Proposed Multinational Force for Iraq

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 24, 2004, 2:54 pm

Looks like the US just submitted a proposed UN resolution that would establish a multinational force with a lot more sway over the goings on in Iraq when the provisional government takes power in June. Thoughts?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 3:01 pm

They are trying to set things right. Trying to turn it back over to the UN as they promised they would on June 30. /shrug

The US couldn't get their full support in the beginning, but now everyone wants a piece of the pie. Plus, keep majority control over another country wouldn't be right. Hopefully it all works out alright, for all parties, especially the iraqi's.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » May 24, 2004, 6:07 pm

I'm worried that the rest of the world will continue their "you made the bed, now sleep in it" approach due to their anti-Bush feelings. Not that I terribly blame them, when one is more or less slapped in the face hard feelings can linger. However that approach is not the best way for Iraq to become a stable nation...

Maybe they'll postpone voting on it until December.

Animale

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 24, 2004, 6:32 pm

Few other armies can handle the work. I'm not sure who could step in to help to some significance.

Maybe a few token forces for symbolism points?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » May 24, 2004, 6:55 pm

Do you think that the terrorist attacks are going to stop once America leaves? I mean in Iraq. We all leave then suddenly there is no more conflict?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 24, 2004, 7:49 pm

Few other armies can handle the work. I'm not sure who could step in to help to some significance.

..because the US Army has done such a good job settling the problems and winning over the population..

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 24, 2004, 7:51 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:Do you think that the terrorist attacks are going to stop once America leaves? I mean in Iraq. We all leave then suddenly there is no more conflict?

No, the US must leave Iraq and Kerry must be elected. We will then live in a utopian world and all will we be beautiful and peaceful. The birds will chirp and the clouds will look a little more fluffy.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 8:06 pm

Winnow wrote:
Bubba Grizz wrote:Do you think that the terrorist attacks are going to stop once America leaves? I mean in Iraq. We all leave then suddenly there is no more conflict?
No, the US must leave Iraq and Kerry must be elected. We will then live in a utopian world and all will we be beautiful and peaceful. The birds will chirp and the clouds will look a little more fluffy.

rofl

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 24, 2004, 8:15 pm

Winnow wrote:No, the US must leave Iraq and Kerry must be elected. We will then live in a utopian world and all will we be beautiful and peaceful. The birds will chirp and the clouds will look a little more fluffy.

Veeshanvault thanks you for your contribution.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 24, 2004, 8:26 pm

of course there won't be peace. there will never be peace now until there is a huge civil war to fill the power vaccuum your reckless and irresposible, not to mention greedy and violent government has created. you've also made the arab world despise you and want to carry out attacks on american soil even more. way to go, morons.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 24, 2004, 10:06 pm

The Arab world already despised us, no big loss there. We did remove the person who was perhaps the biggest roadblock in all of the Middle East to American Support (among other things).

This was not a 5 year plan, it was a 30 year plan. In a generation, hopefully tentions will ease, but frankly, before we went, things looked no worse than they do now with regards to how the Middle East felt about the United States.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 24, 2004, 10:26 pm

Avestan wrote:The Arab world already despised us, no big loss there. We did remove the person who was perhaps the biggest roadblock in all of the Middle East to American Support (among other things).

Nope, Sharon is still in office...

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 24, 2004, 10:29 pm

I said the biggest roadblock to American support, not the biggest roadblock to peace. I agree with you that Sharon is a problem, but please try to read.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 24, 2004, 10:36 pm

Avestan wrote:I said the biggest roadblock to American support, not the biggest roadblock to peace. I agree with you that Sharon is a problem, but please try to read.

I understand english very well thanks...perhaps you should take some lessons in reading for understanding and, in point of fact, cogency in composition...

Neroon · Post by **Neroon** » May 24, 2004, 11:08 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Few other armies can handle the work. I'm not sure who could step in to help to some significance.
..because the US Army has done such a good job settling the problems and winning over the population..

I think he means from a sheer manpower standpoint. Most countries, who would be willing to contribute, can't afford to send 10's of thousands of troops. It will be 500 here, 1000 there, and likely the bulk American.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 24, 2004, 11:40 pm

True, but with a leadership that is less hated by the population you might get away with less soldiers as well.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 25, 2004, 3:14 am

Winnow wrote:No, the US must leave Iraq and Kerry must be elected. We will then live in a utopian world and all will we be beautiful and peaceful. The birds will chirp and the clouds will look a little more fluffy.

You're learning!

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 25, 2004, 11:30 am

Looks like the US just submitted a proposed UN resolution that would establish a multinational force with a lot more sway over the goings on in Iraq when the provisional government takes power in June. Thoughts?

The US makes a mess and leaves the UN the impossible task of tidying up after it. Again. See also Somalia, Haiti etc etc ad infinitum.
The UN is just as hated as the US by the people actually causing the trouble in Iraq so I doubt it'll make a hair of difference other than letting you yanks off the friggin hook.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 11:41 am

What an odd situation.

An army's job is to kill people and take over or defend territory.

Yet we now use an army to protect people and uphold some form of human rights.

No wonder they're having trouble. It seems like a conflict in purpose.

Use the force of death, to prevent death.

I sure hope those Iraq police forces come online soon.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 25, 2004, 12:36 pm

A Peacekeeping force wouldn't necessarily have to be as large an occupation force, so 10 000 troops may not be necessary, HOWEVER the UN is almost as as hated by dissidents in Iraq as the USA. The Gulf War was a UN sanctioned operation. The sanctions that impoverished Iraq over the following decade were from UNSC resolutions. The people of Iraq have little reason to love the UN (hence them being a target for bombings as well).

A multinational UN force would have some serious work to do to build credibility/rapport/a working relationship with the dissidents before it could be truly effective, no matter the nationality of the troops wearing the blue berets.

As far as who could provide the troops? Most of the European nations who were against the coalition could contribute. South America. Some Asian countries and some of the African nations, although they would probably require logistical support from the developed nations.

The real question is do the members of the UN want to "clean up" what is widely regarded as an American and to a lesser extent British mess (have to admire Blair's international politicking to make himself look more moderate, even while supporting the US

).

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » May 25, 2004, 12:43 pm

Wulfran wrote:A Peacekeeping force wouldn't necessarily have to be as large an occupation force.

The name you give a force isn't as important as thier mission. If you say the goal is to prevent violence then it doesn't matter whether you call the force "Peacekeeping" or "Occupation". It amounts to the same mission and the same force.

If you reduce the scope of the mission to say, reponding to Iraqi military requests for assistance with larger targets or training police, then sure - let's bring the rest of our guys home, but semantics don't change the force structure.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » May 25, 2004, 3:20 pm

Wulfran wrote:The real question is do the members of the UN want to "clean up" what is widely regarded as an American and to a lesser extent British mess (have to admire Blair's international politicking to make himself look more moderate, even while supporting the US ).

The real question is does the UN want to sanction/contribute to, an occupying force over which they have limited control...Withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be possible, under the current proposal, only by a vote of the security council. Which of course the US could veto. I don't see the UN accepting this wording.

Midnyte wrote:The US couldn't get their full support in the beginning, but now everyone wants a piece of the pie.

Errrmm?...You do understand that the US proposed this? I'm not sure how you could construe that as evervyone wanting a "Piece of the pie"...