There is no ability to lose the war in Iraq, since it is not really a war. There is no established enemy, just a huge number of sects fighting each other for control. We should have turned this over to the UN, who can manage this situation without any risk of political greed, a long time ago. Do you agree?
2007-09-05 14:11:03 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You're right. The UN is competent and trustworthy
2007-09-05 14:15:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I do agree, and everything you say is true.
We won a military war, but peace is yet to be achieved.
As you suggest, the Iraq situation should be turned over to the UN, and with one stipulation: To stop the different religious sects from fighting to establish their own brand of religion, their present theocratic government should should include the phrase: "There shall be no establishment of religion, and the free exercise thereof." A comprehensive Bill of Rights should also be included that constitution.
The power of the word is more powerful than the might sword.
2007-09-05 14:32:17 · answer #2 · answered by Lou B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really. The USA have assumed the title of world democratizer without thinking about what their interventions might cause to the territories they invade/defend/democratize or whatever you want to call it.
The vote of the USA in the UN Security Council is crucial so after all that happened I don't know how turning the situation to be solved over to the UN could have made a difference.
However, if you start a war in a culturally different terittory than yours, you might want to fight it from a different perspective.
2007-09-08 04:12:46 · answer #3 · answered by ramona e l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the plan is to have a permanent presence in the heart of the Middle East. We have built permanent bases there already...much like we have in Germany.
If you track the Department of Defense Contract Awards that are listed every day, you will see that the support contracts for those bases have been dated to expire in 2008 since 2004. The Administration has no intention of leaving Iraq.
2007-09-05 14:19:02 · answer #4 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We went to Iraq because I called the Whitehouse and asked them to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We are still there because if we do not succeed in Iraq becomming a self governing, democratic nation that can act as a catalyst to other Arab and Iranian nations there will be hell to pay. People that criticize President Bush are like hicks that try to tell a brain surgeon how to do his job. They just do not comprehend the complexity and the importance of doing this work. On the other hand, the yayhoos that want to nuke Iran are just as stupid. The whole business is bigger than the middle east. Be thankful we have a selfless and competent man in the presidency to take on this messy task. He is doing everything exactly the way that I would do it, only if I got the kind of grief he gets from his own people I would laugh, resign, and tell them to deal with the **** themselves. There are people who love the United States and the leaders of the Democrat party are not among them.
2007-09-05 14:24:52 · answer #5 · answered by taxigringo 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The U.N. was opposed to the U.S.A. invading Iraq thereby making it a illegal invasion.
This is why the U.S.A. is now left with the cost of rebuilding Iraq.
This is why U.S.A. would like the U.N. to get involved...that way the cost is covered by the member countries.
Unless the U.N. agree to take on the responsibility, I don't think the U.S.A. can hand it over to the U.N.
Basically....you made your bed, now sleep in it.
2007-09-09 08:34:05 · answer #6 · answered by canada_guy_01 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't agree that the UN can manage any situation without risk of corruption, but, yes, there's little militarily, to accomplish in Iraq at this point. The Iraqi people have been freed, and they have chosen thier prefered form of social order. It happens to be unending sectarian strife, but, hey, it's there choice...
2007-09-05 14:16:31 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We tried to give it to the U.N. but they (mainly France) didn't want to send troops. U.N. troops don't do anything anyway except watch the killing like they did in Rwanda. There are not only sects fighting each other but foreign terrorists that want to destablize the reigon. If that happens we'll either have to go back again under worse conditions, or allow another genocide to take place.
2007-09-05 14:18:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush & Cheney made too much money from this war to leave. They had planned to attack Iraq even before 9/11 happened, and after it did all their focus went there instead of the real threat which was Osama Bin Laden.
2007-09-05 14:16:52 · answer #9 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well we know the UN is ineffective. The biggest problem we have is that they disbanded the Iraqi Army after they surrendered, we should of keep them together to win the peace. But No Rummi Said we can rebuild a better army.
2007-09-05 14:16:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought the UN was just a bunch of cowards myself.
Weren't they the ones whining to us about Sadam not showing his stuff to them.
Instigator's giving the wealthy an in is all.
Though I supose they could have been bought cheaply enough.
2007-09-05 14:19:11 · answer #11 · answered by DeathsToy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