UN peacekeepers should be deployed in Iraq once the US withdraw

by Anarchy Rules Fri Mar 23, 2007 20:54

If the presence of the US genocide machine is considered to be a catastrophy, why would sending in the UN, who cravenly stood aside and facilitated this crime against humanity, be a good idea?

The UN are a major part of the problem here, embedding them more into the problem will not solve it, it will keep things as they are.

The author of this article insists that insurgants do not have a democratic mandate. Nobody has suggested that they have. One does not require a mandate, democratic or otherwise, to repel foreign leeching invaders from their homeland.

As for the current government and constitution being democratically mandated - legitimate; what a load of bollocks. To take this view is to only see the decision that the US took to invade as being wrong, it attempts to legitimise every other action that the US (facilitated by their UN lackeys) took.

It is not for a foreign entity and it should not be for a for a foreign entity to impose a way of life on a sovereign nation. To take a contrary view is to support global tyranny and terrorism.

There is no easy solution for what will occur in Iraq after the US is finally forced to withdraw. They've left a mess and lots of internal resentment and strife. Rather than trying to force the situation, countries should open up their borders to the massive outpouring of refugees that will try to flee from certain death. Maybe the UN might facilitate this, but I doubt it.

by Stewie Sat Mar 24, 2007 01:20

Yeah you're right anarchy. The Americans and Brits should withdraw. Then you could go over and sort out the Iraqis' problems as I'm sure you could do a lot more than the evil UN.
Anyone want to contribute to a ticket?

by jacko Sun Mar 25, 2007 15:27

FACT - it was the UN who imposed sanctions against Iraq for ten years, which gave more power to Saddam, while making sure the country was weakened before the invasion, and which resulted in half a million child deaths.

FACT - it is the UN which is imposing sanctions against Iran for developing nuclear capability - although most members of the UN securtity Council not only have nuclear cability themselves, but have said openly that they intend to develop it further, explicitly including military use!!

FACT - whenever it suits them (DR Congo, Darfur, Rwanda - hmmm haven't the people of those countries got something in common?) - the UN cuts and runs and abandons people to their fate.

These are the people we are to entrust to police and develop Iraq? Yeah right.

by Stewie Mon Mar 26, 2007 00:16

Ok Jacko. Since the UN are so utterly useless and haven't really done anything at all ever to help anyone, what's your alternative to having a multi-national organisation which can provide security, medical aid, food, shelter and support to victims of famine, natural disaster and war? Maybe you and a few mates armed with plackards and flasks of sweet tea? The UN are not perfect and they've made mistakes but when you actually look at what thay've done in the years since their founding you'd need to be blind not to see thay they've saved a hell of a lot of lives and done a hell of a lot of good for a hell of a lot of people.
You're quick enough to put the UN down. Fair enough. What's your alternative then?

by Anarchy Rules Mon Mar 26, 2007 03:15

Before I put Stewie's rhetoric to bed I've a couple of points to make:

i. I'm not Marky Mark.
ii. My mother's dead, that's probably why she didn't say 'no.'

As far as using the UN - 'They aint perfect' - why would the opinion of a corpse rapist matter?

The point in this particular case being that the UN have a particularly horrible history in as far as Iraq is concerned. Half a million dead children died because of sanctions. This should elicit neither a glib put down nor a facile response with regard to the failings of the UN. Nobody doubts the honourable intentions of soldiers who serve in the UN and nobody can deny that honourable men and women have given their lives in the service of humanity in the UN.

That being said, the UN is an abject failure. It is not in the process of failing; it has failed.

There isn't a country in existence, that has been served by the UN, that is at peace.

I'm sure some misinformed people who are incapable of thinking for themselves, like stewie, would like to cite the country formerly known as Yugoslavia as an example of success. Eventhough this country was bombed back into the stoneage and used as a toxic dumping ground for depeted Uranium.

Stewie would like to misdirect the subject by suggesting that a collection be made to buy me a ticket to Iraq, so that I might hold together the peace in Iraq, in lieu of the UN doing so. He'd also like to ridicule activists, by suggesting that they hoist once more some placards.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for folks like stewie. But hell someone has to do it.

