when Bush himself is irrelevant... I just hope he doesn't take the whole country with him.

[ColanderOfDeath]

The veto system is the only feasible way to keep the UN appropriately weak as it should be in security matters. I'll take the problems inherent in a weak UN over the drawbacks of a majority rules system anytime. Especially in a majority rules system where the will of Syria, North Korea, the Faroe Islands, and Lichtenstein counts counts for more than that of Germany, Russia and the US. The reality is that not all countries are equal. There are massive differences in population, economic size, and military strength. We pay 25% of the UN budget, we did the heavy lifting in the UN sponsored actions in Korea and the Gulf War.

For all of the problems out there the international scene has been relatively peaceful for the last 50 years compared to the prior few centuries. If Russia can hold up and China can continue inching towards the rest of the world the big picture will be pretty good.

Reform the UN by tossing out the undemocratic countries and the institution will be fine. Beyond that the only problems are ones of diverging world views on a relatively moderate scale as manifested in the leadership that some countries have and UN reform isn't going to do anything but exacerbate that.

[Eugene]

s/irrelevant/ineffective/

[groverat]

What gives the UN more right than the US to take administrative control of Iraq?

Maybe those bombs going off at Baghdad's UN headquarters are love bombs. "PLZ COEM YUO!1"

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
What gives the UN more right than the US to take administrative control of Iraq?

The fact that the US has no 'right' at all to take administrative control of Iraq would be one thing. The fact that the US doesn't seem to be doing a very good job would be another.

[Scott]

But we won. I doubt the UN would do any better and mostly likely worse.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

The fact that the US has no 'right' at all to take administrative control of Iraq would be one thing.

That makes no sense.
Person B steals Person A's bike, so Person C has the right to take Person A's bike and decide what to do with it?

I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.

Again, what about the bombings? Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".

The fact that the US doesn't seem to be doing a very good job would be another.

Yet another piece of wonderful illogic.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
What gives the UN more right than the US to take administrative control of Iraq?

Maybe those bombs going off at Baghdad's UN headquarters are love bombs. "PLZ COEM YUO!1"


Because in today's global situation ( not national ) it's more than just one country controling. As it should be. You're having trouble grasping this concept? Wake up and welcome to the 21rst century. Smell the coffee.

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".

I believe Iraq has asked for more U.N. intervention and less U.S.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by groverat
That makes no sense.
Person B steals Person A's bike, so Person C has the right to take Person A's bike and decide what to do with it?

That's the worst analogy I've ever read on here. Congrats.

Originally posted by Groverat I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.

Gee, I wonder why they don't have a representative there yet. :no: So in your estimation that's a factor for the UN to not get involved? LOL. Maybe you have heard the Iraqis say they don't want to have representation at the UN?

Originally posted by Groverat Again, what about the bombings? Do Iraqis like the UN more?
The very unhappy don't seem to be calling for "bring in the UN", they seem to be calling for "leave us alone".
Yet another piece of wonderful illogic

Yeah, cause them killing and wounding US soldiers almost at a rate of one dead and 10 wounded per day and them holding anti-US marches daily means they love us of course. :no: Read your last sentence again. :rolleyes:

If the UN is so irrelevant....why are we going there with our tail between our legs asking for their help?

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
I'm sorry, buddy, but Iraq doesn't even have a representative in the UN right now, there is no "right" for the UN to be there past public perception.
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.

I've said this before on these boards. The UN may be less effective than it should be, it may be restrained by bureaucracy and the need for consensus between nations that frequently disagree with each other almost on principal, and it may be in need of reform. However, it remains the sole forum for the kinds of decisions and actions that the Bush administration has taken on itself. Decisions and actions that have potential impact on many countries besides the US and Iraq. Decisions and actions that those of us who pay taxes in this country will be paying for for years to come.


Yet another piece of wonderful illogic.
How is it illogical to say that the UN (which, once again, deals with situations like the current one in Iraq by design) should take over...particularly since the restoration of order is not progressing as promised?

[kneelbeforezod]

!

[Scott]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.


...

Source?

[BR]

Originally posted by Scott
Source?

Open a history book.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
Source?
Start here

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
Source?

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace

[...]

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

[...]

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


The UN Charter was signed and ratified by the US as a treaty in 1945 and, as per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate that comply with the constitution are part of the "supreme law of the land."

[Scott]

Nothing you've posted here says that this matter is solely the UN's. Nothing you've posted here bars the US from being in "administrative control of Iraq".

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
Nothing you've posted here says that this matter is solely the UN's. Nothing you've posted here bars the US from being in "administrative control of Iraq".
It says that these matters are primarily the UN's responsibility. I was responding directly to your request for a source for my assertion that "the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN."

The simple fact is that the UN charter, having been signed and ratified by the US and being in compliance with the US Constitution, is US law.

The UN Charter - and therefore US law - states that:
Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
So why has the Bush administration not complied with US law and requested that the UN fulfil its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by taking over the rebuilding of Iraq?

