Kucinich's 10-point plan to our troops home!

[goodhue]

The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all US troops home from Iraq.

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.

Dennis Kucinich will work tirelessly to take America in a new direction, to gain approval of this plan at the United Nations, and to put it into action, bring all US troops home in 90 days. Only if the United States takes a new direction will we be able to persuade the UN community to participate. Such a new direction is reflected in this 10-point plan.

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

[westman]

1. When do we see the plan?

[Mattforclark]

2. Points 8 and 9

sound like leaps of faith to me. If it works, then great, but I am as sceptical that this plan will work as I was that Bush's would.

Other than that, DK is spot on.

[revcarol]

4. Kofi Annan has said that he can get committments for 50,000 troops,

to be ready to go into Iraq within a month of the U. N. taking over control of Iraq.

That's almost 1/3(ONE THIRD) of our troops, who could be rotated out as soon as the U. N. troops are in place and operational.So, in maybe TWO MONTHS, 1/3 of our troops would be out of there in an orderly manner.

Many nations would contribute UN troops, since the UN would not be quite the target that we/Brits are, with our heavy hand, unfamiliarity with peace-keeping and our stealing their assets.

What is #9? I can't access it.Edit: I already answered it.

PLUS the following: the U. N. can facilitate cooperation with the Arab League and the Red Crescent taking over parts of the effort.

[goodhue]

5. number nine

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.

Very true to point out that Annan has signaled willingness to go in with troops. Annan has been been telegraphing UN in, US out since last July. DK's plan is essentially consistent with Annan's wishes. Folks who belittle the plan tend not to know anything about what the UN really prefers -- which is that the US get the hell out of dodge before things get worse.

[LWolf]

8. I like the plan.

I agree with the plan. I think we'd get world support for this one. At least Dennis would. He provides the contrast to the Bush administration that would encourage diplomacy and partnership.

[westman]

6. The UN has demonstrated

that they are utterly incapable of doing anything other than monitoring elections. Even that is a hit or miss operation. This "plan" is nothing more than an anti-business temper tantrum.

Kucinich has no business running for president, let alone being prez.

Stick with Lieberman. Lanny Davis will.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Your view of the UN sounds like a GOP view.

You assert that Kucinich's plan is "nothing more than an anti-business temper tantrum." I submit that Kucinich, like most of us, is not "anti-business" but "anti-corruption in business" (also "anti-corruption" in government and any other sector you care to name.) Insofar as Iraq is concerned, the corruption can also be described as war profiteering.

All of us want Iraq to sell us oil at a fair price and hope that our removal of Saddam from power will make them willing to do that. But to assert that we have a right to take anyone's "stuff" if we can beat them up is an out-dated viewpoint beloved of empire-builders.

Kucinich will be a great president because he has the courage to speak the whole truth while others just nibble around the edges of it.

[arewethereyet]

10. what stuff has the US taken ?

Iraq is selling oil at the going rate. At the best pace their decrepit equipment and terrorist attacks will allow.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. I was speaking metaphorically. The US

has not, at least officially, taken Iraqi "stuff," though I wouldn't be terribly
surprised if some of our troops (and/or military officers) have taken "souvenirs" like chips of ancient buildings, perhaps museum artifacts, and other things they shouldn't have. I'd be more surprised to learn that none of them have any illegal souvenirs to bring home. Occupying armies tend to behave that way, no matter whose army they are.

(I grew up in a military family and expect most personnel are good people now, as they were back then. But some people get a little crazy when they're in another land, especially when they're there fighting an enemy. Some take the view "Nobody knows me here, what the hell?" My father told me some stories of Americans in uniform behaving badly overseas. And you can see the phenomenon in military towns, too, just as in college towns. Large groups of young people away from home will act up.)

To return to topic, if some American firms are allowed to profit from our occupation of Iraq, it is problematic. If the firms were doing it at cost, including labor costs, it would be humanitarian. But the labor costs would have to be actual labor costs, not including any bonuses for the executives who are already rolling in dough. That has the scent of war profiteering.

