Who gains the most from the UN bombing in Iraq?

Bush.

It has been an ongoing question of how the US could save face by asking the UN to come into Iraq and oversee the reconstruction when they kept them at arm's length before. Last week the Bushies posited that the UN would not be asked for their support. Now, it is likely that it will be the UN turning to the US for greater protection, and will likely offer their support and access to their forces.

BFEE.

No wonder bush couldn't sober up for a comment. He's not shocked and awed apparently.

But despite early protestations to the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually occurs to the UN that they are there without their own security forces and without any administrative or command control. Just how long before they wise up and say, "WTF are we doing there? The U.S. can't protect U.N. representatives, let's bend Bush's will to internationalalize the peace-keeping efforts or get the hell out."

"WTF are we doing there? The U.S. can't protect U.N. representatives, let's bend Bush's will to internationalalize the peace-keeping efforts or get the hell out."

The Terrorists benefit. If the UN bugs out, then they start bombing infrastructure
and the Brits mostly, with continued low level crap against Americans, they think
eventually the Brits, then the US public will get tired of it and go home, leaving
a power vacuum for their fundie theocracy. If we bug out, are we going to support
a democracy there or are we going to support a dictator (Saddam II who will be
in the Tripartate Of Evil in about 2011, the year before Jeb's reelection) or are
we going to let Iraq become Iran with a 3 faction civil war?

The GOP is ideologically rigid enough to NEVER leave without Total Victory.
We either get Perpetual War (to keep us scared, voting GOP) or Scorched
Earth ("the only thing missing from Vietnam for Victory was exterminating
every last 'guerilla'!"). Their peabrains and hopeless macho ego will never
accept leaving with our tails between their legs. And if The Public says
ENOUGH and (tries to) vote them out, Diebold will put a stop to THAT
nonsense. To allow it would be to invite Dem Senate Inquiries and Dem
House subpoenas. They can basically NEVER give up power. 'Course,
they COULD because even if they did, the Pink Tutus would probably
call for one closed hearing on the whole thing and let it go because it
would be 'devisive'.

Bigby

.

And the neo-con's.

I think the last thing they want is the UN
or others like reporters in the way as they
assert control by any means nessary.

I may need more tin foil today.

....who benefits from the widespread impression that the Iraqis hate the UN, and want them out?

now if only he could turn that country into a democratic paradise as he promised he would and stop attacks on the trigger happy soldiers there.

He'll say he was right all along about there being Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq....

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/331187.html
20 dead, including UN envoy, in bombing at UN in Baghdad

A massive truck bomb devastated the United Nationsheadquarters in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing atleast 20 people and wounding scores more, a UNofficial said.The international body laterconfirmed that the UN enovy toIraq, 55-year-old BrazilianSergio Vieira de Mello, haddied after being trapped in therubble of his office after theblast. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annanconfirmed with "deepest regret" the death of Vieira de Mello, his specialrepresentative in Iraq, chief UN spokesman FredEckhard said. The Brazilian, fluent in English, French,Spanish and his native Portuguese was the UNHigh Commissioner for Human Rights <snip>

"The explosion was caused by a massive truckbomb," Bernard Kerik, the senior U.S. policeofficial in Baghdad, said. "We have evidence tosuggest it could have been a suicide attack." "It is a tragedy... A setback politically forthe UN mission," Eckhard said of the almostunprecedented attack on a civilian UnitedNations operation. But the world body vowed notto retreat from Baghdad. The attack was drew international condemnation,with U.S. President George W. Bush calling theattackers "enemies of the civilized world." There was no claim of responsibility, just asthere was none two weeks ago when a truck bombshattered the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad,killing 17 people. The U.S. forces in Iraq say Muslim militants ordiehard supporters of Saddam Hussein might haveset that bomb - on a "soft target" todestabilize American rule in Iraq. Like the Jordanian embassy, the UN compound atthe Canal Hotel would have made a relativelysoft target compared to the heavily fortifiedand defended U.S. military posts around Iraq. <snip>

He was disgusting in his praise for Bush and his taunts at Clinton post 9-11. Since we know so much about Bush's failures on 9-11, how can Kerik honestly support him? I don't trust anything that comes out of Kerik's mouth.

They seek to widen the divide between the evil invaders and their people. No better way to do this then to attack the one organization that was anti-war. Make them mad enough and you have no one seeking peace at all. Exactly what the terrorists want.

