So, right or wrong, the US and UK have essentially put an end to Saddam's regime. We spent our resources, and the lives of our military personnel, and now the French, Germans, and Russians want the UN to sweep in and oversee the rebuilding of Iraq:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030411-701955.htm

I don't think so! I know, "it would go a long way to repairing the harm the US/UK have done to their reputations, and undo some of the damage done to the UN". HOGWASH! This is about the axis of weasels trying to make money. The US and UK will never recover what we spent in liberating Iraq, but there is no way in hell we should share what we do recover. I don't believe that we should rape the Iraqi people in the rebuilding of their country, but there is more than enough wealth there to pay for the rebuilding of the nation and take care of the people.

Sorry but there is no valid reason for the UN to have any part in the rebuilding. If the UN wants to help, they are welcome to provide aid to the people of Iraq, but not one contract should go outside of Iraqi or Coalition companies! :mad:

Here is another good link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003327

[ April 12, 2003, 22:59: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Great point. I agree. The U.N. has demonstrated itself to be a weak and ineffectual organization. Essentially they are the League of Nations - but only powerless due to its own cowardess.

Oh well.

I say let them have Iraq. During the reconstruction, I have little doubt that the fanatics will come in droves and commit acts of terrorism. Who do you want to be murdered? A brave U.S./U.K. Soldier or a French Soldier? :evil: j/k

You bomb them, you destroy their houses and then you decide you who is going to rebuild their country and take their money. Great. I guess they have to pay and the ammunition you have spent. Right?

BOC,

How many Iraqi citizens were targeted, and how many homes were targeted by the coalition?

NONE!

We brought them freedom, or at least their chance to grasp it if they choose.

To the victor go the spoils, only thing is, in this case we will not get any spoil, and are not asking for any spoils. We will simply provide to them services that they cannot provide for themselves at the time. And yes that is the cost of freedom. Why shouldn't the US, UK, and those that supported us get the benefit of an inevitable cost? Why should we reward those nations who were not bold enough to take a stand with us?

Like I said, we will never recover what it cost us to wage this war. The Iraqi people will be better off after the war and its expenses than they were under Saddam. Sounds like a more than fair deal to me.

Darkwolf

How many Iraqi citizens were targeted, and how many homes were targeted by the coalition? If I remember correct the estimated civilian casaulties are 4000 dead. This number does not include the wounded who will die because of the lack of proper medical care or the people who will die in the later years because of the radioactivity of DU shells. Do you know how many were the civilians causalties in Afghanistan? I was watching an interview of a university professor yesterday (I think he was from the New England University) and he said that the civilian causaulties in Afghanistan are estimated between 20000-50000. If this is true, don't you think that the same number could apply to Iraq, since the same weapons were used? As for the houses, ask those mutilated children in Bagdad, where were they when the bombs and missiles exploded.

We brought them freedom, or at least their chance to grasp it if they choose I thought that the 1441 resolution was about disarmament and not liberation. Realy how do you explain this shift of focus from the weapons of mass destruction to the liberation and to the fall of the regime? Also, since C.I.A, MI6, Mosad or any other secret service were able to locate the shelters where Saddam was hiding, how they could not find the locations of the forbidden weapons?


Why shouldn't the US, UK, and those that supported us get the benefit of an inevitable cost? Why should we reward those nations who were not bold enough to take a stand with us? Because this war was illegal and if you fail to find forbidden weapons this war will have not a single justification. These nations were bold enough since they tried to prevent you to open the Pandora's box, even if they fail. Like it or not, these countries will never let you legalise the war now and the future iraqi regime has to be accepted by these nations if it wants to survive.

I don't see the UN as being discredited by this war.I don't think anyone had any doubt the US would win.These countries have valid reasons for not wanting to invade another country.

