Robert Fisk has a good point about the bombing. Given their bitter opposition to Bush's war, what UN country would want to send troops now. With Tony Blair going down, Brtish troops will withdraw and the US will be all alone in Iraq. Bush says "bring it on." *********** Who wants to go to Iraq now? By ROBERT FISK BRITISH COLUMNIST What United Nations nation would ever contemplate sending peacekeeping troops to Iraq now? The men who are attacking the United States' occupation army are ruthless, but they are not stupid. They know that President Bush is getting desperate, that he will do anything -- that he may even go to the dreaded Security Council for help -- to reduce U.S. military losses in Iraq. But yesterday's attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad has slammed shut the door to that escape route. Within hours of the car bomb explosion, we were being told that this was an attack on a "soft target," a blow against the United Nations itself. True, it was a "soft" target, although the machine gun nest on the roof of the U.N. building might have suggested that even the international body was militarizing itself. True, too, it was a shattering assault on the United Nations as an institution. But in reality, yesterday's attack was against the United States. For it proves that no foreign organization -- no NGO, no humanitarian organization, no investor, no businessman -- can expect to be safe under the United States' occupation rule. The U.S. proconsul, L. Paul Bremer, was supposed to be an "anti-terrorism" expert. Yet since he arrived in Iraq, he has seen more "terrorism" than he can have dreamed of in his worst nightmares -- and has been able to do nothing about it. Pipeline sabotage, electricity sabotage, water sabotage, attacks on U.S. troops and British troops and Iraqi policemen and now the bombing of the United Nations ... what comes next? Americans can reconstruct the dead faces of Saddam's two sons but they can't reconstruct Iraq. Of course, this is not the first indication that the "internationals" are in the sights of Iraq's fast-growing resistance movement. Last month, a U.N. employee was shot dead south of Baghdad. Two International Red Cross workers were murdered, the second of them a Sri Lankan employee killed in his clearly marked Red Cross car on Highway 8 just north of Hilla. When he was found, his blood was still pouring from the door of his vehicle. The Red Cross chief delegate, who signed the doomed man out on his mission to the south of Baghdad, is now leaving Iraq. Already, members of the Red Cross themselves are confined to their regional offices and cannot travel across Iraq by road. An American contractor was killed in Tikrit a week ago. A British journalist was murdered in Baghdad last month. Who is safe now? Who will now feel safe at a Baghdad hotel when one of the most famous of them all -- the old Canal Hotel that housed the U.N. arms inspectors before the invasion -- has been blown up. Will the next "spectacular" be against occupation troops? Against the occupation leadership? Against the so-called Iraqi Interim Council? Against journalists? The reaction to yesterday's tragedy could have been written in advance. Americans will tell us that this proves how "desperate" Saddam's "dead-enders" have become -- as if the attackers are more likely to give up as they become more successful in destroying U.S. rule in Iraq. The truth -- however many of Saddam's old regime hands are involved -- is that the Iraqi resistance organization now involves hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunni Muslims, many of them with no loyalty to the old regime. Increasingly, the Shiites are becoming involved in anti-American actions. Future reaction is equally predictable. Unable to blame their daily cup of bitterness upon Saddam's former retinue, the Americans will have to conjure up foreign intervention. Saudi "terrorists," al-Qaida "terrorists," pro-Syrian "terrorists," pro-Iranian "terrorists" -- any mysterious "terrorists" will do if their supposed existence covers up the painful reality: that our occupation has spawned a real home-grown Iraqi guerrilla army capable of humbling the greatest power on Earth. With the Americans still trying to bring other nations on board for their Iraqi adventure -- even the Indians have had the good sense to decline the invitation -- yesterday's bombing was therefore aimed at the jugular of any future "peace-keeping" mission. The U.N. flag was supposed to guarantee security. But in the past, a U.N. presence was always contingent upon the acquiescence of the sovereign power. With no sovereign power in existence in Iraq, the U.N.'s legitimacy was bound to be locked onto the occupation authority. Thus could it be seen -- by the United States' detractors -- as no more than an extension of U.S. power. Bush was happy to show his scorn for the United Nations when its inspectors failed to find any weapons of mass destruction and when its Security Council would not agree to the Anglo-American invasion. Now he cannot even protect U.N. lives in Iraq. Does anyone want to invest in Iraq now? Does anyone want to put his money on a future "democracy" in Iraq? Robert Fisk writes for The Independent in Great Britain. robert fisk
The UN is not the major player in Iraq anyway DD, this is true, when talking about the UN itself, but the point is that the countries in the UN who are major players, France, Germany, Russia , China, India etc. won't want to send troops. Are you really so optimistic that all is going pretty well in Iraq? Are you confident that the Bush Administration would admit the truth if it wasn't going well?
