Pissed Iraqi foreign minister kicks UN squarely in the nads

[Undertoad]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/17/in...st/17NATI.html (registration req.)

Iraq's interim foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, took the United Nations Security Council to task Tuesday for having failed to help free his country from Saddam Hussein, and he chided its members for bickering over his country's future instead of coming to its immediate assistance.

"Settling scores with the United States-led coalition should not be at the cost of helping to bring stability to the Iraqi people," Mr. Zebari said in language unusually scolding for an occupant of the guest seat at the end of the curving Security Council panel.

"Squabbling over political differences takes a back seat to the daily struggle for security, jobs, basic freedoms and all the rights the U.N. is chartered to uphold," said Mr. Zebari, a blunt-spoken Kurd with a history of fighting as a mountain guerrilla against Mr. Hussein.

"The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

Those of you who bring up the fact that human rights is not part of the US equation, imagine what kind of government actively worked to save Saddam's ass just for the political opportunism of poking the US in the ribs and saving their own opportunistic oil contracts.

There's your treasured France and Germany.

[Undertoad]

Continuing instead of editing the first post.

Secretary General Kofi Annan, the first to emerge from the hall, appeared taken aback, however.

"Now is not the time to pin blame and point fingers," he told reporters. Conceding that Mr. Zebari was "obviously entitled to his opinion," Mr. Annan said the United Nations had done as much for Iraq as it could under the circumstances and was prepared to do more. "Quite honestly," he reiterated, "now is not the time to hurl accusations and counteraccusations."

"The time for that was a year ago, while you were still having your families tortured and killed just because they were Kurds," Annan pointed out. "Obviously we honestly believed that an oil-bearing Stalinist dictator would be hurt by sanctions and stop feeding your people into those plastic shredders. Now please, we prefer to be diplomatic here at the UN, no more of this blunt talk."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Those of you who bring up the fact that human rights is not part of the US equation, imagine what kind of government actively worked to save Saddam's ass just for the political opportunism of poking the US in the ribs and saving their own opportunistic oil contracts.
There's your treasured France and Germany.

Or perhaps it was to discourage the reintroduction of the doctrine of preemptive war onto the world stage. Both countries have historical reasons not to want to see that again.

[Beestie]

Well, that's what happens when you put China and Libya in CHARGE of the human rights commission. Heck, it could easily been the case that one of those two countries suggested or even provided the plastic shredders to Uday along with the instructions to video tape the shredding and send it to the victim's families.

On a follow up note, it is my understanding that the UN, in a move that will surprise no one, is about to appoint North Korea to be the next head of the Human Rights Commission. Kim Jong Il jockeyed for the appointment as he thought it would help him score with Brittany Spears.

[quzah]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Those of you who bring up the fact that human rights is not part of the US equation...

...There's your treasured France and Germany.

I understand your need for blind patriotism, but let's be realists here. The US supported Iraq. They basicly handed Saddam the gun and said, "Here, shoot thousands of your people."

So how again is the US so great in their handeling of Iraq? You kid only yourself if you say the US did all of this to help the Iraqi peoples. That is just icing on the cake. An added bonus, a bit of marketing spin to help sell the war.

You're right, "gun" isn't the right word. The word is gas. They basicly handed him the gas and said, "Kill your people. We like you. We hate your enemies."

Saddam's only problem was that we no longer hated his enemies so we could afford to not like him any more.

Quzah.

[Undertoad]

[Beestie]

[smug intellectual]

Nice try UT, BUT the ONE PERCENT that the United States of America sold them killed 300.000 Iraqi civilians and 1,000,000 Iranians whereas the 99% Saddam got from everyone else were used passively as deterrents to discourage attacks from Iraq's bloodthirsty neighbor, Kuwait.

[/smug intellectual]

[dar512]

Um. Joking or no, Beestie? If not joking, sources please?

[Happy Monkey]

I don't think that chart is WMD specific.

[elSicomoro]

I admire the guy for lashing out at the UN. The UN hasn't been all that effective in recent years.

Now, why his tirade can easily be blown off (not saying it should be necessarily, but why it can be):

--He's a Kurd. Kurds have had their freedom within Iraq more or less for several years, as I understand it. Has he been a guerilla fighter recently (between the time of Kurdish self rule and the US invasion)?

--The Iraqi Governing Council ultimately has to answer to the US. Therefore, this could easily be viewed as a US propaganda stunt.

