Wake Up Call! Bush Get's UN Res. & We Lose!

[KoKo]

After reading the lastest news on Powell's efforts to Bully the UN into approving a Resolution to allow troops in.....but under our control.....I started to get very nervous........All thoughts of Bush's approval ratings dropping in the last weeks went out of my head......

We have a BIG PROBLEM!

If in the interest of thinking they "will be trying to do the right thing by stabilizing Iraq with international troops" the UN Security Council decides they have to hold their nose and vote in favor of US/GB because it would be the "humanitarian thing to do," we Dems are going to have a big setback.

If Bush gets his extra troops and money for rebuilding from UN Member Nations after DEFYING the UN by going into Iraq in the first place, he will be seen as a "Conquering Hero! A Masterful Strategist! A Risk Taker who Gets Results!

If the UN caves......and remember it's US/GB/China/France/Germany/Russia
who have the votes (I believe it comes down to those votes as the ones with total authority) Bush wins again!

Tell me I'm wrong on this......please!

Here's the paragraph that set me off with link to article: (Notice the sneaky, underhanded way Powell is trying to get the UN to approve this, in bold).




EXCERPT:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=3&u=/nyt/20030821/ts_nyt/uswillaskunformovetowidentheforceiniraq


"The donor countries may put up all kinds of pledges," said an envoy from a country under pressure to make a large contribution. "But when it comes to writing the checks, who do we write them out to? We're not writing them to the occupation. There has to be more of a U.N. role."

An administration official said a separate idea floating around was for the Iraqi Governing Council whose existence the Security Council "welcomed" in a resolution passed last week to be asked to request military help from the United Nations.

The official explained that since it would not involve the United States' asking for the troops, the request might not be resented by nations that opposed the war earlier this year.

But knowledgeable diplomats at the United Nations scoffed at the idea, in part because of widespread skepticism about the legitimacy of the Governing Council, which consists of 25 Iraqis handpicked by the American occupation led by Mr. Bremer.

[clark2004]

1. damage has already been done

It will not help Bush a lot to get the UN in at this point.

[KoKo]

6. It's the approval for other countries in the UN to bring in troops.....it

all depends on whether you feel this war was legitimate or not. Or, whether you believe the US has the right to lie about intelligence information to Invade and Occupy another country......and then beg, or lie and cheat to have other folks clean up OUR MESS!

IT's OUR MESS! If we bring other troops in we don't do it by trying to sneak something through the UN! We go to the UN and BEG!!!

Bush did this.......he's responsible.

[newyawker99]

23. Hi clark2004!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Skittles]

2. I WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR OUR TROOPS

if that helps that dipshit Bush well so be it.

[proud patriot]

7. I'm with you Skittles

I just wish the the U.N coming in would reduce the number of
Americans there , but alass at this point I doubt there will
be that reduction of U.S. Forces .

Also I don't like the U.S. having control . This will
still give the appearance of U.S. occupation IMHO

I hope I'm wrong though .

[KoKo]

10. That's the point! It will STILL be an OCCUPATION!!

You all are trying to make it sound like I'm against the troops. That's what they said to those of us with our signs PROTESTING not getting into Iraq in the first place. We were told "Support the Troops...you Traitors."

So, you guys think I'm a traitor? I post this because I want our soldiers to die over there?? Sheesh.......give me a break!!! :grr:

[proud patriot]

12. Sorry KoKo01

I don't think that of you at all :loveya:

[KoKo]

16. Well...thanks....I was wondering..................

No problem.........I may not have worded my post as thoughtfully as I could. :-)'s

[Skittles]

24. NEITHER DID I !!!

:D

[atreides1]

19. Yes pull our troops out of Iraq in time for Korea Part II

I would just as soon have our troops stay in Iraq. Do you really think that this administration will stop it's empire building. The
only thing keeping them in check right now is the lack of troops, and
the lack of political courage to re-start the draft.

So instead of just one or two a day it will be squads, and it won't
only be bullets and explosives killing them, it will be chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that they will die from.

Or better yet instead of the troops coming home they'll use Iraq as
a staging area to launch an attack into either Iran or Syria.

I would like the troops to come home too, but I also know that they
won't be home for long. So hoping for them to come home is not a bad thing but stop and think about where they will be going to next.

Then ask yourselves, are they better off where they are, or will they
be better off buried in Korea?

[Eloriel]

31. Now THAT'S a good point

NKorea, Iran, Syria...and who knows what else is on their agenda??

You are so right. Yep, leave them there. At least there, they're only dying at a clip of 1 a day or so. I don't think NKorea would be quite so easy on the casualty statistics.

Not that I want ANY of them to die. I don't. But realistically, I think you have a very good point.

Eloriel

[NewGuy]

18. AMEN n/t

[carpetbagger]

22. If UN helps us clean up Boy Who Cried Wolf's mess, great!

Bring some of our guys home earlier, fewer in body bags, and make us less of a unilateral bomb-magnet. Hey, if they want to bail Bush out for the budget defecit while they're at it, bring em on.

[Ress1]

28. Absolutely.

It's immoral to think otherwise.

