U.S. Cool To New U.N.Vote: Unfettered Role In Iraq Preferred

[lanlady]

Despite increasing pressure to "internationalize" the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, the Bush administration is not actively pursuing a new U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing broader international participation out of concern that greater U.N. involvement could reduce U.S. control.

Five months after the U.N. Security Council refused to endorse the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration and key U.N. members remain at odds over a formula that would relieve the military and financial burdens the United States is bearing almost alone.

Publicly, senior administration officials say that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is "exploring" the possibility of a second U.N. resolution to replace or amend Resolution 1483, passed in late May, which effectively granted the United States control over Iraq's economy and its political process until an internationally recognized government takes power in Baghdad.

...more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13521-2003Aug1.html

[Flubadubya]

1. It's mine I tell you, MINE!

I found it first and you can't have any. Now go away and leave me alone. Na na na na boo boo.

Children can behave badly, and these are the worst.

[joeybee12]

2. The UN is the US' only savior now...

...and Dumbo and his murderers will never allow a second resolution. Many more Iraqi civilians and US soldiers will die before it egts to the point where this fool is voted out of office.

[sugus]

11. USA could need international observers for next elections.

Recounting votes is very difficult if republicans judges don´t like popular Democracy, when all the organized citizens will go to vote to avoid Bush wins again. Probably international observers could be necessary to protect our American Democracy.

[karlschneider]

13. You got it, sugus...and welcome to DU. We have so many new members

it's hard to keep up! :D

[lebkuchen]

3. Our military divisions need relief NOW

Bush's Coalition of the (un)Willing isn't worth squat to our soldiers. The UN is their only hope, yet Bush won't budge on getting our soldiers help because he refuses to take his eyes off the oil prize.

Evil lurks from within our WH as, once again, Bush refuses to help our soldiers. He is personally responsible for every single injury or death.

Bush must be impeached.

[radfringe]

4. What happened to the

"we'll go it alone" bravado from AWOL????

Get ready for the reverse spin....about how we all need to work together....until the next war AWOL starts and the rest of the world objects...


He's the great uniter - uniting the world against us...

<Tongue in Cheek>and he's done such a wonderful job of uniting Dem's and Repugs...hasn't he? I feel sooooo united that I could run out and hug him<tongue OUT of cheek>

[lanlady]

5. and of course--

no one is asking the Iraqi people for their opinion.

[saigon68]

6. BRING IT ON

We don't need no freaking help.

-----The CHIMPANZEEE
43rd President of the U. S.

[pansypoo53219]

9. but

the simian still wants foreign tropps to be ducks in the shooting gallery.

[jamesinca]

7. That is all we need to lift this burden

I have been posting this clip from the financial times repeatedly in here, and it is true. Once again the WH attitude is why we do not get the international help even when the senate voted 97-0 to seek it. Rumsfeld was on the sunday T.V. shows two weeks ago saying that the U.S. was actively seeking international help. To that I say BS!!


Because they rejected a United Nations-supervised administration of post-Hussein Iraq, the US and Britain needlessly shoulder most of the legal responsibility for the success or failure of the administration and reconstruction of Iraq. No wonder other nations and groupings, such as India, Pakistan and Nato, have rejected Washington's appeal for troops. Why risk the liabilities of a military occupation under current conditions, especially when a simple Security Council mandate could trump occupation law, with all its attendant burdens?

In an awkwardly crafted resolution in May, authored by Washington and London, the Security Council designated the two victorious nations as the "occupying powers". This title carries all the responsibilities, constraints and liabilities that arise under occupation law, codified in the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and other instruments. The UN assumed an advisory role but left the legal responsibility squarely with the US and Britain and reminded other nations of their obligations if they deployed troops in Iraq.

In the last half-century no country requiring such radical transformation has been placed under military occupation law instead of a UN mandate or trusteeship. No conquering military power has volunteered formally to embrace occupation law so boldly and with such enormous risk. And never in recent times has an occupation occurred that was so predictable for so long and yet so poorly planned for.

Occupation law was never intended to encourage invasion and occupation for the purpose of transforming a society, however noble that aim. The narrow purpose is to constrain an occupying military power and thus discourage aggression and permanent occupation. The humanitarian needs of the civilian population take priority and usually require the occupying power to act decisively for that purpose.

But Iraq - under Saddam Hussein, a tyranny built on atrocities - requires radical political and economic transformation in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a worthy goal now sought by the occupying powers. Yet their performance to date raises serious risks of liability under occupation law, which could lead to civil and criminal actions (even against military and civilian officials) by Iraqi citizens.

[Nancy Waterman]

8. This will be come a bigger and bigger issue

The shrubistas won't budge. It is a choice of power versus what is good for the people (our soldiers and the Iraqis). Bushco always chooses power. All the Dem candidates are for the UN taking over. But the shrubistas want their puppet regime and their hegemonic power grab. The cost of this war will become more and more insufferable, but the administration may mever give in. January 21, 2005, Iraq will be transferred to the UN.

[bodhisattava]

10. The PNAC plan is to make Iraq a satellite of U.S. and Israel

No wonder they object to the U.N. becoming the new Iraq administrator
until a true Iraqi government is formed.Their plan is to install the puppet-Bank robber Chalabi as the new savior of Iraq a la the Shah of Iran,make oil and reveues flow to U.S.,Israel and Britain and call it a great experiment in democracy.I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Chalabi "eliminates" by assassination and buyouts all his rivals in the so called Governing Council and becomes the President-for-Life.The gas bags in the American Press will then find wonderful things to say about him.They, of course, have had sufficient practice, kneeling in front of Emperor George.

It is all so depressing and so predictable.

[Clyde39]

12. Can the Democrats please unite!!!

and DO something about this run-away group of democracy killers.