Unless we find real weapons of mass destruction I am afraid it may be the US that is discredited.After all if he never had the weapons we claim,what is are justification for invading.It was never about liberation of Iraq until the world would not back the states in its effort.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The UN is not discredited because of the fact that we went to war, and succeeded with out the UN. It is discredited because of the fact that it is meaningless in its intended purpose, and lost its last opportunity to prove itself otherwise. Over the course of 12 years it threatened, and cajoled, and warned and begged Saddam Hussein to allow the weapons inspectors to do their jobs. When more than enough time had passed, and it was readily apparent to all that Saddam was not going to do anything the UN demanded, the US asked for, and by the way is the only nation in history to ever ask for, the UN to back up its rhetoric. Well, the special interests of the French and Russians got in the way, so they held then entire thing hostage for their own gain.

Now, international treaties are somewhat like contracts. If a contract is signed, but neither party attempts to enforce the terms of the contract, and in fact do business outside of the terms of said contract, it becomes null and void after a given amount of time. China, Russia and France have all undertaken military actions in foreign nations to protect their interests without even requesting comment from the UN. In the grand history of the UN there are only 3 conflicts that were ever approved, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and most recently Afghanistan. Funny that the US was the lead in all of them.

As all parities involved in said Treaties have ignored the terms of the Treaties, they are no in fact void, hence the UN as an international governing body no longer exists, and the US is in no manner bound to its whims.

I don't think they need that big building in New York to complete their charity work, since that is the only meaningful role left for them, so please, and I mean this in the most polite way possible, UN, get the hell out of my country!

BOC,

France, Germany, and Russia would accept Satan himself as the absolute ruler of the rest of the world if he would offer them a couple of billion US$ in trade contracts. :mad:

Edit - not quite as on point since while i was writing there were other responses, oh well.

I can think of two valid reasons just off the top of my head without really thinking about it for the rebuilding of Iraq to be under the UN umbrella:

1) $$$$$. It is easier for the UN to get contributions than it is for the US.

2) world perception generally but middle eastern perception specifically.

Question: why did the US led coalition attack Iraq?

Stated Answers: WMD's, terrorism, human rights. Am I missing any? (these were stated reasons I listed remember.)

Well, if there are WMD's there they'll be dug out as easily under UN control as US and if that's the concern I am sure the UN would have no problem negotiating people acceptable to the US into this position. With respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

If the reason is terrorism then the fact that the overall hostility to the US will be greatly lessened by the UN taking over helps reduce the recuiting power of the terrorist organizations. Besides, the stated terrorism fear is the transfer of WMD's to existing terrorists and that's addressed above. So, with respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

If the reason is human rights, then again, the UN taking over seems preferable. The UN has more experience in recent years than USAID in managing the type of humanitarian difficulties faced in Iraq. Further, as mentioned above the UN taking over will make the Arab world happier, lead to a decrease in the tensions etc will lead to a reduction of the danger of terror attacks that would creater further crises. So, with respect to this stated reason, what is the downside of the UN taking over?

Now, I think that pretty much covers the stated reasons for the war: WMD's, terrorism, human rights. I don't see why if those reasons were the objective it would be disadvantageous to the US to turn over the rebuilding to the UN - well, I do see one big reason right off the top of my head. The UN's recent track record for rebuilding is pretty mucked up and it is in the best interest of the US to get this thing rebuilt right. But, with the high profile of this particular problem and the exorbitant resoruces likely to be poured into it, the UN would be far more likely to get it right this time. Besides, the US' recent track record in nation building isn't something to thump our chest over - what's the situation in Afghanistan like right now?

Oh, and did I mention that a good reason for the UN to take over is $$$$$$? It'll cost the US far less to allow the UN to take over. Check out generally articles all over Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune etc to see references to this. That's one of the primary reasons the US is trying to involve the UN right now even in a limited manner. Common sense really. If the rebuilding effort is going to cost a minimum of 60 billion (the more commonly accepted long term estimates are over 100 billion) would you rather that be divided up among the international community or shouldered just by the US? Keep in mind that Iraq can brings in about 25 billion a year and is the most in debt nation in history with over 40 billion in compensation owed to Kuwait alone not to mention 100's of billions in debt. If the UN takes over they'll get debt relief, if it is just the US they won't. Hey! Is that a new reason or just a subsection of the old?

