What if bush allows the UN to fully handle the Iraq mess?

[Sinistrous]

Yes, I know that pigs haven't flown yet, and that , for bush, this would be a venture into unexplored territory (i.e., actual diplomacy).

However, there have been small and badly flawed movements toward getting the UN into the picture. But what if bush gradually drops one impossible condition after another, and actually lets the UN bail his sorry ass out of the Iraqi quagmire?

First, I believe it would be a PR coup that would send his approval rate up a big bunch. Second, it would neuter a big chunk of Gov. Dean's very appealing message and might even lessen the appeal of a Gen. Clark.

In short, I think such a move would make bush utterly unbeatable in 2004.

This is going to give me nightmares. Please help.

[meegbear]

1. Heard on the news this morning ...

that they have been in "talks" since last week with the UN about getting them involved, but it would be UN troops led by the US alone.

We'll see how this floats.

[Sinistrous]

6. Maybe the "led by the US alone" bit is a barganing chip.

In the Looking Glass world of diplomacy, this is just an opening gambit. Bushco is probably just trying to see what will fly. Watch for the demand for US control of the forces to be modified.

(Again: </devil's advocate>)

[ProfessorPlum]

2. Don't you worry

that would require Bush to do something which would be a positive for the people in this country. In otherwords, don't you worry.

[Sinistrous]

5. OK, but bush's butt is in the grinder over Iraq

and desperate men take desperate measures. I see that this would put Haliburton out of the picture and Tin Man Cheney would probably have the "big one", but bush might see it as a chance to survive and fight another day. </devil's advocate>

On edit: My god, what a hash of cliches.

[markus]

10. Desperate measures

Turing over Iraq to the UN would be near suicidal. Allowing US troops under foreign command might lead to his impeachment by his fellow republicans.

Those aren't desperate measures.

However, war with Iraq or Syria, on the other hard, would be much more convenient. Who would dare run against a War Time President once we found out that there was solid intelligence (which we just can't share in detail with the public for reasons of national security) that the WMD were all in Syria.

[Sinistrous]

11. I believe that if the US is still alone in Iraq next year

either bush will not be the GOP candidate for president, or he will be defeated in November. His PNAC handlers will cast him aside in a heartbeat if he becomes an impediment to fulfilling their plan. Their only problem here is finding someone else as vacuous and evil as bush to do their bidding.

Another trumped up war is a possibility, but I think Congress will be much more skeptical about another war resolution.

[FloridaPat]

3. Depends on if he's stolen the oil or not.

No way anyone else is getting in there until the oil is stolen and Halliburton has every rebuid contract for the rest of eternity. As a last resort, he can always cancel the election.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Unless the US also resigned from the UN, it wont matter, UN is the US

The UN is basically an extension of the US whose purpose is to give the appearance of international approval to whatever the US wants to do.

12 years of UN sanctions, a UN rubber stamped invasion and occupation ensure that as far as the Iraqi people are concerned, the UN "taking over" would be every bit as significant as Britney doing a costume change after the 3rd song.

[pruner]

7. "a UN rubber stamped invasion and occupation…"

what planet are you living on?

[DuctapeFatwa]

8. I was unable to find any action taken by the UN in opposition of either

Can you point me to the Authorization of Force resolution?

How about a condemnation by the General Assembly?

edit to ask if you are having trouble finding the UN resolution approving the occupation of Iraq. If so, I would suggest their website.

That's also a great place for information on the first resolution on Iraq, which the bush regime decreed authorized the invasion.

The UN chose not to take any formal action to contradict that.

The UN website also has a record of all the sanctions votes.

[damnraddem]

9. Dubya would have to give up control over 'rebuilding' ...

that is, over Iraqi oil and the basing of the U.S. military. And accepting the UN would be admission of total failure that would further sink Dubya's numbers.

The real question is whether the UN would do it.

[CWebster]

12. nah

he would have to eat crow.

The UN refused to back his war and he arrogantly suggested that would make them irrelevant, now he would have to crawl to get them to help with the disaster he created.