Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mephisto2 · 04-14-2004, 06:25 PM

Yes you are.

Some of the reason the UN would be "better" include

1) The "occupation" (as you rightly describe it) would no longer be seen as a US led invasion

2) Many other countries, who are currently reluctant, would offer support; either troops or logistics

3) This could potentially include "Arabic" countries (like Turkey for example)

The US led occupation does have its own "advantages" such as you describe; namely they don't have to deal with legal niceties (the statement that they want to apprehend or kill Sadr is a good example), and they have a more streamlined command structure.

However, perception is very important here. If the UN get involved, it will help convince the Iraqi people that this is not simply a US effort to destroy their country and steal their oil. Making stupid jokes about WMDs at Presidential dinners does not help this. With the UN in control, you will get increased participation from many other countries. You should never forget that the VAST majority of the world's population, including those of the "coalition of the willing" members such as the UK, Korea and Japan, were against this invasion.

I honestly believe that if you don't see the UN get involved the coalition will start to crumble. It's already happening and will only get worse as more attrocities are carried out by the insurgents against civilians and support staff. This is despicable, but probably inevitable.

Finally one statement should be made (and more importantly, understood). This is no easy solution to this problem.

The unwarranted invasion of Iraq has created a dangerous situation and only the most narrow minded and unrealistic observers believe this has IMPROVED American safety. However, what's done is done. Hussein was undoubtedly a tyrant and the fact that he's been removed is a good thing. I just don't know if it was worth the lives of several hundred US soldiers, many thousands of Iraqi civilians and God only knows how much political and media obfuscation and downright disinformation.

It's dangerous times when a President lets personal animosity affect his direction of your country's foreign policy.

Mr Mephisto

04-14-2004, 06:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Yes you are. Some of the reason the UN would be "better" include 1) The "occupation" (as you rightly describe it) would no longer be seen as a US led invasion 2) Many other countries, who are currently reluctant, would offer support; either troops or logistics 3) This could potentially include "Arabic" countries (like Turkey for example) The US led occupation does have its own "advantages" such as you describe; namely they don't have to deal with legal niceties (the statement that they want to apprehend or kill Sadr is a good example), and they have a more streamlined command structure. However, perception is very important here. If the UN get involved, it will help convince the Iraqi people that this is not simply a US effort to destroy their country and steal their oil. Making stupid jokes about WMDs at Presidential dinners does not help this. With the UN in control, you will get increased participation from many other countries. You should never forget that the VAST majority of the world's population, including those of the "coalition of the willing" members such as the UK, Korea and Japan, were against this invasion. I honestly believe that if you don't see the UN get involved the coalition will start to crumble. It's already happening and will only get worse as more attrocities are carried out by the insurgents against civilians and support staff. This is despicable, but probably inevitable. Finally one statement should be made (and more importantly, understood). This is no easy solution to this problem. The unwarranted invasion of Iraq has created a dangerous situation and only the most narrow minded and unrealistic observers believe this has IMPROVED American safety. However, what's done is done. Hussein was undoubtedly a tyrant and the fact that he's been removed is a good thing. I just don't know if it was worth the lives of several hundred US soldiers, many thousands of Iraqi civilians and God only knows how much political and media obfuscation and downright disinformation. It's dangerous times when a President lets personal animosity affect his direction of your country's foreign policy. Mr Mephisto Last edited by Mephisto2; 04-14-2004 at 06:29 PM..