Should we replace United States soldiers in Iraq with UN soldiers?

Question

Let's give the surge time to work first but I think we should get the UN to help patrol Iraq. What are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Great question! Having a degree in history and having been there and fought, I tend to see things from a slightly different perspective. This current war (historically) is nothing more than a continuation of Desert Shield/Storm. AND THAT war should have been the business of the U.N.. It wasn't until the end of that war that the U.N. actually decided to step up to the plate and so brokered the cease fire agreement. For those who say the U.N. didn't want us to go in this time, I say, look at the countries that voted against supporting those cease fire agreements and their corruption. The U.N. under Ban's leadership is now investigating some 316 counts of child rape and incest by members of the U.N. while under the previous leader -- whose own relative was busted in the Oil For Food scandal. Hmmm. Those same people also ignore basic facts such as Carter's having gutted the CIA, Reagan's (and the French and Russians too) having sold WMD technology to Iraq. Where was the U.N. then? Truthfully, the U.N. was designed to never fight and win a single war and it's proven itself to be as inept as was the League of Nations. It was always the U.N.s job, but then, why should they start owning up to their responsibilities now? Send them the freakin' bill.

Answer 2

Yes preferably UN soldiers with a Muslim background.They know the culture Still believe my plan,just install a cruel but US friendly dictator would work better but your plan actually is within International law and mine isn't.

I don't think it is impossible to get the security council to vote in favor of this if the US is willing to listen to the input of the other members that is.It's very much in the interest of the world community that Iraq stabilizes.

Answer 3

The war in Iraq was not UN sanctioned. In order to get the UN involved America would effectively have to say, yup we created a civil war and we need help (this is an unlikely scenario).

The invasion of Iraq proceeded without UN approval and formal inspection. The invasion was carried out before the UN was able to exhaust diplomatic channels to deal with the outstanding sanctions placed upon Iraq.

To answer your question, it is unlikely that UN will get involved unless the USA is willing to admit that things are not going well and that the situation in Iraq is degenerating, not improving.

Answer 4

Absolutely. I have been saying this since the onset. This SHOULD BE the UN's fight, not ours. The problem is that now that we have gone in, against the wishes of the UN, it has become our fight. It would be difficult to get the UN to intervene now.

George H. W. Bush did Iraq properly, with the support of the UN and international community.

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." GHW Bush - A World Transformed

So we now have a dramatically different (and barren) outcome.

The UN should have been involved since Day 1, not brought in to clean up the mess Iraq has become.

Answer 5

Send George Walker Bush, Dickless Cheney, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the liars of the Bush Administration and the PNAC and let them fight the war they started. Not a one of these cowards have ever seen true military service, Bush was AWOL from the Texas National Guard, Cheney and Wolfowitz were both getting Student Deferrments so they wouldn't have to go to fight in Vietnam and Karl Rove is just plain evil.

I would suggest taking them all on a plane flight to Bagdad and put them on a bus and take them to downtown Bagdad and throw them off the bus and let the Iraqi's go at them. See how long these bunch of sorry cowards would last. as the Iraqi's could get redribution against those that created their dilema.

Answer 6

Hello. The United Nations did not sanction the US invasion of Iraq. The UN has purposely stayed out of this involvement in protest of the US' unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation.

By the way, the so-called surge has not worked.

Answer 7

The U.N. is too weak. The Iraqi Army needs to establish and maintain order. We will end up having a contingent of soldiers there for the next 30-40 years.

Answer 8

Not that the UN would have anything to do with Iraq, but they would not be able to really accomplish anything at all. Peace keepers operate on such a strict procedure that they would not be able to mount any kind of offensive operation. They would only be helpful as policemen in areas already cleared of insurgents. Of course, those areas, such as Kurdistan, don't really need the UN soldiers as they do a good enough job on their own.

Answer 9

althow I agree with you good luck trying to get them involved in the mess that our gov. created, besides, when you say U.N. forces It still translates into Mostly american troops so really there will be very little diffrance

Note: the media will report "U.N. security troops" instead of "U.S. troops" and we wont care as much until we find out They were from Iowa 6 month to a year later

Answer 10

The UN should have been the ones to lead the charge in the first place. Saddam was guilty of violating numerous UN sanctions, so he should have been held to account by the UN. I really doubt if we could get them to agree to go in now. Face the facts, they are not really helping in Afghanistan either. NATO is taking up the slack in Afghanistan, but the UN is sitting back on their haunches trying to convince everyone that they are still pertinent.