Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraqis Looking to U.N. to Limit Bloody U.S. Mission

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 03:12 PM
Original message
Iraqis Looking to U.N. to Limit Bloody U.S. Mission
U.S. killings of civilians in Iraq have pushed the Iraqis in power to look to the U.N. -- which gave its approval to the bloody U.S. occupation of their country even after its leader Annan had labeled the invasion "illegal," -- to limit the mission of their American benefactors as a condition of the reauthorization of the Security Council resolution later this year which the Bush administration uses to justify keeping troops bogged down there.

On Tuesday, it was reported that a U.S. military helicopter gunship in Iraq had opened fire and chased a group of men, who they say were planting roadside bomb, into a house which turned out to be full of civilians and continued their attack; killing as many as 15 Iraqis, all civilians, according to Iraqi officials, including as many as five women and one child.

That attack followed another tragedy a few weeks earlier where at least 15 civilians were killed by coalition forces in Iraq in a raid on a building where the U.S. military claimed al-Qaeda terrorists were gathered.

The LATimes reported today that the Iraqi parliament speaker's office issued a statement Monday saying: "The Iraqi parliament condemns these violations that are against the basics of military work and human rights. ... The Iraqi parliament is taking these negative violations seriously as it touches the life and dignity of Iraqis."

The killings are the product of the primary justification the Bush administration is using to keep our soldiers engaged in battle against Iraqis. Bush and his generals pressing forward in Iraq, against the clear will of the American people that they withdrawal. They insist in their new 'National Strategy for Homeland Security Report' issued earlier this month, that the 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' is the "group's most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack us here." The revised report concludes that al-Qaeda will "likely will continue to enhance its ability to attack America through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups, particularly al-Qaeda in Iraq. “

The 'Iraqi al-Qaeda' has never been a threat to the U.S. outside of the opportunity they have to attack our troops Bush has placed there as targets in his cynical, circular protection scheme. In fact, Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command's operations in Iraq, reportedly, believes the Iraqi al-Qaeda "has been all but eliminated." Yet, these U.S. assaults against Iraqis have been allowed to continue as if our occupying forces risked some U.S. national emergency by exercising restraint.

The actual al-Qaeda instigator (and suspected orchestrator of the 9-11 attacks) is not in Iraq, although Bush and his national security focus is clearly centered in Baghdad, where he's positioned the bulk of our nation's ready-defenders. It was no surprise to hear the latest taunting and instigating from yet another 'bin-laden' tape, urging his imitators in Iraq to unite against their American occupiers.

The occupation's the hook which Bush allows him to actually engage our nation on the same level of our commander-in-chief's own assumed authority. Bush says he's fighting bin-Laden 'there', in Iraq, and bin-Laden obliges him with an inspirational pep talk across the airwaves; followed, no doubt by the extra elevation of Bush or his minions repeating his propaganda, word-for-word.

There was republican presidential candidate McCain, on the campaign trail yesterday, who decided that bin-Laden's call for Iraqis to unite in violent resistance against the American occupiers was a sign of desperation, rather than any concern about the effect on the troops in the way of those reprisals; or to have the obvious wonder of why the terror Svengali still has the ability and capacity to inspire anyone at all; issuing threats and making taunts from his safe haven, six years after his president's promise to capture him "dead or alive."

"Basically he encouraged the extreme elements -- al Qaeda in Iraq particularly in the Sunni areas -- to join together and be more effective in bringing terrorism and murder and suicide bombings to Iraq and to Anbar province," McCain said Monday.

"It's a clear sign that we are succeeding in Iraq," McCain claimed.

One thing is certain, the continuing and escalated occupation of Iraq has played right into the hands of everyone who has an interest in keeping our military forces bogged down in Iraq. The occupation has clearly become a military mission against the Iraqis themselves, with millions having fled their homes -- and those remaining, in the way of whatever mission Bush and his generals contrive -- well apart from any need or concern of the Iraqi people. Under the guise of preserving the Iraqi regime Bush has installed behind the sacrifices and deadly power of our military forces -- reduced to staging contrived assaults against Iraqi civilians -- Bush is now, unilaterally, pressing our forces to open a new offensive against the threat he's conjured out of whole cloth against Iraq's neighbor, Iran.

