UN, international aid agencies won't work in US-run Iraq

From CNN

Editorial comment:

Isn't it kind of petty for the UN and other aid agencies (arguably the best in the humanitarian business) to refuse to give desparately needed food and medicine to the suffering Iraqi civilian population just because the US is providing a provisional government? That sort of careless disregard for human suffering makes these "aid workers" sound like their potrayals of the American government. Maybe they should swallow their collective pride and do what's right rather than let people die over a difference of political opinon. I mean, they were willing to work under Saddam Hussein, for crying out loud! Tommy Franks would be a vast improvement!

"Rat Boy" wrote:

From CNN

Editorial comment:

Isn''t it kind of petty for the UN and other aid agencies (arguably the best in the humanitarian business) to refuse to give desparately needed food and medicine to the suffering Iraqi civilian population just because the US is providing a provisional government? That sort of careless disregard for human suffering makes these ""aid workers"" sound like their potrayals of the American government. Maybe they should swallow their collective pride and do what''s right rather than let people die over a difference of political opinon. I mean, they were willing to work under Saddam Hussein, for crying out loud! Tommy Franks would be a vast improvement!

I''m not a fan of the UN and I think that we''ll be able to handle it. I think this will change after the government falls.

Well I don''t know, shouldn''t the gov''ts responsible for all this destruction be responsible for the clean up? If George Bush wants war so badly he should be footing the bill for aid afterwards.

The reason they were giving aid while Saddam was in power was because they new that Saddam would never do it. The Americans just may if they are forced to. This way these organizations can focus on other areas of the world where their help is needed as well, and quite possibly even more so.

I''m not a fan of the UN and I think that we''ll be able to handle it.

You''re obviously not aware though that the US neither has the monetary capacity nor the required organization and know-how to handle war AND aftermath on their own without bleeding financially. A lot.

"JD" wrote:
I''m not a fan of the UN and I think that we''ll be able to handle it.

You''re obviously not aware though that the US neither has the monetary capacity nor the required organization and know-how to handle war AND aftermath on their own without bleeding financially. A lot.

No. I am aware that countries are going to want oil from Iraq and even nations against the military action have all offered to help re-build Iraq.

yeah because the US as always stated they won''t do it and instead give the power back to some puppet gov like in Afghanistan and some other countries clean up after them.

Details about the Iraq plan:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...

As always the US backs out of the responsibility and wants UN or any other coalition of countries do the dirty work. The other countries offer their help because they know the US won''t do it. Very good way to gather sympathy in the middle east.

As always the US backs out of the responsibility and wants UN or any other coalition of countries do the dirty work.

Sorry, I personally happen to think that the U.S. is doing the dirty work by getting rid of a dictatorial regime that oppressed his people. He''s been slowly destroying Iraq for years by fighting with his neighbouring countries.The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years. Then he further helps destroy his country by invading Kuwait.

And the first attack was designed to take out Saddam. If there wasn''t any doubt raised by that speech last night, this war could''ve been over with one shot, with only 1 civilian killed and 14 wounded.

"kegboy" wrote:

Sorry, I personally happen to think that the U.S. is doing the dirty work by getting rid of a dictatorial regime that oppressed his people. He''s been slowly destroying Iraq for years by fighting with his neighbouring countries.The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years. Then he further helps destroy his country by invading Kuwait.

Actually the Iraq-Iran war would not have lasted 8 years if it was not for all western governments to support Saddam with weapons and knowledge. Sorry but putting forth a war we supported ourselves is not a very valid argument in this case. And no the dirty work is establishing a democracy in that region not flattening the country with bombardment.

And no the dirty work is establishing a democracy in that region not flattening the country with bombardment.

In order to start a democracy first you have to remove the Dictatorship and I don''t think that they''ll flatten the country, much as there''s more than enough firepower there to do so.

And it was the Russians who supplied Saddams army with equipment his airforce consists of various soviet Mig fighters.

The Iranian Army was western sponsored but Saddam did Invade Iran and not the other way around.

