I completly disagree with the war in Iraq and have been since the beginning. Regardless of rather the war was justified or not, Iraq is a mess right now. I do feel strongly though that pulling out of Iraq right now is wrong. Completly withdrawing troops and funds from Iraq would make the situation worse and be bad PR for the US.

This brings my question though why does the US not try to get the UN and/or a coalition of other nations in the region to help in the Iraq situation. After all the state of Iraq especially in nearby countries would have a effect on there societies. This way we are not draining so much of our money on Iraq and not having as many of our boys in the line of fire.

2/5/2007 7:32:17 PM

The UN will not get involved. We tried that route. No dice.

We cannot trust any other nation in the region other than Israel (if you can call that trust) or maybe Saudi (who we also can't really trust).


There are greek, italian, japanese, australian, and polish troops there. The greeks break out into fisticuffs among each other, the italians are trigger happy, the japanese ride around in landspeeders, the aussies just want to go home and the polish think they are home.

2/5/2007 7:40:06 PM

Quote :

"The UN will not get involved. We tried that route. No dice."

i don't recall us having asked the UN for a goddamned thing.

we did give them all a nice hot cup of Shut The Fuck Up, tho.

2/5/2007 8:35:26 PM

actually we "asked" them to support us. then said "fine, fuck you im gonna go play war anyway"

2/5/2007 10:16:07 PM

And since then we've made overtures about wanting help and they've said, "Hell no, you got yourself into this mess." Which they have every right to do, but is still kind of a dick move in some ways.

2/5/2007 11:34:58 PM

I'm sure the iraqis want a UN force more than they want a US force and more than they want autonomy and independence

2/5/2007 11:57:10 PM

for what i hear on the news all they want to do is blow themselves up over stupid religion issues

2/6/2007 1:50:21 AM

Quote :

"This brings my question though why does the US not try to get the UN and/or a coalition of other nations in the region to help in the Iraq situation. After all the state of Iraq especially in nearby countries would have a effect on there societies. This way we are not draining so much of our money on Iraq and not having as many of our boys in the line of fire."

Arabs would likely be suspicious of any group of Western nations involved in Iraq an no other part of the world possesses the ability to effectively project the kind of power needed to pacify Iraq. There has been an argument in some of the Arab countries that they dropped the ball by not following up the US invasion with troops to help stabilize Iraq, but they were are adverse to appearing to support a western Crusade.

If you think that our government is fucked up in its manipulation of ignorant masses, then multiply that for any Arab country. While the royal family is friendly to the United States (they have to, they depend on our friendship and oil money to stay in power) they have to play to the Wahhabists in S.A. in order to maintain public support for their reign.

In short, we're up shit creek . . .

2/6/2007 9:53:50 AM

lol

the UN


"we're gonna write letters and be very angry at you"

2/6/2007 11:12:00 AM

"we're gonna write letters and be very angry at you"

2/6/2007 11:38:36 AM

Or maybe some corrupt UN officials would steal money from the war effort--just as they did with the oil-for-food program.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070117-120113-9848r.htm

2/6/2007 11:57:54 AM

Quote :

"This brings my question though why does the US not try to get the UN and/or a coalition of other nations in the region to help in the Iraq situation."

1) The UN won't help us even if we do ask. Or rather, they might help, but not in any really meaningful way.

2) Involvement from other Middle Eastern countries is something we've been actively resisting, because most of them have already picked sides in the internal conflict and would be less about peace and more about supporting their own boys. Syrian/Turkish/Iranian/Saudi troops in Iraq are the last thing we want.

3) As for coalitions of other nations...well, we tried that before the invasion, and it was pretty much

2/6/2007 12:30:56 PM

^^ dude. link to a real newspaper from now on. the story isnt hidden as far as i know, so link to a real source.

2/6/2007 12:48:16 PM

I'll choose my links, k? Thx!

2/6/2007 1:16:43 PM

Quote :

"This brings my question though why does the US not try to get the UN and/or a coalition of other nations in the region to help in the Iraq situation."

The UN won't do it. They gave up on Iraqi Reconstruction back in 2003 when a truck bomb blew up their Iraq facility, killing Sérgio Vieira de Mello, the UN Secretary General's Special Representative to Iraq and expert on reconstruction, and a large portion of his staff. If you believe Wikipedia, it was the Bush administration that actually pushed the UN to establish a senior UN presence in Iraq after the initial invasion. However, after the bombing, they've gone down to a small staff and and a minor presence.

Consider it this way. If the mighty United States Armed Forces, the most potent military force on the planet, is stretched thin and struggling in Iraq, what other country in their right mind is going to try and take over from them? It's obvious that the UN flag didn't protect their representatives from becoming a target the first time around, and this was during the quiet phase of the occupation.