--What exactly DID the US give Iraq in that one percent?

--Freedom is not free. I'm not saying that there haven't been Iraqis that have given their lives for freedom. But neither the United States nor the United Nations can or should be expected to come in and save nations. If one truly believes in freedom from oppression, you have to fight for it, and never stop fighting. And from where I'm sitting, it seems that the Iraqis quit trying shortly after the first Gulf War.

I'm not against going to help you out, but you have to help yourself too...

[quzah]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
I don't think that chart is WMD specific.

Furthermore, this spans nearly thirty years. I'd imagine that in 2002 since we weren't friends with Iraq, we weren't selling them anything. How about a chart pre-"War with Iraq" for a bit more accuracy?

On a related note, who cares how much other countries sold them? The fact remains we sold them shit. That means we're two faced assholes for getting pissed off when they use it.

"Oh, here's a new car. That'll look nice in your driveway."
"What the fuck are you doing? You can't fucking drive that!" *BLAM*

You can dance around it, shine it up, make it as pretty as you want with your charts. But the fact remains: We sold weapons to Iraq knowing full well what they'd be used for. They killed a bunch of people with them. We looked the other way.

Later, when we don't need them any more, we decide they're evil. We overthrow their goverment. This isn't the first time this has happened. This isn't the first time America sponsored a bloodbath. I doubt it will be the last.

Quzah.

[Griff]

I'm just wondering where they compiled the information for the chart from, since our CIA mad money is off the books.

[Elspode]

Quzah's right. We should have just let him go on killing and torturing people since it was our fault, anyway.

Would it be better if Dubya at least said, "We're sorry we were assholes, but we've changed our minds and we didn't want him to hurt any more people"...?

[quzah]

Originally posted by Elspode
Quzah's right. We should have just let him go on killing and torturing people since it was our fault, anyway.

Would it be better if Dubya at least said, "We're sorry we were assholes, but we've changed our minds and we didn't want him to hurt any more people"...?

Riiight. Dubya said he's sorry for us selling weapons to them.

First off, Dubya did not enter into Iraq with the intention of "helping" the people of Iraq. It was under this bullshit pretense of saving the world from terrorists. Squashing the "axis of evil", all that.

He's apparently forgotten that he lumped North Korea in that "axis". I wonder why that is?

As I've stated, it's fine for you to be all pro-America. But you're only kidding yourself if you think he had some great "save the people" agenda. I don't see him storming China to help those people out. I don't see him bombing North Korea to help those people out. Any idea why? Oh, that's because unlike the case with Iraq, they actually really believe that their really are WMD in NK and China.

"Never start a land war in asia!"

We'd get fucked. Again.

Plus, there's no oil. But that couldn't possibly be a motive. No, it was definately only to liberate the country from it's horrible government.

Here's a novel idea: Why don't we leave soverign countries alone instead of deciding when it's ok to overthrow them? Hmm?

Seriously folks, who the fuck do you think you all are? You'd just sit there and say "Hey, great. Thanks China. We're so glad you came in here and bombed the shit out of us and killed our government. That's a million!" "Hey thanks Great Britian! We like a monarchy much better." "Hey, thanks Japan. I didn't know you had those secret Giant Robot armies, but since you took us over, that's cool. We're so much better off now!"

Give me a fucking break. No one here would just sit back and let some foreign country come in and take us over without doing anything about it. You'd be all up in arms freaking the fuck out.

Never bothered to look at the other side of the picture did you? You just assume that every single person in the country is happy we stomped the shit out of their country.

Why, I bet Chile was glad we overthrew their Democratic govermnent in '73 huh?

What the fuck do I know, right? Everyone loves America. They do no wrong in your eyes.

Quzah.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Griff
I'm just wondering where they compiled the information for the chart from, since our CIA mad money is off the books.

Not to mention intelligence and satellite photos we shared with him when he was 'the lesser of two evils' in our war with Iran.

Both Hussein and Bin Laden were on our Christmas list in the 1980's. Not to mention, Marcos, and our friend Manuel Noriega.

You can be a vicious dictator, just as long as you're not a Commie vicious dictator, or get in our way, or threaten to destabilize a region supplying our oil.

BTW, Hussein could never go to trial in the US or in the world court. Especially not in the world court. He knows way too much about US involvement in Iraq and the Middle East and has no incentive to keep quiet. The US will have to see him tried and executed in Iraq.