[westman]

15. I don't understand your aversion to profit.

Any company, even American ones, are in business to make a profit. They owe it to their boards, shareholders, and employees. If an American firm does work in Iraq, of course it should do so at a profit.


Remember France? Their opposition to war was not principled. It was profit-driven. They saw their gravy train in Iraq coming to an end if Saddam was ousted.

[tinanator]

19. oh holy profit speak to us!

Profit like Halliburton is making fair and square selling gas like ice cubes to eskimos for stupid money, but its only US taxpayer funds. Profits like Enron earned fair and square, and then squirreled away in Swiss banks while the US government held the door? Profits from the California Energy Scam put into effect by Bush and Perot?Yeah, I see your point about the gravy train. You sure are subtle.

[westman]

20. Like it or not,

profit drives capitalists, and capitalism makes the world go round.

Try it!

[tinanator]

25. stick em up!

Thanks sucker.
Yeah, that did feel good!

[westman]

27. Are you equating

profit with robbery?

Do you have a job?

[tinanator]

30. basics of modern business

you seem to have missed the ethical and legal implications of the Halliburton and Enron business models. Either that or they have no meaning to you.

[westman]

32. I see Enron execs going to jail.

The system is working. What are you accusing Halliburton of?

[tinanator]

43. like who?

you see dead people too?

[westman]

50. The Fastow's are about to be put away.

And they are the key to Lay. And Gilsen, the Treasurer, got 5 years a few months ago. More are going down.

Makes me happy. You?

[OhioStateProgressive]

39. yes, profit is robbery

look up "moral economy"

and then realize it is correct

[westman]

42. You're not serious,

are you?

[tinanator]

46. actually profit is theft

but this is no time for an econ class, even a remedial one.

[westman]

53. Sorry, you're wrong.

It's not an issue of econ classes. Capitalism is simply the best economic model.

No need to reply. This is not one we can settle.

[OhioStateProgressive]

of course I'm serious

charging enough to cover your costs and pay your employees labor, and yourself a salary is one thing

earning above that and placing it in the bank?

that is profit

and yes, I say theft

[westman]

54. The market sets the price,

your operating efficiency determines your cost. The difference (assuming it is positive) is profit.

Is your problem with market pricing or with efficient operations?

[tinanator]

59. price fixing, monopolies, unregulated greed, the REAL WORLD

Adam Smith you arent. Sing me a song of the free market why dontcha?
Throw in a tune about free trade. What a joke.

[westman]

62. Fortunately,

you're not involved in business. That fact creates jobs and a quality of life for the rest of us.

To quote Billy Joel: "There's a place in the world for the angry young man, with his foot in his mouth and his head in the sand...".

BTW-Rachel Corrie was a terrorist.

[OhioStateProgressive]

71. Rachel Corrie was a terrorist????

jesus h. christ!, that is just a vulgar thing to say

don't bother replying

[westman]

75. I'll reply.

She was. Check the news accounts. What was she doing when the dozer hit? What was her reason for being in the region?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arewethereyet]

35. are you aware of the program which put Haliburton in this position ?

it was decided many moons ago that there were situations that would come up requiring quick action that precluded the normal bidding process. What they did was to pre-bid the rights to be responders for this. I can't recall the anagram name or when it started but it was like Reagan or Bush 1, somewhere in there.

First bid was won by Haliburton. It came up for re-bid (it was to be re-bid at regular intervals) and Haliburton lost but for some reason Clinton (yes, that one) opted to override that bid (there was a reasonable explination for this, may have been in mid-Kosovo and didn't think it wise to change horses in mid-stream).

Next one came up and Haliburton won it again and then the Iraq thing came up requiring the immediate attention (water and power was out, people dying) which precluded the standard bidding process exactly as the plan called for.

Now none of this makes Haliburton a paragon of virtue nor does it change the fact that Cheney used to head it but it is not some sweetheart deal made up on the spot. And Rep. Kucinich and every other member of Congress is aware of this. It does not help their cause that they repeat this misconception even my guy Edwards does this and I wish he would stop. Its going to become a flaming arrow headed for the nominee at the first debate if not sooner.