[Scott]

That doesn't mean they defer to the UN. Nor does it mean that the UN has sole responsibility. Come dude. Get grip.

One of the greatest misconceptions about being a member of the UN is that the US gave up it's sovereignty to the UN. It did not.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
That doesn't mean they defer to the UN. Nor does it mean that the UN has sole responsibility. Come dude. Get grip.

One of the greatest misconceptions about being a member of the UN is that the US gave up it's sovereignty to the UN. It did not.

Nowhere did I imply that, and nowhere in the UN charter is a forfeiture of sovereignty demanded (quite the opposite)...but when the US signed up to the UN it agreed to follow certain rules and procedures, enshrining them in US law.

A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq. The Bush administration disregarded - and continues to disregard - this set of rules in direct contravention of the UN charter, US law and common sense. I don't want to be paying for a multi-billion dollar war (money which could be better spent on a myriad of better things at home) for the rest of my life just so the Bushies can guarantee fat contracts for their cronies and corporate purse-holders. The rest of the world benefits from stability in Iraq. The UN is willing to take a role - which would include part of the financial burden - in rebuilding.

[groverat]

jimmac:

Because in today's global situation ( not national ) it's more than just one country controling. As it should be. You're having trouble grasping this concept? Wake up and welcome to the 21rst century. Smell the coffee.

Are you asserting that the UN represents the world?

--

bunge:

I believe Iraq has asked for more U.N. intervention and less U.S.

Who did?

--

Gilsch:

So in your estimation that's a factor for the UN to not get involved? LOL. Maybe you have heard the Iraqis say they don't want to have representation at the UN?

I never said anything about them not getting involved, I just addressed the assertion that the UN has some inherent right to govern Iraq.

Yeah, cause them killing and wounding US soldiers almost at a rate of one dead and 10 wounded per day and them holding anti-US marches daily means they love us of course.

Since I never said "they love us" or that the US had an inherent right to govern Iraq, I don't know what you're arguing against.

A UN occupation of Iraq would be just as "unjust" as a US occupation.

--

kneelbeforezod:

The US has no right to take administrative control of Iraq because - as a founding member of the UN - the US has signed and ratified conventions and treaties placing such responsibilities squarely in the mandate of the UN.

So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.

How is it illogical to say that the UN (which, once again, deals with situations like the current one in Iraq by design) should take over...particularly since the restoration of order is not progressing as promised?

What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?

A number of those rules indicate that the UN has primary responsibility for situations like the current one in Iraq.

Which rules? Where?

You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.
Not quite. The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN. So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.

What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?
The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully). It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.

Which rules? Where?

You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.
See relevent quotes posted previously.

[Scott]

This concept that legitimacy can only be granted by the UN is one of the most dangerous things to come out of all of this. Kofi Annan is way off base and out of line when he suggests this.

[Dual867]

It seems to me that an organization represented by 191 different soverign nations(including the U.S.,/Britain "coalition") is more qualified to grant legitimacy than any other single institution or country in the world. The fact that there is debate among all of these countries can only strengthen the final decision of the U.N. to either enter Iraq or leave it up to the U.S. I feel that the U.N. should go into Iraq and help secure Iraq's future as a safe and stable nation(sadly, many years off, I think), simply because of the moral justification to do so...Lives will be saved if there is more cooperation and man power(the US forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment) on the ground.

-Dual867

(Sorry for the abundance of brackets!!) :)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



Are you asserting that the UN represents the world?

--

bunge:



Who did?

--

Gilsch:



I never said anything about them not getting involved, I just addressed the assertion that the UN has some inherent right to govern Iraq.



Since I never said "they love us" or that the US had an inherent right to govern Iraq, I don't know what you're arguing against.

A UN occupation of Iraq would be just as "unjust" as a US occupation.

--

kneelbeforezod:



So the UN has a right to govern Iraq because the US said it does? Hmm.



What promise? What about the UN would tell you that they would do anything better than the US does alone?



Which rules? Where?

You have access to everything you need and you say they are there, show me.


As to your first point yes more than the U S could. Nothing's perfect you know.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Dual867
It seems to me that an organization represented by 191 different soverign nations(including the U.S.,/Britain "coalition") is more qualified to grant legitimacy than any other single institution or country in the world. The fact that there is debate among all of these countries can only strengthen the final decision of the U.N. to either enter Iraq or leave it up to the U.S. I feel that the U.N. should go into Iraq and help secure Iraq's future as a safe and stable nation(sadly, many years off, I think), simply because of the moral justification to do so...Lives will be saved if there is more cooperation and man power(the US forces are stretched pretty thin at the moment) on the ground.

-Dual867

(Sorry for the abundance of brackets!!) :)


Ask Taiwan how they feel about that.

The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.

[Smircle]

Originally posted by Scott

The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.

Spin, spin, spin.
Of course, no senior ranking official of the US gov't ever dealt with the Iraqi gov't, thereby actually recognizing it, right?