A coalition of other muslim nations wouldn't work either because I believe their presence will only exaccerbate religious tensions. If an Arab coalition put in Sunni troops, the Shia will get antsy, and their militias will probably go after them. If the Iranians deploy Shia forces, then the Sunnis will simply shift their crosshairs to them. Throw on top of it the fact that their militaries won't have the same level of equipment and training that American forces posess...

No, Iraq is our mess to clean up or abandon. There's no one else who's going to directly step in. I'm not sure what the best way to go forward is: continued occupation, redeployment, or withdrawal, but there's no hope in others taking care of our mistakes this time around.

2/6/2007 1:59:00 PM

Good points. The Arabs in the 20th and early 21st century have yet to be able to get their shit straight. Systems of values based on tribal governance and nomadic desert life still dominate politics and society to a point that they're having an extremely difficult time adjusting to modern life . . . even assuming that they want to. The Arab Mind by Rafael Patai does a good job of covering this.

2/6/2007 3:27:21 PM

if the UN had enforced its own sanctions in the first place, some of this mess wouldve likely been avoided.

2/6/2007 4:19:30 PM

^ that statement includes US abiding by resolutions condemning israel and other allies for doing bad things.

2/6/2007 4:32:32 PM

Quote :

"United Nations The United Nations has also deployed a small contingent to Iraq. United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) Georgia: 550 blue-helmets Fiji: 168 blue-helmets Romania: 130 blue-helmets Denmark: 35 blue-helmets"

2/6/2007 4:34:29 PM

Quote :

"for what i hear on the news all they want to do is blow themselves up over stupid religion issues "

2/6/2007 4:52:07 PM

The fact that the UN didn't do shit when Iraq violated sanctions or when the US invaded Iraq really makes me question their relevance.

They seem like the dorky high school student council that tells people not to drink on the weekends - even thought they can't do shit about it.

2/6/2007 5:01:56 PM

UN =

they do just enough to get some attention... not enough to make a significant difference

2/6/2007 7:45:33 PM

The UN has potential. Someone (and by that I mean "the United States") needs to give them teeth.

2/6/2007 8:52:32 PM

i think the security council sucks cause it has people like russia and china on it

2/6/2007 8:55:49 PM

^^^^ Right, except instead of just dorks, this body also includes the representatives of despots, criminals, and sophists.

2/6/2007 9:05:20 PM

Quote :

"hey do just enough to get some attention... not enough to make a significant difference"

Tell that to the people in the Congo, who voted for the first time this year thanks to UN help. Or to people in Israel or Lebanon who were caught between a war until the cease-fire, which has held up thus far. They've fucked up, yes, but they have great potential to be a better arbitrator with reform. It's much prefered to unilateral fuckups on our part (Iraq) or France's part (Ivory Coast).

But yes, the UN needs teeth (hint: US).

Quote :

"Right, except instead of just dorks, this body also includes the representatives of despots, criminals, and sophists."

And you think kicking them out will do any good? Like they care! It would give them even MORE leeway to become a rogue state.

[Edited on February 6, 2007 at 9:29 PM. Reason : .]

2/6/2007 9:27:51 PM

^ No, I'm saying this: (1) All should recognize the UN for what it actually is, and (2) the UN is not some panacea that could solve all the world's problems if the evil United States would just stop being so jingoistic.

BTW, I think the UN can do some things relatively well. Despite the link about the oil-for-food scandal, the UN can be somewhat effective in delivering aid to certain parts of the world. In addition, UN forces can help stabilize regions that are already on a path to stability. So, I don't think the entity is all bad--the idea of it certainly isn't--but I do think the UN is probably the most overrated organization in the world relative to what it actually delivers.

2/7/2007 1:22:56 AM

Quote :

"The Arabs in the 20th and early 21st century have yet to be able to get their shit straight. Systems of values based on tribal governance and nomadic desert life still dominate politics and society to a point that they're having an extremely difficult time adjusting to modern life . . . even assuming that they want to. The Arab Mind by Rafael Patai does a good job of covering this."

exactly.

See, for the most part (and I'm not going to talk about the insurgents who are radical fundamentalists) the sunni insurgency was brought about by their boycott of the Iraqi Elections. When Saddam was in power, the baath party and the sunnis (the minority in the country) had all the power, and used that power to oppress the shi'ites. Now when saddam was removed from power, the sunnis (and the major sunni tribes) lost their power, and for some reason decided that democracy wouldn't work. So what did they do? Well, they boycotted the elections, thereby removing any chance of them to democratically get any of their power back. Well when the predominately Shi'ite government was voted in, the sunnis were like "well shit, this election crap does work". However, they are mostly ignorant of how to politically and peacefully get their point across, all the know is violence, so to get out their frustration, and to show their displeasure of the predominately shi'ite government, they started blowing up targets of opportunity that belonged or represented the shi'ite goverment.

