U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   US Again Says NO Expanding UN Role in Iraq (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/us-again-says-no-expanding-un-role-in-iraq-80665.html)

Dreadsox 08-13-2003 11:36 PM

US Again Says NO Expanding UN Role in Iraq
 
[Q]U.S. abandons plan for greater U.N. role in Iraq
Rather, Bush administration will seek help from other countries to assist occupation forces

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Wednesday, August 13, 2003

WASHINGTON The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said on Wednesday.

Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.

In addition to American forces in Iraq, there are 21,000 troops representing 18 countries. At present, 11,000 of that number are from Britain. The United States plans to seek larger numbers to help, especially with relief supplies that are coming from another dozen countries.

Administration officials said that in spite of the difficult security situation in Iraq, there was a consensus in the administration that it would be better to work with these countries than to involve the United Nations or countries that opposed the war and are now eager to exercise influence in a postwar Iraq.

"The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,"' said an administration official. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire."[/Q]

Tell that to the people who are losing loved ones over there you horses :censored:. Not that Dire?

[Q]The administration's position could complicate its hopes of bringing a large number of American troops home in short order. The length of the American occupation depends on how quickly the country can be stabilized and attacks and uprisings brought under control.

The thinking on broadening international forces was disclosed on Wednesday as the United States moved on a separate front at the Security Council to get a resolution passed this week that would welcome the establishment of the 25-member Governing Council set up by the United States and Britain in Iraq.[/Q]

And there goes many opportunities. The opportunity to heal a wound between the UN and the US goes out the door. An opportunity to bring home more of our troops goes out the door. An opportunity to show that we can work through the UN goes out the door. THIS may very well be a foothold for the Democrats to attack during the election.

[Q]Security Council diplomats said on Wednesday that they expected the resolution to pass, but not without some qualms among some members.

In a measure of these misgivings, the diplomats said that the wording of the resolution was changed at the last minute on Wednesday morning from saying that the Security Council "endorses" the Iraqi group to saying that the council "welcomes" it.

The resolution would also establish an "assistance mission" of the United Nations in Baghdad to support various U.N. activities there. Both steps were sought by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan who had been under some pressure from Washington to make a gesture to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation.
[/Q]

Help me out here. On the one hand we are asking for assistance from the UN but we are saying they cannot come in as part of the "UN" but they are allowed to come in individually. And this vote will help legitimize the occupation so that nations can come in as long as they are not coming in under the label of "UN"?

Wow!!!http://www.statesman.com/nationworld.../0813iraq.html

deep 08-14-2003 12:01 AM

It is not a war against terrorism.

It is not a war for democracy.

It is not a religious war.


It is a war for resources.

They do not want to give up any control of the resources.

ILuvLarryMullen 08-14-2003 12:52 AM

well said, deep.

Dreadsox 08-14-2003 01:52 AM

[Q]In July, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a religious edict repudiating the Governing Council and calling on Iraqis to replace it with a more representative body. As long as the Governing Council is seen as an arm of US occupation, it will be discredited by many Iraqis.[/Q]

Great!!!! The highest ranking religious leader in Iraq has not accepted the newly forming governement. What the :censored: !!!!!!

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6200

oliveu2cm 08-14-2003 07:24 AM

Re: US Again Says NO Expanding UN Role in Iraq
 
What the hell are we doing?


Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
[B]
WASHINGTON The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials said on Wednesday.

Instead, the officials said, the United States would widen its effort to enlist other countries to assist the occupation forces in Iraq, which are dominated by the 139,000 U.S. troops there.
So we want these countries to send their men and women to occupy Iraq (the possibility of death a real one to them) but we won't allow them to assist in the peacekeeping process? :huh: the heck? These other countries didn't ask for war in the first place, and now we want to place their servicepeople in the country to "keep the peace of liberated Iraq" rather than, like Dread points out, repair damages to UN and "let" them help in repairing this mess? They make it sound as if the U.S. asked them to buy a lottery ticket with us, and they declined, and when we won we refused to share our winnings. :confused:

:banghead:

nbcrusader 08-14-2003 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dreadsox
Great!!!! The highest ranking religious leader in Iraq has not accepted the newly forming governement. What the :censored: !!!!!!
They are simply looking for control of the pie. In the US, we argue over degrees of separation of church and state. My guess is that many in Iraq do not understand the concept or associate it with a fanatical dictator like Saddam.

verte76 08-14-2003 11:03 AM

I wonder how much of this Shi'ite stuff isn't simply revenge against the Sunni Moslems, of whom Saddam is one? These two groups are always at each other's throats.

Rono 08-14-2003 11:29 AM

Time to pull back the dutch soldiers,...

anitram 08-15-2003 02:35 PM

Re: Re: US Again Says NO Expanding UN Role in Iraq
 
Quote:

Originally posted by oliveu2cm
So we want these countries to send their men and women to occupy Iraq (the possibility of death a real one to them) but we won't allow them to assist in the peacekeeping process? :huh: the heck? These other countries didn't ask for war in the first place, and now we want to place their servicepeople in the country to "keep the peace of liberated Iraq"
This administration seems to think that the rest of the world should feel so grateful to kiss its ass.

Well we're not. I don't see why our people should die for a president who has little to no foresight and an administration who couldn't give a half a crap about anything other than its own crazy ideas.

When Bush gets re-elected, despite all this, then I truly will have seen and heard it all.

Rono 08-15-2003 03:21 PM

It seems the US Soldiers will get foodhelp from the UN soon,...

Pentagon Civilian Contractors Leave US Troops Hungry, Thirsty in Desert Heat
Paul Krugman
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/opinion/12KRUG.html
Posted 8/13/2003 9:46:00 PM

August 12, 2003, Summary: When civilian contractors go to war, they don't follow orders or go to the front lines. Rather, contractors stay in the rear where it is safer. As the the article below describes, there is no rear area - the entire nation is a war zone - and there is a "logistical mess in Iraq" that "isn't an isolated case of poor planning and mismanagement." Soldiers without food and water are the result of President Bush bringing civilians in to do the work of the military.
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.or...cle.asp?id=975[/url]
[url]

verte76 08-15-2003 03:34 PM

This stuff burns me up, Rono. What a bunch of hypocrisy. :madspit: :mad: :censored: :censored:

DrTeeth 09-03-2003 06:42 PM

Looks like they've changed their mind.

Quote:

WASHINGTON/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States went to the United Nations on Wednesday in a policy shift on Iraq to seek troops and money, but said it would not give up its military command or dominant role in the country.
you can find it here

verte76 09-03-2003 07:57 PM

The question is, will the U.N. members help *without* getting more control over the situation? Which U.N. members might be willing to help??

TylerDurden 09-03-2003 07:58 PM

I wonder, in the UN building, how many times diplomats from other countries just stick their head into the office of the US Ambassador there just to say "Told you so!" Then walk off down the hallway laughing.

Scarletwine 09-03-2003 09:39 PM

TylerDurden,

I couldn't agree with you more, it is that type of situation, and I have wanted to say the same.
But unfortunately the lives of my neighbor or their child may very well hang in the balance if we don't get some help in there. Especially as the murdered Iman's brother is calling for the Shiites to make Jihaad on the Americans if they don't leave soon.

I hope Bush will bend enough to allow the UN to take a greater part including rebuilding contracts for other countries. He may have to in order to help keep his reelection bid alive as Americans won't tolerate much more bad news.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com