[revcarol]

57. Halliburton's no-bid contract:

Halliburton has the contract to set up bases and run things for the soldiers. They have built about 10 bases in the former Soviet Union under this contract, and they do water, food, tents, buidings, etc for the soldiers, airmen, etc all over the world under this contract, especially if it's an emergency.

None of that has anything to do with Halliburton getting sweetheart no-bid contracts to 1)supply gasoline to the Iraqis, or to 2)repair the oil pipelines, or to 3)get water supplies for the Iraqis, or 4)provide security for the oil pipelines, or any of the other many contracts they have gotten from Bush.

They got caught profiteering from the gasoline contract and Bush had to cancel it. But they still have the rest of the contracts.NO-BID,SWEETHEART CONTRACTS

[arewethereyet]

93. wrong and wrong

they won the bidding process to be the company called upon to immediately respond to this kind of situation situation.

They were found to NOT be profiteering but rather following the requirements for timely shipment imposed by the government.

Be blind if you wish but you can't say that you're ignorant.

[westman]

12. My view of the UN is an objective one.

They are inept bureaucrophiles. They are driven by their own political expediencies, and by a shared distaste for the quality of life in the US.

Many Democrats share my view. Many Rebublicans oppose it.

[DemBones DemBones]

UN staffers have a "shared distaste for the quality of life in the US."

Where did you get that idea? It seems way offbase to me, so perhaps I am misunderstanding, perhaps you misspoke (mistyped)?


You then say: "Many Democrats share my view. Many Republicans oppose it."

Again, what do you mean? You see the UN as inefficient -- "inept" was your word -- and you think many Democrats share that view. Some would, I don't know about many. But you also claim that many Reoublicans oppose it, whereas I know many Republicans would agree with you that the UN is inept.

[westman]

17. I've reread my post,

no typos. I believe the meaning is clear.

[OhioStateProgressive]

41. it may be clear, but still flat on it's face wrong(nt)

[westman]

45. Well, then we disagree.

[OhioStateProgressive]

48. no, we don't disagree, you are just wrong(nt)

[westman]

55. As I said,

we disagree. No need to get nasty.

[Terwilliger]

22. "shared distaste for the quality of life in the US"

what are you smoking? what the hell is that? why do you make shit up all the time?

[westman]

24. It's patently obvious to serious observers.

A large percentage of UN members are more interested in working against the US than they are in achieving the organization's stated objectives.

I don't smoke. I don't make stuff up. My credibility is not compromised with profanity.

[Terwilliger]

28. Hmm...could you quantify that?

anyone specifically?

And, how do you know that they hate our way of life, whatever that is?

[westman]

33. Just about any country other than

the G7, Australia, & a handful of others.

[Terwilliger]

37. uh huh

you haven't answered anything

[westman]

40. You're right...

I meant to exclude France, Germany, and Russia from the G7.

[OhioStateProgressive]

51. hahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!

hahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!

funny, made me laugh for a minute

I think that kind of Nationalistic crap is worthy of contempt and laughter

[westman]

56. Some people refuse to see the way the world really works.

I don't laugh at them.

[tinanator]

60. what about oxycontin

do you have a difficult problem, perhaps?

[westman]

63. It's difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.

I'm doing my part. You're not.

[Terwilliger]

23. where the hell does "anti-business" come from?

you work for Halliburton?

[westman]

26. I don't know where it comes from.

Ask Kucinich.

And no, I don't work for Halliburton.

[Terwilliger]

29. answer the question

why do you attack Kucinich as anti-business?

[westman]

34. Reread his statement.

It's there.

[Terwilliger]

36. No, it isn't

this is why I'm asking you

[tinanator]

47. sorry, he has to dodge that, Im sure you understand

long for this world? Probably not...

[westman]

65. Then you're not reading it.

[Terwilliger]

66. STILL no answer

let me guess...you're a Lieberman Democrat

[westman]

68. You have to do some work yourself.

When my kids bring a homework problem to me and say, "I don't get it", I make them do the research necessary to find the answer. Even if the answer still eludes them, at least they are learning method and process.