As usually, your facts are lopsided as well: the UN imposed sanctions agains Iraq since '90 (UN link (http://www.un.org/News/ossg/iraq.htm). Hardly the message you send to a regime you embrace...

[New]

Originally posted by Scott
The UN recognized Iraq but you could never call that government legitimate.
To bad the US helped installing Saddam in the first place...

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.

You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.

The US - along with the other member states of the UN - ceeded primary responsibility for such matters to the UN.

Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?

And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?

So I suppose you could say that the UN has a right to administer the rebuilding of Iraq because all of its 191 member states have said it does.

Can you show me where that is written?

The UN has had its failures over the years, but it has also had successes (over 170 conflicts resolved successfully).

Failures >>>>>> successes

It has the resources of the US and the other 190 member states and it has the legitimacy that, thanks to the unilateral actions and hubris of the Bush administration, the US does not.

Ah, "legitimacy".
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to. :rolleyes:

See relevent quotes posted previously.

They don't address the topic.

[Scott]

Originally posted by New
To bad the US helped installing Saddam in the first place...


Please tell me how we helped "install" him? We helped him with Iran and ... what else?

[groverat]

Don't ask questions, Scott, he read it on Counterpunch one time.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
What you quoted above says nothing about taking administrative control of a nation that hasn't asked you to do so.

You still haven't shown where they have the authority to go in and govern Iraq.
What I quoted above addresses the fact that the purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. The successful rebuilding of Iraq is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, it is the UN that should be administering the process through which Iraq is rebuilt.



Again with "such matters"... where are these outlined?
Again, in the UN charter.



And, to cede something one must first have possession. So the US *had* the right to govern Iraq but gave it to the UN?
The US ceded primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the UN. The current rebuilding of Iraq is not - of course - addressed specifically. You will often find that charters and constitutions do not address specific events.



Can you show me where that is written?
Sure. It's written here (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/).



Failures >>>>>> successes
Source?



Ah, "legitimacy".
I wonder what the people of Rwanda have to say about the UN's legitimacy. Or even the people of Iraq, who suffered under the UN's murderous sanctions for 12 years. Well, we already know if the bombings of the UN HQ in Iraq are worth paying attention to. I'm sure many Rwandans and Iraqis are highly dubious about the UN and hold it in a very low regard. The sanctions on Iraq and the impact they had on the Iraqi people were disgusting. But the UN represents a lot of countries and a lot more people than the Bush administration. This is what gives the UN far greater legitimacy than the US where matters of international peace and security are concerned. if you don't like it, take it up with FDR for thinking the whole thing up.



They [quotes] don't address the topic. I believe that they do. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language, however. Substitute 'Articles of the UN Charter' for 'rules and procedures' and then re-read my earlier posts.

[New]

Originally posted by groverat
Don't ask questions, Scott, he read it on Counterpunch one time. Did I ever write you a rude comment during the last couple of months?

The CIA have been funding Saddam since the 60s when he staged the murder of the Baathist in charge at the time.

Something that turned up on google... (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r)

[bunge]

Obviously the UN isn't irrelevant because they still do wonderful things. Have they been relevant in Iraq over the past six months? No. Once Bush is gone will they become more relevant? Yes.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

What I quoted above addresses the fact that the purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. The successful rebuilding of Iraq is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, it is the UN that should be administering the process through which Iraq is rebuilt.

That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.

And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.

There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.

The US ceded primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to the UN. The current rebuilding of Iraq is not - of course - addressed specifically. You will often find that charters and constitutions do not address specific events.

What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?

Sure. It's written here (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/).

Copy/paste please.

Source?

Rwanda (http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/annan/re-election/010430.htm), Iraq sanctions (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm), Yugoslavia (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch35.htm)...

Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor (http://www.etan.org/et2001a/february/11-17/14succesi.htm)?

But the UN represents a lot of countries and a lot more people than the Bush administration. This is what gives the UN far greater legitimacy than the US where matters of international peace and security are concerned.

So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?

And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?

I believe that they do. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language, however. Substitute 'Articles of the UN Charter' for 'rules and procedures' and then re-read my earlier posts.

I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.

[groverat]

New:

I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by groverat
kneelbeforezod:



That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.

And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.

There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.



What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?



Copy/paste please.



Rwanda (http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/annan/re-election/010430.htm), Iraq sanctions (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm), Yugoslavia (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch35.htm)...

Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor (http://www.etan.org/et2001a/february/11-17/14succesi.htm)?



So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?

And why? Because they represent more nations?
Tell me... how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?



I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries.


Man if ever I've heard a totally subjective argument this it! What we did in Iraq was wrong. Once we start throwing our weight around like that we become just like Iraq. Just like the terrorists. We become the bad guys.

I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what. You also think the president lying is ok also.

The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.

I've said it before Groverat. There are many places in the world that are suffering just like iraq. Why did we pick this one? The truth is for other reasons than freeing it's people. That's becoming more obvious all the time.

Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.

We've already spent a ton of money there.