I don't know, the UN has been saying all the right things so far about not lleaving, and the spectre of "resistance" fighters massacring human rights workers instead of soldiers may be the impetus other countries need rather than a deterrent (witness the strong european presence in afghanistan). Of course,the Bushies will continue to shoot themselves in the foot and refuse their help anyway in any event.
I think that that was the intent: to show how the US isn't in control and can't ensure safety. I think that it has widened some gaps between the US and the international community, who were very quick to state that they felt the US was responsible, insofar as they were the occupying territory, and according to 1483 the only power able to provide and responsible for security. Most experts feel that this will A) Give a lot of impetus to the forming Jihad, similar to the one raised against the USSR in Afghanistan, and B) Make many foreign nations considering getting involved unsure of the US' ability to maintain control, if they thought that before. But on the other hand I am not sure that this won't actually turn out to be a good thing for the US. I don't think that we are going anywhere for a while no matter what, so you have to look at this from the context of long term occupation. It gives Bush fuel, albeit it false fuel, to throw on the bonfire of " War in Iraq = War on Terrorism." and people have been very willing to buy whatever he says up till now, so many will probably continue to do so in this case. In terms of the international community, I think that there is a very real chance that, despite raising practical fears, this attack might engender sympathy for the cause. These people were there for humanitarian reasons almost exclusively, and to target them, even if it was as a means of indirectly targeting the US, will and should strike many around the world as an absolutely evil action. How they react to that sentiment remains to be seen, but it will probably be there. Another point worth mentioning, and it was the point made by the successor of yesterday's highest ranking victim, is that to the average Iraqi the UN represents little more than bad news, and an extension of the American arm. In the past 10 years all these people have seen of the UN was invasive inspections, and crippling sanctions, and they tend to assosciate these actions with the UN doing what the US wants. Despite that, the man ( whose name I forget) said that most Iraqis he had spoken to were very positive about the UN's involvment in Iraq, wanting them to be there and stay there, but whether that was genuine or symbolic of the overall sentiment is hard to say. The man himself said that, on the surface, the average Iraqi probably doesn't have a whole lot to thank the UN about, and seemed somewhat surprised that his experience had been so positive. One last point: This may also be a sign of the growing resolve on the part of the opposition in Iraq. Remember all the actions of the VC in Nam which seemed to us, at first glance, to be actions which would make the people less sympathetic, ie attacking health centers, civilian bombings, etc. but were in fact merely signs that the VC were saying " We will accept nothing to do with the Americans in VietNam." ? This could, possibly, be a sign of something like that. But, to sum up, I don't think that the headline's premise is neccessarily the way this will play out. Possible, but not positive.
I think it is all the terrorists in a country that is still in tranistion. Do I think it is going well....I think it is going pretty much as I figured. DD
*sigh* Does this mean we can't invade Iran yet? What about Syria? We can take them. We can take them!
Randy Newman - Political Science No one likes us I don't know why. We may not be perfect But heaven knows we try. But all around even our old friends put us down. Let's drop the big one and see what happens. We give them money But are they grateful? No they're spiteful And they're hateful. They don't respect us so let's surprise them; We'll drop the big one and pulverize them. Now Asia's crowded And Europe's too old. Africa's far too hot, And Canada's too cold. And South America stole our name. Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us. Bridge: We'll save Australia; Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo. We'll build an all-American amusement park there; They've got surfing, too. Well, boom goes London, And boom Paris. More room for you And more room for me. And every city the whole world round Will just be another American town. Oh, how peaceful it'll be; We'll set everybody free; You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby, There'll be Italian shoes for me. They all hate us anyhow, So let's drop the big one now. Let's drop the big one now.
The inquiry over the guy who died is making the gov't look pretty bad from what I gather while I snooze through the BBC world report in the mornings .
Yes they have sorted through e-mails of Blair's cabinet. His chief of staff had an e-mail saying that the intel report(pre sex-up) didn't show Saddam to be a threat at all, much less an imminent threat. That was the most damning one that I heard.
Good question. I meant to ask that when I began reading the article, and forgot. Is there something I've missed recently about Blair, glynch? I did see his image on the BBC yesterday, but I was on the phone at the time and had it muted. Or are you just supposing that the hailrstorm he is under can only end badly for him? I should have put a ? mark in my thread title. My take from reading mostly the Independent's coverage of the investigation, which seems to be serilous and not just a coverup. It seems like Tony can't really get out of this in a good fashion. The British, unlike the Americans seem to be upset that Iraq as a threat was largely madeup bs. Also upset that Tony cooked the evidence. I think given British opinion that Tony might even look for an opportunity to declare victory and withdraw the troops before his term ends. At the latest, I suspect a successor government to do the popular thing and withdraw.
