Okay, someone explain to me why anyone else should help the U.S.

[catpower2000]

I'm not as politically savvy as 3/4 of the people on this site. I watch the news and I read LBN and the newspaper and I try to sort things out based on all available information.

But this really has me puzzled. As near as I can tell, this was the sequence of events:

1. Chimpy decides to declare war because he likes oil and a variety of other insane reasons.

2. The rest of the world thinks that's complete bullshit.

3. The UN and many of our major political allies beg us not to unilaterally invade Iraq.

4. We tell them to fuck off and do it anyway.

5. We destroy huge swaths of Iraq beyond all recognition.

6. We spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and Americans start to get pissy.

7. Chimpy arrogantly goes to the U.N. and demands help cleaning up our mess.

Can anyone explain why every country in the rest of the world SHOULDN'T tell us to go screw ourselves?

Cat

[qb]

1. Many of the smaller countries may need Dubya's bribes

more than they need integrity.

[DealsGapRider]

2. Hopefully...

...the nations of the world will accept the fact that they have a profound moral obligation to help the people of Iraq emerge from the social and political dysfunction that they've lived through for 30 years. It has fuck all to do with helping the US. They should pitch in to help the Iraqi people.

This is especially true of the many, many countries (including the US) that sold arms to Saddam Hussein or otherwise helped prop up his regime over the decades. Ahem, France, Germany. I should think that they would recognize their moral responsibility in helping the people that they indirectly helped repress and murder.

[catpower2000]

3. Yeah, but...

it's the principle of the thing.

Kofi Annon agrees with you, apparently. He said today that he thinks the UN should help, but that it should in no way imply that the UN is encouraging "unilateral and lawless invasion of countries."

Cat

[DealsGapRider]

8. Indeed.

One can express a willingness to help the people of Iraq while still communicating profound displeasure over the way we got where we are.

But either way you cut it, I think it's clear that the Iraqis need the help of the international community, and it would be petty to allow them to suffer simply to spite the US.

[arcane1]

4. problem is, the UN jumping into this but remaining under U.S. control...

will not do a damned thing for the Iraqi people

might work wonders for Halliburton, Chevron, Bechtel, Unocal... but the Iraqi's are NOT the U.S.'s priority in Iraq, and the whole world knows it

Bush "thumbed his nose" at the UN and deseves a middle finger in response

[rucky]

5. Because the Iraqi People are suffering

it's okay if those who are asked to help attach a few strings to the deal, but * is now basically capitalizing on the basic sense of decency that OTHER nations possess to bail us out of the quagmire.

What many see as "caving in," is actually doing the right thing - given the circumstances. This is not the time to be distracted by power struggles. But I do hope the U.S. would be willing to give up control in exchange for aid - or at least admit that things are going badly in Iraq. One thing that does give the other countries some leverage is the fact that Bush&co will not admit shit, so *'s ability to manipulate by making a strong emotional appeal for a huminatarian effort is limited.

We'll get our aid, but if * thinks that means he's restored diplomatic relations, he's seriously delusional.

[LynneSin]

6. Because in 2005 we'll have a new leader in the White House

and hopefully like Clinton, the rest of the world will want to work with this new leader and once again we'll have back the respect like we had for 8 years when Clinton was President!

[catpower2000]

9. Now THAT I can get behind!

Bravo, Lynne! Way to think positive! :)

Cat

[stevedeshazer]

7. Word:

CA$H