Sponsored Links

[moif]

Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?

If not, then why not?

I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.


Advisors report; US has closing window of opportunity; http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-rebuild18jul1...0,4446854.story

US struggling to find replacement troops; http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisob...ics/6335469.htm

Pentagon retaliates against complaining GI's; http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...18/MN248299.DTL

Landstuhl base hospital filled with US casualties; http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...4&article=16589

[Wertz]

Of course we should allow the UN to move peace-kepping forces into Iraq. Any military action in Iraq (if there needed to be any military action in Iraq) should have been in conjunction with the UN in the first place - this invasion was after all prompted by violations of UN resolutions - at least ostensibly.

Will we allow such peace-keepers to salvage the quagmire? Unlikely - at least until things become even more desperate. Why? Well, you seem to have nailed it, moif: "the direct stupidity of arrogant pride". Something like that should be the motto of the Bush administration: Arrogance, Pride, Stupidity. Of course, we'd have to work in Greed there somewhere, as well.

This post has been edited by Wertz: Jul 19 2003, 01:49 PM

[Paladin Elspeth]

Yes, resoundingly yes. The sooner we get away from this destructive dog and pony show, the better off all parties will be. Send the Danes in, God bless 'em, and anybody else who is interested in bringing lasting peace and order to Iraq. Why should the US and Britain bear the brunt? Sole bragging rights are too costly.

Let the UN do its job.

[GoAmerica]

Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?

If not, then why not?

I seem to recall that in the famous US Somalia incident, it was a Pakistani UN force which came to rescue the beleaguered US forces demonstrating that the UN is not the enemy, and here in Denmark, we have a long tradition of success both with UN peace keeping roles and NATO roles. I see no reason why the US cannot work along side the UN.
Surely it would be prudent now, to create a UN buffer between the US troops on the ground (I don't advocate they leave) and the Iraqi people? Its the direct stupidty of arrogant pride to not take advantage of such a resource at a time like this.

You beat me Moif. I was just about to create a topic like this

Some men would rather die than admit that they need help but i think Bush needs to consider asking the UN to come on in and join the party.

US going for mandate for UN to join Iraq peacekeeping role

The US State Department meanwhile announced preliminary talks were underway on a new UN mandate on troop deployment.

Such a mandate may include amendments to or replacements for UN Security Council Resolution 1483, which encourages states to cooperate in Iraqi peacekeeping. "We`re open to the prospect and we are talking about it with other people," spokesman Richard Boucher said.

Boucher noted that several countries -- including France, Germany, India, Pakistan and Russia -- have said they would not contribute troops to the mission without a specific UN mandate.

Washington has grown increasingly frustrated at difficulties in securing contributions to the stabilization force, as its own troops endure deadly attacks almost daily from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists.

[moif]

GA

Thanks for the link.

Paladin Elspeth

There are already Danish soldiers erving in Iraq.

[aquapub]

I recently heard a liberal pundit rush to undermine some good news about Saddam's regime by clinging to conditions in post-war Iraq. He pointed out that in Kosovo, the US contributed around 10% of the forces, but in Iraq, its more like 90%, and that we are the only ones taking casualties. He claimed that we need put more troops on the ground, and that more of those troops need to come from our allies. I think the reason our allies were willing to help with Kosovo, but not with Saddam(who had committed far more genocide), is partly that Milosevic was in Europe’s back yard, and partially that France, Germany and Russia had such extensive financial ties to Iraq. Its not that we haven’t welcomed the allies to take a role in Iraq’s reconstruction, we have. I also think that sending more ground troops would merely give the enemy more targets until we find and eliminate the people funding them. And introducing Saddam’s sons to the gates of hell was a great start.

[Cephus]

Given the rising opposition of the Iraqi people to the presence of US troops in Iraq, and given the problems of replacing its ground forces that the US army appears to be facing, should the USA not now reconsider allowing the UN to move peace keeper troops into Iraq?

Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq. If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own. But then again, the US has a reputation for running around, bullying smaller nations (not that we'd ever attack anyone who could stand up to us or anything) and imposing our will on people who want nothing to do with us.

[GoAmerica]

Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq.  If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own.

Well, we'd be fighting with the help of the UN if 3 certain countries in the UN Security Council wasn't in bed with Saddam with a bunch of oil contracts.

