The US, UN & Iraq III

I'm sure as heck not bored, but I'm surprised Dean joined the Lieberman chorus, if that's so. (Have been preoccupied by sad events for the past little while; hardly hear the radio; skim the paper. So am behind the curve on Dean who is at present my candidate...)

Does Tenet need to go - Is the problem not that he fell on his sword but that he kowtowed, can't have this in CIA, must show independence - I say he goes! I don't fault Dean or Lieberman this.

Whoever replaces Tenet will owe his existence to the White House. Nothing will change. If Tenet is replaced it will only be symbolic. It will just be another scapegoat for the wimp in the White House..

I want to know who the White House insider is who wanted the 16 little words so bad.

Yeah, bill - after we solve that one, then we can go to work on the other eternal mysteries ....Grant's Tomb, and what year was the War of 1812 fought...

Stretched in Iraq, US may return to UN

Secretary of State Powell is discussing UN aid with Kofi Annan and others.

By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

PARIS – Pressured by signs of fatigue and dissent among US soldiers fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq, and disappointed by allies' reluctance to join what many see as an occupation army, the US may be forced to cede some control over Iraq's future to governments who disagreed with the war. That is likely to be the price of coaxing major nations into an Iraqi force through the United Nations, a process Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday he was discussing with the UN and allies. "The situation in Iraq is highly complicated and we are interested in a real, strategic trans-Atlantic debate," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who met with Mr. Powell in Washington, signaling the European desire to help shape events in Iraq.

It appears that inorder to get help from our "friends and allies " we will have to go back to the UN and eat some Crow. The question will the cowboy in the White House be willing to. Or does that go against the 'code of the west"

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0718/p01s01-wogi.html

au, What a change in international relations~! Before the war, it was all bluster on the part of this administration; they're now begging the UN for assistance in a occupation that looks too big to handle on our own. What happend to all the smart advistors this administration is supposed to have? This administration was trying to compare the occupation of Iraq to Japan, but which knumbskull thought up such a dumb idea? Japan had a parliamentary government and capitalist society before the war until the military took over. Japan had a very low crime rate after the war, whereas Iraqis looted everything they could get their hands on. The latest info shared by the US top brass was that the US will stay in Iraq for four years, and will not stay a day longer than necessary. The occupation in Japan was seven years. What dumb schmuck figured four years for Iraq? The war isn't even over. c.i.

How so? We wanted their help before and they were not willing to give it. If they are willing now, how is that a change on our part? Seems like a change on theirs, and why we would need to eat crow over it, is beyond me.

I got a kick out of that Dys, i heard him speak on the radio. Rummy must have been fit to burst a blood vessel.

au, I would like to know more about that story. That is the first sign I have seen that we might be looking to the UN and a resolution to send troops into Iraq in the peace. Chirac is waiting for this, as are others. I see this as hope. If we humble ourselves to be a part of a UN resolution, we might gain strength from a joint force.

Yeah, dys, it's a big shift in this administration's policy. It's the first time they're asking UN help. The one on one approach ain't working too well. c.i.

Powell is the one asking and i am sure the UN will ask for terms theat Rummy is not going to like.(Germany and France come to mind)

ci, you seem to completely discount the fact that we begged them for help pre-war on several occasions.

They refused.

Russia, France and Germany have serious investments in Iraq, and I'm sure want people on the ground there--if for no other reason than to get their mitts on some capital (rebuilding projects). One of the reasons we've dragged out this post-war invitation is their culpability in dealing with Saddam despite the post-1991 imbargo.

Sofia, There's a big difference between pre and post war. I'm not discounting anything - I don't think. c.i.

Sofia

As far as I could follow the media, on Tuesday France ruled out sending troops, following India and Germany in rejecting U.S. calls for help without approval from the United Nations.

Germany offered Iraq support, at first not troops at all. Now, the conservatives throw in the idea that we could eventually join a NATO-force, if it was "UN-certified".
(Fischer is reported to have said similar in Washington: "Our possibilities are limited but we are open to discussions,'' he said yesterday during a visit to Washington, according to the FT.)

That is surprising. I remember not long ago, Chirac seemed like he was about to jump out of his pants to go. The buzz about others joining in died down. I had assumed they were all working it out.

Thanks for the information. I'll have to read back in the news, and see what happened.

Comment from the Guardian:

From the article:

The chances remain high that Iraqi reconstruction will in time turn the corner, but probably without much help from others. In that case, America and Britain and the new Iraq will be alone with their success, but it would be better for all if such a success were a more general achievement.

---------
Better for who?
The UN is already sending humanitarian aid. They can just continue with that. They must be holding out for contracts-- I guess we're refusing to throw any their way. I'm sure once we start pumping Iraqi oil--Iraq can pay for a lot of the cost themselves.

If we are left holding the manpower bag in Iraq--maybe the UN can send their troops to Liberia....and Bosnia....and everywhere else.

Sofia



"Bosnia", btw, is part of 'Bosnia and Herzegovina'.

IFOR, and nowadays SFOR troops are there according to the Peace Agreements for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

re. 'Liberia' I think, you should re-read the discussions of last weeks.



So we could keep the momentary sitution going on.