« The Nut Man | Main | Blog Roundup »
August 22, 2003
Put a sock in it!
Let me start by saying that I am going to be quoting from this article which will probably have vanished by the time you read this but you will get enough context here to understand the story anyway....
I would also like to set the record straight and make it clear that I am sorry there were people killed in the recent Iraq bombing BUT pointing fingers will not help the matter Mr Annan.
Let's use an analogy for a minute - I know it will break down but it provides a tool for considering the problem at hand. You have a room full of teens or pre-teens. Make it a class room. The teacher, for whatever reason is absent. Some of the kids are getting on with their work. Some of the kids are bullying other kids. One of the kids who has previously been in the "sin bin" for picking on a little kid is making a mess and damaging the library books. The class "council" has been farting around threatening things but is unable to bring the tyke into line. One of the strongest kids in the class, with a couple of mates asked for permission to sort the problem out, unfortunately this is blocked by the class tart and a few supporters. The strong kid and his mates go ahead and sort the problem out. The class council steps in to "advise" and "manage" the transition to good behaviour. The bad kid socks one of the council in the eye. Council calls foul and blames the strong kid.
Sound familiar?
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today both the United States and the United Nations made mistakes in Iraq ...
Correction - the UN made a mistake. The US, having neutralised the threat (and I am not necessarily agreeing that they should have done it in the first place) appears to be putting a lot of effort into tiding the place up.
Annan said he was surprised to hear reports that the United Nations turned down an offer of security from US-led coalition forces. He stressed that security was the responsibility of the United States ...
I wouldn't be surprised. Perfectly in line with other stupid decisions recently. Besides the security of US forces is the prime concern of the US. The security of UN forces is their lookout. If they want help, ask for it. They seem to be eager to ask for help everywhere else, what is wrong with asking here. The US did not ask the UN to come and fiddle (while Baghdad burns) so why would the US be responsible?
"I don't know if the UN did turn down offer for protection, but if it did, it was not correct and they should not have been allowed to turn it down," Annan said.
There we go, wasn't so hard to admit the mistake. Actually that was mistake number 2. The first mistake was not taking a unified stance in the first place and going in together.
Annan said the international organisation, which provides humanitarian relief to millions of Iraqis ...
Who apparently did not have any form of existence until the US liberated them. Otherwise the UN would have been helping them earlier.
[The UN] would not be deterred by Tuesday's attack which killed 24 people and injured over 100 others.
I thought more than 24 US troops had been killed or injured at this point. Thanks for thinking of them. After all they made it possible for you to be there.
"We have been in Iraq for 12 years and we have never been attacked," Annan said ...
Probably because you weren't doing anything that was a threat to the lunatic running the country - i.e. you weren't doing anything effective at all. Had you introduced the ideas of equality, freedom of religion, education for women, equality of all before the law, food for the starving (even if they were minority groups) then the entire staff would have been strung up from the nearest tree.
Unlike US occupation forces, the organisation had been welcomed by many Iraqis.
This is a throwaway line that was given no attribution in the article. Basically a piece of completely unsubstaniated hyperbole. Ignoring that, we have to assume that it is referring to 12 years ago (after Gulf War I) when the UN arrived. Perhaps one of the reasons that the US are not so welcome is that the welcome was worn out by the arrival of the UN who then managed to achieve exactly nothing in 12 years. That would make me suspicous of anyone with a 'U' in their names who was promising to "solve problems".
The attack renewed discussions about the possibility of sending a multinational force to help secure Iraq. But the idea - favoured by the United States and opposed by others on the Security Council - appeared unlikely to pick up any new proponents unless Washington agrees to cede some control of Iraq to the United Nations.
I reckon Kofi has a future career in standup comedy. The US did what had to be done despite the procrastination of the UN. Now the UN wants a share. Somebody needs to read them the story of the "Little Red Hen".
Annan said an international force is "under discussion. But I do not see UN blue helmets going into Iraq at this stage". He also said he did not foresee quick action on this contentious issue.
Well you got a choice, Mr Big Mouth - you can eat some humble pie or you can organise to get a multi-national force.
"I don't want to get into finger pointing. I think we are all aware that along the way mistakes have been made by all concerned."
Too late. You are already doing it. Now put a sock in it. Just remember that without the support of the US (and the other coalition members) the UN is no more than a pack of Useless Numbskulls.
Posted by Ozguru at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Comments
Posted by: Interested-Participant at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Posted by: Da Goddess at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Posted by: Interested-Participant at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Posted by: GDay Mate - Reviews at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Posted by: Random Riddled Ramblings at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
Posted by: Jivha - the Tongue at August 22, 2003 12:08 PM