We have problems of our own that Bush should be looking at.

Also please if you want me to believe that our dishonest president is a great humanitarian I'm going to puke!

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
That is a frightening leap in logic. You are assigning the UN a lot of power there.Not me. The member states of the UN assigned this power.


And aside from that, Iraq is not a threat to international security or peace. They have internal struggles, that's the problem.Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.


There is a reason no one in any position of power is trying to make this argument you are attempting to make; the argument makes no sense.Actually, diplomacy is the reason this argument is not being publicly made by people in a position of power.


What does the internal political struggle of Iraq have to do with international peace and security?What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.


Copy/paste please.Don't be so lazy.


Rwanda (http://www.globalpolicy.org/secgen/annan/re-election/010430.htm), Iraq sanctions (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm), Yugoslavia (http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch35.htm)...
Interesting bit from your link on the Iraq sanctions here...

The US and UK governments always made it clear that they would block any lifting or serious reforming of sanctions as long as Hussein remained in power.If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?



Ok... so what do we have for success? Hmmm. East Timor (http://www.etan.org/et2001a/february/11-17/14succesi.htm)?Cambodia (http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/Cambodia_PR.html), Namibia (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/nami7319.htm), El Salvador (http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2002/issue3/0302p75_el_salvador.html), Macedonia (http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:Gtqqbxi28u4J:www.copri.dk/copri/ipra/Conf-papers/vankovska%2520.doc), Tajikistan (http://www.c-r.org/accord/tajik/accord10/architecture.shtml)...the list is longer than you seem to realize. The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.

Of course, successful conflict prevention / resolution receives much less attention than unsuccessful conflict prevention / resolution...no matter who is attempting to carry it out.



So we should forget that the UN's method of handling Iraq was to (a)bomb the hell out of civilian infrastructure, (b)strangle the population with sanctions, (c)support Saddam's regime by helping crush rebellions and trust that they will find a way to fix a problem they have proven time-and-time-again to be unable to fix?No, we should not forget that the UN badly mishandled the Iraq situation in the past. That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.


And why? Because they represent more nations?Yes.


how well represented are true international opinions in the UN?Better than they are in the Bush administration.


I am still not seeing where the UN has authority to manage a country's internal political structure when it has zero threat status to other countries. Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security. Which is why the UN has both the authority and the obligation to manage the rebuilding process.

[groverat]

jimmac:

I know, you think intervention is ok no matter what.

I do?

The UN isn't perfect. But neither are we. A group of countries has more of the moral right in this situation than one.

So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?

I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.

Haven't we done enough? Some of the Iraqi people don't even want us there.

And some of them sure as hell don't want the UN there. *BOOM* *BOOM*

---

kneelbeforezod:

Internal struggles that - left unchecked - could bring instability to the entire region. Worst case scenario would be a Kurdish uprising that led to civil war spilling over into Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. An unstable Iraq is most definitely a threat to international peace and security.

So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?

Wow.

You realize, of course, that Bush based his bullshit campaign on "Saddam *could* have nukeuler bombs and he *could* give chemical weapons to... the terrarists."

What did the internal political struggle in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914 have to do with international peace and security? These things have a way of spreading if left unchecked. That's why the UN exists in the first place.

Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?

If the sanctions were (and I agree that they were) an example of where UN policy has failed, and a prime reason why the UN should not be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq (which I do not agree with), then how does it make sense for the strongest advocates of this policy to be running things on their own now?

Because the US is already there and doing work. I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.

The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable. Others are just more wowed by the powder-blue UN uniform than others, I guess.

I don't see how the UN will help anything. They don't seem to be wanted there.

The UNs handling of the situations in Cambodia and Namibia in particular may be regarded as the ideal blueprints for the situation Iraq today. Of course, not all of these were unqualified successes. Human rights violations occurred in both Mozambique and El Salvador while there was a UN presence.

I certainly wouldn't list those two in the successes. Cambodia, sure, their king is making noise but whatever, and I'll give you Namibia because I don't even know what freaking continent that's on.

But how the hell can those be relateable to the situation in Iraq. It's like taking little brother from little league and putting him up against a 1989 Nolan Ryan. "But he's hitting .320 in the pony leagues!"

That is one of the indicators of how badly the UN is in need of reform. But I somehow doubt that the Security Council is going to advocate rebuilding Iraq through bombing and sanctions now that Saddam is no longer in power.

But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?

Better than they are in the Bush administration.

Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't? Iraq isn't a freaking science experiment for the mythical "international community".

Without assistance in rebuilding, Iraq presents a significant threat to international peace and security.

They're gettinga assistance in rebuilding and Iraq is a threat to no one, so what's the problem?

[New]

Originally posted by groverat
New:

I read your link and I am not seeing this installation as ruler. Seems like the US supported the Ba'athists, yeah, that's not in question. But this Saddam "installation" is oft-repeated, never-backed.

The quote was "helped install", ingnorastradmus.