The Iraqis also have French-built Mirage fighters and several types of Chinese-built fighter aircraft. Oddly enough, the Iranians have several first-generation F-14A Tomcats.

"kegboy" wrote:

In order to start a democracy first you have to remove the Dictatorship and I don''t think that they''ll flatten the country, much as there''s more than enough firepower there to do so.

And it was the Russians who supplied Saddams army with equipment his airforce consists of various soviet Mig fighters.

The Iranian Army was western sponsored but Saddam did Invade Iran and not the other way around.

I still fail to see where a 3 week invasion is more dirty work than the 15+ years to establish a stable democracy in that region. I am not playing down the role of the US army here, I hope they win and that they win quickly and without much casualities, but the real work starts when the war is over. Just look at Afghanistan how much work has to go into that. And the US currently states they are backing out of that responsibility.

The Russians did supply Saddam with weaponary during the end of the eighties and during the first Gulf war. Before that all western governments supported Saddam as he was the only democracy in that region at that time and the only bastion against the ""commies"" and the fundamentalists. You can read that up in any decent history book. We cannot have supported the Iran based alone on the fact as it was a fundamentalist Islam gov at that time. There were other reasons as well, but this is the most obvious one. We were the ones who granted Saddam access to biological and chemical weapons in the first place. There is no arguing about that.

The Russians did supply Saddam with weaponary during the end of the eighties and during the first Gulf war. Before that all western governments supported Saddam as he was the only democracy in that region at that time and the only bastion against the ""commies"" and the fundamentalists

The Soviets (and French) NOT the U.S. supplied Iraq right fom the start of the Iran Iraq war in 1980. The U.S. had actually supported the previous Iranian regime which was toppled in 78/79 this replaced the Shah of Iran with the Ayatollah hence them having F4 Phantoms and several first generation F-14s. After the coup the U.S. mainly let them fight it out until they started shooting at crude carriers in the gulf from ''84-''87

Yes Iraq did get it''s WOMD start from the US.

Iraq is a client state of France/Russia Always has been and would have been until this happened.

Just look at Afghanistan how much work has to go into that. And the US currently states they are backing out of that responsibility.

We haven''t backed out of our responsibility here. We still have troops, along with the afganni''s(sp?) that are patrolling for the Taliban/al-Queda remnants. Also we have troops that aid in guarding Karzai. The main reason we''ve moved many of out troops out are two-fold:

1. Germany/Canada has troops inside continuing to support the Afghan government/people.
2. We faced massive criticism, from Europe mainly, for remaining there, we''re were just proping up a US imposed regime, and that sort of rot. This is a regime that was elected by the Afghans using the same sort of meeting that they''ve used since Persia fell and it first became a country. However anyone who thinks that there won''t be continued infighting there by the various factions has no clue the history of Afghanistan. They''ve been fighting each other for power/territory since the beginning of time, and still have blood fueds from events centuries ago. This is changing but mainly in Kabul, and slowly leading out elsewhere, it will take time for the Afghan government to to this for the whole country, but the fact that they''ve been able to do any of it is amazing. Also while women still where burqa''s in the outlaying provinces. Those in the controlled sections have regained the rights they haven''t had since the Taliban showed up in 1995. Hell several women voted for Karzai.

As always the US backs out of the responsibility and wants UN or any other coalition of countries do the dirty work.

O.k. you''re mad at the fact that we have a coalition of countries willing to help out in the rebuilding. And you''re mad at the fact we didn''t have a coalition of countries in the first place, last time I checked there were 45 countries in a coalition anyway. You can''t have it both ways. As it stands now it sounds like you just don''t like the US/US Government and would continue to do so regardless of what we did. Oh well.

The other countries offer their help because they know the US won''t do it. Very good way to gather sympathy in the middle east.

