If we pulled out of Iraq and a UN peacekeeping force was put in to replace us and the American armys.?

Question

If this peacekeeping force was made from Muslim countrys like pakistan and eygpt and any others.

Would that help calm things down over there ?

I mean Muslim terrorists are going there to fight our soldiers.

If it was Muslim soldiers there would they still want to go and fight ?

Answer 1

No, not really. Logistically and financially, it would be difficult for them to stay for any serious period of time. Having one unified force is really the best way to go. Armies from Islamic nations are likely to favor either Shiites or Sunnis, and are likely to play favorites. American soldiers are professionals, they have little to gain from misbehaving, and are held accountable for their actions. Soldiers from Iraq's neighboring nations are less so. It's really up to the Iraqis as to whether or not they will remain one democratic nation. Personally I think we should have created three separate nations or ceded most of Iraq to the surrounding countries like Kuwait, Jordan, and Turkey. Any way you cut it though, the Kurds are going to get skrewed!

Answer 2

First, you have to understand this is not a "civil war" as the liberal mindset and media like to portray this. This is a religious battle that's going on over there and has been there for over 1,000 years. There are three factions - the Shia, the Kurds and the Sunni. The Shia are the predominant faction there in Iraq. The Kurds, for the most part, live in the northern area of Iraq and have little or nothing to do with this whole conflict - but I am mentioning them to demonstrate how things are. The Sunni, is the minority - yet they were the empowered people thanks to Saddam Hussein, who was a Sunni.

Under Saddam there were uprisings and battles - but they were quickly put down and no attention paid due to the fact that CNN, MSNBC and all the other media outlets were not stationed there and were kept on a tight leash in reporting things. But the tension was there for centuries and always has been.

It's just that now there is a power vaccum there with the removal of Hussein and his torturous ways. The Kurds are the ones that are the most thankful, and you can go to http://www.theotheriraq.com and see how they feel about the military presence of the United States being there. These were the people that Hussein routinely gased with chemical and biological weapons because they spoke out and wanted to have peace and democracy in the land. In fact they'd be just as happy to be their own little country if not for the fact of needing oil to survive and really not having much of an income to thrive on such as the Sunnis and Shias have in the rest of Iraq.

To use a different way to look at it, imagine the United States of America as Iraq - this is like a battle of "Catholics" versus "Baptists" with "Atheists" being caught in the middle. The "Catholics" would be the Sunni, the "Baptists" the Sunni, and the "Atheists" are the Kurds. There you have two "religious branches" but all come from the same tree - a belief in God and Jesus. Trouble is, they both get there in different ways. And the Atheists just don't care one way or the other - they just want to do their own thing.

That is what we are facing over there. So putting in a group of Islamic "peacekeepers" would just be even worse since you'd have Shia siding with Shia, Sunni with Sunni - and things would get that much worse.

Besides all of the religious fighting, you have the Shia people from Iran feeding this fire of hatred because Iran want to de-stabilize this region and take over the vast oil from Iraq so they can form what is called a Califate or a ruling Muslim order from one large area of the world.

Iran's oil that it has needs a different and more costly way to refine it, whereas Iraq's is cheaper to refine and more people have the technology to be able to withdraw it fromt he ground easier. Iran does not - and is limited to asking 3 countries for help which have the technology for acquiring this - the United States, Canada and Japan. Right now none of the three are supplying them with this tech, so Iran is in a growing turmoil with almost 30% unemployment to as high as 50% in some places and a large majority of Iranians wanting to be peaceful and have a Democratic way of things as they had back in the 60's and 70's.

But the smaller ruling group, the Ayatollah's, have all the power and will not give this up. They are the ones bent on destroying Israel, destroying the West and bringing about an apocalyptic vision according to their radical views of Islam and its teachings. These radicals in Iran do not want peace - they welcome death and welcome war and believe that only in martyrdom will they achieve the highest of rewards in the Islamic faith that they have twisted and corrupted.

So as long as Iran and fanatics like the Ayatollah's are in power - the Middle East will never be a peaceful region.

Answer 3

Though the probability exixt I Don't believe so nor do I believe that the Pakistanis and Egyptians want a greater part of this.
The problem, I fear is that the major roadways and or some valuable geographical areas in Iraq has to be demined. Before this can be accomplished however, the entities who maintain the triggers in this trap must be stopped.