More generally with regards to the UN, 58 years was a good run but it lacks teeth.

Laches,

The UN is welcome to provide as much aid as they would like.

However, all contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq that are beyond the capabilities of Iraq at the present time should be awarded to the nations that in some manner, monetarily or militarily, supported its liberation. The US and the UK are not going to cover these costs; these costs will be recouped from the sale of Iraqi oil.

This is why Russia, Germany, and France are meeting to try to get the UN to run the show, they want some of the money and they certainly are not going to accept any of the costs.

I can't believe this!
Now the US have set their own rules, international law don't fit their interests so they dump it.
New rules are: we launch war against who we want when we want regardless of what the rest of the world thinks; either you're with us or you're a weasel or a terrorist. We exploit local resources for ourselves and let UN do the Samaritan's job.
The war cost a lot of money to US/UK no doubts of that, but whose money was it? Taxpayers' money. Money now made in Iraq won't go back to the American people but to industry giants (let's pick one randomly, Halliburton). The war costs lives and money to the average US citizen, the war makes money for armament industries and oil drillers. How fair is that?
Russia and France had placed interests in Iraq before the war, so US gets in, kill people, exploit oil instead of the "weasels" and now France and Russia are the bad guys who only think about money ... how hypocrite is that!

Yago is totally confused because he totally agrees with laches. :confused: ;)

I am personally totally against any commitment of the UN. The only thing I think the UN should to, is to get the most needed care into Iraq and that's it.

I understand the american argument. It was their plan, it was their blood and now they are in charge.


On the other hand, I don't see why the other rich nations of the world should give financial aid to the americans. The one who pays has to say, how things have to be. If leadership of the UN is for americans not acceptable, so be it. They unleashed the dogs of war, now they have to take responsibility for it and pay for the costs, alone.

Sidenote: I saw a TV-interview with "Pearl" (or whatever his name is) and he said, the americans would be very happy to pay for everything needed.


And there is another consequence of not involvment of the UN in decision-making. Blair has promised to the British that the UN will take the leading role. If this promise is not fullfilled, the British will get out of there asap. Because theiy will not be willing, to let their soldiers spill their blood for a lost cause.

In the grand history of the UN there are only 3 conflicts that were ever approved, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and most recently Afghanistan. Funny that the US was the lead in all of them. Funny, once upon a time the USA had lots of allies. What happened ?

France, Germany, and Russia would accept Satan himself as the absolute ruler of the rest of the world if he would offer them a couple of billion US$ in trade contracts. That's exact the reasoning of the US-Goverment. Therefore my opinion is clear, no UN-Involvment. The US-Goverment calculated, that the UN will move in whatever, because they want to prevent a catastrophe. But I think, they should refuse to be puppets on a string and make deals with the devil :evil: and let the americans pay alone.

Hm, I see Budget - D e f i c i t

Too bad.

[ April 13, 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Yago ]

I think, the UN and the so-called "coalition" should work together. Neither one has the rescources (and I am not only speaking of money) to rebuild Iraq alone. The military is needed for keeping up order (although I have doubts about soldiers being able to execute policing task). But the US IMHO have no experience in "nation-building". The diverse UN-Organisations do have that experience.

@Darkwolf: It wasn't Vietnam, it was North-Korea.

But the US IMHO have no experience in "nation-building"yes, that's why they count on the belgians. But I don't see, why the Belgians should do the work for them, while the Americans lean back and wouldn't even bother to thank them.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed040903.cfm

According to media reports, the U.N. Secretary-General's office has already drawn up detailed plans for the United Nations to step in and administer Iraq three months after the war ends. The confidential blueprint calls for setting up a U.N. "Assistance Mission" in Baghdad that would oversee a post-Saddam Iraqi government.

