14-04-2003 05:39									#1
	UN Involvement in Post-War Iraq Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What should the UN's involvement be in post-war Iraq? Should the UN not become involved, as it is was not a war faught by the UN, or sure it take an active role in creating workable democracy to prevent US/British Imperialism? What do you think reactions will be from different sides...how will the US feel about UN taking the reigns...likewise, how will the Arab world view it? How does the percieved action against nations like Syria affect the UN's role?

Thoughts?

	14-04-2003 06:08									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Post-war Iraq without other help than from the US and UK seems impossible to manage. The US will at least agree with humanitarian aid, however, I doubt the UN will get political influence to make decisions about the structure of the future goverment etc.

From my perspective as a German I wouldn´t worry much about the fact that the US talkes the lead (and not the UN) *if* there are really efforts to create a stable, somehow better (democratic, if possible) Iraq. Even a certain of US military rule over the country would be ok IMO, Germany in the end benefitted from it.

There are several problems of course - first, all these *ifs* seem quite big, and second, in the long run the Iraqis may not agree with my perpective.

	14-04-2003 06:13									#3
	Tired of ads?

The UN can assist, but it would be unacceptable for the likes of France, Russia, and Germany to actually be able to direct the country....

	14-04-2003 06:15									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi .... but it would be unacceptable for the likes of France, Russia, and Germany to actually be able to direct the country....

Of course, this should be done by the Iraqi people.

	14-04-2003 09:08									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

How can we expect Iraqis to rule themselves democratically? Won't there be too much ethnic/religious rivalary based on the years of hardships faced by the minorities?

	14-04-2003 09:10									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by orange How can we expect Iraqis to rule themselves democratically? Won't there be too much ethnic/religious rivalary based on the years of hardships faced by the minorities?

yes, but thats what the Bush peoples are trying to address. they keep sayig it. i dont know what they plan, and it'll be fun to watch

	14-04-2003 09:21									#7
	Tired of ads?

quote: How can we expect Iraqis to rule themselves democratically? Won't there be too much ethnic/religious rivalary based on the years of hardships faced by the minorities?

Well, not now, but at some point they have to take over, or the liberation is just a joke. The question is how long is the transition time (and what is done in that time regarding security, stability, democratic reforms, rebuilding efforts etc) from some sort of US control over the country to a truly Iraqi government. If this time is too short the new structures probably are instable, if it is too long, the fear will rise amongst Iraqis that they never get a chance to run their own country.

It will also be interesting to see how close this new government its tied to the US.

	14-04-2003 09:26									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

It seems to me that everything is being built from the grass roots up. So Iraqi control will be a rolling process.

This seems to be an excellent way of going about it and makes the establishment of a proper government less pressing. It will be learning democracy on the job.

	14-04-2003 09:27									#9
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Democracy needs a specific education of the citizens to work properly, and the active promotion of the idea problems can be solved through debate rather than force.
This belief in the debate is what lacks dearly in installed despotisms without democracy. And this is the biggest problem in the establishment of an efficient democracy there. I really hope the Yanks won't forget the educational part when monitoring the democratic transition.

I fear they are too full of their values of freedom and democracy, and forget these values aren't spontaneously present in all societies.

	14-04-2003 09:42									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The UN needs to be heavily involved in the creation of a democratic state. Especially in an area as politically charged as Iraq where any power who has an inordinate amount of control will unavoidably serve their own interests in developing a government. I say this with US interests in mind, with american troops in Iraq we have to prove beyond a doubt that we aren't motivated by self-interest or greed, that the development of a truly free and independant Iraqi democracy is our only interest. This could hopefully help avoid some of the ugliness involved in occupying a country where most of the populace didn't particularly like us to begin with.

	14-04-2003 20:06									#11
	Remove this text

what?! the UN is a joke. It means nothing anymore. This was on Fox News this morning.

"The captured documents also show that the Kremlin gave Saddam lists of assassins who could do "hits" in the West and that Iraq and Russia signed deals to share intelligence and help get "visas" so agents could go to Western countries, the London Telegraph reported.

One document also suggests that Russia believed Iraq had a nuclear-weapons program -- at the same time the Kremlin was publicly denying it.

