Bolton Resigns

[Disley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckiechan

Well lets just see how they do with Iran and Darfur for starters.

We have a war coming our way and the UN isn't doing anything to stop it.

I just hope they don't put the typical namby-pamby party hack in. I want to see a person of strength who will stand up to their doublespeak.

The war, if it comes, will have been foisted on Iran, and the world, by Bush, not the Iranians attacking the USA, but again, by the US attacking a country, which is 1000s of miles from America's borders. Who pose no risk to the US, and have tried on a number of occasions to begin a dialog with the US, only to be ignored by Bush, because it doesn't correspond with his distorted image of himself, as the leader who defeated the radical mullahs.
It's to late to try to cure Bush's mental illness, but it's not to late to for a diplomatic solution to be found, and that means countless deaths avoided, because sane men took control.
The UN can never hope to achieve anything, as long as the US uses it's power to veto anything which could start a dialog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



End is near in Babylon

BY ERIC S. MARGOLIS

12/04/06 "Toronto Sun" -- - FRENCH President Jacques Chirac’s warnings in 2003 that a US invasion of Iraq would set the Mideast on fire, encouraging terrorism and producing a disaster have been tragically borne out by events. Iraq is falling ever deeper into chaos and sectarian conflict. Lebanon teeters on the brink of civil war. The agonies of Palestine — now the world’s largest outdoor prison — continue without relent. Iran’s power and influence are surging.

For the latter, thank Washington, which overthrew two of Iran’s bitterest enemies, Taliban and Saddam Hussein, then stuck US ground forces in the $250 million per day Iraq quagmire.

As Iraq turns into a nightmare of carnage and hate, President Bush and mentor Dick Cheney rushed to the Mideast last week to urge their local allies to pull America’s bacon out of the fire.

But Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Al Maliki, governs only over Baghdad’s US-protected Green Zone. The US controls what passes for Iraq’s police and armed forces. Maliki has no army of his own; his Shia supporters are divided and feuding. How can Bush expect a powerless prime minister to do what the mighty US cannot?

At least, Maliki had the pluck to make a symbolic protest by refusing to meet with Bush for dinner in Amman after humiliating reports leaked in Washington the US intended to dump him. So much for Iraq ‘democracy.’ Washington may be headed towards installing a ruthless Saddam clone, either a former CIA ‘asset’ or some iron-fisted general.

What western reporters term the Iraqi Army is really a collection of Shia militias, death squads and mercenaries, many former convicts. The US occupation’s extensive use of Shia death squads to fight the Sunni resistance has played a key role in igniting Iraq’s current sectarian bloodbath. This little-known story is a major scandal.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Jordan warn they may send troops into Iraq to protect its Sunni minority from ethnic cleansing by the Shia majority. Such a move could provoke the powerful Turkish Army to invade independence-seeking Kurdish regions of northern Iraq. Iran would be quickly drawn into the melee.

Iraq’s neighbours deeply fear its chaos will spread across their borders, with dangerous, unpredictable consequences for all concerned.

The long-awaited Iraq Study Group’s report comes out this week. It is expected to call for a phased withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, and retention of some ‘intervention units’ in neighbouring countries. France ruled its West African empire for a half a century this way: installing compliant rulers kept in power by strategically located French Foreign Legion and Air Force units ready to swiftly intervene at signs of unrest.

The Iraq Study Group will also likely suggest direct talks with so-called ‘axis of evil’ members, Iran and Syria. Their cooperation is essential to stabilizing Iraq as well as for producing a viable solution to the Palestinian tragedy.

But a furious, behind-the-scenes battle is raging in Washington between advocates of diplomatic engagement with Damascus and Teheran, and the powerful Israel lobby, which has successfully blocked for decades all attempts to open such badly needed dialogue or press Israel over Palestinian rights. Israel and its American supporters are pushing hard for US attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Israel also wants to avoid being drawn into any talks with Syria that will inevitably raise the issue of the Golan Heights, which Israel occupied and ethnically cleansed of its Arab and Druze population in 1967. A comprehensive Mideast settlement will inevitably involve Golan, which Syria desperately wants back and that Israel is determined not to relinquish. Damascus won’t permit an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal until Golan is returned.

If Washington announces ‘phased withdrawals’ of US forces from Iraq, already shaky morale of American troops there will plummet. Who wants to risk life or limb for a withdrawal?

This is exactly what I saw happen to US forces in Vietnam after President Lyndon Johnson announced military victory was no longer his goal. No GI wanted to be the last soldier killed in a lost war started by bungling politicians.

Once Washington utters the dreaded ‘W’ word — withdrawal’ — Iraqis working for the US occupation will flee to the Sunni or Shia opposition. Iran’s influence in Iraq will soar. America’s Arab allies will be left facing severe external and internal dangers. But President Bush keeps insisting ‘no retreat.’ He still seems unable to see the writing on the wall in Babylon.

Eric S. Margolis is a veteran American journalist and contributing foreign editor of The Toronto Sun

[surreal]

Weren't they involved in getting food to Iraq with the French?

[CoonDawg]

While it doesn't make any sense to have a rep who doesn't believe what he's even working for, I do agree.

Turn on the news. Every other day there is a "Deadline" set by the UN. When that deadline s reached, they make another one. And another one. And another one. Eventually they may actually through in a "Final" deadline, where they will move on to teh NEXT set of deadlines. Occasionally they'll throw in a "That's it, we're done with this! You have one week or we're imposing trade embargoes!". One week later, the rest of the UN looks at each other and says "Eh, I don't want to, it'll cost me money". And then, we go back to the beginning.

I don't know why we're in it. It's a waste of money to just pay the representitves. And UN headquarters could be turned into something useful, like a giant mall, or a chemical waste storage facility or something.

The UN hasn't prevented a war, either. They spit out trillions a year, true, but that mostly goes to African warlords, where the people we were just trying to feed get slaughtered like pigs in a pen.

It's... retarded.