I recently heard Costa Rica has demanded it’s name be removed from the list of 49 countries that are part of the coalition of the willing. They have not participated in any support and now they say it violates their constitution.
Here is a link (it has a link to the list of coalition members at the bottom)
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/iraq/9620247.htm?1c
I wander how many other coalition members are not really supporting the war in Iraq at all?
Alot.
In all honesty how much is Tonga doing?
But in all honesty what do you expect, them being in the coalition only said they would help symbolicaly, and more likeley than not, USA will give them aid or some other things in return for just imaginairy help.
Now that things don’t look too pretty they want to slowly slid out…
Now that things don’t look too pretty they want to slowly slid out…
That’s really sad. That means when we need them most is when they back out. I don’t expect much from the smaller countries out there but we REALLY need some help in Iraq, the UN CLEARLY needs to get involved, making us bare this burden, whether we created it or not is just wrong, and the Iraqi people will be the ones who suffer.
Well… they didnt do much to begin with, but maybe just moral support, but I don’t know.
I don’t expect much from the smaller countries out there but we REALLY need some help in Iraq, the UN CLEARLY needs to get involved,
I do agree that, for the benifit of innocent Iraqi people, the UN should get involved but them getting involved, but since according the UN charter this war was illigal, UN invovment might be seen as a validation for it.
making us bare this burden, whether we created it or not is just wrong, and the Iraqi people will be the ones who suffer.
I have to say that no one made the USA bare the burden. The USA was criticized many times for waging a war unilateraly, and they where told that this might happened if they do, even before the war even began.
This is a tricky situation for the UN, since resistance against the US forces is only normal, and joining a fight against them will be joining an illigal war, to fight Resistance fighters against an invading force, which it can’t do. Stabalizing the country, will be again, stabalizing an installed goverment as a result of an illigal war, plus their a pure peaceful action will put their people at risk, which is unfair to their people because the didn’t want to be there in the first place.
Hi, I am from Costa Rica… I can tell you that we are a small country, very peaceful people, we don’t even have an army… I dont know if you would understand our position, as you have already said, our help would be just imaginary… but anyways, the reality here is that most part of the 3 000 000 of costaricans do not support any kind of wars…
Always good to hear first hand comments.
Now whether or not this war is legal, is a matter of interpretation of the MANY Resolutions regarding Iraq. Either way, the UN can help and should help. They should be given authority to help esablish the government to ensure the Iraqi people get listened to and not muscled by either side, in other words mediate and support. Heck the could hold a trial and finalize the legality of the war and if deemed illegal, bill the US for the services of the UN. Either way, it is the immediate needs that should be addressed, the emergency room doesn’t care if you got shot by a cop, or the cop got shot by you, they just fix you know matter what, then you deal with it later. That’s how I think Iraq should be handled, right now at least.
Right, the legality is based in interpretation, but Im just telling you how the UN sees it.
I would agree with you, but UN helping might be a sort of approval seal. They can be saying "Even if you start unilateral wars against much oppsosition and esspecialy our own, we will still come help you"
While this might be petty, we got to remeber that politics is involved. Sort of saying the USA didn’t need the UN when they whent to war, but suddenly they want them to jump in? When politics is involved the USA needs to, at the very least, fire some guy as a symbol, as a fall on his own sword gesture, whatever general who thought it would be fine.
So then the UN, without losing face, can step in. And anyway, the USA hasnt formally asked the UN for help.
I might think that a volunteer UN foce should be allowed in, because the people who where against it don’t want to be put there. And remeber, there was a UN mission there, and it got hit pretty bad.
[ot]I would rather that the UN sends a lot of troops to the Darfur region and starts ridding the world of some of those separatists who pretty much turned a region more upside down.