The Arabic documents -- the first in a likely flood -- show cooperation between Russia and Iraq that's far more extensive and recent than previously reported. There were even copies of Christmas cards exchanged by Iraqi and Russian intelligence chiefs, the report adds."


The UN should play no part in Iraq - and probably will not. You have many veto power members who can't be trusted. This will, in time I think, destroy the UN. It's going to very soon be just another part of history.

	14-04-2003 20:38									#12
	Put an end to popups!

Funny thing about that, it was from an article that said all of the documents referred to anonymous sources. I guess because they were from the Moscow embassy that means they were from the Kremlin. Iraq couldn't have possibly been bankrolling spys there, nah.

Whether you believe the UN to be a joke or not, the idea that the US will promote democracy and freedom in Iraq without promoting its own interests first is a joke and this is quite obvious to the world already. We need an objective authority in Iraq.

	14-04-2003 21:50									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV There were even copies of Christmas cards exchanged by Iraqi and Russian intelligence chiefs, the report adds."

I dunno. Smells like typically FoxNews hyperbole. Do Muslims even celebrate Christmas? AFAIK, they believe Jesus was a prophet, not the messiah.

	14-04-2003 21:58									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 Whether you believe the UN to be a joke or not, the idea that the US will promote democracy and freedom in Iraq without promoting its own interests first is a joke and this is quite obvious to the world already.

US is one of the few nations in the history of the world that has left behind democracies after conquest. Most of the nations that comprise the UN have far more dubious records.

quote: We need an objective authority in Iraq.

No such thing. The UN has many problems. One is that it provides overrepresentation for third world dictatorships. When an organization like the UN allows countries like Libya to chair the UN Human Rights Commission, you know something is wrong. I agree that the UN should have a role, but perhaps not a leading one.

	14-04-2003 21:58									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator I dunno. Smells like typically FoxNews hyperbole. Do Muslims even celebrate Christmas?

Umm, there are a lot of Arab Christians in Iraq, including Tariq Aziz, the (former) deputy Prime Minister.

	14-04-2003 22:01									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Still... why should the US work with the likes of Germany, France and Russia. They will undermine any efforts of the US that do not fit into their plans. Which is fine - the US is no better. But, the US is the one who took the risk, paid the cost and won the war. Screw the rest of them. The US does not need the UN in any way shape of form to complete what's needed in iraq. If the UN plays a part (other than handing out food and water) nothing will get completed. Just like three months ago up to the start of the war. The people of Iraq will suffer beyond what they are now if the UN gets involved.

Russia and France care in no way about the people of Iraq. I do think the US cares - a little bit more. Russia and France should drop the debt iraq owns them. The Iraq people did not see any of that money. Why should they have to pay it back. I'm hoping Bush and the leaders here have the balls to say - too bad so sad Russian and France. that's what you get for dealing with someone like Saddam. Russia... worthless.

	14-04-2003 22:19									#17
	Got spare money?

quote: Whether you believe the UN to be a joke or not, the idea that the US will promote democracy and freedom in Iraq without promoting its own interests first is a joke and this is quite obvious to the world already. We need an objective authority in Iraq.

something that seems very off with what some people have been posting on this subject. treating 'freedom and democracy' and 'american interests' as if they mutally exclusive, it's silly. surely the primary interest the amricans have is to establish a government which has western values, at the core of that are the ideas of freedom and democracy.

	14-04-2003 22:23									#18
	Suffering from ads?

I'm a bit disturbed by the American claims at ownership of Iraq because they lost some soldiers there. With the UN involved, these claims would be weakened, at least.

	14-04-2003 22:41									#19
	Re: UN Involvement in Post-War Iraq Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by orange What should the UN's involvement be in post-war Iraq? Should the UN not become involved, as it is was not a war faught by the UN, or sure it take an active role in creating workable democracy to prevent US/British Imperialism?

My thoughts are you taint the thread before it begins by posting a biased comment.

How am I supposed to discuss the topic, which I wanted too, when you begin with childishness?

UN/Bush Imperialism? We have an emperor? An empire?

As for the UN not being involed in the war, it sure was, as every nation in the coalition was a member, and it was the foot draggers that showed the TRUE "Imperialism", meaning they had deals with Saddam, and cared nothing for the people.

They must be kept FAR away from any postwar Iraq, and will be.