[New]

It was an answer to mr. ignorant nr. 2´s post:

Please tell me how we helped "install" him? We helped him with Iran and ... what else?

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
So the argument is that the UN has a moral right to govern an Iraq that hasn't asked for it to come in and govern because it is an international organization?

I've never said that the US has the moral right to govern Iraq, just that the UN has no more moral a case for governing a country that hasn't asked for such help. Especially since it's the UN Security Council that annihilated Iraq's infrastructure in the first place.

This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
So the UN should be allowed to move in and take governing control of a nation if it *could* bring instability to their region?

Wow.That's what it's for...the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.


Different nations made war on each other, pretty clear cut. Should the leaders of the US/UK/France/Russia have waltzed into the AH-Empire and said "All right, we're running things now."?Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.


I haven't claimed that it's "moral" or "right" for the US to be there, but that there's nothing "moral" or "right" about the UN being there.

The very concept that ANY outside force can come in and control Iraq with any legitimacy is laughable.So Iraq should be left to its own devices?


But a group of self-interested powerful nations will certainly view it with the same "divvy up the spoils" attitude they had over the sanctions. What makes you think it's all about benevolence now?UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency. This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying


Why are they more valid... or valid at all on a level the Bush Admin's isn't?Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?

[groverat]

bunge:

This assertion is incorrect. The U.N. has an obligation to remove an occupying power from a sovereign nation. In this case it means the U.N. has an obligation to remove the U.S. from Iraq.

And when a resolution persuant to that is brought up the US will veto it in the Security Council. HOORAY UN!

--

kneelbeforezod:

That's what it's for...

Except that it's never done it?
Give me a case of one of the charter members of the UN-SC going in and reorganizing a foreign nation, but in the process the UN-SC decides to take over. Just give me an example of how this is "what it's for."

I know you're hoping the statement "this is what it is for" will just stand on its own, but I just can't let that go unchallenged.

the fact that it is a forum where many nation states debate the necessity for such intervention and collectively decide on the process is what gives it greater legitimacy than a single nation state.

That's part of the problem, the veil and illusion of "legitimacy" allowed many powerful nations to slaughter the Iraqis via sanctions when any one nation doing so on its own would have been untenable.

Perhaps if the other global powers of the time had intervened the 15 million war deaths that occurred in the years 1914-1918 could have been minimized. Of course, there was no equivalent to the UN at that time to coordinate an approach.

And this is comparable to Iraq:2003... how?

So Iraq should be left to its own devices?

Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".

Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.

You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".

UN involvement will subject the process to greater transparency.

Bullshit. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/saddam_bribery030520.html)
False. (http://www.iht.com/articles/93832.html)
Amazingly inaccurate. (http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030429McElroy.html)

And those are just the oil-for-food program, a supposedly compassionate mission to reduce the effects of their horrible sanctions.

There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money. Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?

This will be beneficial to the Iraqi people, particularly seeing as the countries currently involved in the rebuilding of Iraq were the ones doing the majority of the divvying.

And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.

Why is a decision made by democratic vote more valid than a decision made by a self-appointed dictator?

The Iraqi people have a vote in the UN-SC?

[bunge]

Originally posted by groverat
And when a resolution persuant to that is brought up the US will veto it in the Security Council.

At least you'll admit you were wrong.

[groverat]

bunge:

At least you'll admit you were wrong.

About what?

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
And this is comparable to Iraq:2003... how?I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse


Depends on what you mean by "should". Unfortunately the process is more complicated than "UN or nothing".

Since there is no international peace problem there is no need for the UN to get involved in governing Iraq. If the US loses control and it all goes apeshit then yeah, it's time for the UN.

You seem to be completely missing my point or else you wouldn't ask morally relative things like "should".Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.


There is nothing transparent about the way the UN handles large sums of money. Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?

From the IHT article:
The Iraqi employees - charged with monitoring Saddam Hussein's imports and distribution of relief goods - of course all had to be approved by the Ba'ath Party.


Again, your faith in the UN-SC is disturbingly naive. How many millions will die as they stand ineptly by before you realize it's a collosal cluster****?Hyperbole.

And those exact same nations will be the ones continuing the divvying, but wearing UN patches on their arms.What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
But we won. I doubt the UN would do any better and mostly likely worse.

We won? Just what did we win, Scott? We won a huge debt ($160 Billion so far), we won a lot of hate from the Arab community and we won a bunch of disrespect from the rest of the world. Who's "we" anyway? Defense and oil service contractors?

We haven't won the war, yet. It's changed in character to a guerilla style conflict and its getting nastier daily for the coalition troops. Ever since "we won", according to Bush, more troops have been killed and injured than during the invasion phase. Just try telling that "we won" BS to the troops currently stationed out there, and the widows of (350 so far) troops who have been killed for the bottom lines of Halliburton and others.

Oh, don't forget these "winners"...Islamic fundie groups now setting up shop in Iraq, including al qaeda.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

I was providing an example of how regional instability can spread. I'm pretty sure that this was within your ability to comprehend so I'm going to have to assume you are just being obtuse.

