UN out of Baghdad..

[paulsbc]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/986870.asp?0cv=CB10

What does this do to the argument of "get the US out by getting the UN in", when the UN turns tail and runs? How can any candidate support the above statement when the UN has no interest in cleaning up after our mess?

What is a realistic scenario we should support w.r.t. Iraq now? We can bitch about the war being wrong all we want, but the solution going forward sure doesn't involve the UN

If the current reports from the region are true w.r.t. Saddam and his top guy leading the anti-US insurgency, how can anyone advocate completely withdrawing at this point given that if we do, Saddam most likely comes back into power ?

I'm now of the opinion, as much as it pains me to say it, that taking Saddam out of power was a good thing, and keeping up our efforts to rebuild Iraq and make sure he doesn't come back into power is the best course of action at this time....

[Maple]

1. The only UN there

was a small office staff...not UN military forces.

Proper UN forces could take over if the US left.

If, however, you want to stay there...well, that's the Viet Nam route.

[onebigbadwulf]

2. Hmmm

Here's an idea.....

what if we just withdrew everyone overnight. 1 of 2 things will happen.


1. They actually form a stable peaceful government.

2. They go into a power hole frenzy. In which case the UN would be obligated to send its troops.


Can we really go wrong by leaving??

[paulsbc]

3. perhaps

I don't see the Vietnam parallels like many here seem to, but I wasn't exactly old enough in the late 60s to remember...

In Vietnam, from what I understand, they had a large number of advantages that the former Saddam regime doesn't have, and I don't see Saddam's forces having the capability, manpower, or backing that the North Vietnamese had at all (but perhaps they do, and if they do, then we must win, given we have already screwed the pooch by going in..)

[Maple]

4. The Viet Nam parallel

is that it was so easy to go in, but then they got bogged down in guerrilla warfare.

The war was unwinnable, but no one wanted to admit that, so for years more money and more troops were poured into the place.

And there was no face-saving way to leave.

Years later...and after a lot of deaths and with a lot of money spent...the US finally simply departed, and left Viet Nam to sort itself out.

The same thing will happen in Iraq.

[Olivier]

5. I Saddam involved in suicide bombings ?

Remember Iraq was a dictatorship, but a state dictatorship, one of the rare non-religious government in the neighbourhood.

The growth of muslim integrism does not really serve the Saddam's interests. If US troops decide to leave from Iraq right now, I am sure Saddam would not return to power. A fundamentalist muslim state would be set up in a few monthes.

Is the US army still fighting against the same enemy than at the beginning of the war ?

[Paschall]

6. The UN "turns tail and runs"?

Uh, under international law, the US/UK occupying authority is responsible for the safety of the Iraqis and UN personnel in Iraq. Prior to the invasion the UN was providing sustenance to 60 percent of the Iraqi population. WE endangered that program and the Iraqis who relied on it.

The UN is leaving because we have failed--once again--to meet our obligations under international law that we helped establish.

The UN is not in Iraq to "clean up our mess" but to serve the Iraqis. If we cannot ensure their safety, it is--once again--the Iraqis who suffer.

This is another slap in our face. And, frankly, one we deserve.

Your characterizing the UN--and its civilian personnel--as cowards is rather low. Perhaps the "solution going forward doesn't involve the UN." I hope you're wrong, but if your assertion is correct it is because we have--I repeat--FAILED.

[quaker bill]

7. You don't understand

Perhaps they are right about Saddam, however it would be the first time they were right about anything in Iraq. Therefore I suspect this is also wrong, just on track record.

Earlier in the week it was foriegn terrorists, now it is the much fabled alliance between Saddam and Al-Queda. For public relations purposes, if nothing else, it has to be that.

What it could not be, again for public relations purposes is:

Political chaos spawned by removal of a dictatorial central government that repressed internal warring factions. (or)

A massive influx of terrorist organizations from throughout the middle east that now find US troops easy pickings. (or)

The people of Iraq rising to cast out an occupation army. (or)

A handful of internal militias run seperately independently pursuing islamic revolution in the name of various clerics....

My point is that there are a large number of completely plausible explanations for the observed violence in Iraq. In fact, the truth may be any combination of the above to include the one currently offered by the Bush* Administration.

The most favorable spin for Shrubco* is that the much fabled alliance between Saddam and Al-Queda has arisen. "We told you so, we were right all along, they were in cahoots with each other". The spin on Vietnam was always different from the reality on the ground. I have no reason to suspect this is different. Shrubco* has been disembling and misleading about Iraq since before the war started, there is no reason to give this more credibility than previous statements.

The war was wrong because it pre-empted a non-existant threat based on utter lies. We need to end it and leave. As long as we are there acting as a catalyst and cause for violence the area will remain very unsecure and no international organizations that care for their staff will move in.

Our troops will continue to be killed for as long as it takes for us to come to this decision. Israel is a prime example of this paradigm in operation. 40 years on and they are still being killed on a nearly weekly basis. We have only been there for months, how many dead and disabled soldiers do you expect over the next 10 years? You know we have been talking about 4 permanent bases there, right?

Our enemy is patient and will just keep bringing the matter to our attention until we decide.