The Iraqis are correct to look for ways to limit the military ambitions of the U.S. in their country, but it goes without saying that it's probably too late to expect the U.N. to have any more influence on the U.S. in Iraq than they've already demonstrated in their surrender to Bush's invasion and overthrow. The Iraqis would be better served by cutting ties with the U.S. carpetbaggers altogether and voting in their parliament for our military forces to leave. Expecting the U.S. and the Bush administration to recognize or respect the toady exiles they've enabled into power in Iraq as the Iraqi parliament begs the U.N. to stand in the way of Bush's swaggering advance is doomed to disappoint.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Briar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. Evidently
the Iraqis haven't noticed the utter contempt and hatred right wing Americans have for the UN. And indeed for international law, which must never be permitted to stand in the way of US national interest. As for the writer of this article - blaming the UN for being subverted, infiltrated, gutted and turned into America's puppet is, I think, curiously partial spin. It's always been the UN's weakness that it is only as strong and effective as its most powerful members wish it to be. Should it stand in the way of their ambitions, it is, thanks to the way it was set up to work, doomed to become irrelevant. If the US wills a strong, impartial, just UN, it has only to submit to the UN's authority and obey its resolutions.

No, not very likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-23-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. both are held to account in the article for their acquiescence.
Iraq war illegal, says Annan:

"Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm


Security Council approves US occupation of Iraq:

On May 22, the United Nations Security Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution which approved the American military occupation of Iraq, lifted UN economic sanctions imposed in August 1990 and put revenue from sales of Iraqi oil under Washington's control.

Under the new resolution, the fate of the search for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction — the reason given by the US and Britain for invading Iraq in the first place — has been left for another day. The resolution expresses the “intention” of the council “to revisit” the weapons inspectors' mandate at some unspecified time in the future.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2003/539/30227



That resolution is up for renewal. Should it be renewed or revised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. plink
revised and edited version: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_071024_iraqis_looking_to_u_.htm


edit:

The military spokesman, yesterday, blamed the killings of civilians on the Iraqis themselves. But, another account in the LATimes quoted residents who said the victims were farmers and villagers who gathered after the initial attacks and fell victim to the ensuing airstrikes.

from the LATimes:

Residents in the village of Mukaisheefa, about 80 miles north of Baghdad, contested the military account, saying that 15 people were killed and that the men were farmers irrigating their fields in the pre-daylight hours.

Abdul Wahab Ahmed, a neighbor, said the dead included two toddlers and four teenagers. Five were women, he said.

Ahmed said two of the three farmers were killed in the field, and a third, who was injured, went back to the village of several dozen houses. As neighbors gathered around the man's house, jets made two bombing runs, Ahmed said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnp Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. The Iraqis might as well keep on looking, cuz the UN isn't going to do shit for them
The problem with the UN is its completely dysfunctional. They have no real army for one thing. There army actually consists of small contingency forces that are made up of NATO forces, so their military is really under our control, so the U.S. does not fear the UN at all. Also the UN does completely stupid things like put countries with the worst human rights abuses over their own Human Rights Panel, so that right there is going to give plenty of ammo to the right wing attack machine. I think the whole UN needs to be restructured and to give it legitimacy every democratic nation should be given one vote and one veto, and all 3rd world crap whole countries and dictatorships should be given no votes or vetoes at all. I have no problem with dictators putting in the two cents but at the end of the day you have to wonder, whom do they speak for, their people or themselves, since their people didn't elect them, we don't really know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGodsNoMasters Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The UN is far from perfect...
But I see our own government as a bigger stumbling block to progress. There are many, positive, progressive motions that are blocked or rejected by the united states. The US has refused UN motions that have unanimous support of almost all other countries (Sometimes we pressure one or two allies into siding with us.) The US has vetoed everything under the sun, a proposed conference on women's rights, denouncing/halting Israeli human rights violations (30+ times and counting.), environmental motions, we even vetoed motions against APARTHIED SOUTH AFRICA (not like it was a moral issue or anything.) the FISSBAN agreement to prevent nuclear proliferation and war, etc. This website has roughly thirty years of US vetoes. It's infuriating, I recommend it to everyone. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-24-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. BUSH WANTS THE UN OUT OF THE UNITED STATES---->
wouldn't that make us....the Ited States
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC