Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bilow who wrote (112394)	8/23/2003 12:51:46 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) of 281500

The problem is that the UN is in Iraq only as a supporter of the same war aims that the US has, pacification. As long as this is UN policy, they will be targeted the same way that US forces are. The UN respresent foreign presence. The fact that they rely PREDOMINANTLY upon US forces, US transport, US financing, US logistics, means that US forces would be present in ANY UN LED OPERATION... It would be impossible to run a UN operation of such size without US forces... Thus, the UN would be incapable of managing such an operation. And the fact that many members of the UNSC were defacto (active?) supporters of the Baathist regime, which sparked this whole mess in the first place by invading Kuwait, would result in partisan bickering.. After all, just how would the UN manage the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil infrastructure when so many oil producing nations have little interest in seeing that occur? Would you have 150,000 US troops suddenly donning Blue UN berets and becoming a defacto UN army? Putting the UN in charge is not the panacea you foolishly advocate. But they CERTAINLY have a role to play in coordinating relief and security operations. Hawk

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next