Now since the US is helping out the democratically elected government, that made US military a target as well.

So basically you have the Sunnis blowing shit up b/c they're pissed they don't have power anymore, and they don't have that power b/c they boycotted the elections, and now they're blowing shit up.

That's not to say the Shi'ites are completely innocent in this, b/c they retaliate with blowing up the Sunnis.

Part of the slow and tedious process is talking to tribal leaders, heads of the Sunni community to get them to participate in the next election, to help out themselves by getting power the democratic and peaceful way, instead of blowing shit up, which isn't really helpin their cause out that much. Also part of the process is to get the Shi'ite to accept that, and to get the two to work together, which is a hard thing to do, b/c they've been killin each other and have been enemies of each other for thousands of years.

So once you get past all that shit, and get to the underlying problem, which is educating both sides on the democratic process and that it can actually work; well then, something could get done. I'm actually anxiously awaiting the next round of elections, to see if the work the US has done with the leaders of Sunni and Shi'ite tribes is going to make a difference. Because if that can be settled, and a compromise reached between the two, then maybe some of the difficulties they have with each other can be debated and argued with words, instead of bullets. Getting that to happen would definately help us get out of here quicker, and get the iraqis to take charge of their own country quicker and better than what is going on now.

As far as the crazies go (that's what I like to call the radical fundamentalists who are on a jihad with us); well, they're not really helpin their cause much, and if they're so eager to die, then stop hiding and come on out, and we'll send them to whatever Allah they wish. However, unfortunately, its not as simple as that, but their fevor runs strong. To see a dude runnin to you holding the arming device of a suicide vest, seemingly dodging all gunfire yelling "Allah Akbar!!" over and over until a bullet hits the vest and he explodes, well, that's one hell of an experience. The people who are like that will not rest, they don't care about their own body count, they've got a higher level of violence of action than the US will let us have, and they're more committed to their cause than the US is; so I'm pretty glad that the majority of the insurgents are the former that I've talked about, and not the latter, b/c if so, with the current restrictions that are on the military, and the unwillingness to fight and the poor quality of leadership and tactics on insurgency by the general officer and politician level, we would definately be getting our ass handed to us worse than it already is.

2/7/2007 6:13:54 AM

Quote :

"I do think the UN is probably the most overrated organization in the world relative to what it actually delivers."

More overrated than the US armed forces? I mean, unless the current state of Iraq is your idea of "Mission Accomplished" you'd have to say that what American power actually delivers is pretty sad stuff.

2/7/2007 12:56:40 PM

actually the troops did a fantastic job at what they are trained to do.

but they arent prepared for and are not equipped for the war that bush wants to keep them in.

2/7/2007 1:11:55 PM

our troops aren't trained to be cops


but they've been doing political police work for the past 15 years

2/7/2007 2:47:20 PM

^^^ Another thing to consider is the old line, "America is a nation of immigrants." With the exception of the descendants of slaves and Native Americans, everyone who is here is so because someone in their past said to themselves, "I willing to cut ties with everything I know, get on a ship, and sail half-way across the world to a country I've never been to and whose language I do not speak." Born out of this spirit is a culture of meritocracy, individualism, and personal liberty that is not present in much of the world. The up-side is that it is what has made the United States one of the greatest nations ever to exist in the history of the world.

The down side is that we as Americans often cannot contemplate people who feel bound by tradition or education to a culture and cultural norms that are centuries old. The concept of individual will, while a) theoretically plausable to and b) popular among the young of, a tradtionally collective society such as Arab or Asian cultures, still runs up against a centuries old mindset which says that if your Arab tribal leader decides to cast his vote for candidate a) then the rest of the tribe is expected to do so as well. Often, they will do so not resentfully, but joyfully, as this is the man they look to for guidance. This does not translate well into and informed and independent electorate.

2/22/2007 11:23:19 AM

Fuck the UN and fuck the US Military. We need to turn this shit over to the Japanese:

Quote :

"Cartoon character Prince Pickles is being used as the mascot for the Japan Self-Defense Forces. Officials say the character puts a gentle, harmless sheen on the SDF deployment overseas."

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/picture/2706

2/22/2007 6:59:55 PM

Quote :

"More overrated than the US armed forces? I mean, unless the current state of Iraq is your idea of "Mission Accomplished" you'd have to say that what American power actually delivers is pretty sad stuff."

what universe are you living in?

