Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How will replacing the coalition with a UN force help?

  1. Apr 7, 2004 #1
    Rwanda and Srebrenica come to mind when I continue to hear people say that the coalition should be replaced with a UN force.
    Those two areas had declared safe zones and in both cases 1000's of people around (and INSIDE OF) the safe zone were killed.

    So, lets' look at the main complaints/goals about Iraq:

    1> Nations don't want their troops there
    2> security
    3> humanitarian aide
    4> hand over of power

    Well, if the UN takes over, I don't understand where people think the soldiers will come from. It's not as if they will magically appear. Australia, S Korea, and Spain will all have soldiers there - France and Germany too.

    How will security get better? The UN is there for PEACEKEEPING. It's a show of force more than anything. Many on here that support the UN role also agree that we are still in an open war in Iraq. So, how will the UN do a job that isn't what they were designed for?
    Also, do you believe that somehow the insurgency will suddenly be calmed because of the UN label (who has been accused of being nothing more than a tail of the USA)? Or will the insurgency continue because those that are fighting do not want just a free Iraq, they want to have control (or a seperate country).

    Humanitarian aide. There is presently power and water to more homes now than there was before the war. The Redcross and other organizations are active in Iraq, and we are supplying tons of food to the populous. I have been unable to find any news stories anywhere showing that food, water, and medicine could somehow be improved any quicker via the UN (I'm open for links). Perhaps with UN support other countries will help more? Do we have any preset agreemetns of "bring the UN in, and we will offer this...."?

    Hand over of power. The interim government will be taking power in June, and the UN agrees with our assesment of the ability for the country to hold elections (they aren't ready). So how will this change under the UN??

    So, maybe someone here who supports the UN taking over can show me how the UN taking over will be better for the Iraqis. What the international community wants is a moot point for this thread. This is fully based on how it will help the Iraqis.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 7, 2004 #2
    I don't think security there will improve at all if the US forces are replaced by a UN force. I think the ant's nest has been kicked over, and it won't be fixed by having troops stand around, regardless of where they come from.

    Given that, another issue is responsibility. Why should the UN pay for what the US did? The US should stay in Iraq now that they have kicked over the ant nest, and pay for it.
  4. Apr 7, 2004 #3
    :eek: So you don't support UN intervention?
  5. Apr 7, 2004 #4
    No, not at all.
  6. Apr 7, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The only point of a UN force that I can see would be in this circumstance:

    Peace is established between the many factions. The large number of weapons available make the peace very tenuous. No side trusts the others to refrain from mobilising. The US is not trusted to maintain disarmament.

    In this case, the UN would be ideal. We will need to bring about at least this uneasy peace before holding elections. Still, even in this circumstance, the UN would certainly need a force that will fight. Any faction that perceives itself as a sure loser in elections will resort to violence.

  7. Apr 7, 2004 #6

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    UN intervention? what would that be? A lot of people bickering about what to do, USA and UK troops being sent in.... so what's new?

    On a more serious note, i think that Iraq will be sick of having more foreign troops who dont have a clue piling in. Frankly i dont see it changing the situation one bit, it will just cause arguements and tension and needless loss of life. I'm not saying there isnt with the coalition in because i read the news and KNOW there are losses, but potentially for terrorists, there are more troops to kill.
  8. Apr 7, 2004 #7
    Installing UN forces won't make a difference. Consider the current situation. Foreign troops from countries other than the USA are already being shot to pieces all over Iraq. How will it be any different if they march under the UN banner rather than the USA banner? It won't. So, the idea that non-USA troops in there will change everything is already dealt with. Reality shows it is a mistaken assumption.

    Let the USA government stay in Iraq and rebuild at the USA"s cost, until the rebuilding is complete.
  9. Apr 7, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    That's what the empire theorists like Steven del Beste and Jerry Pournelle say. Stay in Iraq till we transform it by hook, crook or twisted arm into our image, or a suffieciently plausible imitation thereof.
  10. Apr 7, 2004 #9
    Well, that was Bush's stated agenda anyway, to install "American-style democracy". Given that the USA is there, enforcing its policies by force of arms, the least good they can do is actually rebuild what they destroyed.
  11. Apr 7, 2004 #10


    User Avatar

    Really? I must of missed that one...can you show me the quote where he stated his agenda is to "install American-style democracy"?
  12. Apr 7, 2004 #11
    Then no problems with contracts going to only coalition countries?
  13. Apr 7, 2004 #12
    Contracts should at least be up for tender, rather than being immediately awarded to companies which are backed in part by Bush and Cheney. Most companies of appropriate size and capacity are multinational anyway.

    Kat, I'll try to find it.
  14. Apr 8, 2004 #13


    User Avatar

    I don't think you will, because I think it's a figment of your imagination....but I look forward to seeing it if you do. :rolleyes:
  15. Apr 8, 2004 #14
    Nup, this is what I've found so far:
    Of course, I'm sure some of you believe he meant he wants to install Martian style democracy and such, rather than American.

    And a couple of hilarious things:
    Huzzah for Manifest Destiny.
  16. Apr 8, 2004 #15
    I'm checking with a friend at ICG for more Bush quotes.
  17. Apr 8, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Most likely is, ironically, a French style of democracy. The US system has too much power vested in one man to make it a good idea for Iraq. A parliamentary system, with each member of a coalition of ruling parties gaining some cabinet posts would be more feasible. (note, I say French rather than British because the French have a written Constitution, and the British do not.)

    Just shooting it out until one group is left standing works too. I hope it doesn't come to that.

  18. Apr 8, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In response to the inital prompt:

    It seems likely to me that the reason that brining the UN in would help is strongly related to the reason that Bush et al. don't want to give control to the UN -- the UN would be inclined to run representative elections which are currently likely to lead to a result that the US descisionmakers do not want to see.

    In a more pragmatic sense, the US has lost tremendous amounts of credibility in the world because of the lousy diplomacy and ludicrous claims associated with the march to war in Iraq. Moreover, the US's apparent lack of an ongoing/exit strategy in Iraq isn't improving anybody's confidence. Putting the force under UN control provides non-US military powers with reassurances about the nature of the action. If the US wants international help with Iraq, rebuilding credibility is essential.

    Moreover, the credibility problems that are causing US allies to be unwilling to engage troops in Iraq are also the type of problems would make the Iraqis themselves doubt the intention and policy of the US government. Thus improving US credibility by involving the UN is likely to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq.
  19. Apr 8, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    Still waiting...... :cool:
  20. Apr 8, 2004 #19
    Um... Did you miss the many Bush quotes about waging war to eestablish "freedom and democracy"? Go back and read again.

    Then (I know it's difficult, but try) think for a moment. In the many quotes I provided, does he say "I will establish something I don't think is freedom and democracy, but which someone else might"? Or does he say he will establish freedom and democracy? Obviously "freedom and democracy" is what he thinks it is, in his speeches.
  21. Apr 8, 2004 #20


    User Avatar

    ah Adam, Adam, Adam.

    Your a slipper li'l devil aren't you?
    No where...in any of those quotes is there a Bush quote stating that his agenda (and you did say "stated agenda') was installing "American-style democracy".
    Americans don't have the market cornered on Freedom or Democracy, there are other "styles" of democracy.

    Does this sound American to you?

    Article 1.
    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2.
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3.
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4.
    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    Article 5.
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 21.
    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

    (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: How will replacing the coalition with a UN force help?
  1. The Arab Coalition (Replies: 63)

  2. UN - methods (Replies: 0)

  3. Future of the UN (Replies: 5)