The US has the financial resources to fight a prolonged war - it’s not pretty, but it can be done. Now there are various countries in the world that are being oppressed that do not have the means to defend themselves. I would hope that the UN takes care of them. Trade sanctions, troops on the border bringing food, etc. are a step in the right direction, but they don’t stop the violence in the short-term. It would be nice if they help the US, but in my view, the UN has a more immediate concern in other, much poorer regions in the world that they are simply neglecting.[/ot]
I think we can all pretty much agree that the UN isn’t doing squat, in Iraq or anywhere else. I do believe the UN has over-due responsibilities in Iraq and any of the various countries where psycho-tyranical dictators opress people. I like the fact that they provide humantarian support but they are also, primarily a securoty unit responsible for stabilizing distressed and warring regions of the world.
“During the 1960-1964 Congo operation, UN peacekeepers were authorized in 1961 by the Security Council to use the requisite measure of force to complete the removal of mercenaries who had contributed to the secession of the province of Katanga.” - UN.org(http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/intro/3.htm). This “preventative maintenance” is essential to stopping a bad situation from getting worse and has worked in the past. The UN, IMOP should continue this and it should be it’s primary concern. I is great that they provide humanitarian aid to poor and warring regions but preventing the powers that be from becomming advanced threats WILL reduce the burden of humanitarian assistance by ensurring peace between nations.
I believe Saddam Hussein, Kim jong ill and other modern dictators should never have been allowed to continue rulling once sanctioned attoricties have started taking place. And this should be the shared responsibility of all of the members of the United Nations. The problem is the abundance of “red tape” and financial intrests that keep things from moving. The UN should be restored to a usefull, well regulated and powerfull force.
Well, I dont completly agree, sure UN has to be reformed, and they are, I think sometime in 2005 they are going to vote on it.
But they have accomplished quite a bit, but you got to realise that it is easy to just blame the UN, but what is the UN? Its a bunch of nations, and if they dont want to do anything, nothing is going to happen. And all failures of the UN are due to countries, and USA, just as any other country in the UN can be blamed.
I believe Saddam Hussein, Kim jong ill and other modern dictators should never have been allowed to continue rulling once sanctioned attoricties have started taking place.
Well, it was an UN action when we went to war against N.Korea, and well Saddam… Saddam was helped by one Super Power out of two, and no country was going to contest that. And its too simple to say, “hey, lets just go kick ***”, well we got to turn around and drive in to Saudi Arabia and liberate them, Zaire, Zimbabway and so on and so forth… now the UN is no mistical being that can just create troops, they have to come from countries, from the USA, Canada, France (yes france)… and are we ready to wage non stop war against… how many countries?
I don’t think the UN’s purpose is to wage wars, but to maintain peace (with force if necessary, but there’s still one big difference).
think sometime in 2005 they are going to vote on it.
This is what I mean, at least it personifies what I mean. The UN has become a place of sitting around and talking with actions happening, “sometime next year”. And no they should not be a warring group, they are a group of nations that should be preventing wars from happening. I totally agree that the US is just as responsible, but by that token, they (the US) and the UN should have done something long ago. The only reason they (both) did not is the OIL. We just wanted to appease them and hope it goes away.
are we off topic here?
This is what I mean, at least it personifies what I mean. The UN has become a place of sitting around and talking with actions happening, “sometime next year”. And no they should not be a warring group, they are a group of nations that should be preventing wars from happening. I totally agree that the US is just as responsible, but by that token, they (the US) and the UN should have done something long ago. The only reason they (both) did not is the OIL. We just wanted to appease them and hope it goes away.
No!
The reason I said sometime in 2005 its because I don’t know the exact date! They have a deadline, I just dont know it!
The UN dosent turn on a dime, to reform the UN you must go through every beurcracy in the world thats involved!!! And you don’t want to change it to make it worse, its a pretty big task.
I totally agree that the US is just as responsible, but by that token, they (the US) and the UN should have done something long ago. The only reason they (both) did not is the OIL. We just wanted to appease them and hope it goes away.
Oh yeah, its everyones fault, and if the countries want to do things, they will but very few time do people want to risk unpopularity.
Oh well.
