Iraq apeals for international help

[baxter]

Iraq's president has appealed for help in fighting terrorism and called for patience as his country's people try to overcome widespread violence and establish a modern state.

"Today, Iraq is facing one of the most brutal campaigns of terror at the hands of the forces of darkness," President Jalal Talabani told a UN summit of world leaders.

Terrorists want to turn Iraq into a base to carry their fight into the rest of the Middle East and the world, he said, calling on the international community to help end the threat.

Talabani appealed for international help, saying "We are in desperate need of your experience, investment and your moral support for the effort to fight terrorism."

He said Iraq's war on terror requires diverse international help, "not only for the sake of Iraq but also for the sake of the whole world."

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1944332005

With the UN unable to define terrorism,
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1940272005

I feel this appeal will fall on deaf ears.
So should the international community help, should the UN take over?

As a world community should we now step up a gear and demand international intervention inside Iraq, or will it inevitably slide into civil war?

(Please don't just bash the US or UK or argue the rights and wrongs of this conflict.)

 

[CptStern]

that's really tough ...I think terrorism will intensify if there's more outside "help"


as brutal as it sounds ..if the US left today a bloody civil war would break out with the outcome deciding who will run the country ..then and only then will things settle down ..but ultimately the civilians will pay the price ...so maybe the US can take all 22 million iraqis and set them up in the US ...maybe as penance for the invasion :E

 

[Solaris]

Hm I do agree, what would happen if we withdrew, there would be violence, but how much?

Look what bush has got us into now!

 

[Absinthe]

Pandora's Box...

 

[Lemonking]

Pandora's Box...

dun dun DUN:E


what stern said,there would be a civil war or something,and or religious nuts would have power.but sometimes I think they wanna be that way

 

[baxter]

Why not just replace them? At the end of the day the reason for all this is because of the US presence.

I got the impression that by appealing to the international community, it was a call for multinational assistance.

WTF is wrong with the UN and the world community? Are they too busy condemning the entire affair that they are unable or unwilling to help?

When The US asked for international aid for Katrina the UN and the world fell over backwards to help, so why not help another country that as called for help.

Surely to God the UN can pass its resolutions and get together a package involving multinational peacekeepers.

Maybe I missed the point but for Christ’s sake there was 160 world leaders there, what do they have to do? Wait for the nod from the US?

Is this some sort of unilateral action that the US has to see through to the bitter end and the world just stands by on the side line, shaking its head in disapproval and doing nothing when they get an appeal for help?

 

[Lemonking]

um...The US asked for help from the beginning.....alota countrys like france and Germany said FU so.................

 

[Absinthe]

What baxter says is true, but I don't like the kind of "trap" this forms.

USA: Help us invade Iraq.

World: No.

USA: Haha! We did it any way!

Iraq: OMG help!

World: Oh FFS...

 

[Lemonking]

saying no "we wont help" would be wrong.......

 

[Maxi]

Ironic that the guys name is Talabani


And yes, I think the world should help.

 

[Absinthe]

saying no "we wont help" would be wrong.......

While I agree on some level, I also disagree on another. As callous as this sounds, they have no obligation to help.

Shit's falling apart in Iraq because the USA drastically underestimated the scale of what they'd be getting into, and now other countries should sacrifice their troops to clean up a mess they didn't want to be part of to begin with? It's a trap. They either get involved and waste their resources or they look like assholes.

I personally won't be holding it against any country that decides to join/abstain under these particular circumstances.

 

[baxter]

They either get involved and waste their resources or they look like assholes.

This is actually true, kind of like “you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”.
The fault for this dreadful situation lies squarely at the feet of all the warmongers who called for this war.
Whether a force of UN peacekeepers or any sort of response from the international community could somehow turn this situation around, or in anyway diffuse the tension inside Iraq is quite frankly a matter of opinion.
My opinion is that new avenues must now be explored, an appeal to the world from inside Iraq, must be listened to.
Whatever way the UN responds, there must be a response.