[tinnypriv]

3. There will be no UN resolution on troops

Unless Rumsfeld/Wolfo and the PNAC boys give way. They went into Iraq to control it. The only way of getting a UN resolution passed is to give up some of that control to the UN, and they won't do that unless forced.

My bet would be no UN resolution on troops. They're probably setting up a situation where UN talks "fail" so they can then say they need to send more U.S. troops, or (more likely) go "iron fist" with the tactics instead.

[ewagner]

8. Very good assessment

I think this whole thing is a shell game.

[wryter2000]

4. I'd like to hear what everyone else things, but

But, I don't see the UN going for it. Or even if they do, I don't see any other countries rushing to send in troops. In fact, in "Latest" on the Forums front page there's a link to something about Spain taking out troops that are already there now that a Spaniard has been killed.

[w13rd0]

5. Response: If Bush succeeds in securing a UN resolution...

...yet another one, after having defied them and broken international law, then the UN is indeed irrelevant, according to his own words. Bush can't have it both ways. He can't declare that by not enforcing their principles, the UN is irrelevant, but at the same time, they must ignore their principles, and rubber stamp his invasion.

[KoKo]

9. Is anyone reading the paragraph I snipped or the article about what they

are proposing? That's the point of my post. Read HOW Bushies are proposing to get the Resolution. Same lying, sneaky tactics they use for everything.

[Rex]

11. Won't happen - everyone with at least 1 brain cell

knows that the GC is just a puppet organization for the Bush Regime. The SECURITY COUNCIL is not the UN, this "welcoming" was just a political move by the big kids. There is no way in hell that China or Russia will go along with us having control over UN troops in Iraq.

[HFishbine]

13. Smething tells me

this will never happen if the US insists on administering the oil and rebuilding.

[fizzana]

14. The UN aren't going to cave in - read these comments

This is from a Bob Herbert op/ed piece in the NY Times today.

How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco — tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?

At the United Nations yesterday, grieving diplomats spoke bitterly, but not for attribution, about the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They said it has not only resulted in the violent deaths of close and highly respected colleagues, but has also galvanized the most radical elements of Islam.

"This is a dream for the jihad," said one high-ranking U.N. official. "The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans.

http://nytimes.com/2003/08/21/opinion/21HERB.html

France & Germany in particular and the UN in general aren't going to suddenly come around and play ball with the U.S. The attitude seems to be, "It's your mess, you clean it up."

[KoKo]

20. Kick....for the night crowd...................

:kick:

[remfan]

15. They "welcomed", but they did NOT endorse

The UN did not endorse or recognize the governing council as the legit authority in Iraq.

So, since the governing council is NOT the controlling authority in Iraq - the US is, and as they have no official power, IMO, they cannot make requests of the UN.

Just my interpretation, though.

[KoKo]

17. Remfam, I pray you are correct.....but imagine if this "distortion" does

somehow get the UN to approve......then Bush got what he wanted, the UN is weakened and he will feel empowered to move on into Iran and Syria, if he feels the UN rubberstamped him.....when in fact, the UN would probably want to head off a WWIII in the ME which it could become if we don't get some help in there. Either way......we lose. Our troops die because Bush won't "eat crow" and beg for help......or the UN tries to save our butts and loses it's purpose......Lose/Lose.

That's what's got me in a tizzy.....thinking about all that's so wrong about this......

[sangh0]

26. He is correct

Even if the UN does approve such a resolution, the various nations are not going to contribute troops because of the security situation, which a UN resolution is not going to change.

[notadmblnd]

21. Well

now that the US treasury has been looted, It must be time to go after other governments money.

[poskonig]

25. I agree, sort of.

If Bush doesn't get the international community in, HE is screwed. While if Bush gets one, then while his credibility on foreign policy is permanently damaged, he can still fight on taxes, civil unions, et cetera.

The GOP won't get one overnight but they need to start sucking up to foreign leaders very soon if they want this by next summer.

[John_H]

27. France and Germany made it very clear

using artful diplomatic language, of course, that if there's no oil contracts, there won't be troops.

"Sergey Lavrov, the Russian ambassador, spoke for many when he said "all of us wish a stronger and more active role of the United Nations." And he stressed the importance of creating "a political process and a clear timetable for restoration of sovereignty of Iraq."

Mr. Duclos, the French envoy, also suggested that the financial situation in Iraq was opaque. "We agree to participate in the donors' conference in October," he said, "only if the international community is totally informed about the use made by the coalition of Iraq's financial and oil revenues."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/international/worldspecial/22NATI.html

[blm]

29. Well, KoKo...

no surprise here. That's how they operate.

[stickdog]

30. Dude, the rest of the world knows the score.

What happened to de Mello and his delegation was as subtle as a cluster bomb.

Luckily, most leaders outside the US view their troops as slightly more than cannon fodder.

It's all a ploy to place blame on the UN for not "stepping up in the face of terrorism." When push comes to shove, the US neocons in Iraq will make any significant UN presence untenable.

[mandyky]

32. Not only that, if US troops get freed up

Syria or Iran is next. Or worse yet, North Korea.