............................................

This little girl has no mother, no sisters and no brothers. She survived the US death machine, thousands of children in Iraq did not. Please ask David to pressure our government to bring British serviceman home from Iraq.

I will ask DC to pressure the government about this. Shouldn't this post be in 'Politics'? Maybe not...

Amazing resilience - an orphan in such a terrible situation has learned to write in English.

Why surprise, astrocat, when they're probably taught it in school.

Severe trauma is not usually condusive to elevated communication skills. Children are more likely to retreat into silence rather than take on the study of foreign languages.

What I don't like about pictures like this is that it leaves the viewer with the impression that the child may have been used or manipulated to promote a particular viewpoint, in this case - allying it to bringing troops home from Iraq. Sadaam Hussein did the same thing with a child when he was trying to promote his viewpoint.

I find using children in a manipulatory manner distateful.

By all means bring facts to peoples attention, bring pictures - but make them honest. This child may have learned English in school and she may want UK trooops out of her country, but that is not what her placard says.

Let the child tell her story in her own way without grown ups putting their spin on it and I will give it the respect it deserves.

So you would rather see pictures of dead children then Astocat, sadly they have nothing to say.

It seems you have contradicted yourself when you say , then

I find politicians using children distasteful to further their aims - but this is no election, this is REAL slaughter.

Children have been massacred in Iraq, hundreds with limbs blown off and many burnt with phosphorus bombs, causing wounds and lesions that fail to heal. This is not the evil Saddam doing a stunt, this is a holocaust. If they were your children would you do anything to save them, of course you would! so why are you saying the curse of spin shrouds the image. There souls cannot be saved, they are innocent and lost forever. This is not manipulation Astrocat, this is despair.

Oh and while I'm on one Astrocat - some say to me 'well this is what happens in war'. But British people did not want this war, 2 million marched against it because they believed it was illegal and millions more wrote letters. Don't you see it Astrocat - that is why we British are special, and that is why our people hate fighting in Iraq. I was a military man Astrocat, I signed to give my life for this country like others, I speak with a least some authority.

coai, I have no intention of getting into the rights and wrongs of the 2nd Iraq war but I do not agree with your version of the facts.

First, 2 million people did not march in Feb 2003 because they believed the upcoming war was illegal. Indeed, the figures vary beween 750,000 up to 2m, according to your preferred source.

There were many reasons why people went on the march, not solely, or emphatically, because they might have believed the impending war was illegal. Here, we will have to agree to disagree, because neither of us interviwed all of the marchers.

Second, the Gallup Poll in 2003 did not reveal that the majority of people in the UK were anti the war, to begin with. I'm sure that if I dig further, other polls will show a similar trend.

Third, the Iraq's themselves have mixed views about the situation from pre-war to date.

Whilst it is true that children in the world are being mutilated because of western foreign policy, it is also true that children (and adults) are being mutilated because of eastern foreign policy.

I share astrocat's distaste for promotion by children for any cause.

You tell me Tizzy what is being promoted here?

While I am talking about the number of children mutilated/maimed/killed in the main thrust of my post, you prefer to speak of numbers of British people marching in London and their motives?

Here I show you one of many pictures by UNICEF where Iraqi women face many challenges to fulfil their potential and that of their children in uncertain times. This is not promotion as if it is some sort of television ad or cosmetics spread in a woman's magazine, this is the cries of mothers who have lost their children, who have buried their children and who themselves have been killed or murdered protecting their children.
You have upset me so much Tizzy I am not going to debate with you whether people thought this Iraqi massacre was legal or illegal, but do this show me the mutilation of children from eastern foreign policy in recent years.

It was not my intention to upset you, coia, sincerely. I have neither the intention of parading images in some sort of point scoring (non)debate.

However, it was you who brought up the number of marchers, to which I have responded.

You are passionate about this issue, of that I have no quarrel with you and, rightly as I mentioned at the top, the legality is not the point here.

To counter a criticism of children being used to further a political agenda with an assumption on your part that I would prefer to look at dead children is immature.

There is no contradiction between the two statements of 'allying it to bringing troops home from Iraq' and 'she may want UK troops out of her country, but that is not what her placard says'. The first was a reference to your statement which was definitive and the second was a reference to what she may or might want which was subjective and impossible for us to know.