 

[CptStern]

Shit's falling apart in Iraq because the USA drastically underestimated the scale of what they'd be getting into....

yes:

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: 1) It was a cakewalk last time; 2) they've become much weaker; 3) we've become much stronger; and 4) now we're playing for keeps." - Kenneth Adelman


"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." - Donald Rumsfeld


"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ... I think it will go relatively quickly, ... (in) weeks rather than months." - Dick Cheney

 

[Lt. Drebin]

that's really tough ...I think terrorism will intensify if there's more outside "help"


as brutal as it sounds ..if the US left today a bloody civil war would break out with the outcome deciding who will run the country ..then and only then will things settle down ..but ultimately the civilians will pay the price ...so maybe the US can take all 22 million iraqis and set them up in the US ...maybe as penance for the invasion :E

I don't think it matters when we leave. Aside from the illegality of this war, that's the most angering aspect. The second we leave, IMO, that whole country goes back to the shitter....cival war, widespread violence (even more so than now). I have no faith in the outcome of this conflict ending with peace....none.

 

[CptStern]

I don't think it matters when we leave. Aside from the illegality of this war, that's the most angering aspect. The second we leave, IMO, that whole country goes back to the shitter....cival war, widespread violence (even more so than now). I have no faith in the outcome of this conflict ending with peace....none.

exactly my point

 

[No Limit]

I don't think it matters when we leave. Aside from the illegality of this war, that's the most angering aspect. The second we leave, IMO, that whole country goes back to the shitter....cival war, widespread violence (even more so than now). I have no faith in the outcome of this conflict ending with peace....none.

exactly my point

I am one of the few liberals that thinks leaving Iraq now would be a huge mistake. Bush ****ed up, he ****ed up big time. Everyone but a few Bush apologists agrees on that. However, we can not allow the country to break in to civil war, that would kill hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of civillians and the conflict would probably last decades.

What we need is a leader that actually admitts things are getting worse there each day (Bush will never accept the obvious), then we need the UN to dedicate tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of troops. The problem again is Bush as he is completely ****ing over the UN and they are not willing to help nor is Bush willing to accept help.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The fact that even I saw this coming, and Bush didn't, makes me feel sad.

Whoever said that the choice is between wasting money and lives or being an asshole was right.
Personally, I choose asshole.
Things are turning to shit there because America screwed up. Everyone who supported this war screwed up, and I honestly think that if there is any justice in the world, they will be the ones to pay for the cleaning.

Should we leave those people to die? No.
I propose that instead, America, Britain, and all the other coalition nations should be forced to fix this damage, no matter the dollar cost. I don't care if it causes massive debt or if some social programs get cut. Those are insignifigant prices to pay in comparison to what's happening there.
Some people have said all along that Iraq was worth the billions of dollars spent so far, if it will bring peace.
Now it's time to put your money where your mouth is.

That's harsh, but I am certain that it is fair.

 

[baxter]

Should we leave these people to die?

For goodness sake that is what this appeal is all about. This bloody quagmire that as claimed so many innocent lives as now finally come to the point whereby a country cries for international help.

Is this help to somehow help Bush and his hideous warmongering policies? No it is an appeal from Iraq itself to finally halt the never ending slaughter.

This fledgling democratic government, which the warmongers proudly announce as a victory for democracy and "hey it’s all worth it", through no fault of their own now needs support from the international community. The same community that as never supported this war is now asked for help.

This is not a call to support and help Bush and his illegal war it is an appeal from the very people that have been subject to the most perverse form of injustice and unimaginable horrors of modern times.

I have never supported this war and never will, I despise politicians who make decisions that result in the death of a single individual let alone thousands. My loathing will soon extend to the UN and International community if they ignore this plea.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think anyone can effectively help ...a large force may escalate things into an all out civil war ...politics aside ..this is like jumping into a pit of scorpians and expecting not to be stung. The problem here isnt just security ...2 years after the war and there's still no electricity in many areas of iraq and even those that do have power have so for 4-8 hours on average ..this is the same for hospitals ..I was listening to an interview with doctors in iraq and they were saying that it's not just the lack of medicine, supplies etc but also an unwillingness by occupational forces to help in any way . An example, a hospital asked for a whole whack of supplies ..they needed needles desperately as they were using sowing needles stuck to tubing as makeshift IV drips ...something that cost next to nothing in the western world yet 6 months after asking for supplies they havent seen anything yet ..not one bandage

another case of a female doctor who in one month helped deliver 28 babies ..by candlelight ..she lost a few due to not having things we take for granted ..incubators, repirators, heart monitors

 

[DreadLord]

If we leave now there's also the burden of knowing the 2,000 US soldier's lives were wasted on something that didn't turn out for the better.