Lets see maybe they offer their help becuase its the right thing to so, maybe they see financial/other opportunities in Iraq that weren''t available to them before, i.e. France/Russia had them locked up. Also at least as Bagdad is concerned it will be the US Military running/doing things to begin with, not other countries, though this will change quickly. For humanitarian aid the UN is worthless, about all they can do is build refugee camps, but then can''t control order over them. For medical aid the CDC/USAMRIID is the very good at providing aid to the rest of the world, i.e. why do you think that the CDC/USAMRIID show up during Ebola outbreaks? Historically we have a very good track record at rebuilding counties after removing dictatorous regimes Japan/France/Germany anyone? In Japan the military ran the country for years, McAuther(sp?) Is still remembered fondly buy many. In France/Germany we backed the rebuilding effort with massive grants/loans.

And as for sympathy in the middle east I guess we would gather much more support especially from the iraqi people themselves if we just let Saddam sit back and continue butchering his own people, yep I''m sure they''d be much happier that way, and for some ignorant putz on the so called Arab street, I really don''t care about his opinion, the House of Saud''s backed Religious Imperealism since the 70s have conviced much of the Arab world that we/Israel the source of all their problems, not the lovely little regime they''re currently under. This will change post-Iraq as well, we had our biggest boost on the street post-GW1 and will have again post-GW2, especially among the Iraqi''s/Kuwaiti''s.
And when the democratic regime is up running/stable it willbe interesting to see if the surround countries citizen look to it and decide they may want the same freedoms for themselves.

You''re obviously not aware though that the US neither has the monetary capacity nor the required organization and know-how to handle war AND aftermath on their own without bleeding financially. A lot.

You also are obviously not aware that the contracts that go to the companies that rebuild Iraq will provide more jobs/money and improve the economy in doing so. More jobs/work=more economic opportunity. Also, much of the murkiness surrounding this whole mess will be resolved and that in and of itself will give a large boost to the various markets around the world, as it already has.

Not sure where to post this, so I thought I would add it here:

Germany finds other ways to support the War. Just another reason why they can''t be put on the same level as France.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/24/sprj.irq.ramstein/index.html

I believe that the medical center is an American Military facility. It just is located in Germany. Feel free to orrect me if I''m wrong, but this is the case if I remember right.

Ramstein is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization installation. Beside Americans, the installation''s population is comprised of Canadian, German, British, French, Belgian, Polish, Czech, Norwegian, Danish, and Dutch forces. (found this online)

It''s not troops or money, but it''s still helping out in my opinion. I have a colleague in Germany who Instant messages me to say things like ""A lot of Germans support the US"" and ""while not everyone supports the war, the majority support the USA."" Kind of like the ""Support the troops and not the war thread"".

I just get tired of hearing how much the world hates the USA.

just get tired of hearing how much the world hates the USA

I wonder if there will be a backlash in Europe against the anti-American nutjobs. When Clinton''s scandles first came out the American public was really against him until they thought that he was being beat up on too much. Even if they did I doubt the media would cover it since it''s not the story they want to tell.

wonder if there will be a backlash in Europe against the anti-American nutjobs

In eastern Europe you really don''t have the anti-American nutjobs, hence pretty much every eastern european country signed on with us right away, much to France''s anger.

As to western Europe, I think its a minor issue for most. This being said France has/will continue to be massively anti-American. Ever since DeGaul in 1947 started pushing France as a counter to all of our policies I''ve seen little reason to call them an ally/friend. Thats why they wanted the EU & want the EU to build up a large military, to use such as a deterrant to us. However, if it comes between backing the US and forking over soverign decisions to Paris I suspect that 95% of Europe will ack us every time. France really doesn''t have any ""close"" friends in Europe, though Germany is swinging its way. At some point down the road we''re going to have to confront France about their policies/goals.

If you don''t think France has such goals, look at what they''re response was to those portions of Europe that backed us in either the NATO decisions or the war itself. Britain/Spain/Italy it has screamed that they''re ""Atlanticists"", i.e. they care about they''re alliance with us. The eastern european states they''ve screamed to ""shut up"" and fall in line with their policies.

France is no one''s friend but itself, and this has been the case for hundreds of years.