I don't think it makes any difference whether it is a politician, a prince or a pauper who uses children to further their aims - the principal is wrong. If you have a political point and want to support that - fine, but don't use children to argue your case for you because it leaves you open to accusation.

Yes there is slaughter in Iraq but you are so blinded by your opposition to the war that you have lost your objectivity. We don't know from the photo's whether those children have been killed by UK forces, insurgent forces or a road traffic accident, you're just lumping it all together and while I can appreciate your horror and a passionate desire to stop it, where were you when thousands of children were being slaughtered by Sadaam's regime? Where were your pictures then? Did you care that Sadaam's men were abducting, raping, mutilating and killing women and children for 20 or 30 years because if you did, I didn't notice these people going on marches through London objecting.

You can be against the war, you can object to the way it was presented to Parliament but you don't have the moral high ground to make a case for bringing the troops home because children are dieing in Iraq.

That's where you and I differ coia, you asked me would I do anything if it was my children - the answer is yes and that is why I supported going into Iraq to put an end to the genocide that was already taking place.

Now if you really really care about the children then stop the political point scoring and take a good long hard look all around the world because from the children who are being murdered in Korea because they are physically deformed to the children in China murdered by their fathers just for being a girl, to the child soldiers drafted in to fight vicious wars between warlords, children are dying in their hundreds of thousands every year. Iraq doesn't have the monopoly on horror.

If I had my way, we would sending in troops to get rid of Mugabe and other tin pot dictators who subject their people to unimaginable horrors but because of all the opposition to UK forces or UN forces being used to end these regimes, the slaughter of innocents will continue and these murderous, corrupt dictators will be allowed to flourish.

And while the UK moans and whines about the legalities of war, the corrupt get richer, the poor get poorer and the terrorist gets stronger. This is the legacy that those who marched and objected to war have reaped because never again will the UK be in a position to fight for the oppressed. And it was that willingness to take on difficult problems and murderous regimes that was what made the UK special.

The girl and the slogan 'I am Iraq' seem totally valid to me. It's ambiguous enough to let the viewer bring some of his/her own interpretation to it. What's the fuss?

The girl and the slogan are ambiguous - its the attachment of a political message that is not.

It is manipulatory and one-sided. It could have equally been written ' she survived the terrorist bombs, thousands of children in Iraq did not'.

Therefore he is using this childs image to support his political viewpoint (anti-American) and hence it can be viewed as propaganda.

He then compounds it by asking the leader of the Opposition to coerce the Government into taking action in support of propaganda.

It's unbelievably naive.

I have to say that I think you are being a bit harsh on Coia. He means well. I understand your concerns and it is important to express your views. But the thing is - you all care about the well being of the children of Iraq. You all want the children to be safe and healthy. Coia's cause is a noble one - it is just his method that you disagree with.

Is the message political, aristocat? It looks more like a humanitarian message to me. Even if it were political, so what? Most issues in life are political to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't think I'm being hard on Coia. Having good intentions is fine and if he had put forward a article with the intent of highlighting the problems the children of Iraq face, I would probably have supported him, but he didn't, he used an emotive argument to argue the case for bringing troops back to the UK.

It's spin ... twisting one issue to influence another. Haven't we had enough of that?

Is it humanitarian message? - no

A humanitarian message would have discussed the causes not the outcomes. Bringing the troops home won't stop the children from dying, it won't stop the bombs, it wont stop the revenge killings and children will still be orphaned.

The humanitarian message was bombed out of existence when the insurgents murdered Sergio de Mello and the Red Cross walked away. That wasn't soldiers fighting soldiers in pursuance of a political belief, that was insurgent thugs sending a message that humanitarian effort has as little relevance in their life as the children they bomb every day in the market place and mosque.

If Coia wants to promote the plight of children in Iraq then lets see him discuss how we can assist the children of Iraq to send a clear message that their future isn't going to be dictated to by the bomb and the bullet but by the ballot box.

Yorker - if what you meant was could the picture of the little girl be humanitarian - then yes, I think it would be an excellent picture to promote a humanitarian campaign ..... but not a political message.

