U.S. to NGOs: Iraq Reconstruction? We'll do it ourselves.

Wall St. Journal via Early Bird clipping service ^ | March 18, 2003 | Joe Katzman

[dead]

India may be asked to replace France on the Security Council.

Nobody has the authority to kick off a permanent member of the security council. That’s why they’re called “permanent.”

We have the power to remove one nation from that club – our own. And we should, but won’t, do that.

[brooklin]

Be carefull. We can still veto many bad ideas by other member states. From the looks of the crowd on the security council, there are alot of bad ideas there.

[Centurion2000]

SWEET :)

[ffusco]

Is that possible? They are a permanent member. Is it more plausaible that India will join the current members?

[Cassanova Frankenstein]

Bravo. Get the U.S. out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

[Grampa Dave]

More good news for us and more terminal news for the DOA UN.

"The Bush plan, as detailed in more than 100 pages of confidential contract documents, would sideline United Nations development agencies and other multilateral organizations that have long directed reconstruction efforts in places such as Afghanistan and Kosovo. The plan also would leave big non-governmental organizations largely in the lurch: With more than $1.5 billion in Iraq work being offered to private U.S. companies under the plan, just $50 million is so far earmarked for a small number of groups such as CARE and Save the Children."

[Grampa Dave]

Bush doesn't back off. The NY Slimes etc and the pseudo conservative professional hate GW crowd says he will back off. He has systematically been destroying the UN since he took office. This past few months has just about done the job. He just does it like refusing to sign the Kyoto sham, refusing the war crimes issue, and now this.

[ez]

OK, I give!! You've convinced me we should keep our veto power and leave the UN in a position to never be able to reach accord.

What was I thinking, actually trying to make it run better?

[dead]

Calm down Gramps. Your blood pressure!

Bush doesn't always back down, but sometimes he does when he thinks it will not cause too much of a backlash from his base.

For reference, consult his dealing with Ted Kennedy on the education bill and his recent backing off on the gag rule regarding abortions and internation funding for AIDS relief.

I hope he doesn't back off here, as the isolation of the UN-affilliated NGOs would be a beautiful thing. But he's going to have to weather a storm of "his lust for revenge against the international community of nations is killing children" rhetoric.

[Timeout]

I was delighted when I read this, especially the part about leaving out the NGO's and UN agencies. They would hurt our cause, not help it.

I read an article last week about a Kosovo family occupying a home that was now being claimed by a returning refugee. This family was evicted. The job of providing shelter and food for such "homeless" was assigned to the UN. But, five years after the end of the war, the UN has still not provided adequate shelter.

They'll be licking their wounds when they see how fast and efficient our guys are.

[SuziQ]

The money should go to Iraqi direct hires, rather than to expatriate NGO workers.

That would be the jumpstart for the Iraqi economy. Use their oil money, and have it go to Iraqi workers!!

[hope]

Thanks for the pingo!

[brooklin]

The UN is not going to run any better. Consider any comunity groups in which you were involved. The more members, the fewer decisions, and the longer the decision making process.

[The Wizard]

and you can tell the EU and the french and the UN to shove it

[P.O.E.]

The Little Red Hen