I don't think you should label the people of Iraq as terrorists in their own land. Please. I am not asking you to call them freedom fighters (though that is my choice of words), but to smoozy on up onto the Bush-Sharon-Blair bandwagon of labeling anything that is 'against us not for us' as 'terrorists' or 'terrorism' is simply bending over to the Repuke line.

What's going on around here? Is DU getting all patriotic-slash-nationalistic on me?

I don't think Iraqis were behind it. I think international terrorist groups have interests in keeping Iraq in war conditions.

BTW - there is no one fighting for freedom in Iraq. Their are groups fighting for power, which upon reaching this goal will eliminate freedom.

The terrorists can benefit. I say terrorists, not Iraqi dissidents.

The 'terrorists' were probably not there in force before the invasion, exept for those sunni's (Iranian Muk something or others) the US were supporting in the south.

Al Quaeda has been waiting for the chance to move in and stir up the hornet's nest. They can continue this indefinitely until either

A:*bush commits enough troops to handle the job, or
B: somehow we arrange international support (military, security, planning) in a big way.

I do not see either A or B happening soon.

Is way passssssssssst the point of horse pucky, when it comes to Iraq.

What do you base that on... the fact that they are Arabs, therefore are not capable of living in what you perceive as a free society? Please I don't want to go too deep, I am in Europe and it is late. But it seems to me that people in Iraq don't feel much better off under the thumb of trigger happy kids from afar then they did under Saddam and his cronies. Groups are always fighting for power. The democrats are fighting right here. Don't you think the Republicans are eliminating freedom right under your feet?

Your dogmatic statement that Iraqis will eliminate freedom once having control of their own destiny (and I believe the country should be carved up between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) is pretty weak and deserves more than a cocky BTW.

Lame Chill... give me a real retort.

I'm only going on what I see. Religious groups represent the majority of Iraq and everywhere else they have power in the middle east they create highly restrictive societies.

I never made any claims the at Iraqis could or could not do anything. Nor did I say they were happy with the current occupation.

Caribmoron...try to stick to what I write and not add your own assumptions.

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6831

It's from a site called

www.askimam.com

It's where Moslems can ask questions from religious leaders and get answers. Many of the questions are from Moslems living in western countries and are asking what is okay and not okay to do.

This one particular question interested me

The person asked how leaders should be chosen in an Islamic country.

The answer was that there are three recognized ways...

1. You pledge allegiance to an individual
2. The leader appoints his successor
3. The leader can delegate some authority to others.

I was sort of stunned thinking, are there really groups today who still openly aspire to dictatorship as their preferred form of government?

Take a look at the site. All the questions are organized by topic and are easily cross-referenced.

Iraq is a mess right now. Basically you have about six groups fighting for control of a country with three different ethnic groups, all of which hate each other. This is what happens when Western Powers fuck around in the Middle East. It's been going on since the Romans Empire.

This will probably get me labeled as a Freeper, but I'm a fan of P.J. O'Rourke and I always thought this line was accurate: The Middle East is not made up of countries like we know them. It's basically quarrels with borders.

Right now you have the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites all battling for control with the Americans trying to corral them into some parody of a Constitution. On top of that you have that Ba'athists still running around hoping to re-establish their control. You have Fundamentalists trying to establish a theocracy. And you have those you see this in terms of Arab nationalism. Oh, and the Brits and the UN looking confused.

If the US leaves now, you are going to see the all-time Middle East battle royal take place in Iraq, with Turkey, Israel, and Iran looking warily at the proceedings. Of course, if the US stays, you are going to see the same thing except with more powerful weaponry.

The dirty little secret is that it likely takes a strongman like Saddam to maintain order in a country like Iraq. I've felt all along that we were either going to end up with three brand new countries or have Saddamism without Saddam when all is said and done.

The dirty little secret is that it likely takes a strongman like Saddam to maintain order in a country like Iraq. I've felt all along that we were either going to end up with three brand new countries or have Saddamism without Saddam when all is said and done.

Finally somebody understands why Poppy Bush's goal in '91 was to damage Saddam but maintain stability in the region by keeping him there.

Jr. isn't that sophisticated.