And Rwanda is an example of how the UN is a useless cluster****... I was merely asking for how they were comparable.

Yeah the process is complicated, and there is a possibility that the US will carry it off without a hitch...but the Bush administration is not doing very promisingly so far. I think it's better that the UN go in now.

Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.

Did you even look at those links? This wasn't the UN skimming, it was Saddam's regime. They're gone now, remember?

The first one was Saddam skimming. And past that, the system obviously wasn't transparent if it took this long to find Saddam Freaking Hussein skimming billions of dollars from it.

The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".

How about UK MP Galloway extorting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/22/ngall22.xml) hundreds of thousands?

As far as being "gone now", so is the oil-for-food program.

Hyperbole.

I suppose if you want to ignore the direct effects of the UN's war-making and sanctions in Iraq...

What makes you think this will happen? Can you provide a prior instance where this occured?

The US was one of the main players in sanctions; the US turned around and became the main player in removing sanctions.

If the UN were to come in and the US were to leave, the vast majority of the work would still be done by the US, just like the first Gulf War.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
[quote]Could you outline what, exactly, would be improving? Anything specific would be nice.Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.


The UN collected $12 billion in "administrative costs".
I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.


How about UK MP Galloway extorting (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/22/ngall22.xml) hundreds of thousands? The Galloway papers were forgeries (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,982170,00.html).


I suppose if you want to ignore the direct effects of the UN's war-making and sanctions in Iraq... I don't know why you think anyone is trying to ignore the effect of the sanctions...nor why you imagine that the UN is going to impose them again.

[Scott]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.

...


"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,936304,00.html

[Scott]

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,936304,00.html

How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?

[bunge]

Originally posted by Scott
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information?

The courts heard the case and found him guilty. That means he's guilty.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

Keeping criminal scumbag cronies of the Bush administration - people like, say, Ahmad Chalabi - from having any involvement would be a nice start.

Is that all?
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?

I think you may have misread that article. The accounts in which the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil were held had balances of $12 billion. The UN administrative costs at the time that article was written were $1 billion.

It also collects a 2.2 percent commission on every barrel - more than $1 billion to date - that is supposed to cover its administrative costs. According to staff members, the program's bank accounts over the past year have held balances upward of $12 billion.

So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?

Well you can't find out because the process was not open. Nothing "transparent" about it.

The Galloway papers were forgeries (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,982170,00.html).

No, they weren't. The Christian Science Monitor's papers were forgeries.

From your own article:
The Daily Telegraph turned down the documents used by the Monitor. The paper did publish its own allegations about Mr Galloway several days earlier, based on files retrieved from Baghdad's bombed-out foreign ministry by staff reporter David Blair.

The Daily Telegraph's papers are not (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F06%2F21%2Fdo210 1.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=16215) forgeries.

I don't know why you think anyone is trying to ignore the effect of the sanctions...nor why you imagine that the UN is going to impose them again.

When did I say that the UN would impose them again? Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?

I'd still like to see some specifics on what the UN would improve over the US alone.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Scott
How about some more information for some balance? You know both sides of story? Or are you ready to admit you are ignorant and don't have full information? Do you know another side to the story? Lets hear it then. Everything I have heard indicates that Chalabi is a convicted felon whose acts of fraud and embezzlement destroyed a number of people's lives.


Originally posted by groverat
And do you not think the UN would be bringing in criminal scumbags of their own?No, I don't.


So the UN takes $1 billion for administrative costs and $12 billion for... what?To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.


The Daily Telegraph's papers are not forgeries.I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation. Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.


Why should we think that the UN could handle this situation when they have shown time and time again everything they do in Iraq has led to millions dying?Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.

[kneelbeforezod]

Oh yeah, there's also the issue of cost. Even if you do not believe that there are any ligitimacy issues that mean the UN should be rebuilding Iraq over the US, you can't be thrilled at the prospect of having to pay for it all.

[giant]

Originally posted by Scott
"criminal scumbag"? Hummmm? What do you base that on? Please give full details. Both sides of the story. Try not to be bias and ignorant.

Oh, and don't forget that all of his 'defectors' turned out to be completely FOS. Not even Bush FOS. They were Coulter-level FOS, unicorns and giant rock people FOS.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

No, I don't.

So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?

You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.

To pay for food and aid to send to Iraq.

Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.

Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined.

$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?

I wasn't aware that the Telegraph's allegations were based on a different set of documents, but I'm not going to take the allegations as fact until I know more about the situation.

The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.

Galloway launched libel proceedings shortly after the editorial you linked to was published, so the burden of proof (proof that Galloway took the money, not that the documents are genuine) is now on the Telegraph. I expect we'll hear more about this case as it unfolds.

It took him 2 months (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,986660,00.html) to file the libel suit.

And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.

It's nice to see you put religious faith in a system that has killed millions but distrust a spotless journalistic report when it flies against your religious belief.