The car bombs I believe are a distraction from the greater risk, at hand; the Roadside Bombs pre-placed in an attempt to kill invading troops who travel overland. My concern is that the roads are so laced with bombs that they may be impossible to find. Hopefully we wouldn't have to rebuild all the roadways of Iraq.

If my assumptions are true; I believe the best strategy is to use citizens as agents to find sadism's loyalist right in their hideout spots. Many, I believe, linger on the side of the road waiting, but where?

Now to find success we must gain the trust of the citizens by first empowering them financially, socially, reminding them of sadism's history, informing them of the lack of liberty that once was and outline to them a vision for a bright future or the reality of a dark picture without success.

The boldness to attack the U.S. at its financial and military and political core was not just an act of revenger; rather, an act that was essentially a declaration or invitation to war, with the belief that if they were victorious in defeating such a great nation they would win loyalty from those they would have held in oppression and fear would disuade any other to invade thus holding the nation in a minefilled jail. This doctrine must be eliminated even from history which is why I believe you wouldn't hear this on your CBS evening news. That is my point of view and the reason why I support the surge in troops.

Answer 4

A UN peacekeeping challenge is prepared below financial ruin Six of the UN structure and it merely is going right into a rustic even as each and every of the warring factions have agreed to a ceasefire and to having a UN rigidity placed between them even as the diplomats attempt to paintings out a negotiated settlement. which could no longer the present case in Iraq. A UN peace enforcement challenge is prepared below financial ruin Seven of the UN structure. Korea in 1950 and Operation wilderness hurricane were peace enforcement missions. The U.S. tried to make the case to the UN for a sparkling peace enforcement challenge in Iraq in the previous we began Operation Iraqi Freedom below a Congressional Authorization (Public regulation #107-243). The UN safe practices Council would not bypass a sparkling determination, even even with the actuality that the Ba'athist regime below Hussein change into in violation of a minimum of ten earlier safe practices Council resolutions. might want to the terrorist probability in Iraq be dwindled and the countless factions interior that united states of america income some type of quietude, then the UN safe practices Council may manage to reserve and organize a financial ruin Six peace conserving challenge because it did in Bosnia and Macedonia contained in the Balkans.

Answer 5

Most experts agree that the presence of US troops is making things worse, partly because they are seen an an occupying force and partly because they have a (fairly justified) reputation for using excessive use of force and being a bit too 'gung-ho', resulting in the deaths of innocent civillians.

Pulling US troops out and replacing them with a UN peacekeeping force with a proper mandate would remove one of the big supports to the insurgents/ resistance. If this force was at least partly drawn from Muslim (particularly Arab Muslim) countries, it would be very hard for many of the militias to justify attacking and killing other Muslims.


(BTW France and many other countries opposing the invasion was nothing to do with a hatred of the US (get over yourselves) but rather a love and respect for the international laws, treaties and customs set up after WW2 to prevent WW3, that the US Government seems to lack).

Answer 6

"UN peacekeeping force"?! lmao, you gotta be kidding me. You think the UN could put together a several hundred thousand strong peacekeeping force? Which countries that don't already have forces in Iraq are going to be willing to volunteer their troops? Beyond the impracticability of establishing such a force, putting Shia or Sunni troops from other countries into Iraq woud likely have a destabilizing effect. So overall, this is thoroughly illadvised plan.

Answer 7

Absolutely not. There has not been a single world conflict brought to an end by the United Nations. It is a corrupt organization that has been investigated shady dealings. They do not have the will to enforce their own resolutions. UN peacekeepers in the Sudan have been investigated for child rape. The UN supported the formation of a Palastinian state, and when they got it, did it bring peace? NO! All they wanted was more. The UN is more interested in appeasement than doing what's right. Do a wikipedia search on Neville Chamberlain and the Munich Conference. Same principle applies.

(good god...who voted me down...I cited sources...and you can't refute anything I've said...sick....)

Answer 8

That would work fantastically. The only problem is, the UN will NOT get involved in Iraq. Countries like France would block any such peacekeeping force. You have a good idea that will never come to be, partially because of worldwide hatred of America.

Answer 9

The Muslim armies will annihilate the usurper Americans in the Middle east !!

Answer 10

No the UN is notorious for making things worse. The insurgents want control of the country not just for us to leave. The UN can go in after we are done.