Do you support a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq to replace our troops?

[Ugnmoose]

[vision]

1. I voted No

If the force was truley independant than I think I would vote yes. But as it is with the US calling the shots I think that the UN would not be effective as the US would keep stepping on their toes and nothing would be accomplished.

[Ugnmoose]

5. I agree

We would have to totally disengage ourselves and let the UN take control for this to be accepted. The reason this won't happen without some extreme pressure is that it would force the Bush Cabals to admit they totally fucked up. Not a good thing when you are running for re-election.

[revcarol]

6. You're right, of course.

The force MUST BE under UN command. And the UN must help the Iraqis decide what they want to do with their oil money, AFTER all the current contracts are voided and let again. AND THE U. S. MUST PAY FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF IRAQ. WE DESTROYED IT. WE MUST MAKE IT WHOLE AGAIN...in so far as this is possible.

We did it in Europe with the Marshall plan. We can do it again UNDER U. N. AUSPICES.

So I voted yes.

[Tinoire]

36. I voted no for the same exact reason

For decades the US has bullied and pushed around the UN and unless the US is TOTALLY removed from this, not enough will change to justify the hardship we will be inflicting on all the countries that tried to stop us and all the young people who will have to sacrifice parts of their life to go clean up OUR mess.

I would add that this sounds for a fine job for the US Department of Peace (the one Kucinich has introduced a House Resolution onto which 50 Representatives have already signed and not that travesty, the US Institute of Peace that has a man as vile as Daniel Pipes now heading it). That Department could be staffed with people like us :) An enhanced Peace Corps would do for now.

I think the 3 countries which created this mess should be the ones to clean it up AND pay for that clean-up.

However, if the world were so tired of any US involvement that it preferred the UN take care of it, then I'll be all for it!

BFEE involvmement MUST be ended but no one else should have to clean up America's mess.

Peace

[wuushew]

2. Replace the command structure not the troop numbers

the U.N. member nations would be hard pressed to come up with 150,000 non-american troops.

[poskonig]

3. I agree 100%.

Hence, on a technical basis, I had to vote 'no', given the word "replace."

[TahitiNut]

7. Turkey (an Islamic nation) alone has over 610,000 troops.

Between Turkey, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, and other Islamic nations all the needed troops could easily be provided -- and they'd be far more culturally compatible with the people of Iraq.

FWIW, here're the number of armed forces personnel of the top 6 ME countries ...
1. Turkey ...... 610,000
2. Iran ........ 513,000
3. Syria ....... 316,000
4. Saudi Arabia 202,000
5. Israel ...... 172,000
6. Jordan ...... 104,000


I doubt they'd have too big a problem assembling an adequately-sized force. (Oh, and Pakistan has 610,000 ... but they're needed to fight India and help guard the Afghan borders.)

After all, weren't they all being threatened by Iraq, according to the Bush Regime? :eyes:

[Ugnmoose]

8. This makes too much sense

After all we need to teach them the ways of the Anglo and how to be corporatist capital slaves.

[wuushew]

11. The Kurds might disagree

But you are overwhelmingly correct. But using American troops rightly places the financial burden on the US while still using the better planning and increased openess of a multi-lateral oversight body.

[StandWatie]

22. I would recomend..

leaving the IDF at home :shrug:

[tameszu]

31. Although this would scare the crap out of the Kurds

The UN would have to keep the Turks in Northern Iraq, and the Turks aren't entirely trustworthy.

I'm just relieved that the U.S. didn't sell out the Kurds to the Turks like the elder Bush did. I really thought that was going to happen.

[ignoranceisstrength]

4. yes

not only would the un hopefully work a little more actively to truly liberate the iraqi's (who now need to be rescued from us) than haliburton and friends, it would help keep me from being drafted to die for cheney's oil ambitions

[alcuno]

10. Welcome to DU

The UN is the only possibility. US motives are fraught with well deserved suspicion.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. I voted no.