Again, the answer is there. Use method and process to find it.

BTW--Joe (the ONLY electable Democrat) in '04.

[Terwilliger]

92. that's what I thought...by the way

You should go back to your schooling and figure out why your education was so horrendously incomplete.

1. The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2. The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3. The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4. The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5. The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6. The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7. The United States must contribute financially to the UN peacekeeping mission.

8. The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home.

10. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.


Not a damn thing that's anti-business, unless as a Republican you disagree with him that being anti-privatization is anti-business.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. "anti-business temper tantrum"

oh, this is nothing...

[ThirdWheelLegend]

99. yes the corporations have been treated unfairly long enough...

WCTV you are correct


TWL

[JohnKleeb]

3. This is cut and run?

:shrug:
I think hes right.

[arewethereyet]

7. How does he intend to convince Congress to do this ?

Remember, that Republican Congress ?

At least part of that involved coughing up money which means that they have to say OK.

To recap, we're supposed to pay for everything, including other countries troops, and get nothing in return.

Do you honestly think this has any chance of happening ?

I won't get into why it is that the UN would get shot up as much as we do given their propencity to blow up UN buildings. Do you think troops from Cameroon will hang around for this ?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Republican Congress?

Well, come next fall, we all need to be working as hard on our local Congressional races as hard as we work on the presidential race, or perhaps even harder.

[arewethereyet]

16. well, it is one and that won't likely change this fall

incumbants are very hard to defeat.

Add to that the number of dems retiring.

I don't think Kucinich really has any coattails to provide.

Kucinich is a nice guy but his nomination is unlikely and a win in the general election less so.

IF you want any sort of starting point is will be incorporation of other troops into the coalition to allow some phase out of US ones. Some sort of UN participation in the government building process which would have to start with them re-entering the country. THey could be involoved with elections when they come. This sort of thing could work.

[revcarol]

18. Been there, done that.

The fact is that we have totally botched things up so much that any new Democratic president couldn't get in "coalition" troops in the numbers necessary to dilute the force so that it doesn't "look" American, even if he bought them like Bush.

And the U. S. is going around privatizing everything in sight. See that about their new media being set up?Now they will have to pay to get U. S. propaganda, to a private company the U. S. selects and no one else allowed.(al-Jezeera, anyone?)

Most of the people probably hate our guts.

The ONLY organization that has any credibility is the UN.And their credibility is going to undergo some tests, because they were the enforcer of the food-for-oil-sanctions the U. S. was behind.So they are going to have to involve others trusted by the Iraqis like the Red Crescent and the Arab League.

As long as the U. S. is IN CHARGE of the troops, they are going to be attacked. And as long as the U. S. is IN CHARGE of the oil and contracts, the troops will be attacked.

[arewethereyet]

44. I didn't say that it would work, just a more reasoned approach

what will happen is what is already happening. We'll get them back on their feet and under their own control. We'll have several large military bases there probably forever and thats how it will be.

Unbiased reporting indicates taht MOST of the people don't hate our guts. They DO want their own government and are cognizant that this is a difficult nut to crack.

Things suck there but not as much as many think.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. I think that it's a plan to begin with, not sure anyone else has one.

Plans often have to be tinkered with, but this is a place to begin We might in fact be able to cut a deal whereby Iraq gave us some sort of guarantee of oil for X years in exchange for our "liberating" them and then cleaning up the mess left behind. They want our troops out, we want them home. They have a lot of oil to sell, we want to buy some of it.

If we all work together, we can elect more Dems to Congress to work with President Kucinich. If the GOP still has the majority in one or both houses, he'll have to negotiate more and compromise somewhat. I'm hoping that a lot of Republicans and/or other conservatives will reject the Bush way and the neo-con way (which are often, but not always, the same) in 2004. Reasonable people are able to see past their party label to realize that Bush and the neo-cons have been terrible for our economy, gotten us into two little wars that may fester and require American sacrifices (lives and money) for decades, taken away a lot of our freedoms, and lied to us.

