Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: charrison
No resolution is going to get passed at the UN about Iraq.
Then we are truly screwed. Thanks to Bush and the people who support him.
More like thank france, who wants the UN to have complete control in Iraq.
What is wrong with having the UN having control of Iraq - specifically politically?
I see a far better chance of Iraqis getting to elect their own leaders and sooner under the UN than under the Bush Administration.
Considering even under UN control, the US is going to be providing a large amount of the cash of reconstruction, why would we
want to funnel that cash to another organization. Yes, we have done all the heavy lifting to free iraq and the reconstruction money should be spent how we see fit.
Currently most citys in Iraq have already established local goverments and they are working on a new constitution. Looks like things are going pretty well politically without the aid of the UN.
So why did we not take the offer france has put out?
You tell me - its because we don't want to hand over any political control because Bush is trying to make the UN irrelevent. That is why anything he proposes is the UN under an American Administation to show that the USA is above it. To me its just "Pax Americana" in progress - maybe someone else has a more feasable idea than me but I haven't seen anything else so I felt like saying my view
Lets see, the US has offered member countries the chance to aid in the rebuilding of iraq. France will veto any resolution unless the UN has complete control. You tell me who is being unreasonable.