 

[Tr0n]

If we leave now there's also the burden of knowing the 2,000 US soldier's lives were wasted on something that didn't turn out for the better.

I guess it's a never ending cycle then, eh? Or am I the only one in this god forsaken country/world that sees that?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I have never supported this war and never will, I despise politicians who make decisions that result in the death of a single individual let alone thousands. My loathing will soon extend to the UN and International community if they ignore this plea.

I understand this view, but I do think that such a response would cause problems that could otherwise be avoided.

The process of saving lives in Iraq and of holding the United States accountable for their foolishness needn't be exclusive to each-other.
The US should devote no less than exactly enough to fix the situation. If this massive spending hurts the country, then it will be a lesson of consequences for foolish action.

 

[Mr Stabby]

the problem is at the start of the war the US and British had no experience fighting that knid of terrorism. They still have alot to learn about it aswell, and many other countries have less experience so they wouldnt be much help. The terrorism problem will not end anytime soon, in Northern Ireland it took 30 years to stop, terrorist who were not nearly as dangerous as Islamic extremists.

 

[SAJ]

the problem is at the start of the war the US and British had no experience fighting that knid of terrorism

.

'That kind of terrorism' didnt exist in Iraq until after the u.s and britain invaded it.

 

[Gunner]

that's really tough ...I think terrorism will intensify if there's more outside "help"


as brutal as it sounds ..if the US left today a bloody civil war would break out with the outcome deciding who will run the country ..then and only then will things settle down ..but ultimately the civilians will pay the price ...so maybe the US can take all 22 million iraqis and set them up in the US ...maybe as penance for the invasion :E

I think it's already clear who runs the country: Iran.

 

[Bob_Marley]

While I did not support the war i do beleve that now the Coalition has made the mess they need to clear it up. Pulling out now would probubly have a similar effect to when Britan pulled out after the coup in the 40s/50s (widespread tribal warfare until one powerful warlord gains control, who was in that case Saddam Hussein) and that would be bad.

I do not, however, beleve that the UN should become involved in the conflict. Why? Because It would show the US that they can do what ever the hell they like and that the UN will be there to clear up the mess after they have gotten bored of that particular nation/war. The US and rest of the coalition need to learn that you cant just invade a nation and then expect someone else to step in when they fumble the grenade.

and as for the UK and the US not having faught that kind of terrorism before, that is a load of dingos kidnieys. for the UK I point you to Jewish insergents in Palsestine, communist rebels in Malaya, the pull out from Oman and Aden, Revlutionarys in Kenya and that little war in Afghanistan. And by the way, Northen Ireland still hasnt been sorted out just yet. For the US how about the involvement in Somalia or when they were supplying weapons and funding to the Mujehadein in Afghanistan during the 1979-1989 soveit invasion. During that time they had plenty of time to look at how those "terrorists" (of course back then the Taliban were "freedom fighters" because their cause suited the USA's purposes.) fought the Red army.

 

[Absinthe]

I do not, however, beleve that the UN should become involved in the conflict. Why? Because It would show the US that they can do what ever the hell they like and that the UN will be there to clear up the mess after they have gotten bored of that particular nation/war. The US and rest of the coalition need to learn that you cant just invade a nation and then expect someone else to step in when they fumble the grenade.

Hit the nail right on the head.

 

[baxter]

You know something, you guys are right, why should the UN and the International Community clear up this mess?

My sympathies lie with the innocence and not the guilty.

Maybe the guiltiest of all should have the final say.

“We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: you will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world.
Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists.
Either hope will spread, or violence will spread—and we must take the side of hope.”

G.W. Bush, UN, 2005.............Your sympathy and understanding is overwhelming

Sure George whatever you say.