It's imperative that the United States scuttle U.N. plans to play a central role in a post-war government. It would jeopardize the serious business we have in post-war Iraq -- hunting for weapons of mass destruction and terrorist cells, protecting infrastructure, securing large cities and defending Iraq's borders. It also would seriously hamper any hope of establishing a free Iraqi nation and spreading democracy throughout the Middle East."hunting for weapons of mass destruction"

3 Month and expecting to be still searching ? Oh, those lousy CIA-reports.

"terrorist cells"

What terrorist cells ? Ah, the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnites.

"Protecting infrastructure"

Protecting oil

"secure large cities"

Prevent peaceful demonstrations against the occupation and Ghandi like no-cooperation movement.

"establishing a free Iraqi nation"

A goverment by, from and for the americans

"spreading democracy throughout the Middle East"

Operation basis Iraq for new wars (Syria, Saudi-Arabia, Iran).

[ April 13, 2003, 21:23: Message edited by: Yago ]

3000 Americans die for the beliefs of half the world, it's a tragedy.
4000 Iraqis die for the beliefs of Bush and Blair, it's an unavoidable consequence of war.

Need i say more, bring the UN in, we need someone with a pulse to rebuild this war torn country.

The UN, due to it's inhomogenic power structure - dependent on the will of 5 superpowers has a significant advantage over the US: When the superpowers avoid putting too massive verbal :rolleyes: pressure on it, the world might perceive the UN, unlike the US which has domestic interests, as neutral - that has been a key to success, like in Cyprus, Sinai and other places.

This might also be an advantage elsewhere, given the UN gets all the political support it needs.

But the US IMHO have no experience in "nation-building" I think that the Japanese would disagree. :rolleyes:

Ragusa,

Your last statement is 1/2 of what makes the UN meaningless. The 5 nations that have veto power rarely politcally agree on anything, so it will never get all the political support it needs.

That really is a bad example, Darkwolf(as is germany btw). That was over 50 years ago and under very different conditions. And I doubt that many people who took part in that project are still alive. So were is the experience?

Wow this is an interesting discussion. Much more multi-national than talking with the old men at the barber shop on Saturdays.

Since the war started ive watched alot of news coverage in the morning before work and when I get home in the evenings. Its as real as reality TV can get. Noone gets shot at on "The Bachelor".

First, I believe that the "coalition" is justified in its actions in Iraq and I support them. I think that the weapons inspectors should have been give more time to look but not an indeffinite amount of time. Saddam has been toying with the UN for 12 years and in that time had ample opportunity to hide his weapons very well. Why we think that the UN inspectors would have ever found them im not sure?

Im no fan of war. Its not a video game. People die in wars and you cant go back to a save game to correct it. Both innocent civilians and military personnel die in war. How many civilians have died during our "evil occupation"?
How does this number compare to how many civilians Saddam and his fanboys have tortured and killed during his reign? Unlike the genius above stated, any time there is mass civilian mortality for any reason it is a tragedy. According to some reports, since bombing started, 70-100,000+ Iraqi military personnel have been killed. Someone above stated that about 4000 civilians have been killed. Id say we are making a huge effort to avoid killing civilians. Unlike the world trade center bombing where civilians were the target.

I hope that we are able to find Saddams weapons and that his regime didnt already smuggle them out of the country. It wont matter to many in the world except us. Do you think al-jazera will broadcast this information or that the media in France or Russia will note that the US found the smoking guns? The US military will probably be accused of "planting" whatever is found.

I laughed so hard I almost cried when I saw on the news that France, Germany and Russia felt the UN should have the lead role in rebuilding Iraq. While I do not disagree that the UN should have a role, it was US and British troops that died in Iraq. It was the US and Britian and to a lesser extent Spain that fronted the costs of the war. Why should the UN get the lead role? Someone above mentioned that it would be because the UN would be seen as neutral and not the coalation. How is the UN neutral? Countries are members of the UN to help protect their "interests". Before they were members of Nato and the League of Nations to help protect their "interests". How can a body with a vested interest be seen as neutral. France, Germany, and Russia want to help protect oil contracts and trade agreements with Iraq. That is why they are pushing for UN involvement.