Astrocat - I am neither, immature or naive (I will explain why as we move deeper into this 'discussion'), for which incidentely I have to thank-you for allowing me to expand further on the origin post. I hope to do this with fairness and factuality which to me is a significant principle of my posts. In other words I have not lost the objectivity you accuse me of. I am neither anti-war or anti-American and if you took the time to get to know the essence of my writings here, I hope you gain an insight into my honest sincerity. No, it is NOT political point scoring, why should it be? I have nothing to gain have I? I have taken a a hard intimate look around the world at the murder of children, as part of my work for Children of Iraq Association. How can I relate to my peers without this knowledge. How can I issue guidelines on severe trauma to Iraqi mothers?

I wanted just to highlight this statement because it tells me much about your character.

Your last paragraph I am struggling to understand this statement and maybe others accused of moans and whines might like to comment.

Iraq does not obviously have a monopoly on horror, but bringing Korea, China and Africa will only dilute the facts, which are that we are killing children in Iraq on a lie. This to me and others is very important. The reason we 'invaded' Iraq is because Saddam was in breach of UN resolutions on WMD. We truncated Dr Blix's inspection process and divided the security council in order to get to war by a preordained date. Dr Blix (who succeeded in dismantling 60-plus ballistic missiles) would have completed his mission and a concentrated effort made to help the people of Iraq end the dictatorship of Saddam - just as we did with Milosevic in Serbia.

If Dr Blix had failed then the resolution would have gone back to the security council for UN authorisation of military action on a mandate that would have been successful post-war, instead of the chaos and suffering we see now.

You said 'never again will the UK be in a position to fight for the oppressed and you are right; our creditability evaporated not helped by the abuse of our prisoners. Our words are corrupt and words are mightier than the sword. We have allowed evil to overcome us and made our enemies stronger. What I am doing now is fire-fighting a situation by using horror in the hope that I can release the minds of those that hold your beliefs. We should apologise to Iraq, bring our people home in safety and allow the UN to re-build Iraq. In that way we are guarding humanitarian interventionist foreign policy for our children which is neither naive or immature.

I thought we were discussing the picture of the little girl, as opposed to the accompanying comments from coiaorguk which could be interchangeable with anyone else's remarks. The picture (for me) is a humantarian plea.

TIhe picture is, I think, a humanitarian plea. I agree with you,

I didn't call you naive, I said your proposal was naive but yes I thought the response you gave in reply to my concern that the image was being manipulated for political purposes was immature. You didn't address the issue (and still haven't)but chose instead to sidetrack it with an even more emotive response.

For someone who claims to have no anti-US sentiment why illustrate your point by calling the US a death machine? Have you posted as many articles criticising the terrorists who bomb and murder with similar name calling? What is coming across in not unfairness but bias and this is why I said you had lost your objectivity.

Yes the quote will tell you a lot about my character. I am cynical of those sort of depictions, I don't know whether that child even wrote that slogan herself or whether the plackard was handed to her and she was told to pose and that's why I don't like children being used to promote a political message such as the one you posted. In this country, kids have to have permission before a school can use their image on the internet. She is an orphan - whose permission to use that image in that context did you seek?

Please provide me with the information that points to UK soldiers killing children. Not US soldiers - UK soldiers. I want to know how many, why, when and where.

It's 5 years since the war first started and I'm sick of hearing about the legalities of war. The legalities of war were met under UN regulations.

Permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions was met in Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorized "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

The first objective was met but the second was never achieved. U.S. and allied air forces were in constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Resolution 678 was not rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions. Its authorization of the use of force against and in Iraq remained in effect. Further, Iraq's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate was a violation of its 1991 cease-fire agreement--a clear indication that peace has never been achieved.
Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Saddam Hussein was the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, supported terrorism, and posed a clear and ongoing threat to the region. He showed no remorse about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran.

No lie.

The picture certainly seems a humanitarian one.

The decision that we would have to make, though, is soul-shattering. Either we can pull the troops out, and leave this girl and others to fend for themselves as the various insurgent factions fight each other to fill the vacuum. Many people will continue to die.