Wakey wakey you fuckwitt. Iraq was doomed to this from the first Gulf War genocide, carried on by the inaction and sanctions of the UN and absolutely guaranteed by G. W. Bush and his nazis. There is no nice solution. And its time that you and fuckwads like you realise that there are very real consequences to crimes against humanity.

The UN when it 'acts' is nothing more than a smokescreen. It's one and only intent is to make intellectually redundant or lazy people like stewie feel that everything that could be done is being done.

As far as helping Iraq is concernerd, when the US genocide machine is removed, why has nobody and why will nobody ask the Iraqis themselves what it is that they themselves want and need?

That'd be a break from the norm wouldn't it? Asking folks what they need instead of telling them.

We could start by beginning to stockpile medicines and food. We could stop selling munitions to them, both openly and covertly. And as I've said already we could open up borders to fleeing refugees. Course the US have probably fucked with the possibility of countries opening borders, what with the fear of terrorists and all that shite.

The UN needs to be reformed. The UN, before this can happen, needs to recognise, admit to and atone for its many failings.

The UN needs to write up a list of general principals (the Geneva Conventions would make a decent start along with the Genocide Convention). These general principals should be considered law and acted upon. All countries should be considered under this law, especially the US and the UK. The five permanent members should be disbanded and the powers of veto with them. Voting rights, should be decided by means of population size and every country on the planet should be considered a member, whether they apply and participate, or not.

When a law is seen to be broken, action based on the current model of operation should commence, voting and other political shite, should take a back seat and only have a part to play with regard to deciding the quality of the action taken and on changing the model to make it better for the next time it is to be used. Countries that are seen to violate the principals of this new UN should be held both criminally accountable and financially accountable. E.g. right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US and the UK and their coalition of the willing should be held accountable (including us here in Ireland), we should have to pay for the costs of rebuilding the peoples and their infrastructures and those of us who were actively complcit in the genocide itself, should be sent to the Hague for trial, reparations should also be paid.

Fix the UN and use them with my blessing. Don't fix the UN and use them and we further the crimes against Humanity already committed.

by Anarchy Rules Mon Mar 26, 2007 03:46

When I cited the use of the Genocide Convention above, I should have specified that I meant the unadulterated Genocide Convention. That is, the Convention before the US signed and soiled it. The Genocide Convention was conceptualised and drawn up in the US. However, the US was one of the last countries on earth to sign it. They only signed it during Clinton's reign in the Oval office. Before signing it, the Americans invalidated it and made it a flaccid piece of rhetoric. The Americans, before signing the Genocide Convention, added stipulations to it. One of those stipulations was that the US could only be held accountable under the Convention, if they agreed to be held accountable to it.

Thus, poof went the Genocide Convention.

by Confused and Puzzled Mon Mar 26, 2007 14:13

The US operating with little interference in Iraq and Afghanistan from the International Community.
Now you are suggesting that the a Genocide Convention should be created that would make the US accountable whether they agreed to it or not.
Fair enough.
But how would you enforce it and more specifically how would you make the US military withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan?
Prayer?
A letter to Santa?

by jacko Tue Mar 27, 2007 00:50

Stewie you don't get the point do you?

The UN has never done anything to help the Iraqi people, and, since the Security Council will veto any move to remove the US permanent bases from that country (veto, bought votes), there is nothing they can ever do, even if there was a will. It's a sad story, but grow up and accept it. It's no good trying to list all the (arguable) good the UN has done, fact is they can never do anything without the support of the USA. Therefore they will always be ineffective.

Just as, if this was 1935, and I pointed out that the League of Nations was useless, only a complete gobdaw would demand what my alternative was, as they stood by and watched Italy (which wasn't even a superpower), attack a defencless african country.

Asking for alternatives is pointless, unless of course we ask for the complete removal of all the people who cause the problem - the US, UK and oh yeah - theUN.

Do you really believe the 500,000 dead children were an accident? Or, for that matter, the daily turkey shoots by the US and UK air forces on people going about their daily business during those ten years? Think the UN knew nothing about it?