2/22/2007 7:04:27 PM

Ok, as someone who has been on the ground in Iraq, twice, allow me to present a different perspective. The US Military has performed effectively and proffesionally at both the tactical and operational levels. We have cleared insurgent hotbeds, arrested and detained thousands of insurgents, upgraded intel from local sources, found effective countermeasures to IEDs, and trained and improved the performance of Iraqi Security Forces.

The problem has been at the strategic level. Since Vietnam the term "counterinsergency" has been a dirty word to military commanders and politicians with military oversight. The lessons learned were not passed on. Prior to the invasion of Iraq US troops and comanders were not trained on a large scale in how to defeat an insurgencey. The model is simple: insurgent strongholds are isolated, cleared and then indigenous forces are put in place to maintain security. This model has been proven, most notably by the Brittish in Malaysia, but we have been slow to adopt it largely due to political pressure to win quickly and a lack of prewar foresight. The model also takes time to work ( it took the Brittish 15 years) which the current political atmosphere seems reluctant to give.

Other problems have been troop levels, border security, and local militias. All are being addressed, but it is a tedious process. But the fact of the matter is that the Sunni's and Shiite's must find a way to work together towards building their economic and political future. This element of the rebuilding can not be accomplished by the military. It has to be done diplomatically, and is essential to success.

Certainly mistakes have been made and there is still much work to be done. I realize this has been a little off topic but when i see statements like the US Military is "overrated," or "getting their asses handed to them," I feel compelled to respond. The troops on the ground have been getting it done, under the worst of circumstances in many cases. I'm not saying we should or should not be in Iraq, not my job. Just commenting on what I do know about.

[Edited on February 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM. Reason : been]

2/23/2007 1:25:11 PM

quality post.

thanks

2/23/2007 1:54:40 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6401427.stm

GOOD THING WE ARE IN IRAQ!!!!

2/27/2007 1:59:50 PM

worse than global warming?

2/27/2007 4:43:21 PM

Apparently, this story broke awhile ago, but I heard it again on NPR this morning

The president is asking for another 100 billion on top of the 70 billion already requested for the wars. Where will the spending end?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070201/pl_nm/iraq_bush_budget_dc

2/28/2007 10:21:00 AM

so you'd rather them budget our soldiers instead of spending whats necessary to give them the proper equipment? brilliant

2/28/2007 10:24:23 AM

It is an interesting paradox, the people who criticized the President and the military for being underprepared - equipment wise - for the war in Iraq are the selfsame who call for budget cuts and tended to be opposed to military funding in the first place.

2/28/2007 10:50:12 AM

leave it to idiots to demonize critics of the war for the republicans' management of said war.

[Edited on February 28, 2007 at 10:51 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2007 10:51:24 AM

Quote :

"It is an interesting paradox, the people who criticized the President and the military for being underprepared - equipment wise - for the war in Iraq are the selfsame who call for budget cuts and tended to be opposed to military funding in the first place."

No, I think the same people that call for budget cuts on the military are the same ones who don't want to be in Iraq or didn't envision the current admin would fumble the ball so bad on this one.

I see no paradox at all.

2/28/2007 10:56:36 AM

the paradox is pretty obvious...whatever is convenient at the time...typical political "discussion"

2/28/2007 11:02:41 AM

leave it to idiots cheney and rice to demonize critics of the war for the republicans' management of said war.

2/28/2007 11:03:27 AM

Maybe I should break it down:

Pre-September 11th: I'm opposed to military funding, so I'll vote against appropriations
Post-September 11th: The political winds make it unfeasable for me to vote against the War and my moral objections aren't strong enough to overcome my need for reelection - I'll vote for it
(The vote in the Senate was 77 to 23 and in the House it was 296-133.)
Post-Summer 2003: You bastard, you didn't get them what they need!

I'm not arguing that the administration didn't bungle the war, but to argue that the administration didn't provide individual units with the proper equipment - when its the legistlative branch that controls appropriations - is bullshit.

2/28/2007 11:08:58 AM

those darn dems. they controlled the budget process post 9/11 and didnt fund our troops. damn them.

oh. shit.

2/28/2007 12:13:45 PM

they control it now...so...

2/28/2007 12:27:55 PM

^^ Fair enough, I'm not saying there isn't plenty of blame to go around, but it is still pretty disingenuous. You’re attempting to draw more from my argument than I stated. I’m referring to a narrow group of people who both generally oppose defense funding and “voted for the war before I voted against it.”

2/28/2007 12:47:19 PM