Or we can stay put, knowing that we're antagonising the situation - and no doubt, many people will continue to die.

It's been one big, terrible, bloody mess. I think a lot of it has been the fault of the US allied commanders, who have been using completely flawed rules of engagement when dealing with insurgency.

But I'm also very bitter about the shoddy work done re-building Iraq after the war, which gave opportunity for this insurgency to develop. With the equipment, capital and expertise out there, the entire country should have had functioning water, electricity and infrastruture long before now.

Instead, too much attention has been focused on getting the oil fields running - with the hope this could actuate the sort of investment to pay for the aforementioned utilities. It is the most flawed operation I've ever come across. Western governments know what credit-money is - why couldn't an amicable deal have been struck? [rhetorical]

Sorry, possibly my first rant about Iraq!

With respect, Darfur. If China divested, the regime would crumble tomorrow, and there would be a chance to the the UN in and progress made.

Thanks Paine & Hi, muslim victims, my mind was stuck in Iraq.

Paine: I'm your number one fan now. You are a future Prime Minister.

"U.S. and allied air forces were in constant conflict with Iraqi forces since Iraq's aggression against Kuwait." All I know is that we put the sanctions squeeze on Iraq for 12 years which indiscriminately harmed women and children (just like the cruel squeeze on the Palestinians) and drastically weakened the economy, and we constantly overflew Iraqi territory to surveil it. What actual conflicts were there?

What has been achieved in five years? Clean water and electricity which we take for granted available in the Green zone, while elsewhere the infrastructure is still broken and deaths from treatable diseases and malnutrition occur daily; take a look at the infant mortality rate for Iraq from UNICEF or the Lancet.

The death machine is the neo-conservative (pax Americana) mentality that planned the Iraq war and is now thank God defunct. I have drawn a line under UN resolutions, except to mention a mate, Kate Gunn, the whistle-blower who blew the UN spying conspiracy (so much for resolutions). The Katherine Gunn case was however extremely important because it established in law the defence of necessity, a defence which allows people to release confidential information if they believe that it will prevent loss of life. And that effectively is a defence against the official secrets act.

Fast forwarding to recent events, Saddam has been strung up; I hope you agree it would not be productive to deconstruct your last paragraph. If I may like you I would like to end with Iran.

The Iraq Study Group maintained that Iran is crucial to settling the predictable Sunni/Shia tension and violent cycle in Iraq; known as the insurgency it has been exploited by Al -Qaeda to further sectarian violence. As we know it also recommended a reduced US commitment but Bush did the opposite and escalation was necessary to prolong the instability (a fact the Iraqis twigged on what was happening before anyone. Sold as a temporary surge it is now evident the extra 30,000 troops in June together with some British SAS/SBS are there to stay.

In April, the Pentagon announced that it was increasing Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Without anybody paying much attention, American officials stopped talking about training Iraqi army troops as a main priority. This was an important shift in emphasis. Training and equipping Iraqi troops to replace American soldiers—so they could be withdrawn from Iraq—had been the cornerstone of U.S. military planning since 2005. Now, the policy was being quietly downgraded, though not abandoned altogether.

If we start to look at security in Iraq we find that Britain does not really want to relinquish control to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government should get its information from the Iraqi National Intelligence Service (INIS) that was established in 2004 by the US-run Coalition Provisional Authority. But a peculiarity of the INIS is that its budget is not provided by the Iraqi Finance Ministry, but by the CIA. The CIA only tells the Iraqi government only what it wants it to know. About £6 billion has been paid to the INIS to 2007.
Despite knowing this Iran is ready to help the US strengthen security despite the abortive mission to capture two senior Iranian security officials, Mohammed Jafari, the deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the head of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. What made the American raid so extraordinary is that both men were in Iraq at the official invitation of the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who held talks with them at his lakeside headquarters at Dokan in eastern Kurdistan.

Five long years Astrocat, the war in Iraq that started in 2003 has now lasted longer than the First World War. Militarily, the conflicts could not be more different. The scale of the fighting in Iraq is far below anything seen in 1914-18, but the political significance of the Iraq war has been enormous. Britain and America blithely invaded Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein to show its great political and military strength and that 'special' British quality you and I (and Blair) speak of. But your 'special' quality has demonstrated its weakness. Tony Blair who confidently went 'shoulder to shoulder with Bush at the start of the war, convinced that they were betting on a winner, are either discredited or out of power. My British 'special' quality and one umbrella'ed by many astute British public foresaw this happening years ago.

