2007-11-26 22:33:07 · 9 answers · asked by realitycheck 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I knew it originally but hadn't given it a thought since then.
Thanks for bringing it back up.
2007-11-26 23:13:29 · answer #1 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, good point, and something the Republicans could have argued all along, but that's a little hard to do while bashing the UN at the same time.
The mandate is about to expire, and to replace it, Bush has reached an agreement with Maliki to keep the US troops in Iraq indefinitely. In my view, once the Iraq gov't was in place, Bush should have made agreements and treaties with it. I think he's getting smarter now; it's just too bad it took this long.
2007-11-27 06:55:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah sorta but those coalition troop numbers are token; it's entirely a US Show with fading supporting act from the Brits. Turkey, a supposedly American ally and NATO member even refused to grant US troops permission to open up a northern front just before the war. UN mandate or not, you would've gone in anyway.
2007-11-27 06:56:15 · answer #3 · answered by AQUALUNG 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The reason there is a "coalition" is that the UN refused to take military action.
2007-11-27 06:41:41 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Coalition? There's the US troops and about ten other soldiers from Japan or Korea. I wouldn't call that a coalition.
2007-11-27 06:49:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
So you are saying the UN mandates what the US military can and should do.
2007-11-27 06:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by beren 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you say that they're commanded from New York instead of Washington? I think they're commanded from Houston.
2007-11-27 07:32:20 · answer #7 · answered by GBsAs 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
2007-11-27 14:27:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
And you're point is??
2007-11-27 06:37:55 · answer #9 · answered by justme 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