	14-04-2003 22:44									#20
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Sandman I'm a bit disturbed by the American claims at ownership of Iraq because they lost some soldiers there. With the UN involved, these claims would be weakened, at least.

France and Russia can not be trusted. They do not trust the US. How can anything come from the UN with things starting like this. Russia worked with the Iraq leadership... we'll see how much 'help' the iraq people want from russia and france once the details start flooding out.

This is the very reason France said they would veto any resolution having anything do to with iraq and war. They know some rather bad things are going to be made public. Guess one can't really blame them - for trying to cover things up.

	14-04-2003 22:46									#21
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I am very much opposed to the UN taking a lead role in Iraq. If you think that the UN would be objective in any way, shape, or form, you are out of your mind. France and Russia have a much greater interest in screwing the Iraqi people than the US does, and we all know how good a job France has done with peacekeeping. Of course, France and Russia would be unlikely to contribute anything to that particular effort. They just want their money back.

	14-04-2003 22:52									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

humanitarian aid. otherwise keep ur filthy ugly hands outta iraq.

note:its possible there is a role or two Id agree w/ that I haven't thot of yet, but as of yet this is it.

	14-04-2003 22:53									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It seems that people have the mistaken belief that the UN serves the interests of France, Germany and Russia. No nation can be counted upon to be objective in dealing with Iraq, which is why the UN representing a collection of nations should run the reconstruction. For selfish reasons Bush should allow this because it will be far more difficult to successfully reconstruct Iraq then it was to invade it. By giving the responsibility to the UN he then has somebody to blame for all the failures. Simple enough.

	14-04-2003 22:55									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

yes but u see bush isnt like that. he actually does things, and wants the responsibility and the risk.

it took balls to invade iraq, big ones. so I dont see him shying away from responsibility now.

	14-04-2003 22:57									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Selfish reasons?

Like sabotaging UN resolutions to protect sweet oil deals?

Like selling Iraq prohibited items?

France and Russia did that, spare me the "US is selfish" clap-trap, that nonsense doesn't wash.

	14-04-2003 22:59									#26
	Tired of ads?

Uh, the US did all those things too.

	14-04-2003 23:02									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Oh really?

Where?

Sure wasn't Iraq.

	14-04-2003 23:03									#28
	Support Apolyton

Yes, but the US has changed its ways with regards to Iraq. If France and Russia had their way, they'd still be cozy with ol' Saddam whilst raking in the big bucks. They've shown very recent disregard for Iraq's people.

	14-04-2003 23:09									#29
	Remove this text

'It seems that people have the mistaken belief that the UN serves the interests of France, Germany and Russia. '

France and Russia have veto power. And get real, the UN is a tool for each country to serve its own interests. It can't work for Iraq. It has yet to work for Iraq. How many resolutions had to be passed just so the US could act OUTSIDE the UN. It's a failed system.

	14-04-2003 23:32									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The real domain where France, Russia etc. have a say in the UN is the security council, i.e the one where they have veto power. France and Russia will most probably ask for the UN to take part in the reconstruction process in exchange of good deals (especially regarding debt), but once the SC has decided on the precise role the UN has to take, France's and Russia's boosted power is no more :

- The UN decides what budget it gives to iraqi reconstruction, from its own funds.

- The specific mission for rebuilding Iraq will decide of the specifics there, far away from New York's SC. They'll recieve pressure from UN bureaucrats, who are indirectly pressured by diplomats, but not by the SC : France will be a mere lobby in that regard, NOT a veto power.

- The biggest think France and Russia have to win is a limitation of US' influence in the area, that'll go against their interests. If the UN takes over the Iraqi reconstruction, the US won't locate their puppet government, won't have the same accomplices in Baghdad's new leadership, etc.

- Should the UN participate in the reconstruction, France and Russia will indirectly pay, like the US, Japan or Solomon Islands do, through their UN cotisations.

MyWifeHatesCiv :
Of course the UN is a tool used by the powerful nations. Wasn't it surprising how Blair laudated the UN when he learned no british company would be involved in the reconstruction as per Washington's plan ?
The point is : France and Russia don't advocate the UN in order to pilfer the Iraqi people, they do so in order to limit as much as possible Washington's influence in the area.