The Deployment Diary

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Today's Political Conversation

I visit a site that is for military spouses. I probably post more often in their Current Events forum than I should. I have a tendency to be overbearing when I talk about politics these days, even when I don't mean to.

Today, there was a discussion about the new UN resolution, Kerry - the UN in particular and of course, President Bush.

Normally, it's just my ramblngs being a right leaning conservative. Today was no different I guess, but I just felt as though the points I made were on target. That I'd brought it all together in my mind and was able to finally express my frustration - especially my frustration with the "we need the UN" politicians clearly and effectively. Because of that, I thought I'd put it within my blog to sort of keep it.

Quote boxes within quote boxes below are the comments I'm addressing made by another writer and quoting one article that is linked:

Don't take this wrong, but "take" what John Kerry? Bush is now doing what he should have done in the first place, getting support for the freeing of Iraq.

What else could Bush and our diplomats have done to get this support in the first place? I'm truly interested in hearing other ideas on what could have been done. I hear so many say he should have done this in the first place, but I never hear HOW these people would have done it differently.

France as the ring-leader and Germany and Russia (all members with a veto) said they would NOT (even though Resolution 1441 was passed and stated Saddam must comply) go along with regime change. France said upfront and without question they would use their veto. In other words, we will write threatening letters, we'll make speeches - but we are proving to the world you can ignore UN resolutions because we are not going to enforce them.

Ironically, as so many stated during the run-up to war that we were "after their oil" and other wild accusations, it turns out the these very three nations who were so vehemently opposed to us toppling a dictator who tortured and murdered his own people -were the VERY people with their hands in the cookie jar.

I know our press doesn't make it easy for us to get facts that make Bush's policy and decisions appear to be as right as they were - but the news is out there if you look. These nations had large kickbacks from the Oil For Food program. Companies (and individuals) were making millions off of the program while the VERY people the program was suppose to ensure were taken care of starved and died of diseases easily preventable if only the money had been used to buy medications. Instead, the money kept members with a veto in the pocket of the dictator - making him pretty much feel as though he had a free reign on doing what he wanted. He did not have to comply - his "friends" who were making millions would protect him.

This is not Bush's failing. I find it extremely sad that our own citizens and political leaders will turn against our OWN president and country when clearly, these supposed allies of ours were in the pocket of a dictator. This is the failing of the UN who allowed a program under their control to be infiltrated by crooks who would rob the poor of food, medicine and basic necessities while lining their own pockets. Allies that would look the other way when our nation could face chemical or biological attack. Look the other way while Saddam proudly wrote checks worth thousands to the families of suicide bombers.

Had the Oil for Food Program been on the up and up, had our Allies stood WITH US instead of against us, siding with a dictator and terrorist supporter - Hussein just may have complied, allowed inspectors unfettered access and come clean - and war could have been averted ENTIRELY.

However, corruption on their end, not ours sealed the fate of the dictator. He had no reason to comply because of the millions of dollars he was paying to buy his way out of having to comply with any of the TWELVE prior resolutions - much less resolution 1441. No matter the resolutions, the wording, the threats, he truly believed France, Germany and Russia would never allow the United States to topple him. He was sure the United States would not go to war without another resolution. He was certain he had nothing to fear, hence no reason to ever consider being open, honest and forthright with weapons inspectors.

President Bush showed the world that when necessary, we will act with our own coalition (UN or no UN) and do what we must do to ensure the safety of our citizens. And, by doing so - he has impacted the entire region of governments that are terrorist supporters. He has once again shown that America will defend herself and broke eight years of allowing our country and interests to be attacked and not defending ourselves. The message was strong, loud and impacted the world - and made America safer. Lets remember that Libya would have never opened their doors to inspectors without our strong stance on countries either being with us or against us - our willingness to take action when we feel our national security is at stake. And lets certainly not forget that, to the UN's surprise, their nuclear program was much more advanced than they had ever dreamed....

So, with Allies (a term I use ever so lightly when referring to those three nations) who were being bought, how is it that this Administration failed? What else could Bush and his administration have done under these circumstances? Taken the chance that Saddam wouldn't go from paying suicide bombers families to handing off serin gas that could be released in our subway systems, schools or on airplanes? I am truly interested in the answer to that question, I just cannot seem to find one politician who can answer it.

The UN and our Allies failed us. Our president made sure he would not fail his country and its citizens.


The conversation continued:
I'm not saying things should have been done differently, I'm just saying, why throw it at Kerry?

Because, throughout the past year our nation has been at war in Iraq, he has continually used the UN failing to support our actions as a lightening rod to making the entire endeavor a failure in our diplomacy efforts regardless of the facts. During the primaries - he stepped up the same ridiculous notion. That our arrogance (he should speak of arrogance by the way) has alienated us from the rest of the world - when in reality we have a large coalition with only a few (the famous three) and Canada objecting. So, when we DO secure UN "approval" it tips the scales showing that we (our country) and this administration are not isolationists, we are working toward positive diplomatic relations with our "allies" - we just have allies that were allies with the world's enemy instead of the country that FREED TWO OF THEM in the first place.
I'm glad that the UN came around, and now they can have a piece of the pie that we have secured......I"m glad we have their support, even though it wouldn't have mattered anyway!

I'd be interested in knowing why you are glad. What exactly makes this a positive thing? Why they can now have a piece of the pie that OUR loved ones have died for when they refuse to even send troops to help train the Iraqi police and military so the Iraqis can protect themselves?

Why, after supporting a dictator and by their willingness to look the other way, they indirectly had a hand at hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent Iraqi's deaths by supporting that dictator, should we be GLAD they might get something out of this? Especially considering they have, at every step, tried their best to undercut our country and our mission in Iraq.

The Iraqi people deserve to get something out of it and a start would be a return of the millions of dollars that were stolen from them. They deserve a true body of United Nations that will send in help so we can train police and security forces quicker so Iraq can secure elections and the Iraqis can safely VOTE. It's the LEAST the UN could do for them considering what they failed to do.

Thus far, the UN has yet to do anything but send in a small group to oversee elections. And the ink is barely even dry on the latest UN resolution and France's Chirac is already making sure that the Iraqis will not be getting any additional help:
"We believe NATO ought to be involved," Bush said with Blair by his side. "We will work with our NATO friends to at least continue the role that now exists, and hopefully expand it somewhat."

[...]

But Chirac told reporters that, while he is "very much open to debate and discussion" of Bush's proposal, "I have reservations about this initiative."

"I do not believe it is NATO's purpose to intervene in Iraq," Chirac said. He said any NATO role could only be justified "if the sovereign Iraqi government were to ask for it."

Sixteen of the 26 NATO members already have troops in Iraq and NATO itself provides logistical help for a Polish-led division there.

The Bush administration would like to have the alliance take on additional duties, such as training Iraqi's new army. It would also like NATO to send forces, but recognizes that is unlikely given strong German and French opposition to sending troops.
Bush, Blair Seek Wider NATO Role in Iraq


The UN is worthless. They robbed the Iraqi people, they looked the other way while hundreds of thousands of innocent people died (including infants due to lack of vaccines and other medications) and now they won't even help the Iraqis train to protect their own country. And they deserve a "piece of the pie?" They deserve nothing except worldwide contempt for their utter failure in absolutely EVERYTHING they are involved with - but especially the extent to which they failed the Iraqi people.


Return To Top

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home