Edited for readability (kind of a long post)

Sorry for the delay, I've been out for the evening.

Incursions of the no-fly zone by Iraqi air forces happened regularly following the end of the Gulf war, the following is dated up till April 2000.

Quote:
According to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), since 'Desert Fox' Iraqi
aircraft have violated both 'no-fly' zones more than 225 times. Iraqi
surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), associated
tracking radars and other weapons have directly threatened coalition
aircraft over 640 times in the same period.

Coia
You won't get any argument from me that the USA is very bad at winning wars and I would agree that progress towards building an acceptable infrastructure has been deplorable by anybody's standards.

What has been achieved in 5 years - nothing, except the end of dictator and the beginning of a democratic system. So what might the next 5 years hold? Well for starters the USA is beginning to realise that it has to talk to Iran which will be a breakthrough and perhaps they will get around to discussing the Algiers accord and the navigation rights of the Shatt Al Arab waterway which was what started all the problems 30 years ago. But that is for the future and until it is resolved, Iraq is caught in the crossfire.

Meanwhile, you continue to divert the subject of this thread and have failed to answer a single question I have raised, nor have you addressed the appropriateness of using a childs image to further a political viewpoint. Is this really the impression that someone who represents an organisation such as yours wants to reflect?

No Astrocat, but it's pointless raising the temperature honey, we have agreed on some essential points which, believe me, I am truly happy.

I cannot discuss a child's image (more than I already have) here except to say I took up this point with Tali and many others at school students against war http://files.pcadvance.co.uk/ssaw/news.php back in 2005/6 and it was debated for some time. It was(controversial)and for some emotive and upsetting. It was passed for publishing originally on a 60/40 majority by students and others who ruled we must show the Iraq war as it really is, not a sanitised version. Where we have been able, permission was granted by parents/uncles/aunties/friends/doctors and morticians to use pictures of children. I am indebted to DoctorsforIraq.org for their help and guidance in this matter.

Astrocat, you mention incursions into the no-fly zone by Iraqi aircraft and threats to coalition aircraft... does any of this amount to actual conflict?

The Defence Select committee 13th report

Clause 33, citation 83

Coalition aircraft are also attacked by Iraqi fighter aircraft. In the southern no-fly zone, between December 1998 and May 2000 coalition aircraft were directly threatened by Iraqi air defence forces on over 320 occasions and aircraft responded in self defence on 74 occasions.

I would assume the words - directly threatened ...responded in self defence .... would indicate actual conflict.

Coia I'm not trying to raise the temperature, I just don't understand how you can make statements without justifying them. You say the image was passed for publication by a majority of students after having attained the appropriate permissions in order that you could present the war as it is, not a santised version.

So how does presenting that image with a caption about bringing home the troops represent the war as it is? It doesn't because the troops will only come home when they are ordered to and what you have presented is your personal opinion. Neither of which relate to that picture which was why I expressed distaste at using images of children to promote a personal political viewpoint.

I want to know why you believe its appropriate to use the image and yet cannot discuss it.

There was no UN resolution specifically authorising the no-fly zones over Iraq and international acceptance of the imposition was by no means universal. Saddam, with some justification, complained the zones were infringements of Iraqi sovereignty. He constantly challenged them and 'played games' by provoking and locking onto US and UK military aircraft overflying Iraqi territory. On a few occasions it resulted in US missile and other attacks on ground defences. It all seemed rather one-sided. Have you any reports of actual Iraqi attacks?

In June 2005 The Guardian reported that "FO documents dated March 2002 note that the "no-fly zones" were not established by any UN security council resolution" after critical reports of a sharp increase in US-British bombing raids to degrade Iraqi defences in the months running up to the infamous invasion.