France is no one''s friend but itself, and this has been the case for hundreds of years.

Would you say any different of the US? Genuine question here, because I''m interested on your perspetive on this. It seems to me that the US is interested in being neighborly as long as its directly in our interest to do so, and when not then we become as stubborn and nationalistic as, well as the French. I''m not actually apologizing or justifying the actions of France here, and I haven''t thought the issue out fully so I don''t feel like I have a solid position, but my initial reaction is that we are just as guilty of only participating in world culture when it benefits our goals, and when brought to task for our goals we have a policy of derision toward those who don''t support our vision.

"Elysium" wrote:
France is no one''s friend but itself, and this has been the case for hundreds of years.

Would you say any different of the US? Genuine question here, because I''m interested on your perspetive on this. It seems to me that the US is interested in being neighborly as long as its directly in our interest to do so, and when not then we become as stubborn and nationalistic as, well as the French. I''m not actually apologizing or justifying the actions of France here, and I haven''t thought the issue out fully so I don''t feel like I have a solid position, but my initial reaction is that we are just as guilty of only participating in world culture when it benefits our goals, and when brought to task for our goals we have a policy of derision toward those who don''t support our vision.

Here''s my thing: It is in our best interest as the worlds largest economy to make sure the world is stable everywhere. We give more forign aid than any other country and we are responsible for people around the world having jobs more than any other country. So, I don''t think we should compare our selves to France. The world is now global so putting our heads in the sand just doesn''t work.

Elysium:

No. I think we act outside just our small national interests all the time. Just on the order of medical/finicial aid we provide to Africa alone I''d rest my case. Besides that for more obvious an example I could point to 1998''s military action in Serbia. We had ZERO national interest to get involved what so ever, after waiting time hoping western Europe would step in and stop the genocide, they didn''t because of France/Germany''s wishes. We stepped in, I know that many will say NATO did but we ran a parrallel organization to NATO, which ticked France/Germany off to no end. In the end it was American troops/air power that stopped things. And since its been American aid helping to restore the area, and we have no nationalistic ties to that region, we just wanted to do the ""right"" thing.

France on the other hand has NO such evidence. They did nothing while serbian/croation muslims we''re butcher''d, however they''re all about supporting Zimbabwe''s Mugambe(sp?) and unilateral action in the ivory coast to ensure their finiancial posistion in western africa, what was it a week ago they''re we''re mass protests from both sides saying they wanted the french out and the americans in...

You know, the cynical part of me says that we only step in to ""restore democracy"" so all our giant corporations will have new markets to sell their stuff in. I don''t really think that''s the reason for everything my elected representatives do, but it sure feels that way sometimes. Since they keep bending over to accomodate corporate wishes in this country, why not extend the same ideas to our foreign policy? I don''t see how Somalia fits in to that though. I don''t see Disney having a large share of the poor starving refugee market.

I think to deal the final blow in incriminating US behavior as selfish we have to penetrate that last layer, we the people.

While I do make habit of questioning my actions I never doubt my motives. Amidst all the negativity, I am always comforted with a few sample proofs that I am not alone.

I know there are an awful lot of people in this country that care about people. I know there are a lot of people in this country that realise the importance of respecting people all over the world.

Its amazing with all the technological developments we are truly in an era of enlightenment but we are still so relatively dumb.

This point does make it difficult for me to hear anti american sentiments and hindsight criticism. Look people, we are dumb! We can all learn from how dumb we were but insulting stupid people eventually only makes you look more stupid.

We are getting smarter and we will make mistakes and we will never be smart. No matter how smart we get, we will always be able to look back at how dumb we were/are.

I think there are a few truths:

1. our society is amazing in technological development, many people throughout the world see America as the source of Technology, and just becuase we''re good at thois doesn''t mean others aren''t as well nor we don''t suck at lots of other things.

