October 19, 2004

LABOR: UN SUCKHOLES

Australia doesnít respond to just any request for troops in Iraq:

The Foreign Ministry has confirmed Australia has rejected suggestions it send more troops to Iraq to help protect the United Nations mission there.

The Government says it has been informally approached to help with security for the UN assistance mission in Iraq.

But a spokesman for Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says the Australian Government has already made a substantial commitment to Iraq and it will not be sending more troops.

Hilariously, Laborís Kevin Rudd -- his party wanted all Australian troops withdrawn by Christmas -- is all of a sudden Mr. Send-'Em-In:

The Federal Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, has attacked the Government's handling of the request, saying the UN would have got a better response if Labor had won the election.

Steven Den Beste sent a note on this earlier, pegged to an AFP report on the UN request. He wrote:

It's AFP, so utilize adequate quantities of salt.

It says the UN asked Australia to provide extra troops to protect any UN mission to Baghdad, and Australia said, "No".

Quite rightly so, too. Australia is already busy in Iraq doing real work.

Aren't there all sorts of other nations, like say in Europe, who could provide troops? Did the UN talk to China, which has the largest standing military in the world?

The article implies that since Australia refused to play, it's gonna fall to the US. That's crap, too. Our troops are also busy doing real work.

If this multilateralism we keep hearing about is so important, why don't such major and critically important world powers as China, Russia and France (all UNSC veto powers) offer troops to protect the UN mission to Baghdad? After all, those three nations have been demanding UN involvement in Iraq since about five minutes after Saddam's statue fell.

Exactly.

Posted by Tim Blair at October 19, 2004 01:07 AM
Comments

What you say is true, Tim. But on the other hand, Australian soldiers could use some live target practise which doesn't endanger innocent people.

Posted by: Clem Snide at October 19, 2004 at 01:17 AM

Cripes, they haven't got any Chinese troops here in Afghanistan (ISAF) either - and the two countries share a border for cryin' out loud. I guess the PLA is too busy busting up Falun Gong exercise cells, threatening Taiwan and such...Den Beste was right.

Posted by: Major John at October 19, 2004 at 01:51 AM

The primary purpose of this UN request is to provide better opportunities for the terrorists, in collusion with the UN, to kill members of the 'coalition of the willing'.

Posted by: Shaun Bourke at October 19, 2004 at 01:55 AM

Now, guys, you Aussies ought to be flattered! The UN wants only the best to cover their ass. So they ignore all the other "world powers" (i.e., France, Germany, China, and Russia), and go straight to Australia.

Of course, the UN got exactly what they deserved, a hearty "HELL NO!". Does my heart good to hear that.

OTOH, if France were to supply a security force for the UN in Iraq, there's a chance (good? I dunno) that they'd send the Foreign Legion.

The French, sending mercenaries into Iraq. Wouldn't that just drip with irony?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 19, 2004 at 02:06 AM

Now, guys, you Aussies ought to be flattered! The UN wants only the best to cover their ass. So they ignore all the other "world powers" (i.e., France, Germany, China, and Russia), and go straight to Australia.

Of course, the UN got exactly what they deserved, a hearty "HELL NO!". Does my heart good to hear that.

OTOH, if France were to supply a security force for the UN in Iraq, there's a chance (good? I dunno) that they'd send the Foreign Legion.

The French, sending mercenaries into Iraq. Wouldn't that just drip with irony?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 19, 2004 at 02:13 AM

Now, guys, you Aussies ought to be flattered! The UN wants only the best to cover their ass. So they ignore all the other "world powers" (i.e., France, Germany, China, and Russia), and go straight to Australia.

Of course, the UN got exactly what they deserved, a hearty "HELL NO!". Does my heart good to hear that.

OTOH, if France were to supply a security force for the UN in Iraq, there's a chance (good? I dunno) that they'd send the Foreign Legion.

The French, sending mercenaries into Iraq. Wouldn't that just drip with irony?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 19, 2004 at 02:31 AM

Sorry about the multiple posts, Andrea. The network at work is glitchy again. Feel free to delete the duplicates.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at October 19, 2004 at 02:32 AM

About the UN going into Iraq- haven't Kofi and Kojo and Unscam humanitarians pillaged the poor Iraqis enough? Are they hoping to do a little war profiteering, as well, such as reselling donated baby formula and penicillin on the Baghdad black market? Of course, even that would be better than the slave trade some UN blue helmets in Bosnia and Africa have engaged in.

Kofi calls the liberation of Iraq "illegal", but magnanimously would send UN sneers and jeers and institutional corruption onto Iraqi free soil if protection is provided. But why is he asking Coalition members for help when he should be seeking Iraqi forces to protect his offices? Everybody knows the Iraqis would be pleased to give the UN all the "protection" it truly deserves---

Posted by: c at October 19, 2004 at 02:35 AM

OT:

The Guardian has published a choice selection of letters from Operation Guardian:

Dear Limey Assholes

Posted by: Sex Workers for Islam at October 19, 2004 at 02:45 AM

No reason for Australia to help crooks like Annan at the UN hammer together some more glamour & prestige.

I canít believe weíre voting on the future of all these issues & the mainstream press has hardly discussed them.

Posted by: ForNow at October 19, 2004 at 02:47 AM

Shoulda asked 'em how big a cut of the OFF boodle they were gonna give you...

Posted by: mojo at October 19, 2004 at 04:01 AM