He shouldn't have encouraged a fucking rebellion and then abandoned the people. But the "finishing the job" argument never seemed that appealing to me. We would be in the exact same situation, except there would be a lot more Europeans getting killed.

Several groups in Iraq sent out messages out about what they might do if things didn't change(I read them here on DU). They gave them a month and said if things didn't change there would be an escalation of hostilities. I believe when you looking at how the bottom of the box sees things, they seem a bit different than if you’re looking from the side or top.

You can bet for sure that most over there don't see a lot of things the UN has done for them. Attacking a weaker one (like the US does) to see who your friends and enemies are. This seems to me what was done. Will the UN move out or will they contract the US to use an Iron fist is the question, either is a lose - lose scenario

On edit: After reading several other threads, It now appears this is way more of an inside job, I am glad to see others are up on this stuff, though I think the jury is still out on what is going on for sure. Looks like I came in at the middle again :dunce:

:kick:

I am affraid you are right in your point of view.

I think this bombing will turn the world community outside of the 'coalition of the forced', and Europeans to look at the illegal US invasion of Iraq more critically now. If anything, this was a coup for Iraqi insurgents and those fighting against the non-UN sanctioned unilateral oil theft of Iraq.

Not only is there depleted uranium to consider, it was not long ago that Somalia was an area that UN forces were hesitant to follow US special forced into hell. Why should Europe do it again? You want your new Vietnam? Go ahead.

Todays bombing will only serve against the American Quagmire in Iraq. You are on your own after today in my opinion.

I know it is somewhat natural to feel rabid vengence after being attacked like 9-11 for Americans but one must remember that Europeans have been living with terrorism in all shapes and forms for a long time. From Spain to France to Italy to the UK, it has been there.

In fact, one of America's dirty little secrets was their willingness to turn its back on the blatant Bostonian support of the IRA. No crackdowns in those days.

"Viera de Melo, who is also the UN high commisioner on human rights, had informed the military govt(US) that Iraqis must quickly be given tangible power, Annan said".

"UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spelled out Friday a broad , ambitious plan for a UN role in Iraq and prodded US and British to quickly establish order and to let Iraqis control their future".


LINK:
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-07/19/content_246404.htm


And, if as another thread stated, DeMello's office seemed to be the target...
It kind of puts the 'who has the most to gain' question in a different light.
Tinfoil? Do you trust these fucks on ANYTHING?

I want all our troops out ASAP. Will this now bring in the UN? Will Cheney ,Halliburton etc have to give up tresure if UN is brought in?
(Awol is just a front)

is for sure..there are huge interests in the bleeding Iraq and the big fishes are US and Europe.Bush and co gain most of all from that operation!

......the Congressional delegation is leaving ASAP for Kuwait. No more Congresscritters will go there, probably.

I disagree with your take. This is yet another indicator of how flawed the whole BushCorp plan was. The constant bad news from Iraq gives the American people the impression (rightfully) that this whole mess was a mistake and is turning into a quagmire. The "liberators" are unable to control the country, and the "liberated" are not behaving according to the script as written for them. The GIs are getting more and more frustrated, their families are starting to complain, and (at last) reporters are starting to ask questions. The "victory" in Iraq is starting to look a lot less like a victory and a lot more like a bottomless hole.

The last thing that the neo-Imperialists want is more bad news from their pet project. The news that "The Disruption in the Oil Pipeline is Costing Iraq $7Billion a Day" will soon be translated into "The Disruption is Costing the US $7Billion a Day." The boy general is busy reassuring us that he "won't be intimidated" is wearing mighty thin.

Drip..drip..drip.

I just don't believe in coincidence. They made an unbelievable declaration last week that they would not ask the UN to come in and join in the peacemaking and reconstruction efforts, but everyone knows they need to do it to mute the image of a US quagmire. By staging this bombing, they bring the UN in without having to go begging. All Bush cares about is his image as numero uno tough guy. That's it.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I think that what the American people (and the rest of the world) is going to see on TV is an uncontrollable situation that is doing absolutely nothing to contol "world terrorism" as it was advertised to do. This combined with the widening conflict in Afghanistan, the sheer cost of the occupation in $$ and lives, and the people are going to start asking the inevitable question. "What for?" The alleged purpose of the whole mess was that it would protect us from WMD, and stop terrorism. No WMD. And, terrorism rampant in a country that we supposedly defeated, and is jampacked with troops. And, no end in sight.

