Latest from planet UN

Post #85,706 by marlowe 3/5/03 8:52:17 AM Reply	Latest from planet UN [link\|http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-600029,00.html\|We're only making plans for Nigel] Excerpt: The 60-page plan was ordered by Louise Frechette, the Canadian deputy of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, and was drawn up at the UN\ufffds New York headquarters by a six-member pre-planning group. It envisages the UN stepping in about three months after a successful conquest of Iraq, and steering the country towards self-government, as in Afghanistan. The plan resists British pressure to set up a full-scale UN administration. It also says that the UN should avoid taking direct control of Iraqi oil or becoming involved in vetting Iraqi officials for links to the President or staging elections under US military occupation. It proposes instead the creation of a UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, to be known as Unami, to help to establish a new government. UN sources expected the plan to be implemented even if the US goes to war without a UN resolution authorising military action. It recommends that the UN immediately appoint a senior official to co-ordinate its strategy, who would become the UN special representative in post-war Iraq. I say: Tony Blair half gets it. But the UN is living entirely in a fantasy world. When Blair realizes this, he will be enlightened. Fat girl from The Oblongs. No doubt about it. No oil for TotalFinaElf! CHICKENHAWK! Scourge of clucking hens everywhere! Victory is the answer. There are no alternatives. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #85,715 by JayMehaffey 3/5/03 9:18:26 AM Reply	Looks sensible to me What here seems irrational to you? That Bush might turn anything over to the UN? The White House has said in the past that it plans to turn much, if not all, of the grunt work of rebuilding Iraq off to the UN. Some of the recent leaks that suggest that the US might rule Iraq for many years may or may not be true. As long as the US can keep enough leverage over any UN group to control what it wants to, why not turn the expensive and unprofitable jobs of humanitarian support and medical aid off to other countries? That the UN might not be ready to take over Iraq? Seems like an honest assement to me. The UN has neither the power nor organization to run a large and unstable country. They have overseen small statelets in the past, but didn't do a good job and Iraq is sure to be a much harder problem. The UN is also limited in what they can justify doing if they don't approve the US war. Setting up a government would be a defacto approval of the US war. Keep in mind also, Bush in not the absolute dictator of events that he wants to be. It may be that some countries have tied their security council vote to US support for UN control after the war. The US would much rather have UN support then go without it, even if that means giving up some power in Iraq down the road. Jay
Post #85,729 by Brandioch 3/5/03 10:18:22 AM Reply	Once again. If Iraq ignores the UN, Iraq is bad and must be destroyed. If the US ignores the UN, the UN is bad and must be destroyed.

Welcome to IWETHEY!