Considering the fragmented state of Iraqi politics, should the UN do more to promote reconciliation amongst the numerous factions at odds with each other? Also, with a lack of adequate infrustructure and "nation building" going at a snail's pace, should the UN also get more involved in reconstruction efforts as well?
2007-08-09 06:40:36 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
By the way, it is the US and UK that have drafted a resolution to request the UN get involved.
2007-08-09 06:51:01 · update #1
The UN won't take it now.
They told us before we went in there that they'd take care of it, that we didn't need to invade. But Bush went in there anyways, and now that it's to a collapsing point, they don't want it. It's kind of like, "hey, we offered, you said no".
2007-08-09 06:50:10 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What would that actually accomplish?
The UN only accomplishes something when the US leads the way and foots the bill. So it would still be US troops in Iraq.. and it would still be the American taxpayer paying for it. Except now you'd have to deal with the endless bitching and whining from the UN, not sure there would be any improvement.
2007-08-09 07:02:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What, because the UN did so well dealing with the situation between the Gulf Wars?
2007-08-09 06:46:50 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
buddy, to put it in a nutshell...
the UN isn't really relevant...
they advised the US to let inspectors look for WMDs rather than invade Iraq, and do you know what happened? the US IGNORED them and went in anyway...
if they had any real power we wouldn't be in this mess right now...
the UN exists only to give smaller, developing and undeveloped countries the false belief that their opinions and concern matter to the larger, developed nations....
look at darfur... the UN should be up in there in full force, but because they have a permanent (STUPID) security council and need a unanimous (stupid) approval to act and two of those permanent members (russia and china) don't want to act because of financial reasons, they've sent a token force while the janjaweed and sudanese goverment continue to kill and maim and loot and rape...
the UN is like an old, lame, toothless watchdog who still thinks that it is fearsome...
2007-08-09 06:51:25 · answer #4 · answered by That Guy 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If they stand any chance of benefiting from a 'democratized' Iraq (if that should ever happen), then yes, they should take a bigger role in it.
But if they truly believe that the US was wrong for going over there, then if the Iraq occupation is indeed a success, they should reap NO BENEFITS from Iraq.
2007-08-09 06:46:26 · answer #5 · answered by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They should but they won't. Everybody sees this mess as an American problem. We can thank the administration's unilateralism and cowboy foreign policy for that..
2007-08-09 06:48:29 · answer #6 · answered by Page 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
considering it was the mighty Uns failed resolutions that got us there, NO the UN is worthless
2007-08-09 06:45:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
With it's past track record, I would say no.
We can't afford it.
2007-08-09 06:53:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