Bush comes running back to "irrelevant" UN

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Did you hear how the Bush Administration has came back to the UN begging for help

Remember all those ignorant right wingers who said the UN was irrlevant and we did not need it anymore

Charles, as the only inteligent pro-war person on this board, what do you think of the begging of the US to UN forces? You claimed the UNSC was "irrelevant", yet your hero Bush seems to thinks otherwise, and his cabinet is increasingly agreeing with the idea that the US cannot afford the illegal occupation of Iraq. Tens of billions is scaring the hell out of Bush, who already has a mass of problems on his hands with the existing cost of war.

Please list the economic realities governing the US occupation. Bear in mind that the Bush government has already created more of a defecit than ever before in the history in the US, indeed Clinton created a 500 billion surplus for the US. Where did this go? Where did the Bush rhetoric go?

Well Bush as a couple of options -- pass off the reconstruction of Iraq to the Iraqi's -- which would open up plenty of jobs and stimulate their economy. Or, use this opportunity to create jobs for Americans -- if the Iraqi's don't want to do it themselves. Both better the situation.

Bush didn't create the downward trend of the economy one year before he took office, and he didn't create 9/11.

Our productivity in America has increased a LOT (I don't know the exact numbers). The economy has been GROWING despite the lack of new jobs. American's across the board are working harder and longer right now. And the 6.2% of jobless people in the U.S. could probably fix up Iraq pretty nicely in a very short amount of time, even though I think that should be the Iraqi's job.

We're not in Iraq FOR their oil, but I don't see why we can't USE the Iraqi's oil to REBUILD Iraq. That way we're not messing with our economy. We leave having gained nothing, except the ability to claim we took out an evil dictator, and freed an entire country, while nullifying terrorism a little bit more across the globe.

You'll notice that as we "beg" the UNSC to help us, we're also requiring them to be under the command of the US. I'd hardly call that begging.

"We're not in Iraq FOR their oil, but I don't see why we can't USE the Iraqi's oil to REBUILD Iraq."

the first time around, Gulf War, it was strictly to protect our future oil supply and restock our reserves...what makes this 2nd go round different??


no WMP's were found...even Saddam said it himself (possibly, if still living) "Where are your WMD's now Mr.Bush" end quote....lol, crazy how we needed this excuse to justify war...n'korea HAS a nuke, why not kill them first...they'd be a greater threat in the AXIS OF EVIL...


bush went back to the UN cuz he sees now that his actions gained him nuthing more then an increasing debt and lost lives... and needs "OTHER" troops to take the brunt of the suicide bombers in my op....


out

OK let's say all the lefties are right: America really is a capitalist-led country going after Small countries that have recourses we need in order to stay the most powerful nation on Earth. Evil dictators are our target's since we know most of the world agrees they are bad.

Well... even if that was the case... what's the big damn deal? We're still ridding the world of evil. lol. We're even sticking around to help afterwards! It's like, we're the bully in class who beats up the real bullies for their lunch money, but then we pick him up and bring him to the nurse's office.

OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.

Are you talking about this?

THE WORD OUT of the State Department is that Colin Powell and his troops are feverishly working to get a new U.N. resolution to get the U.N. involved in postwar Iraq. All I can say is, good luck! Why? Because the U.N. is filled with countries who simply hate America. And I got to tell you something else. Not only do they hate America. They would love to see nothing more than America fail in Iraq.

France, they’ve got their reasons. They had lucrative financial deals with Saddam Hussein and the United States‘ victory cost them billions and billions of dollars. And, of course, then there was Syria, a fellow Baathist regime who sat in judgment of America on the United Nations Security Council. Do you think they want us to succeed? And what about Libya, why, that famous arbiter of human rights who sits as a chairman of the U.N. Human Rights Council? Oh, but by the way, they just admitted to blowing up hundreds of civilians on a commercial airplane.

And let’s ask a bigger question. Why do we really want the United Nations to get involved, when they have such a lousy track record? Did they stop a million deaths in Rwanda in the ‘90s? Did they stop two million deaths in the Sudan in the ‘90s? Did they stop the bloodshed in Bosnia? The answer is no, no and no.

How did they do this past fall? I’m telling you, it was a three-ring circus in the United Nations. They have proven themselves to be obsolete and out of date. And the only question is, why should the United Nations drag itself down even more by associating itself with an international body that no longer represents democratic values and no longer can succeed on the world stage?

—Joe Scarborough


______

"All in all, a great day if you believe stopping the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons is a good thing. But, it was a very bad day indeed if world security takes a back seat to your personal hatred of George W. Bush."


We will always remember.
We will always be proud.
We will always be prepared
So that we may always be free!

http://www.ddaymuseum.org

Bosnia? http://www.unmibh.org/index.asp.
Rwanda? http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/

Y'know - before you make you these statements why not do some research and back 'em up with something. Maybe you wouldn't be looking so pink (which is a very fetching look by the way - suits you - what happens when you get really medi-eval? Code Red? Are you then taken out the back and flogged?).

Anyway, Iraq? Bush wants the UN in there because the US can't afford $4 billion a month forever. He wants to spread the cost, body bags and get re-elected. Dubya, Dick, Wolf and Rummy have finally come to the conclusion that they have to have the UN in there.

But why must the US be in charge? What's the reason? What's the agenda?

* Control of the oil?
* Control of who leads Iraq?
* Control of ... what else is there?

Like someone said, if they just care about "liberating the Iraqi people", it doesn't matter that the US isn't in charge, long as their allies are - HM?

Put it this way, UN help or not, we won't leave. The longer it takes to get Iraq rebuilt will look badly on the countries that turned their backs. History will prove out and Iraqis will remember this forever.

That's a very romantic viewpoint. And, sorry, a little naive - there are no grateful Iraqis draping garlands over marines, thanking them for invading and ousting Saddam. Why not? Because they don't trust the US's motives. And who's to blame them? The Ministry of Oil was not bombed - most everything else was. People aren't stupid.

America will have to pull out one day, whether Iraq's rebuilt or not. It's a massively powerful economy, but it's not strong enough to weather 4 billion a month ad infinitum. Even Bush knows that.

Hopefully there'll be UN intervention - hopefully a multi-lateral force, with representatives of all peoples. Stumbling block at the moment is the US wants control. Why's that?