[moif]

GoAmerica

Thats rich considering the amount of oil people in top positions in the US government today...

[Artemise]

I wonder why the countries that comprise the UN would want to help us now at all, considering all the abuse that was heaped upon them pre-war. Now though, IMO, if they are willing, give them a piece of the humblepie, we certainly need the help.

This post has been edited by Artemise: Jul 23 2003, 08:35 AM

[unabomber]

I think it is not a question of should we let the UN help in iraq (of course we SHOULD) but can we find enough troops from countries that don't disagree with this war. it is stupid to try getting french, german, russian or chinese as they were all opposed to the war in the first place and it is idiotic to think that after all we said to them they would contribute. we made this mess ourselves.

it should be noted that there are only 1000 or so troops from countries other then britain and america.

so should we allow the UN to help us? sure. anyone that wants to send combat troops to Iraq should feel free to do so. but can we get them to help? IMO no, and understandably so.

[GoAmerica]

I wonder why the countries that comprise the UN would want to help us now at all, considering all the abuse that was heaped upon them pre-war. Now though, IMO, if they are willing, give them a piece of the humblepie, we certainly need the help.

I'm sure the countries would love to do gloating and then will help us after taking their sweet time deciding, making Washington sweat

[Artemise]

Help us for what? To get some of their own killed? Why?

[GoAmerica]

Help us for what? To get some of their own killed? Why?

To help stabalize Iraq maybe

[Jaime]

Ack. Can we debate with something more than one-liners, please?

[Cephus]

Actually, we need to get our own troops *OUT* of Iraq.  If military action was going to be taken, it needed to be under the UN flag, not our own.

Well, we'd be fighting with the help of the UN if 3 certain countries in the UN Security Council wasn't in bed with Saddam with a bunch of oil contracts.

As opposed to Bush, who was handing out oil contracts to US companies before we ever went to Iraq?

[Eeyore]

I think a major role played by the UN would be very helpful. This is the type of thing it can excel at (as opposed to war).

Imagine you are an aspiring and even good-hearted Iraqi leader. Where do you go right now. Is working with the American forces a good idea or would it taint you as a collaborator? An independent voice in the light of day? (i.e. a city mayor who is openly critical of some US policies.
Or is it more authentic to participate in a resistance movement against an occupying army?

The United States conquered Iraq, that will always rub nationalists the wrong way even if they have no great animosity toward that country before the occupation. We are an occupying power in the Arab world and we are using the language of imperialism in a region that long was controlled by outside forces (Ottoman Empire, Britain, France)

A UN led reconstruction effort would likely add more legitimacy and be perceived as a more neutral presence in the region. It would be helpful to go this way, and we could take a less active and dominant role in what I see presently as a no win situation.

believing that this would happen is pure fantasy. We are committing to a long term presence in the region and a drive for democratization of the middle east and intimidation of the countries in the region that are apt to support terrorism (Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia)

[Cephus]

A UN led reconstruction effort would likely add more legitimacy and be perceived as a more neutral presence in the region.  It would be helpful to go this way, and we could take a less active and dominant role in what I see presently as a no win situation.

Especially since the US is 'allowing Iraq to form its own government, so long as it's the one we want them to have'. Right now, it's little more than US imperialism, imposing puppet governments in both Afghanistan and Iraq that are friendly to US policies and wishes. A truly multi-national, pro-freedom force backed up by the UN would certainly help these countries form their own form of government, but the US would never allow it.

[Billy Jean]

I think we should allow UN peace keeping troops in. I would think that the Iraqi people would feel less threatened if they knew that America (and the UK) weren't acting alone. It would give them the impression that there is some sort of check and balance going on and that the US will be held accountable for mistakes and that we'll leave once the job is completed.

[nighttimer]

It seems a bit presumptuous of The Bush Administraton to expect the same countries they dismissed as "old Europe" as Secretary Rumsfeld characterized France and Germany, to now come running to Washington's aid and get their soldiers killed in Iraq.

Before the war the Europeans were dismissed as peaceniks and appeasers. Now, they're supposed to roll up their sleeves and walk in a shooting gallery? I'm not at all surprised that these nations are putting Bush on hold.

Two wrongs don't make a right but it sure makes it even.