2. We''re mind-numbingly niave/ignorant/stupid on most things outside our own specific focuses

3. (This one is true to people in general, the above to a large degree as well) We don''t pose hard questions/research into not only our own beliefs but as to their backgrounds/goals. the Historical/politcal/economics forces/trends that caused them, as well as the instances where they''ve been practiced... Becuase humans in general don''t like being wrong especially on something we''re passionate about.

"dgrey" wrote:

I think there are a few truths:

1. our society is amazing in technological development, many people throughout the world see America as the source of Technology, and just becuase we''re good at thois doesn''t mean others aren''t as well nor we don''t suck at lots of other things.

2. We''re mind-numbingly niave/ignorant/stupid on most things outside our own specific focuses

3. (This one is true to people in general, the above to a large degree as well) We don''t pose hard questions/research into not only our own beliefs but as to their backgrounds/goals. the Historical/politcal/economics forces/trends that caused them, as well as the instances where they''ve been practiced... Becuase humans in general don''t like being wrong especially on something we''re passionate about.

Not much to add, to these in particular. I''d love to writh a more lenghty response to several replies on this topic, but after my last days full of work + diploma thesis and my post frenzy over the last hour. I need some sleep. Maybe tomorrow ;).
Three things though:
1. There are reports we are near a humanitarian catastrophy in Iraq, as the cities, especially Basra are running out of water and food. Let''s hope your forces win the cities soon, so we can start humanitary aid to the people there.
2. I really hope I am wrong and you are right about the establishing of a democracy after the war. If the latter one fails, I fear we are in big trouble :(.
3. About the german help for the war. We are on very thin ice with sending ABC troops, patriots, manning the AWACS and granting you passageway over german territory. In our constitution it is stated that helping or preparing or helping prepare a preemptive strike will at least get the government arrested. You know that one is in there for a reason :).
I find it funny additionally that although we are against this war, we are one of the larger supporters of it. We do help you a lot more than most of your 45 countries in the coalition of the willing. But again this is on very thin ice. As soon as there is an official announcement about this war being against international law, our constitution forbids helping you any further, no matter how much we would want to. Fingers crossed nobody declares this war illegal. Nobody wants your troops harmed here in Germany. At least not reasonable people.

Do you mean the UN or international community to declare it illegal? I certainly hope its not just ""someone"" to declare it illegal. That would be extremely dangerous. As a matter of fact, I believe Saddam has called it illegal or criminal. I think France is carefully choosing its words when insinuating the illegal nature of the war.

Anyone have confirmation that this isnt taken out of context? Last night a news program stated that France would not participate in humanitarian aid if Saddam or his regime was not in power? If its true it sounds like a tremendously stupid move.

3. About the german help for the war. We are on very thin ice with sending ABC troops, patriots, manning the AWACS and granting you passageway over german territory. In our constitution it is stated that helping or preparing or helping prepare a preemptive strike will at least get the government arrested. You know that one is in there for a reason .
I find it funny additionally that although we are against this war, we are one of the larger supporters of it. We do help you a lot more than most of your 45 countries in the coalition of the willing. But again this is on very thin ice. As soon as there is an official announcement about this war being against international law, our constitution forbids helping you any further, no matter how much we would want to. Fingers crossed nobody declares this war illegal. Nobody wants your troops harmed here in Germany. At least not reasonable people.

Only the SC could declare it illegal and we have two vetos on it.

First off the UN won''t declare the war illegal, second there is NO legal backing for doing so (Those 17 resolutions & the terms of the cease-fire we''re all broken by Saddam, thus after he broke, in any slightest way, the first resolution/cease-fire we could have legally picked up again.)

This war isn''t illegal, immoral, unjust. The international movement to stop it was all politically motiviated. While a good portion of the protesters/opponents have good intentions, war bad/violence bad. The results of their own policies would end up being meaningless.

I''ve realized, before this, that the ""left"" focuses on the intention of an action, while the ""right"" focuses on the result. Also, I''ve noticed that those that are passionate on the ""left"" are unable to believe that anyone disagreeing with them could have any good intention, I think they see themselves morally superior. This leads to the belief that ""conservatives"" are hateful.