Maybe when this war is over (an I hope soon, rebuilding will take a long time) we can build a big glass parking lot with a big Wal-mart just outside of Baghdad. We could hire Iraqi people who have been impoverished for so long by Saddam. Everyone knows Walmart has the cheapest prices in town so maybe France, Germany, and Russia would want to shop there. That should help their "interests". (This last paragraph is a joke cept the part about hoping the war is over soon.)

Darkwolf -

I just have to say that you speak the truth.

Do you agree with the rising feeling amongst Americans to actually drop out of the U.N.?

Sir Dargorn, many of the Iraqis died only by a calculation fluke on both parts not their beliefs. For example, the restruant scene, four 200,000 pound bombs dropped, flattened the resturaunt, which was tipped off by an anonymous source that Saddam was inside, the bombs also destroyed an entire block, and shattered all glass objects within a 3 mile radius. The first bodies that were found were of a three year old child. And then there's the killing of a boy's father, in front of the child. The two were driving past a US checkpoint, a US bullet comes through the window, straight through father's head, and the boy is drenched in his father's blood. Their crime? Buying bread, so the could eat the first time in five days.

How can't you take a post seriously that talks about the 200,000 pound bombs used by the US? MOAB and nukes are nothing compared to those.

Well it was something in the thousands, and a nuke would do a lot more damage than that. Like in Japan, 1 of the first ever Atom Bombs, destroyed the entire city.

Fabius That really is a bad example, Darkwolf(as is germany btw). That was over 50 years ago and under very different conditions. And I doubt that many people who took part in that project are still alive. So were is the experience? Lets see, we could have the US and UK head up the rebuilding of Iraq. With these two nations you would have the expertise of the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful economy in the world, and I am not sure where the UK falls at the moment in size of its economy in the world, but I would be willing to bet that per capita, its GNP is in the top 5. Two of the most successful industrialized, technologically advanced, and wealthiest nations in the world. Nope, no expertise in building a successful nation there at all!

Or we could allow an organization that has yet to build/rebuild a self-sufficient, successful, economically sound nation anywhere. Lets look at the UN's expertise, at this or anything else.

The economic powerhouse of Ghana heads the UN's security council. Ghana's total GNP is less that the budget of many American corporations. Per the CIA: Telephone system, poor to fair; 0 AM, 49 FM radio stations (I believe that there or more than 20 FM and at least 10 AM stations in the small city I live in); 10 television broadcast station (there 8 in the city I live in) and 12 ISP providers (I got tired of counting when I got to 25 in my local phone book). Yep, a modern economic powerhouse.

Lets see, the next head of the Human Rights Commission is going to be Libyan. Yeah, do I really need to go any further on that one? LYBIA :( wow...

Iraq was scheduled to be the next Chair of the disarmament committee (sorry not sure what has happened with that since around the middle of January), but the UN felt that given the current status of things in Iraq at the time, they decided that a co-chair would be appropriate, so the nominated Iran. IRAN? Holy crap, you have got to be kidding me! Is Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dumb making decisions at the UN right now?

Wow, you know what, I bet that if Dee or Dumb asked really nicely, and promised a couple of billion in aid, the esteemed representative from Ethiopia would be available to chair the Iraqi Rebuilding Committee! :rolleyes:

So let me run a little scenario by you, lets say you need to hop on a plane to fly accross the Atlantic tomorrow. Only problem is, one of the engines on the 747 that you are about to fly in had a major failure yesterday. Now, do you want some mechanic from a third world country who has never even touched a 747, but knows a DC-3 inside and out, or the man who designed and built the prototypes for the engines that are on a 747 to repair it?

