Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

Just wondering... this has been a hot topic on the news lately.

France, Germany and a couple other countries are going nuts over this. They are demanding on being a big part of the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction w/ the UN.

I don't have anything against the UN, but it's not like their countries are helping at all (i.e. France, Germany....) and they didn't even WANT to help us...while the British and U.S. are using all resources possible to make this happen. The UN didn't help us, and yet they want a big part in the reconstruction???

Maybe it's just because I'm not in a great mood today...:confused:

The U.S. is wanting to reconstruct alone (from the news reports I heard). I think the U.S. has already done enough (negatively speaking) and should let the U.N. handle the reconstruction.

The U.S should have nothing to with reconstruction except maybe sending money to other countries to do it. This war is seen as colinal agression and we don't need any more enemies.

From what little I understand, countries such as France have a deep vested interest in the Iraqi reconstruction. They had huge contracts with Iraqi oil that were key factors in not wanting this war to happen and wanting to be involved when the contracts are re-written. I'm sure someone here will have more information on this....

Re: Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

Maybe I'm selfish, but countries that refused to help fix the problem should have NO say in how Iraq is reconstructed. I'm not saying that the US should go it alone; but, since the US and Britain put the most involvement in, they should be the ones with the large part in the reconstruction in conjunction with the UN.

The United Nations should take the leading role. The various NGOs should also be consulted in order to create a strong infrastructure. Contracts should be given to the best companies, no matter which country they are from. Different countries should give support to the UN through peacekeeping forces and donating money and having their nationals who have particular expertise work in Iraq. Multilateralism at its best and its the only option if we want the world to be a better place.

Re: Re: Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

I completely agree with you.

France should have very little to do with the reconstruction of Iraq, if they have any involvement at all.

And the U.S. has NOT done enough. Meaning, they're part in this does not end with the end of the war. We need to help rebuild Iraq, and since we (and the British) are the ones destroying this terrible regime, we should be able to help rebuild their country. It seems to me that we are obligated to help them rebuild, on every level.

When this war is over, we WILL rebuild the country. However, the UN is not going to drive the reconstruction bus... look at what happened in the Balkans. An Office of Iraqi Reconstruction has already been formed at the Pentagon, though its job really won't ramp up until hostilities cease.

My personal opinion... F*ck the French, the Germans and the Russians... the sonofab*tches don't deserve one crumb out of the pie after they stabbed us in the back.

Amen.

I can name several extremely successful reconstruciton projects that the US has had over the years... France and Germany for example (ironic, isn't it?) among many others. How many has the UN had?

The next speech we have to give in Oral Comm is a persuasive debate over whether or not the USA should lead the effort to rebuild Iraq.

The class was split into four, and we each represent a particular org:

WTO
CIA
NGO
UN
State Dept

I'm have the CIA and I have no idea what to say.

The UN has a specific departement designed to help rebuild countries. It is known as the 'trusteeship council', basically a country is held 'in trust' by the UN and is rebuilt with the help of member nations. It has the 5 permanent members of the Security council at it's head. I would suggest that this organization be the one to rebuild Iraq for the sheer fact that while the US and the UK are the main factors in the war on Iraq, I am not sure how willing they would be to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a country on the other side of the globe (correct me if i'm wrong). An international body would also mean that the interests of the peoples of Iraq are held to be primary, so the no country (France, Germany, Uk, Russia, US, etc) takes advantage of the situation. The council has been dormant since 1994, but is still considered one of the main branches of the UN. for more info: http://www.un.org/documents/tc.htm

I have to agree.... because then it would assuage the fears of the population in the region, in addition to the people of Iraq. The main reason that I am concerned is that through the auspices of the US there are certain "aid" groups that are waiting to help after the war. These are the groups that I see antagonizing an already delicate situation and leading to further bloodshed and perpetuation of violence. A prime example is the Southern Baptist Convention and the Samaritan's Purse.... both are evangelical organizations that have had their "spiritual leaders" make extremely questionable remarks about Islam, and it's adherants. Rev. Jerry Vines of the SBC has said: "Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives ñand his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people." While, Rev. Franklin Graham of the SP (who lead Bush's inauguration invocation) has also been quoted as saying "I don't believe [Islam] is a wonderful, peaceful religion." Asked by NBC News on Friday to clarify his statement, he repeated his charge that Islam, as a whole, was evil. "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn't Lutherans," he told NBC News. "It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."

If these are the people that have approval to "help" after the war, then I think unfortunately the US would then be laying the seeds for even greater anti-Americanism in the region.

The U.N. needs to step up as international government. This would be a good time for them to do it.

I agree with that. I also think that the U.S. should simply stay out of the restructuring of the gov't and let the U.N. take the lead when the timecomes.

As for France and Germany, they should and I hope do not have any part of it. They have vested contracts and holdings? I don't care...they couldn't help in the war effort to begin with, but now they want a chance at the "spoils of war?" You have got to be kidding me.

Those two countries should be banned from any involvement with Irag after the war is over.

If the idea is to liberate the Iraqi people, then the best company the offered the best price, no matter the origin of the country, should be given the contract which should be dealt with by the United Nations, UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, etc.

If the idea is to colonized and instal a viceroy, then only the victor will be the spoiler. So only give the contracts to Australia, UK and US.