since it is the US they have a problem with let the UN stop them from killing each other not us
2007-05-04 11:09:37 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
the USER bush_fas… is frightening
2007-05-04 11:57:55 · update #1
so after the UN fails and their neighbors will seal the borders and they will kill each other off. What is the way out?
2007-05-04 13:01:35 · update #2
Actually, it was made quite clear how successful a UN mission in Iraq would be when a suicide bomber killed the UN envoy to Iraq, Sérgio Vieira de Mello, in August of 2003. The UN rapidly withdrew its remaining staff, and with the exception of a token presence (i.e. the World Food Program) has almost no footprint in Iraq.
People somehow think the UN can solve the world's problems, but the UN can only enforce a peace, not create one. UN mandates in this day and age uniformly lack consensus and more importantly, muscle.
It bears reminding people that they need to understand that the UN is not an impartial arbiter of peace, and it does not have the ability to influence world events beyond the will of its member states. Since the UN cannot override national sovereignty, nations with the clout to conduct their own foreign policy and enforce their demands can happily do so without the approval or the cooperation of the UN (which they largely fund themselves anyways).
2007-05-04 11:14:29 · answer #1 · answered by Nat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq has been a nation since the dawn of recorded history.
They had written language before Egypt or Israel.
Ten years ago it had a million man Army. Why would they need anyones troops. If we leave so will Al Quieda.
It's NATO in Afghanistan but yes the UN has a miserable record.
2007-05-04 11:37:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The troops. and you have C incorrect. Obama gave a date for withdrawal on the marketing campaign path, some weeks later, Bush gave the comparable date. Bush accompanied Obama. A. If Bush had accompanied Commanders on the groud, A 9/11 could have in no way got here approximately. And B. we would have in no way entered Iraq interior the 1st place.
2016-12-28 12:49:53 · answer #3 · answered by microni 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That'a a great idea but you could never get the UN to go for it as most of the countries that supported the war have already withdrawn their troops and the Un weasels would shoot it down.
2007-05-04 11:14:31 · answer #4 · answered by booman17 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
what do you think we've been trying to do since day one?! the UN flat out refused to go into Iraq. and it isn't just against the US, it is anyone who gets in the way of the million different jihads going on right now. and what could the UN do that we couldn't? bring in more competent leadership? maybe...
2007-05-05 14:41:55 · answer #5 · answered by F-14D Super Tomcat 21 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We are the UN. the uN told us not to go into Iraq in the first place.
2007-05-04 11:16:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pfft!
The UN can't even win the war in Afghanistan!
Iraq would be a bloodbath for them! lol
2007-05-04 11:33:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN Troops would be slaughtered.
2007-05-04 11:14:27 · answer #8 · answered by ฉันรักเบ้า 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Zionist Jews that start all of the wars have a motive to break America's bank with the "war on terror". If America were to withdraw, it might strengthen America, and the Jews plan would have failed.
Oh, boo-hoo, sorry I "frightened" you. Do some research on the Rothschild bankers and I think you will understand the "Jews" I am talking about. I am speaking of the globalists that want one world government (Zionists). I am not talking about "Jews" in general.
2007-05-04 11:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Um, the UN would only make it worse. They are corrupt and inept. We have enough problems but thank you for the offer.
2007-05-04 11:13:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