Sir,
Are you reading the history right?
Quote:
|
1. By embarking on this war rubbishing UN as a defunct organisation.
|
Precisely the reason why the UN would go in. In fact, has gone in. They're a target now. The UN need to prove the Americans wrong. Whether they get sufficient force contribution is another matter all together but there will be a UN armed presence if only the UN either got to **** or get off the toilet.
Quote:
|
2. The little legitimacy that could have even now forced other nations to contribute is if there were any WMD found. So many months have passed and not a single shred of evidence! Therefore, it appears that the Coalition of the Willing fudged the facts and had an imperialistic agenda to occupy the territory, foist a pliant regime, bolster their own sagging economy by doling out lucrative contracts to own preferred companies and finally obtain a stranglehold on the oil reserves and manipulate the world economy to serve their country's purpose. Nothing illegitimate about it since that would be in their nations' interest, but to look upon the other Nations as a bunch of imbecile who will swallow hook, line and sinker the garbage swilled out for justifying the war is galling!
|
I count myself as guilty for being fooled into believing Iraq had WMDs but not by Bush, Rumsfeld, or even Gen Powell. The man who convinced me was none other than Saddam himself. The kicker was Saddam's release to his generals to use chems. It was only after the war that we found out his generals had no idea what he was talking about.
Quote:
|
Personally, if Saddam's regime has been sent to Kingdom Come, so much the better it is. But, the Islamic world does not think so. I have explained the Islamic mindset in the Afghanistan thread in detail. Briefly, the Islamic mindset controlled by the Mullahs' interpretation of the Koranic laws based on societal norms of those times cannot be changed. Islam is too dogmatic. Had they not been so, then the Islamic world would not be solely ruled by tinpot dictators and repressive monarchies. Apparently, they prefer an iron hand without a velvet glove. That is why Saddam was OK. There has been no revolution or rebellion in any Islamic state. Therefore, the concept of Freedom and Democracy is alien to the Islamic culture.
|
That is neither fair nor accurate. Turkey is a prosperous democracy. Indian Muslims enjoy the benefits of a free state. Iran is a democrazy.
Apparently you've forgotten the Shia Uprisings in Southern Iraq after the Kuwait War. The Kurds had continual rebellion against both Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.
In case you haven't noticed, sir. Nobody is crying over Saddam and everybody wants to know where his grave is so that they can dance over it and that includes alot of people in Iraq.
The current crop of dictators, including those in Saudi Arabia arrive at their position by armed force and with the support at the time of the people, first to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and then their desire for self rule of some kind. The Iranian Revolution was a massed uprising with extreme popular support and actions. You've kids throwing rocks at tanks.
Quote:
|
Who will contribute to the UN Force? Europeans will send their notional representatives if at all. The impoverished East Europeans and the foot soldiers of EU will gleefully assist to show they are more loyal to Caesar than Caesar himself! And then, the impoverished Asians and African nations will join the bandwagon. But will the latter do so?
|
If history is to be any guide, almost everybody. They may not do so at first but once things settle down, this will be the place to go to get noticed and do a little flag waving.
Quote:
|
Let's explain the Asian and African mindset since it is pertinent as they will be the major contributor of UN troops. Asian and the Africans have been under colonial rule except for Thailand. They are chary of the 'whiteman' not because of colour but because as the Red Indians say 'Paleface speak with forked tongue'. None actually trusts a 'whiteman' because of their dubious past record and enslaving the people of Asia and Africa through deceit and double dealings. Therefore, the UN, created by the 'whiteman', gave some legitimacy to the aspirations of the decolonised. They are aware that the UN is a defanged pet of the 'whiteman', but at least it gives some comfort in this big bad world of 'whiteman's' manipulations and skulduggery! I am sure that many on this thread would feel discomfit and even livid and my sincere apologies to them but this is the uncomfortable fact and I am not a bigot. Therefore, when UN was spurned, it did not gel. It maybe worth noting that the first Iraq War did not have such a resistance as the second one had. The reason was simple. Saddam attacked Kuwait without good reasons. The second one, the Coalition attacked without good reason - no one was convinced that Iraq had WMD and those who understood Islam realised that 'Democracy' and 'Freedom' was all ******** to the Islamists!
|
With respects, sir. You don't speak for the Africans. They've been on empire building themselves. Qaddafi's foray into Chad. Assad's desire for a Great Syria in Lebenon. Nigeria as the biggest fish in its pond.
I find your statements as a reflection of the world's hypocrazy. Everybody was convinced Iraq had WMDs, the debate was over its maturity and effectiveness. Even Blix did not counter Bush's assertions that Iraq has not disarmed.
Second is that the world has continually start and fought wars without seeking nor desiring UN approval and not just "whiteman" countries. China invaded Vietnam twice (79, 84). Ethiopia vs Eritrea. Iran-Iraq. VN-Cambodia. The continuing mess in the Congo/Rwanda/Uganda/etc. India-Pakistan.
To blame the US on this one (which is not the first - no one went to the UN for Kosovo either and no one openned their big mouths then) leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Quote:
|
It must be remembered that Iraq War has not been accepted as a legal war. Further, what rankles is that the European media dubs European countries alone as the 'international community'. How juvenile can one get?
|
Sir, realpolitik. They are "international community" as far as the "whiteman" in Congress are concerned. Dehli's support don't carry as much weight as London's.