The Dark Horse Cometh Dennis Kucinich 2004

[tinanator]

61. Didnt they extend greater powers to the President?

Is that supposed to lapse come election time? I dont think so.
Dennis can do it, so get with the program, its our only hope.

[funky_bug]

21. Regarding Point One

This is one of the things I really love about Dennis. He recognizes what so many of us believe to be the truth behind the war; Bush wants the oil. In order to rectify this senseless war, in order to say, "We're sorry our former president lied about your former leader in order to steal your natural resources," he's committed to forgoing the profits that Bush the Lesser covets. I admire Dennis so much for this!

I admit I haven't spent much time reading his positions and plans, but I do have an honest question that I hope someone can answer for me. If Dennis plans to forgo the oil profits, how is he going to pay for the stuff we blew up? Our children and their children are already going to be saddled with war debt. Does Dennis have a plan to pay for the stuff we blew up?

[westman]

31. "We're sorry our former president lied about your former leader ."

This is so sad and such a mistake. You don't like GWB--not many people do. But, dear God, DON'T make Saddam Hussein a hero, a misunderstood pussycat. He was (is) the personification of evil, in the manner of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. Like it or not, he is worse than GWB.

Rhetoric such as this will cause us to lose in '04.

[funky_bug]

38. Oops

Maybe I phrased that wrong... or caused an assumption that was unintended.

What I simply mean to say, is that Bush the Lesser did lie about the WMD's. Yes, Sadaam was an evil dictator, but BLL went for the oil, not the human rights issue. Dennis recognizes that.

I would not create any agenda that would make Sadaam a hero. I apologize for implying that. Thank God I'm not a speech writer, huh?

LOL

[Tinoire]

76. Us?

Would you kindly expound on who "us" is?

The American people?
Progressives?
Democrats?
Some other animal?

What so you mean by 'us'?

On edit: Btw, Rachel Corrie was no more of a terrorist than Mother Teresa.

[westman]

78. "Us"

are Democrats.

Mother Teresa didn't support bomb makers.

Rachel Corrie will not achieve sainthood.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

89. questionable

"Mother Teresa didn't support bomb makers."
"Rachel Corrie will not achieve sainthood."

So palestinians whose homes are being bulldozed are bombmakers?

That's why I hate white people, I don't support bombmakers like Timothy McVeigh!

????

TWL

[westman]

90. There is no racism in my post.

Israelis bulldoze houses in response to homicide bombings and other terrorist activities in Israel by Palestinians. Those bulldozed houses are frequently fronts for tunnels that are used to secretly transport bombs and bombers. The Israelis are right.

You hate white people? That sounds like racism to me.

I don't support McVeigh or any terrorist bomb maker.

What makes you think I'm white?

[ThirdWheelLegend]

91. edited it

I apologize for the use of the word, however your post hit a nerve.

If you don't support McVeigh then do you want to bulldoze white people's homes?

That is part of the problem not the solution, and IMO it is irresponsible.


TWL

[westman]

96. I accept,

but I don't understand why you continue to bring race into the issue.

[revcarol]

49. I just lost my whole durn post. So, again...

We are already paying for the stuff we blew up, supposedly, with the Iraq appropriation and the $87 billion in "new money." But the problem with this is that most of it is being eaten up in WAR PROFITEERING.That's not just getting a profit, that real outrageous gouging.So, if we can get the UN to let the contracts, we can save a great percentage over what we would spend if the US companies had the contracts.

And of the 87 billion, only 13(?) billion is for our soldiers and much of that is eaten up by Halliburton profiteering!!

We ARE going to have to bite the bullet to pay for what we broke, and to pay reparations to the families of the innocents killed and wounded by our actions.

BUT, the big-money nations and many small ones have indicated that they would donate BIG BIG BUCKS to reconstruction IF THE UN WERE IN CHARGE. Remember poor wittle Colin running around with his hat in his hand, asking for money,LOL, and nation after nation said:"NOT UNLESS THE UN IS IN CHARGE." The U. S. taxpayer would be relieved of most of the reconstruction money by those who do not want to see instability in the ME and those who care about human needs.

Hope this answers some of the questions. Sure sorry I "lost" my first post, it was much better, but I am tired.

[funky_bug]

52. This is fine

I'm not sure what your first post said, but this one sufficiently answered my question.

Thank you for your insight. I did not consider the information you provided.

Peace!

[Mairead]

101. "Does Dennis have a plan to pay for the stuff we blew up?"

I might be outdated about this --or just plain wrong, since I can't find an actual policy statement-- but my understanding is that he plans to do it out of our general wealth, the way we do with other countries: grants, forgivable loans, pay over the odds for the oil we buy, etc.

Also I believe a big part of his plan--again this isn't actually embodied in a policy statement that I can find (I got it from speeches, I think), so you have to decide for yourself whether it seems real--is that the actual labor on the ground will be by Iraqis themselves, not imported labor. The participating UN countries would make money by selling the parts and supplies and furnishing consultants, but the Iraqis themselves will be the ones drawing steady paychecks putting it all together into the coherent whole of their choice.



(I keep thinking how wonderful it would be--perhaps we could talk DK into it--if we could say to the Bushes, Cheneys, Rumsfelds, et al 'You can either suffer a fine of 100% of your wealth plus 10 years in Leavenworth...or you can be turned over to the ICC for war crimes. Your choice, decide now.')

[ThirdWheelLegend]

58. kick for the man with the plan..

About time we stopped this illegal occupation, which followed an illegal war.

TWL

[Padraig18]

64. Point 8 is especially problematic.

There is no objective evidence whatsoever to indicate that any combination of UN member-nations are willing to commit 130K troops to an Iraqi peacekeeping effort, so that basically puts the bottom out of the tub, as far as the Congressman's plan goes.

[Terwilliger]

67. not under the current US policy, no

with a change in policy toward the UN and Iraq, that would change

[Padraig18]

69. I'm not knocking DK's plan.

I actually like it, as far as 'on paper' plans go; that said, it doesn't have any huge substantive differences from Gov. Dean's plan, e.g. The scenario envisioned is more optimistic, but I think that's essentially because the assumptions contained in it are essentially more rosy.

:hi:

[westman]

70. Of those 130,000

hypothetical UN troops, 128,000 would be American. Those Americans would be under the command of the UN, which is more interested in politics than mission success. This is a sure-fire proposal to increase American casualties at least ten-fold.

No thanks. Fortunately, DK hasn't got a shot. His halo effect will damage the other Democrats in the race, though.

[goodhue]

74. real UN troops

Of the 45,000 real UN peacekeepers currenly on missions, 500 are from the US. It would be great if this pattern changes once the US goes to the UN and seeks a new resolution, but don't count on it. One of the advantages of UN peacekeepers over US troops is that they by and large come from non-Western nations. Continued occupaton of Iraq by Western troops is not consistent with bringing security or stability to the region. Here are the current country leaders of real UN troops in descending order

Pakistan
Bangladesh
Nigeria
India
Ghana
Nepal
Uruguay
Kenya
South Africa
Jordan
Ukraine

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/November2003Countrysummary.pdf


Lots of good information about UN peacekeeping here . . .
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

Your posts to this thread indicate generally unfamiliarity with DPKO. But thanks for helping to keep it kicked.

[westman]

77. My pleasure!

I would like to respond that the majority of posters to this thread have little familiarity with the (lack of) competence that the UN displays in virtually any endeavor.

With the possible exception of election monitoring, the UN is never the answer.

[goodhue]

81. Liberia

Obviously, UN peacekeepers have had major screw-ups in the last 50 years, what with Cyprus, Serbnica, Burundi. But my sense is that things have been going relatively better of late even East Timor.

Specifically, tell me more about the lack of competence in the ongoing mission in Liberia? The current expansion into rebel territory plus the dramatic boat rescue last week suggest things are going okay for them at the moment. So much so that Annan now wants to send UN peackeepers into Ivory Coast.

But since they display a lack of competence in virtually any endeavor, there may be something I don't know.

Can you list some specific examples of incompetence from the Annan era?

