Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 07/02/2004 View Thu 07/01/2004 View Wed 06/30/2004 View Tue 06/29/2004 View Mon 06/28/2004 View Sun 06/27/2004 View Sat 06/26/2004
1
2004-07-02 Iraq-Jordan
Saddam Hussein never expected to be attacked
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2004-07-02 8:47:25 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Saddam Hussein believed that Iraq would never be invaded because the US would get bogged down in "interminable debate at the UN"...

In my view, that alone (challenging the deadly dictator protection front of the UN and trying to restore the integrity of the organization) made the invasion worthwhile.
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-02 10:20:24 AM||   2004-07-02 10:20:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 And, by extension, demonstrates the actual role, not the intended role, of the UN.
Posted by .com 2004-07-02 10:24:57 AM||   2004-07-02 10:24:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Saddam Hussein never expected to be attacked

Bullies are always surprised whenever someone else shows up sporting a full set.
Posted by Zenster 2004-07-02 11:02:38 AM||   2004-07-02 11:02:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 During one session he appeared to boast that he had infiltrated the Iraqi National Congress, the exile organisation which pressed for the invasion of Iraq.
What does this mean?
Posted by rex 2004-07-02 11:37:15 AM||   2004-07-02 11:37:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 .com-Sorry? Don't mean to be dim...
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-02 11:41:02 AM||   2004-07-02 11:41:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 jules 187 - huh? I was only pointing out that the actual and intended roles of the UN were not the same thing - that the UN has been hijacked, as you indicated, by the manipulators. Lofty goals and verbiage vs reality. Nothing to see here! Move along!
Posted by .com 2004-07-02 11:45:47 AM||   2004-07-02 11:45:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Saddam never expected to be attacked.

Chirac promised! Boo-hoo.
Posted by Yank 2004-07-02 12:16:50 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com]  2004-07-02 12:16:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 In my view, that alone (challenging the deadly dictator protection front of the UN and trying to restore the integrity of the organization) made the invasion worthwhile
You are a dreamer. The US will never "reform" the UN, at least not under GWB or John Kerry. Both men are Kumbaya guys. Nobless oblige. GWB has used the same old, same old approach of other Presidents[notably the Democrat Presidents]to dealing with the UN ie. throw $ at it in the hopes of being "liked". Ronald Reagan has been the only President in recent memory to get tough with the UN in terms of holding back dues, and that's the first step to implementing reform-tightening the purse strings. George Bush has in fact increased funding to this corrupt organization of losers. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that the UN is reformable, and I'm not even convinced there was ever any "integrity" to the UN.
Examples of throwing good money after bad by GWB:
1. "Despite the refusal of the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions calling for disarmament of Iraq, the administration is standing by the budget request it made in January to pay for a $90 million increase in the annual U.S. dues to the United Nations.
"The budget proposal submitted to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requests an appropriation of $322 million for UN dues [sic] in Fiscal Year ’04. That’s up from the $232 million in ’03, according to the OMB. (The U.S. is assessed dues amounting to 22% of the overall UN budget each year.)" Source: John Gizzi, Human Events, 4/7/03, p. 6

2. "The General Assembly … is more like the United Tribes. It is the third world’s official welfare distribution center. (Just for the record, the Bush Administration has begun to send tens of millions a year to UNESCO, which that liberal, pinko cad, Clinton, had refused to do.)" Source: Dr. Gary North’s Reality Check, 3/14/03

>"Around the United Nations there was joy and a bit of surprise last week when Congress allowed to stand a $67 million allocation to rejoin UNESCO, the U.N. agency from which Washington withdrew in 1984.

"The money was included in an $8.2 billion State Department appropriations bill....

" ‘I am happy that the funds for UNESCO have been released, and I hope in time the U.S. will join UNESCO, sooner rather than later,’ U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said last week. ...

"President Reagan withdrew the United States from the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific Cultural Organization, criticizing it as a corrupt agency with an anti-Western bias and an ill-defined mandate.