The UN is currently controlled by the US. Replacing US troops with UN troops would merely serve to legitimise the actions of the US, and probably wouldn't change a thing.

The US made this mess, they will have to live with it.

[TahitiNut]

14. Actually ...

... 'tis the ordinary Iraqi people who're living (and dying) with it, mate. All the hooplah about a few hundred tragic US military deaths demeans the horror of many thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

15. Don't be surprised when the hundreds become thousands...

and the thousands become tens of thousands...

The fact is, the US made this mess, and NO-ONE will be able to clean it up. All that will happen is that eventually the strongest Iraqi resistance leader will gather enough support so that when the US finally gives up, he will take control.

[TahitiNut]

16. The current US regime knows nothing but to use power.

Their entire policy premise, both domestic and international, is founded on the attitude (explicit in PNAC writings) of "might makes right" where that 'might' is either military or economic. There is no other principle so pervasive in their behavior. I said it when this regime was (s)elected and I'll say it again: the world should be afraid; be very afraid. The US has become the greatest threat to world peace and freedom since the days of the Roman Empire.

This regime has no 'exit strategy' for Iraq because it never intends to 'exit' Iraq. Not content with the 'Finlandization' of the Middle East, only a ('stooge') client regime and permanent military basing in Iraq is their foreseeable future.

The top five nations in terms of annual (per capita) military spending are:
1. Israel ........ $1,487.68 per person
2. Singapore ..... $1,003.88 per person
3. United States ... $986.23 per person
4. Brunei .......... $977.49 per person
5. Kuwait .......... $931.68 per person

(Note: Iraq was 72nd, with military expenditures of $54.16 per person. Hardly an "imminent threat". Total US military spending is greater than the combined spending of the next 25 nations in the world. The US has the 3rd largest standing military force in the world, right behind China and Russia and ahead of India, the most populous nations of the world. The US has, by far, the largest Navy and Air Force, both of which are offensive military forces. The US is the world's top arms exporter, at over $4.5 billion/year, 50% greater than China in 2nd place.)

Think of it ... nearly $1,000/year for every man, woman, and child spent on militarism. How much would it take to have health care for all again? a subsidized college education for every qualified student? :puke:

Every one of these nations are now ruled by authoritarian corporatist kleptocracies. Singapore is an authoritarian police state, an 'ideal' for the current US reichwing protofascist regime. Israel, under the ultraright Likkudites, has become a theocratic kleptocracy addicted to antidemocratic militaristic 'solutions'.

[iangb]

12. No. Because...

....the UN has neither the resources nor the will to undertake such a task.

150,000 troops? The best estimates are that it needs at least 500,000 to make the place secure. (Even the Pentagon said so.......until Rummy's expertise convinced them otherwise.)

[sugargoose]

13. I voted No because

* would not accept the decision, help, or advice of those in the UN before the war, so I don't think it is fair to burden them with cleaning up the quagmire we've created.

However, let it be said that I also don't think Americans, military or civilian, should be burdened because of * either. It's certainly too bad that our votes were ignored in the last election.

[TahitiNut]

17. Second thoughts.

The other nations of the world might be well-advised to emulate an array of "tar babies". To the degree that US military personnel are mired down in Korea-like 'quagmires', the ability of the current US regime to further embroil the US in more widespread militaristic hegemonies might be retarded.

Thus, while my foamy-lipped psychopatriotic countrymen might scream "antiAmerican!" at me, viewing the US from a realpolitik world perspective impels me to advise that no other nation take up a "rear guard" role to free up US forces for more hegemonistic military adventurism.

So, count my 'Yes' instead as a 'No'.

[German-Lefty]

21. Cool Posts!

I think Bin Laden stated too the only way to stop the US is to let it get bogged down in a bunch of places and then throw it out. Looks like his strategy may be working.

I voted "yes" but on conditions. Most of which won't happen.

