Features

Phil the anorak · #1

I see now Georgy boy's now trying like mad to get UN troops involved (as long as they're commanded by a yank) to get Iraq sorted out presumably so they can return home to re-elect him or Invade Iran (delete which one you want).

Such irony when they didn't need any UN legitimacy to invade now things are getting tough they want some help.

I 'd love it to see Kofi Annan say up yours George, you started it you finish it and good luck on the wmd search btw and walk away laughing.

mburbank · #2

While one might well expect members of the 'colalition of the willing' to pony up cash and soldiers, I can't believe W thinks countrys that opposed the invasion or the UN would simply place their people under US command.

Some people here went on and on about the vast numbers of countries that were part of the coalition. Where are their soldiers now? Besides the Britts I mean.

ItalianStereotype · #3

Phil the Anorak, once again you confirm my suspicions that you are, in fact, retarded.

I seem to recall the U.N. demanding international involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq shortly before the war ended. now that the U.N. is in the country, I have seen them do little in the way of keeping the peace or restoring order. If I am wrong, by all means correct me, I would feel much better about putting faith into the U.N.

mburbank · #4

I think were the UN granted a role, they'd probably take it. As far as I can understand, the US is currently saying, tell you what, hows about you supply us with bodies and they do what we tell them.

That's not a role, and concidering how dangerous things are there right now, I'm not sure it would even be morally defensible for the UN to ask that of their staff. It's one thing to die in the line of duty (as in the recent bombing) even if you're not doing much but being there. Dieing as a body given over to another government is another. In what way would participants like that even be the UN, apart from in name?

ranxer · #5

i heard we gave some autonomy to one of the african countries soldiers.. i can't find a link at the moment.. we gave them command of themselves to clean up mine fields, hah, gee thanks.

Phil the anorak · #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

Phil the Anorak, once again you confirm my suspicions that you are, in fact, retarded.

I seem to recall the U.N. demanding international involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq shortly before the war ended. now that the U.N. is in the country, I have seen them do little in the way of keeping the peace or restoring order. If I am wrong, by all means correct me, I would feel much better about putting faith into the U.N.

Dear Mr Stereotype, I feel you are the retard here.
The UN has no powers in keeping what little peace there is or restoring order as that's the invading coalition's responsibility at the moment.
Until the US and British forces do get some degree of control and order there the UN will remain ineffective. My point was that Bush is now desperate to get some other troops in so that he can extricate himself from a problem of his own making in my opinion. The US and UK are to table a motion to get more countries in to help out which is ironic in the extreme when they went out of their way to AVOID getting one to authorise military action in the 1st place.

One could also say that Bush's cronies didn't want any UN involvement in reconstruction as they made sure firms like Halliburton and Bechtel got the jobs to do that.

Anti-Xocial · #7

I think that bush will do anything he can to stay out of the medias search lights...He has an election to win next year, and for this purpose needs to keep his nose clean.
UN has been acting a bit passive but then again, they really don't have the political range to boost themselves (compared to US/UK). In the meantime, bush and his compadres have to make sure they don't look bad, and that is truly amazing, taken the fact that they are still sitting there with a bunch of crap stuck on their hands from the past 3 years on the top...that sticky crap will (hopefully) cost him/them the president's seat...if anyone even cares to reminice!

Anagram · #8

All this has simply confirmed Bush as the most presumptuous US President in history. Remeber that "either you're with us or with the terrorists" comment?

KevinTheOmnivore · #9

Yead dude, that line was WiLd, like New World Order kinda shit.

Anti-Xocial · #10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anagram

All this has simply confirmed Bush as the most presumptuous US President in history. Remeber that "either you're with us or with the terrorists" comment?

Presumptuous? I think you mean "Dictator-ous"... As far as I am concerned, this bush is something that needs a close pruning, not another spring blooming!