Because the sanctions were applied to a completely different situation and because the UN has successfully managed regime transitions similar to the one currently required in Iraq.

Similar to the one required in Iraq?? Where!?

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by groverat
So in this instance the UN will act with pure good will and no one in the massive bureaucracy will skim money and corrupt the system?

You seem to have a religious faith in the UN that defies history and fact. Difficult to argue with.Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.


Read the article, dear, the paragraph above.Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?


$100 billion for "food and aid"
$1 billion for "administrative costs" (Does this not seem a tad outlandish?)
$12 billion for.... ?I'll grant that that IHT article is not as clear as it could be, but you really do seem to be misreading it.

By way of background...
The oil-for-food program started at the end of 1996
Under the terms of the program, Iraq could sell $1 billion of oil every 90 days
The proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil went into escrow accounts managed by the UN
The money in these accounts was then used for food and aid (and reparations to Kuwait and skimming by Saddam and UN administrative costs)
Total revenues from December 1996 to December 2002 were approximately $60.8 billion
Total revenues for 2002 were approximately $11 billion

The $100 billion in the IHT article refers to the total value of oil export contracts and relief import contracts combined since December 1996. The $12 billion refers to highest balance held in the escrow accounts managed by the UN over the year prior to the IHT article. The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.

Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?


The reporter found them in Iraq, a source who knows the Iraqi official verified it was his handwriting. The handwriting on some of the letters are Galloway's.

It took him 2 months (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,986660,00.html) to file the libel suit.

And not one single shred of doubt has been brought out against the Telegraph. Not one. The Christian Science Monitor's accusations were debunked very quickly, yet 6 months later absolutely nothing actually questioning the documents the Telegraph found.Let's see what comes out during the libel case, shall we? If the Telegraph is able to prove its allegations it will. I still don't know enough about the situation to accept them as indisputable fact. Neither, I suspect, do you.

To be honest, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if Galloway had in fact dealt with Iraqi intelligence under Saddam. His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.

I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway. Galloway is (or was, before his suspension) a member of the British government who has frequently been critical of both the UN and the US in their dealings with Iraq.


Similar to the one required in Iraq?? Where!? Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

Not a religious faith, just a greater degree of faith that it will conduct its affairs with transparency and efficiency than I have in the Bush administration.

The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort. What makes you believe the UN process will be "transparent"? Do you have any historical precedent to back it?

This transparency thing you keep bringing up is a blatant lie. There is no truth to it at all. click (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/opinion/18ROSE.html?ex=1064635200&en=43c58745fc8b38db&ei=5070) (same article as IHT but in original context at NYTimes)

It is impossible to find out for certain. The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of project." Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.

As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency. So efficient was the UN that millions of Iraqis were killed by sanctions! Like a Swiss watch!

Dear? Does this mean I can call you sweetie?

Ms. Jackson if you're nasty.

The only real criticism that can be applied to that $12 billion is that it was not spent on food and aid more quickly.

Or at all.

Tell me, kneelbeforezod, why was it that France and Co. took so long to eliminate the oil-for-food program and the sanctions after Saddam was ousted?

Profiteering on the blood of the Iraqi civilians? SURELY NOT!

Were the $1 billion administrative costs outlandish? I don't know. How much should the administration have cost?

His apparent support for Saddam's regime over the years certainly doesn't portray him in a very favorable light...but again, it is currently his word against the Telegraph's that he took money so we'll have to see what the result of the libel case is.

Well, the Telegraph has actual documentation that appeared genuine to the same man who dismissed the Christian Science Monitor's documents as fake.

We don't know *everything*, but we know quite a bit. I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.

I don't see what relevance this has to the discussion we are having on the UN anyway.

Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.

Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador...didn't we cover this already?

These examples hardly compare to Iraq.

[HungDaddy]

Update:

Dubya made his speech to the UN Assembly.

The most notable thing about the speech was not its content, but the silence it was greeted with.

Dubya's rehtorical question "Are you with us, or against us?" seems to be answered.

[kneelbeforezod]

Originally posted by Ms Jackson
The oil-for-food program was less transparent than the current Iraq rebuilding effort.Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort? Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?


As far as efficiency, I'll point to Yugoslavia. Efficiency is almost as big a joke as transparency.You point to failure in Yugoslavia, I point to success elsewhere. Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress…which is not the case in Iraq. How does the track record of the US - or any other single nation - match up?


Or at all.Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?


I don't see such a careful attitude from you concerning what you perceive to be a US failure in Iraq, and you know even less about that than you do the Galloway scam.I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I’ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.


Because it all took place under the polar-opposite-of-transparent umbrella of the UN.Galloway didn’t work for or with the UN.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

Where has there been any transparency in the current, US managed, Iraq rebuilding effort?

Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.

Can you provide financial information pertaining to the Development Fund for Iraq (created by the UN to replace the il-for-food program at the behest of the US and under the control of the Coalition Provisional Authority)? Did the UN provide absolute legal protection for French, Russian or Syrian interests in Iraqi oil in the manner that the Bush administration has provided for the US corporations that currently have exclusive access to Iraqi oil contracts?

Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.

Where the UN has been involved in assisting the transition to democratically elected governments it has been successful. Where failures have occurred it was due in part to the fact that large scale conflicts were still in progress…which is not the case in Iraq.

Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.
:rolleyes:

Are you saying that the $12 billion never made it into Iraq? Can you verify this?

None of it can be varified, that's the problem. The process was closed and secretive.

I knew nothing about the aspects of the Galloway allegations discussed in the last few posts prior to today, but I’ve read enough about the current situation in Iraq to know that it is far from being the success you appear to think it is.

You can't address my argument so you create a straw-man to beat up? Nice.

What level of success do I think we are having in Iraq? All this thinking and speaking for myself is a bit tiring, perhaps you could just go ahead and tell me what I think so I don't have to do the work.

Galloway didn’t work for or with the UN.

1) Never said he did.
2) Saddam didn't work for the UN either, and he made a tidy bundle. So working for the UN is hardly a requisite for profiting from their secrecy, incompetence and corrupt nature.

[kneelbeforezod]

Well, the fact that we're discussing Bechtel getting $X and Halliburton getting $X should be the first indication that we know a bit about what's going on. So there's some. Then we know how many Iraqis are being hired (enough to say it's insufficient); so there's some more.And how do we know what little we do know? Through openness by the Bush administration or investagative journalism and leaked information?


Yep, no large-scale conflicts in Iraq. Just 200k+ American soldiers who are attacked every day from all angles. And the UN headquarters being bombed repeatedly.Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.


Dunno, you can do the google hunting to make your own point. I eagerly await your audit.I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.

[bunge]

Sounds like the UN is in fact, NOT irrelevant. Sorry to post on topic.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

And how do we know what little we do know? Through openness by the Bush administration or investagative journalism and leaked information?

You tell me.
click (http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/pr030324.html)
click (https://supplier.bechtel.com/bni/usaid/) (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)

Compared to civil war this is hardly a large-scale conflict. Sounds more like a police action...and we all know how well the US has managed police actions in the past.

And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.

I've supported my points throughout this discussion - so far all you've been able to come up with were articles on the oil-for-food programs that you completely misinterpreted (and that it took me three posts to explain to you properly) and completely irrelevant allegations about George Galloway.

I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption? Hmm. I guess that paragraph I just posted doesn't exist?

Let me try again... Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret.

[kneelbeforezod]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you...I actually had to do work today...

Originally posted by groverat
You tell me.
click (http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2003/pr030324.html)
click (https://supplier.bechtel.com/bni/usaid/) (You can get an Excel file of sub-contracts there, even)

That the current contractors are listing their sub-contractors is good...but neither USAID nor the CPA directly provide greater levels of information on the current programs than the UN did on the oil-for-food program (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/). The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.


And we also know how well the UN handles conflicts, they stand idly by and watch while they happen, waiting until all the blood has been shed to come in and give each other medals and hold grandstanding trials.And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.


I misread the articles about how the Oil-For-Food program was secretive and open to corruption?You wrote that "The UN collected $12 billion in 'administrative costs.'" The UN in fact collected $1 billion in administrative costs. So either you misunderstood the article or you attempted to distort the content to better suit your argument. What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.


Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say.The Russian supplier that the IHT article was so concerned with is Technopromexport (http://www.tpe.ru/eng/main.asp), a company that had built power plants in Iraq in the late 1980s and started working on oil-for-food projects in 1999 (http://www.enrp.undp.org/news/NL0005.pdf) (see Rehabilitation of Dokan Hydro Power Plant). The project that was being resumed was the construction of Youssifiyah power plant (http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/89/355/10241_companies.html), which Technopromexport had been working on at the outbreak of the Gulf War. Details of the goods in question are available here (http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/dp/dp8pdf/04-01.pdf) (scroll to page 26).

Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?


What were they promised in payment? That's secret. How is it secret? They received money generated by the sale of Iraqi oil.

[groverat]

kneelbeforezod:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you...I actually had to do work today...

I hate when that happens. :)

The various UN agencies filled an analogous role under the oil-for-food program to the one corporations like Bechtel are filling under the current programs. If you look to the appropriate agencies you'll find plenty of information on suppliers and contractors.

I don't see it. I'm not saying it's not there, I just don't see it.

And the Bush administration gives out decks of cards and puts the criminals back in power instead of trying them.

Who in the deck has been put back in power. And for moral equivalency's sake, what mass-murderer? Qusai or whatever got his ass worked.

What corruption and skimming existed in the oil-for-food program did not stem from the UN.


Your assertion that the UN didn't know (or allowed) about Saddam skimming billions from the program is a harsher indictment against UN involvement than I have provided so far.

Perhaps if Claudia Rosett were capable of performing basic research for her articles she could have discovered these answers for herself?

Weren't you just trying to disprove US-transparency by asking how much of what we know came from investigative journalism? Hmm.