[German-Lefty]

18. Yes, but only if

1) They get the resources to do the job.
2) They call all the shots, so they can do the job.
3) UN forces means troops from other coutries preferably ones that speak Arabic or at least are sensitive to Muslim traditions.

I don't want the US Administration to just say "Here ya go UN. Now it'll blow up in your face so we can blame you for it."

Would the US be willing to spend the $6 billion a month to pay other coutries to rebuild Iraq? What fun is spending that kind of money when you can't give it to your buddies at Bechtel?

Rebuilding your enemy is hard. We did it in Japan and Germany, but we were serious about it. It's something that America can be very proud of. I'm wondering if we've screwed up the situation so bad that we can't still fix anymore. I'm wondering if there's any international good will out there. I'm wondering who would want to take responsiblity for that mess.

I'm hoping we learn something from this.

[TahitiNut]

34. Uh-huh.

The way wars are 'won' is for both sides to lose, where one side loses more than the other. That's "lose-lose"! That's what defined WW1 and its aftermath. That's why there was a WW2.

The way peaces are 'won' is for all sides to win irrespective of who 'wins' more. Everyone wins. That's "win-win". That's how Japan and Germany attained peace. The zero-sum fascist psychopaths, however, redirected their politicopathologies on the USSR, embarking on five decades of 'lose-lose' in the Cold War.

Interestingly, the strategy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was archly prototypical of the 'lose-lose' of warfare. It made it abundantly clear that warfare is ultimately not in actuality a 'zero-sum game' and is, instead, a negative-sum game.

Life is not a zero-sum game. There is no 'win-lose' -- only 'lose-lose' (war) and 'win-win' (peace).

[AWD]

19. I voted yes

...but it's impossible to constuct such a scenario while Bush is in office. He's destroyed the goodwill for America, and only a new leader will sway the UN Security Council to vote for this type of a move.

[_NorCal_D_]

20. Absolutely.

Though only if the US pays the bill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Yes. It's now or later.

At some point, the US is going to have to leave Iraq. The bushwarriors still think that they can "win" through the use of military power and blundering attempts to hand the fighting over to Iraqi surrogates. The Iraqis haven't read the script and are refusing to be "liberated" by a conquering army. The laughable attempt to promote "democracy" by installing a handpicked government backed by force is but one example.

The US is now faced with a many years occupation with unsustainable costs in casualties and money, or the vain hope of trying to "internationalize" the situation with American control.

It won't work. Our "allies", which consist of the UK, and a few bought and paid for mercenaries, are already wobbly. Blair is in deep trouble with his own party and people and the cries for withdrawal are only growing louder. The other "support" is negligible at best.

Although, BushCorp isn't about to let the UN come in unburdened with American control, I voted for the idea because it's the only one that makes sense.

Quagmire.

[Aristus]

24. Absolutely not. Why should the U.N. have to clean up our mess?

Especially the way the Chimp thumbed his nose at them before we invaded. I would love to have our troops come home safe and sound, but not at the expense of the troops of other nations. Particularly nations who warned us not to invade, and whom we then proceeded to vilify and boycott for doing so.

[DinahMoeHum]

25. Right now, NO. The UN should tell * to f**k off.

The goober made his bed - let him sleep on it.

:evilfrown:

[diamondsoul]

26. well, I voted no, but

for a different reason than most here apparently. UN Peacekeeping forces are UNARMED, folks. HELL NO, I don't want anyone in Iraq right now without some sort of weapon, it's just too dangerous.

Now should the UN employ its powers to call in reinforcements to help stabilize the country asap, absolutely YES. It will never settle without their assistance, something chimpy & co just can't or doesn't want to comprehend.

It's my belief that the US should be paying for the reconstruction while a disinterested third party handles overseeing the work itself.

[T_i_B]

27. Hmmm

Lots of people post why they are saying no, but at the time of writing 83% are voting yes!