You're quite right there was no specific UN mandate for the implementation of no-fly zones. My understanding was that it came under a general mandate of supplying humanitarian assitance and protecting peace and security (as outlined in Article 1 of the UN charter and article 2 of Resolution 660) in the region following Sadaams gassing of the Kurds following the end of the Gulf war. However I think in the terms of the ceasefire agreed to by Sadaam, he did agree to coalition forces enforcing areas of control to the north and south of the country using warplanes.

That he later objected was hardly surprised, Sadaam never accepted any boundaries or limitations which was why he constantly invaded the surrounding countries.

I personally don't have any reports of actual Iraqi attacks but I would think the RAF would and from their submissions were drawn the conclusions the Defence Select Committee reached in the article I posted earlier.

I suspect that for most of the time the RAF observed the legal caveat that they could only attack in self-defence, so weren't involved in any shooting conflict, while the US as usual had less regard for such niceties.

The report refers to coalition forces, it doesn't specify which nationality(s) acted in self-defence.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm

The no-fly coalition was US+UK+France but I don't think France had any aircraft there. The UK had 22 while the US had over 200. A BBC report mentioned several US attacks but no British attacks.

ok cheers, thanks yorker

maybe now we've got that out of the way
.
.
.
we can invest more energy into conflict resolution in the region rather than constantly re-hashing the reasons for conflict escalation

Good luck. Lots of energy and money but little commonsense are being expended by the powers-that-be. Escalation is still the order of the day, alas.

P.S. ....probably because they never bothered to understand the reasons for escalation in the first place.

Astrocat I am trying to cool the temperature! We agreed the image conveys a cry for help. I will justify the marriage of the caption to the picture of a little girl, lucky to be alive and in a wider sense telling us the next generation in Iraq is under threat, that's right, near extinction, I can't put it in stronger teams!

I am not making a political statement and I am not anti-war. I am a veteran.

Five years and nothing except malnutrition and children dying of treatable diseases because they are scavenging for food and drinking contaminated water. They are doing this while the USA is not listening to a shred of advice from our officials to improve the situation in Iraq. The USA is more concerned with the re-construction of oil installations and their security.
I do not want our young British servicemen and women to be associated with death in Iraq anymore, neither do I want the British public to be associated and threatened by our military presence in Iraq anymore.

The 'Coalition of the Willing' has had five years Astrocat for a war that lasted a few weeks!!

I will use pictures, captions, multi-media, conferences, soap-boxes, blood, sweat and even my butt to get us out and get a proper multi-national reconstruction/security force in to stop children dying in the numbers that they. (Lancet, UNICEF)

I'm not trying to score points because that's not my nature and this might be premature but I would like to take my hat off to Paine, Yorker and canvas for supporting me in this issue which has been my life for the past 3yrs.

I pray that my dreams of peace in Iraq come true.

Don't forget the 12 years of deprivation before, thanks to US/UK sanctions and no-fly zones. Your point of view with the photo was a fairly generalised one, not strictly personal as suggested, so I think you're justified in using it for a worthy cause, especially political. The trouble is we don't have nearly enough really good images of the reality of the Iraq war. At least in Vietnam there were several superb photographers like Don McCullin, Larry Burrows and Philip Jones Griffiths whose images turned public opinion.

Reconstruction of Iraq

There are multiple problems facing the reconstruction of Iraq, these fall into distinct groups with the most urgent being;
1. Electricity
2. Water
3. Food
4. Security

America has largely speaking put itself in charge of everything and as you note, they don’t seem inclined to listen to the advice of their coalition partners much less anybody else. This was their first mistake and until it is rectified they will continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. I would think that despite the reservations many Americans have about the situation, as a people they would not want to go through the collective soul searching in the way they did after Vietnam if Iraq is deemed yet another military failure and for that reason I think they should reconsider their approach.

America has to deal with security, they are the only country with the manpower but I think they have to relinquish the administration of funding and disbursement, the allocation of contracts and any designs they may have on oil. The oil belongs to the people of Iraq. America has constantly been tainted by allegations of corruption, so too has the world bank and in the case of Iraq, so has the United Nations. It is therefore totally unacceptable to place funding in the hands of people who are ill-regarded by the rest of the world in the administration of money compounded by poor management and corruption.