The ""right"" however focuses entirely on results, and see that historically when many of what the ""left"" wants has been implementd you see massive problems, or when the ideas are taken to their logical conclusion. Thus since they see the ""left"" arguing for something that has ""failed"" time and again this leads to the belief that all ""liberals"" are morons.

This I think is the root cause of most of the political problems between the two. Both sides can''t get over their own beliefs about the other to discuss anything, it invariably just devolves into a flame fest.

I''ve realized, before this, that the ""left"" focuses on the intention of an action, while the ""right"" focuses on the result.

I don''t quite see it. I get the gist of where you''re coming from here, but it doesn''t feel quite true to me. I think there are times where this is applicable, but even in the case of War in Iraq the left is also concerned and focussed on the results, just different ones from the ''right''. For the ""left"" the result of the war may be innocent Iraqi deaths, where for the ""right"" the end is a liberated Iraq and a ruthless dictator deposed. Both genuine and considerable results. I think, if you want to generalize, that it can be argued that the ''left'' puts paramount importance on the comfort of immediate human lives above money and politics, where the ''right'' has a more ''realistic'' approach of giving weight to additional consideration be they fiscal, nationalistic, security, and so on. That isn''t to say that the ''right'' doesn''t care about human suffering, but that they see war as a means to end suffering and to safeguard America, where the left sees war as a tool of suffering for the sake of money. Still, all that''s a little too general for my taste, and neither represents my position on the matter.

Also, I''ve noticed that those that are passionate on the ""left"" are unable to believe that anyone disagreeing with them could have any good intention, I think they see themselves morally superior.

Yup, just like the passionate right. I''ve seen plenty of conservatives who are convinced that in the majority of things they have the moral superiority.

This leads to the belief that ""conservatives"" are hateful.

And the same leads some ''conservatives'' to see the ''liberals'' as hedonistic, idealistic, ignorant, naive and so on and so on. Both sides are guilty.

Both sides can''t get over their own beliefs about the other to discuss anything, it invariably just devolves into a flame fest.

I agree completely.

On a vaguely tangential note, I ran across this quote today (in the interest of full disclosure it was brought to my attention by a very liberal source). It reminded me of your Orwell quote dgrey, as something of a reminder that protest and opposition are vital to a nation as a check. That pacifism and protest do not, I think act as a tacit support of an enemy, but represent a very real strength to a culture. I hesitate to bring Nazis into the debate, because I certainly don''t want to imply a correlation between any present leader and that regime (with the exception perhaps of Saddam), but I thought the statement posed might make a good discussion point:

""Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.""

Hermann Goering, president of the Reichstag in Nazi Germany, taken from the Neuremberg Trials.

Yup, just like the passionate right. I''ve seen plenty of conservatives who are convinced that in the majority of things they have the moral superiority.

Yep Agree with you here as well. Zealots always see themselves as being ""true"" and never anyone else.

Hermann Goering''s speech was in response to the logic of Orwell, also take serious note that there was NO debate/discussion on ANYTHING that happened in Nazi Germany. The federalists set up our government specifically so that a vocal minority(in this case think the nazis) couldn''t rule the majoirty(i..e the rest of the germans), go back and read the federalist papers they make wonderful arguements that are still true today(oh and btw I do love Alexander Hamilton) Oh and Orwell''s point doesn''t apply to only Fascists it applies to any ""war"". I agree that without debate our nation is weakened, but I don''t think that the protesters are being ""patriotic"" and definetly not ""couragous"". However, wether thats a bad thing I leave to you as the individual to decide, and not just following the rhetoric of anyone else I''d much rather the individual comes to the decision by themself doing the requistie researching of it.

As for protesting... Steve Forbes once said something similar, couldn''t find the exact quote, That protesting a thing doesn''t solve or impact the thing. Basically modern protests don''t accomplish anything. If you want to solve a problem running out in the street with a sign does nothing to the actual problem, i.e. get off your tail and actually work on said problem.