If you choose the first one, I'll catch the next flight, thanks anyway. :D

Blackhawk,

I think we need to run, not walk out the door. France really likes the UN (other than fashion it is the last world stage they have left, since they make better cheese in Oregon, and the wine and (don't want to get sued for using the French's precious C word) sparkling wine from California is consistently ranked better (sorry Sprite, I just couldn't resist, I really like a good brie myself ;) ). I am sure that they would be ecstatic to have the headquarters of the UN in Paris. I know that I would love to see, after many long years, the UN building in NY be put to some productive use. :D

First of all, I don't see how being the "greatest" country in the world qualifies it to be the best nation builder. No two cultures are the same. A people should be the best judge of what their nation should be. If others want to help, fine. Just as long as it is helping not imposing. * Charlie thinks he must be naive. *

Second, let the US and UK lead if they want to. It's their war anyway. If it's what they want, what can anyone do? Only time will tell if what they did (rebuilding) was right or wrong. They will reap what they have sown. If they do well then they are proven right. If they do poorly the backlash will be on them.

US and UK will probably stay within Iraq, like what they are doing to South Korea.

Darkwolf wrote:

Lets see, we could have the US and UK head up the rebuilding of Iraq. With these two nations you would have the expertise of the largest, wealthiest, and most powerful economy in the world, and I am not sure where the UK falls at the moment in size of its economy in the world, but I would be willing to bet that per capita, its GNP is in the top 5. Two of the most successful industrialized, technologically advanced, and wealthiest nations in the world. Nope, no expertise in building a successful nation there at all!
" but I would be willing to bet that per capita, its GNP is in the top 5 "

Ahm, no. Bet lost. Not even top 20.

http://www.aneki.com

And don't forget, Nazi-Germany was very rich, successfull and it's military nearly invincible. Does the strength of a military or the art of Blitzkrieg say anyithing about the morale values of it's goverment ?

(I don't want to compare America with Nazi-Germany, I just want to make my opinion clear, that "success" alone says nothing about values or general expertise in everything)

(And Germany was beaten by Russia, the UK and the Americans. Not by the Americans alone. And Russia had the biggest part in it. Remember Stalingrad ?)

Darkwolf, as Laches pointed out so well, the US-Goverment is calculating, they'll get the money of Europe and East-Asia no matter what.

And I agree with Charlie. Let the US reap what it as sown. Therefore, if the UN has not the command, it should stay out and give no money to the americans.

I don't want to see European blood unneccessarily spilled in a colonial adventure.

Why, Darkwolf, do you think that Europeans are no longer in the colony-business ? A sudden insight in moral values ? No, it just don't works anymore.

(implemented Tarsakh's proposal)

[ April 14, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: Yago ]

Yago, I think the appropriate term is unessescary blood.

Darkwolf,
personally I have a problem with the US beeing cop, prosecutor, judge and executioner in one person. Call it a problem of conflict of interest and interest in conflict. No country is altruistic, least of all the US.

There I clearly prefer the flawed UN, where 5 egoists bring down their competing interests to a, perhaps flawed, compromise. ATM the US are - as a result of their military and economic strength - unwilling to compromise. All the "UN doesn't work" bull is just the excuse for that.

When this war has been successful it can't change anything about the fact that it was against international law. The US and UK gvt's are pretty alone with their perception of beeing 'justified' - only diplomatic courtoisie prevents the other gvt's and international diplomats from openly stating that.
The reason why cricic is so modest is as to not piss off the US as they then wouln't consult anyone anymore.

[ April 14, 2003, 17:46: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

@ Darkwolf:
:bang: Do you really think that its all about money? Iraq has nothing resembling a civil society and they do not know how do create it. Do the US or UK know? The UNOs has a lot of experience in this matter from their work in former yugoslavia.

An what has the economy of a country got to do with the ability to lead the security council? That is a task only for represent the council and organising the actual meetings. The comissions are another matter, though.

The UNO has many flaws. But instead of complaining, your government should try reforming the structure. If you do not like it, change it, don't throw it away.

I am British - therefore following the absurdist logic from above (I) have won this war, and so have complete rights to what goes on afterwards in Iraq...