The best way to deal with this is by allocating contracts to local firms and agencies,
a) to inject money into their economy to elevate employment levels,
b) give the people a stake in the rebuilding of their country and
c) to encourage the ethic that through work they are able to achieve their potential

This allocation of funding through the elected Iraqi government agencies would bring relevance to the lives of a people who have not yet seen the benefits of democracy and restore pride to a shattered nation.

Now I can’t imagine that the USA would want to relinquish their grip on the purse strings but there are distinct advantages to it.
1. Allegations against them would disappear and in their place would be confirmation that America has a humanitarian disposition, this in turn would de-escalate problems elsewhere and return a sense of nobility to the psyche of the American people.
2. Should the agencies who administer the monies (Iraqi) fall foul of corruption, it would be for the Iraqi people to democratically hold their agencies and government to account, another vital lesson in democracy.
3. It would remove one of the major recruiting tools of the insurgents.


Time and again we have seen the systems of delivery fail. So that would seem to me to be the first hurdle. If we take that as a starting place, I don’t think it can be done from an office half a world away. The UN headquarters is in America and what I think should be considered is that if the UN is intent on delivering security, peace and humanitarian assistance, it shouldn’t be doing it from the most prosperous and safe country in the world. Just as the EU administers affairs for Europe from Brussels, there should be a dedicated facility for delivery in the Middle East. Iraq should be a template for democracy and if democracy is to succeed in the Middle East, it cannot be administered from Washington, the UN has to establish a secondary headquarters in Iraq, the cradle of civilisation.

If the philosophy of building a more integrated world is to succeed and we are to de-fuse the antipathy to the West and while the ideology persists in the minds of people of the region that America is calling all the shots, there will never be a bridgehead made into the ideology that supports terrorism. Remove that and institute a World Council in the heart of the Middle East and it will take hearts and minds with it.

While it might seem a crazy idea to take UN administrative business into the middle of a war zone, soldiers do it, the media does it - why shouldn’t the decision makers live with it too?


All the agencies such as the UN and the World Bank have to prove that they can get this right before not just the Middle East but the rest of the world begins to wonder what the point of their continued existence is if they cannot deliver the basics of life.

And if photo's of Iraq are going to change public opinion then why go down the route of horror as they did in Vietnam when we could be going down the route of hope and encouraging the world to feel that it can make a difference. Negativity breeds negativity and while horror photos elicit a response which causes people to pull back as in the case of Vietnam, it should be that we collectively move forward in partnership with the people of the region.

You post seems to be divided into two parts, with part 1 essentially agreeing with my criticism of the American administration.

You made a fundamental mistake in the early stages of discussions by calling me anti-war and more importantly anti-American. If you had taken the time to know me, you would have realised I offer my hands and my heart to the American people who have, for many years had to live with a corrupt (World bank, Yellow-cake, leaked document describing the bombing of a radio station in Qatar, a terrorist act by the PNAC machine); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo.

We will never build an integrated world until the architects of terror are brought before the World Court of Justice.

Why do you think many on the original and best Web Cameron site (the original stood out amongst the crowd) was swamped with 9/11 discussions? British people do not trust the American leaders who were elected amidst the controversy of fraud. Blair and his intelligence team should have been more cautious and more thorough and not willing to conceal the truth. These are events that no mortal can foresee. These are tests of God and we have failed.

To think that we can change things by hope and prayer is naive. We have to feel remorse, get on our knees and cry for what we have done. Then we can ask for forgiveness. Until we do these things I have said, nothing will move forward in partnership and many more innocent souls will be lost.

You kneel if you want to - I prefer to face the world on my feet

coia

I'm not prepared to go over the arguments of the last 5 years. You can spend the next 5 years looking back if you want to, but my interest is in looking forward.

We obviously disagree in the direction that should take - you want to remove troops and think this will bring peace both to the UK and Iraq. I don't.

Even if they left, they are still under mandate in Afghanistan so the focus of Islamic discontent will remain. Consequently we have to look for new solutions, if you want to do that then I'm happy to talk to you. If you have nothing more constructive to add to my comments regarding the reconstruction of Iraq than the suggestion that we fall to our knees then there is little point continuing this conversation.

adieu