"Britain, under Margaret Thatcher, withdrew at roughly the same time and returned shortly after Tony Blair was elected prime minister." Source: Washington Times, 5/14/01, p. A13, The U.N.Report, by Betsy Pisik in New York

Posted by rex 2004-07-02 12:22:06 PM||   2004-07-02 12:22:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 nnnnnnnnnobody expects an American Invasion! Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion to Freedom! Now... how do you plead? Eh-heh-heh-heh-heh!
Posted by BH 2004-07-02 12:47:51 PM||   2004-07-02 12:47:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Rex-I have no argument with you that the US pocket is getting robbed in broad daylight by the UN. I still think shaking up our allies a bit by demonstrating that we mean what we say was worthwhile.

As far as the rest of what you say, then what's to stop us from starting from scratch and creating a new international organization that has shared values and integrity and keeps its word? The other options would seem to be:
1.)Continue with the same charade at the UN or 2.) Remove ourselves from bodies of international interaction.
Posted by jules 187 2004-07-02 12:48:57 PM||   2004-07-02 12:48:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 a. If we stay with the UN, then I'd definitely use purse strings [and most importantly get Japan on board with us] to get the existing UN to meet specific goals every year. Japan and the US contribute almost 50% of the UN's budget-Japan actually contributes more than the US. Poor Japan-it is not even one of the Security Council members even though it is the biggest donor to the UN. The 2 countries could form a powerful "whip coalition" to get the UN thugs and dictators and corrupt bureaucrats and NGO's to start seeing things our way.

b. Or withdrawing from the UN totally is also a good option. Then we could give US aid to coalitions of US friendly nations like the former Soviet Republic ones who helped us in Iraq.

Our foreign aid figures and the recipient nations might change each year depending on what tangible things these nations did or continued to do for our interests, be it security or lifting trade barriers or military assistence or building good schools or good hospitals for their own people to hate the US less for being rich and successful..whatever...I don't think any nation should automatically expect $ from Uncle Sam for doing zip in our immediate or long term interests.

For example, I would significantly reduce aid $ to Mexico until such time as Mexico demonstrated it was stopping the tide of illegal immigration into our country. Mexico does a fine job of preventing immigration into their country from the south, so they could do the same re:preventing Mexicans from coming into our country. Also dismantling their racist policies to Mexicans with Indian heritage would earn them a lot of extra American bucks in aid, because it's mainly Indian-Mexicans who flee Mexico, because they have no future there because they are so badly ostracized in Mexico.

You get my point? In this situation, the US [or the US and Japan for that matter]is the one[ones] who doles out the money and sets the annual goals for recipient nations. There is none of this nonsensical consensus building required per being in a 191 league of losers.

I don't see the advantage of forming a parallel int'l organization quite frankly. Then we get bogged down in the same bureaucracy, inefficiency, and feeding useless NGO'sthat we are in now.
Posted by rex 2004-07-02 1:50:59 PM||   2004-07-02 1:50:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 This is old territory, rex, jules. So don't be concerned if you don't get a lot of detailed feedback! It's been beaten bloody here, in fact, lol! But new ideas are definitely fodder for thought - so your comments are appreciated.
Posted by .com 2004-07-02 2:02:48 PM||   2004-07-02 2:02:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Still hillarious BH!
Posted by Shipman 2004-07-02 2:42:57 PM||   2004-07-02 2:42:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Saddam is the "I didn't do it" boy
Posted by Chris W.  2004-07-02 3:17:57 PM||   2004-07-02 3:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Saddam Hussein believed that Iraq would never be invaded because the US would get bogged down in "interminable debate at the UN", his interrogators believe.

Another ringing endorsement of the UN from an unempeachable source.
Posted by tu3031 2004-07-02 3:20:46 PM||   2004-07-02 3:20:46 PM|| Front Page Top

12:05 Sakina A. Walsh
18:01 Jen
17:43 Anonymous5603
20:30 Frank G
19:59 Rusotxo
17:42 Quetzalcoatl
12:41 Frank G
11:39 CrazyFool
01:19 Anonymous4617
00:55 Super Hose
00:52 .com
00:45 trailing wife
00:44 Old Spook
00:41 trailing wife
23:45 Verlaine
23:45 Verlaine
23:44 Verlaine
23:44 Verlaine
23:44 Verlaine
23:38 Verlaine
23:34 OldSpook
23:23 OldSpook
23:21 Barbara Skolaut
23:18 OldSpook









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com