[Padraig18]

82. I won't diss their competence, especially after E. Timor, but...

... what I question is where are 130K of them going to come from, specifically? :shrug:

[goodhue]

84. Contributors

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/index.htm

[Padraig18]

85. that's a list.

It doesn't show HOW they would come up with 130K troops.

[goodhue]

86. ask

UN generally asks countries to contribute troops. The lists to which I referred are of the countries currently contributing to the existing 45K troops. How did they come up with those 45K troops? They ask.

Here is an example from yesterday involving Bangladesh to give you a sense of how it works:

More peacekeepers from Bangladesh
By BSS, Dhaka
Jan 10, 2004, 23:45

The United Nations (UN) on Saturday expressed keen interest towards taking more troops from Bangladesh for its peace keeping missions across the world.

The interest was shown when the visiting UN Under Secretary General (Peace Keeping) Jean Marie Guehenno called on Prime Minister Begum Zia at her office this afternoon.

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_6889.shtml

[Padraig18]

87. 130K troops is a BUTTLOAD of troops.

Not meaning to be crude, just blunt. I don't see it as likely to happen, TBH. :shrug:

[Mairead]

100. I think you have to demonstrate why 130K troops would be needed

Because there's a big difference between an army of occupation being ambushed and killed on an ad-hoc basis by outraged citizen-victims and an interim public-safety-and-admin body that is there with the consent of the populace.

Read Uri Avnery on the subject of the IDF's experience in the Lebanon: at first welcomed as liberators, they were soon being killed as occupiers. http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article237.html

[westman]

88. To be credible and competent,

the UN has to be successful given any degree of difficulty. Liberia is a low DOD. Not the same level of passionate, imported, suicidal resistance as in Iraq. The UN member states will not send troops in support of a mission that difficult.

The US should finish the job in partnership with the broad, supportive coalition presently engaged.

[Terwilliger]

94. what mission? to instill democracy? to rid us of Saddam?

to control the Iraqi oil fields? to "rebuild" Iraq through closed bidding processes? to stop al Qaeda?

[westman]

95. Name it.

Whatever mission they are assigned.

[goodhue]

72. UN peacekeepers

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home.shtml

THE MISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

In accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is dedicated to assisting the Member States and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain international peace and security. The Department's mission is to plan, prepare, manage and direct UN peacekeeping operations, so that they can effectively fulfil their mandates under the overall authority of the Security Council and General Assembly, and under the command vested in the Secretary-General.

DPKO provides political and executive direction to UN peacekeeping operations, and maintains contact with the Security Council, troop and financial contributors, and parties to the conflict in the implementation of Security Council mandates. DPKO strives to provide the best possible and most cost-efficient administrative and logistical support to missions in the field through the timely deployment of quality equipment and services, adequate financial resources and well-trained personnel. The Department works to integrate the efforts of UN, governmental and non-governmental entities in the context of peacekeeping operations. DPKO also provides guidance and support on military, police, mine action, and logistical and administrative issues to other UN political and peacebuilding missions.

Each peacekeeping operation has a specific set of mandated tasks, but all share certain common aims - to alleviate human suffering, and create conditions and build institutions for self-sustaining peace. The substantial presence of a peacekeeping operation on the ground contributes to this aim by introducing the UN as a third party with a direct impact on the political process. In exercise of its tasks, DPKO aims to minimize the many risks to which peacekeepers may be exposed in the field.

Peacekeeping operations may consist of several components, including a military component, which may or may not be armed, and various civilian components encompassing a broad range of disciplines. Depending on their mandate, peacekeeping missions may be required to:

Deploy to prevent the outbreak of conflict or the spill-over of conflict across borders;

Stabilize conflict situations after a cease fire, to create an environment for the parties to reach a lasting peace agreement;

Assist in implementing comprehensive peace agreements;

Lead states or territories through a transition to stable government, based on democratic principles, good governance and economic development.

[Padraig18]

73. Yes?

:shrug:

[Zomby Woof]

97. ZombyDKick

[ThirdWheelLegend]

98. Kick for truth and ending the illegal occupation!

TWL