It's all kind of reminiscent of Westmoreland's statements about "the light at the end of the tunnel" and that the Tet Offensive was "really an American victory".

I don't think that the UN, or anyone else, is going to be too eager to dive in that swamp full of alligators.

hear that today.....this is too depressing to me to even think straight. Losing deMello...who had alot of influence is so bad for any hopes of getting the UN in there that I couldn't even think about their being any postive fallout from this.

said would happen?

I know many people here at DU and from all over the world tried to tell W that this is exactly what would happen. Of course, at that time, W classified us has a focus group and our opinions didn't merit being discussed.

The freepers called us every name in the book, yet almost every worse case senario that we predicted is is happening right now. We tried to tell people about W's lies, but most would not believe us.

It's past the time for the world to wake up and say enough is enough. The US and the Brits should be removed from Iraq as soon as possible and replaced with UN or NATO peacekeepers. Get rid of the trigger happy hot shots and bring in people who can get the situation under control again.

At the same time W & Co. should be removed from office and sent into exile to an island or a 3rd world country of their choice. Then the rest of us have a big mess that we need to clean up.

But maybe you haven't noticed that people have come to not only accept repeated failures from the administration, but have actually come to praise them.

Yes, its a setback that shows that maybe this was a bad idea. In the real world, this would be damaging for PR (which is all BushCo really gives two shits about, aside from money). However, ever since December 2000 we have been living in a warped bizarro world. Failure is success, war is peace, slavery is freedom.

The main thing this shows the American people is that the process in Iraq won't be easy and will take some time. It also reminds us that there are people out there that hate us, and want to kill us. This therefore justifies more wars as well as accounts for needing to stay in Iraq much longer than promised.

This is how the administration has its cake and eats it too.

When liberals say that action in Iraq will be long and difficult, we are called unpatriotic and then mocked when troops reach Baghdad in a matter of weeks.
Now that we were proven right, however, the latest song and dance is "we never said it would be easy or quick."

This is how the UN attack benifits Bush. It justifies the delay in setting up anything resembling peace and a government, and provides an excuse to cover his incompetent, apathetic ass.

Back when we were disrupting classes during that previous quagmire, a sympathetic professor told us, "The war in Vietnam will end when the American people realize that those body bags have their kids in them, and when they understand that their money is paying for it."

Abstract notions of "we never said it would be easy or quick", don't sit well with the average American. Questions start to be asked, "How difficult? How long?" Patriotic platitudes no longer suffice as the daily horror show continues to play on the TV screens. Reporters start investigating, even politicians start growing backbone and begin demanding answers. Investigations are launched in congress about the WMD, the monetary cost, people are questioned. The public begins to have thoughts like, "Something's wrong here."

What BushCorp wants is pictures of grateful Iraqis tossing flowers at the noble liberators and naming their kids George. Ain't gonna happen. And, the drip, drip, drip, of casualties, costs, explosions, "unfortunate incidents", and "collateral damage", will continue until the American people demand an end to it all.

Not saying I couldn't be wrong, but I believe that this misbegotten, cynical, attempt to make the idiotchild into a hero is already starting to backfire. Just waving the flag, looking somber about American casualties, and trying to sound like a gunslinger, doesn't answer questions about "How long?", "How much?", and worst of all, "What for?"

very stupid of terrorists to attack other guys and force them to choose sides.

Of course terrorists probably aren't known for reasoning skills.

Who benifits from this? The TERRORISTS.

You know, the same people who benifitted from 9/11.....

Administration, Carlyle Group, PNAC, whatever you want.

It works the same way.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030819/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_congress&cid=512&ncid=1480

Just FYI...

But the delegation's plane was delayed in Jordan. Can't have US Senators getting blown up now, can we? How considerate of those terrorists.


Congress Delegation in Iraq During Blast

One member of the delegation, Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., had been scheduled to meet with Sergio Vieira de Mello, the chief U.N. official in Iraq (news - web sites), who was killed in the attack. Cantwell said the meeting was originally planned to take place at coalition headquarters but was put off after the delegation's plane was delayed in Jordan. In its place, she had tentatively set up a telephone call with the envoy for 6 p.m., Cantwell said.

As a Washington resident, who supported Cantwell during her campaign, I was enfuriated at her vote to support the invasion. Maybe, now, she'll come to her senses.