Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "The UN respresent foreign presence."
Huh??? What the hell does this sentence mean???
Re: "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."
Your logic is silly. If we pull out do you really believe that there won't be any "forces, transport, financing or logistics" in Iraq??? Of course the Iraqis have guns, vehicles, cash, and food and ammunition. How the f--- do you think that they got along before we got there??? Do you think that they used bows and arrows? That they walked? That they used barter?
Re: "Thus, the UN would be incapable of managing such an operation."
By using the term "managing" you illustrate that you are still believing in the capability and necessity of controlling the Iraqis. No, instead of "managing" elections, what the UN would do would be the same thing that they've always done in similar situations the world over. Simply observing the elections, and thereby giving them an air of fairness.
Re: "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?"
The Iraqis are quite capable of "managing" their own oil infrastructure. They even did okay under 12 years of sanctions that prevented them from freely importing equipment or exporting oil. It's almost like you believe the Iraqis are incompetent morons who have to have everything done for them.
And it's not like the US has been able to "manage" Iraq's oil infrastructure, LOL. By using terms like "manage", you show yourself clueless as to what "freedom" means.
Re: "Would you have 150,000 US troops suddenly donning Blue UN berets and becoming a defacto UN army?"
No, if they did that, they'd still be shot at. US troops should be pulled out. The handful of UN observers should be from Arab countries (so that they speak the local language).
Re: "Putting the UN in charge is not the panacea you foolishly advocate."
That was your idea of how to put the UN "in charge" that sucks. Note that you use the phrase "in charge". You use this phrase, which implies control, because you are still clueless about what "freedom" means to the Iraqi people. I wonder if you ever even read the Declaration of Independence.
I mean Jesus Weeps! Do you think that the UN (or the French or any other foreign body) were "in charge" of the elections in the US that brought in the first Continental Congress??? No, the proper UN role is only, at most, to "observe".
Re: "But they CERTAINLY have a role to play in coordinating relief and security operations."
You're right about "relief", but if the UN is put in charge of "security", they'll get their asses shot off.
-- Carl |