It would be (is going to be) an absolute disgrace when complete "control" is not handed over to the UN. Neither we nor the Americans have any right to be in the country, let alone dictate how to sell it off...

Here is a reason why the U.N. is needed: http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=919c5e86ce0fbfd9c80be0819ba8412a&threadid=12182 And if you read the reactions, many Muslims, let alone Middle Eastern people, are not happy with the U.S. occupation, either. For more about Arab reactions: http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=919c5e86ce0fbfd9c80be0819ba8412a&threadid=12159 America is sitting on a vast powder keg that is waiting to explode. There are reports that non-Iraqi Arabs are heading to Iraq to drive out the U.S./U.K. forces there.

Just an fyi going back to above, the bombs dropped were probably 2,000 pounds (assuming you got the 2 part right). That's a 198,000 pound difference - that's a whole lotta bomb.

Sorry, thought it was funny. Also, I thought it was somewhat emblematic of the "fact"/hyperbolic discussion that seems to have become the norm when attacking America.

Well, nevertheless it was more than enough to take out the restruant.

For info only:

The UK is the 4th largest economy in the world (total GDP) per the world bank and 5th largest per the OECD figures I dug out for 2001.

I don't want to be seen to question the validity of the CIA figures you gave Yago, but per my calculation their figures make the Norwegian population some 6 million which will come as a major shock up there I can tell you. Where have they all been hiding?

Per the OECD figures the UK come in per capita 16th highest.

Now on topic:

In the main I lean towards a handover to the UN for taking Iraq into this new found freedom of theirs.

The reasons are as stated by others; It's really the only way to get the Arabs and even the Iraqis on board. Well, I may be rather narrow in my thinking here, but without them I fear we're struggling more than a little both in the peace process and rebuilding stakes.

2p's worth. Short of time.

:yot: At Viking: Lol. I chose the CIA source for two reasons:

1. Easy to find :D
2. Hey, they are american sources ;)

And I didn’t bother to look up Norway. (Oops, CIA not trustworthy ?)

And Darkwolf said “per capita”, so anyway, he has lost his bet. And I ended not to far away from your statistics, Viking. So, they made sense to me.

Sidenote: 5 biggest economies, that would be (guessing):
USA, China, Japan, Germany, UK

That would make sense.

Milliardo, I hope you're wrong about the non-Iraqi Arabs going to Iraq. They will meet with a bloody and painful end if they try to engage the US and British forces. I'm not saying they should die, but I know they will if they do anything stupid.

Yago stated:

Sidenote: 5 biggest economies, that would be (guessing):
USA, China, Japan, Germany, UK Actually per OECD 1991 data it is (In billions):

USA $10,082
Japan $4,141
Germany $1,846
UK $1,424
France $1,310
China $1,159 (excludes Hong Kong)

By the way, the US state of California would be above China and just below France at $1,309. This Los Angeles metropolitan area would be tied with Spain for 10th. :D

Yago was very close! ;) Probably only missed it on a technicality (Hong Kong).

Darkwolf, those stats are surprising! I wonder if there's any fiddling involved there -- I mean, China is HUGE, and has tons of natural resources, and a pretty good military if what I've read in times past is true. I wonder if they're deliberately de-valuing themselves to be either a Crouching Tiger or a Hidden Dragon ;)

:yot: That is actually an interesting question, worth a topic on it's own. I read articles, that China actually is a hidden dragon. What's for sure is, that they've got an unbelievable economic growth. I am not into economics, I must confess, but when I remember right (and considering how cheap a pint in the UK is) comparisons between economies in the whole are really complicated.

Darkwolf - 2001 OECD figures those. Most current available. (Unless those figures are restated at a later parity value for the $)

Yago - Chinese current growth rate is 7.5-8.0%

At current rates US 2% (min) China 8% max it will be at least 40 years before China is the biggest economy in the world by GDP.

Indeed to compare economies by purchasing power might well be more meaningful. One of my Uni lecturers did it for us with Mars bars :)