Myself I voted yes. The UN has the experience in these matters that the US does not, the US/UK occupiers are making a right pigs ear of things and to withdraw the troops altogether would create a huge power vacum in Iraq that would most likely be filled by warlords who would plunge Iraq into a civil war. A UN force would be the best option here.

However, try as I might I cannot see that happening without the neo-cons falling from power in Britain and America. Bush and Blair will not relinquish the power they have ursurped without a fight.

[TahitiNut]

29. Exactly.

As long as the US (and the UK) are driven by protofascist greed and bent on world domination in a corrupt "might makes right" resurrection of Empire, Imperialism, and neocolonialism, the world's most effective defense is the "tar-baby" of military quagmire. Unless and until those hegemonistic forces are excised from the body politic in the US and UK, no accommodation will halt the predation.

[dpbrown]

28. Kucinich calls for UN to replace US, and US to give up contracts

This is the policy that is really needed in Iraq.

From the Kucinich website:

7/28/2003

Kucinich Calls for U.N. to Replace U.S. In Iraq

In statements from his Congressional office and on the campaign trail, Kucinich continued today to advocate that U.N. peacekeeping forces replace U.S. troops in Iraq....

Kucinich said today: "This weekend, with the deaths of 5 US troops, we were once again reminded of the dangers facing US troops in what has become a quagmire. To date 243 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. It is time that the United States begins the process of withdrawing our troops, and allow a UN peacekeeping force to take over the reconstruction of Iraq.

"In their rush to war, the Administration failed to adequately prepare for the post-invasion period. Negotiations for an exit must begin now. An exit agreement with the United Nations must involve the US letting go of the contracting process.

"The UN must also take over management, accounting and distribution to the Iraqi people of Iraq's oil profits. Additionally, a transition from UN control to self- determined governing structure by and for the Iraqi people must be planned. Finally, the Administration, which unwisely ordered the bombing, must fund the reconstruction."

http://www.kucinich.us

edit: add link

[TahitiNut]

30. The Bushoilini Madminstration ...

... will never cede control over the oil and 'contracts' that fill their bottomless coffers of greed and power lust. The only way they'll go along with any UN involvement is if they maintain this control and can free up military forces to go after more spoils of war.

[dpbrown]

33. Believe me, the irony is not lost on me

Although their very reluctance to give up control of raping Iraq for riches and diverting billions of US tax dollars through Halliburton on un-bid contracts is precisely why they should be booted out of Iraq, posthaste.

[gully]

32. What about the Geneva Convention?

I would like to hear Dennis speak about this as it is my understanding that b/c we went in without UN support we have responsibilities. Which is another reason W's decision was so very brilliant :eyes:


Perhaps someone here will know the answer...

[dpbrown]

35. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to the UN taking over

The UN has declared that the US/UK are "occupying" powers in Iraq.

But the US/UK should be supplanted by UN forces for stabilization, while Iraq rebuilds its own infrastructure with US aid.

Corrupt multinationals like Halliburton should be forced to give up the contracts they got through a no-bid process in favor of contracts negotiated by the new government of Iraq.

But Iraq should be allowed to rebuild itself without bearing a continued US occupation. That's exactly what Kucinich is calling for.

[gully]

37. Do you have a link?

Regarding the info. I thought I saw that we had to clean up the mess we started (so to speak)

Just Curious...I don't doubt your answer at all...

[dpbrown]

40. This is my overall understanding

But it's been a while since my International Public Law class. As such, it's my opinion, and subject to correction. ;-)

I'll look for an explanation somewhere and post it if I find one.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota
JD 1993

[gully]

41. Thanks, I'm interested in finding out myself b/c it's an important issue

:) Much appreciation Dan!

[screembloodymurder]

38. I'd support a pull out.

If we can't stop the terrorism, why participate?

[Jacobin]

39. Don't think it will help

Iraq wants its country back ----minus infidels from anywhere, including the UN (even though I think it could help them).

I think they are tired of all our "help".