This is just pathetic..
Wolfowitz: Bombing changed U.N. mood](CNN.com - Wolfowitz: Bombing changed U.N. mood - Sep. 5, 2003)
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday the Bush administration has been pushing for months for a new U.N. resolution to internationalize the force in Iraq, but it took the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad to change the “atmosphere in New York.” …
**He described last month's deadly bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad as a "breakthrough -- a sad one" -- in bringing the international community aboard. **
That is the sort of sick comment that makes people suspect ulterior motives of the US in Iraq, and the recent bombings.
As it is the good old French and German's are rightly demanding that the UN and the Iraqi people and not the US have supremacy over Iraq.
Here is another one!
**Iraq: Why Bush now wants the UN **
By Paul Reynolds
BBC News Online world affairs correspondent
In accepting that the UN should have a security role in Iraq, President Bush has accepted reality.
Despite a recent claim by chief US administrator Paul Bremer that Iraq is “not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos”, events suggest otherwise. Mr Bush does not want to get bogged down there.
The presidential election next year is a powerful incentive for the Bush team to consider any proposal that prevents Iraq from becoming a determining campaign issue.
And the influential Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which carries out independent policy studies, has provided a practical reason for Mr Bush to change his policy.
It says basically that the United States does not have enough troops to do the job, especially if it needs to keep a substantial force free for potential action elsewhere. And the Korean peninsula is on everyone’s mind these days.
Powell position
The CBO report is in the form of a letter to veteran West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, an opponent of the Iraq war.
It says that if the Pentagon continues with its current intention to rotate troops after one year in Iraq, it would need to reduce the 180,000 soldiers there now to between 38,000 and 64,000 by the winter of next year.
The measures to be taken cannot simply be an increase or an adjustment of the current occupation forces
French Foreign Minister de Villepin
This would allow for family time, retraining and, above all, for enough troops to be kept ready for action elsewhere.
An alternative plan, to increase the size of the army by two divisions would, the report says, be very expensive. It would cost $19bn up-front and bring the cost of occupying Iraq to $29bn a year.
The idea of bringing the UN in was publicly floated by the Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
He is very close to the Secretary of State Colin Powell himself, and clearly would not have spoken without his chief’s say-so. Mr Powell has now persuaded President Bush that this is the way forward.
Under US command
Senior administration officials have also restated what Mr Armitage stressed - that the multinational force would have to be under American leadership.
The concept is to set up a multinational force with an American general at the top carrying a dual responsibility.
The fact is that the US needs others to come in with money and expertise
Toby Dodge
Iraq expert
He would command the whole force under a UN mandate but would also have direct control of US forces.
The force itself would bring in troops from countries like Turkey, India, and Pakistan - which have been unwilling to send them without UN approval.
After the bombing of the UN headquarters, though, such countries might be somewhat reluctant to send their troops in case they, too, become targets.
The UN would also be brought in much more on the political and civil side.
The arrangement was foreshadowed by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Speaking after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad he said that “we have no interest in recommending UN blue helmets” but he did talk about “a multinational force that oversees the security arrangements with the UN focusing on the economic, political and social side”.
Too late?
France in particular is insisting on a major role for the UN which goes beyond the limited one offered in Security Council resolution 1483, under which the UN is subsidiary to the occupying powers.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who led the opposition to the war in the Security Council, said of this latest idea:
“The measures to be taken cannot simply be an increase or an adjustment of the current occupation forces. It involves putting in place a real international force under a mandate from the UN Security Council.”
Britain, as chairman of the Security Council during September, is likely to play an important part in trying to get a new resolution through.
According to Iraq expert Toby Dodge at the University of Warwick in the UK, the proposal to involve the UN is all “too little, too late”.
“The danger now is that diluting the US presence might not do the trick. The resentment against the occupation is so great,” Mr Dodge said.
The bombing of the UN, he added, might also put off some potential contributors as the UN itself is now a target for the Iraqi resistance.
Mr Dodge told BBC News Online: "After the UN attack, a compromise is being thrashed out in New York. The fact is that the US needs others to come in with money and expertise.
"Paul Bremer, in a Washington Post interview, blew the ship out of the water by revealing that the costs of reconstruction will be huge and cannot be covered by Iraqi oil exports.
“So to get donors in, and there is a donors’ conference in New York in October, they have to compromise. Colin Powell has seen that.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
Moron.
i think this cartoon, by Steve Bell, sums it up pretty nicely especially given the above comment:
[thumb=D]1bell.JPG[/thumb]
I don't know if you guys listened to the French UN representative on NPR yesterday ... he made a point about the current resolution in UN which can be equated to the super powers of the past who would collaborated with each other in their interest & lend soldiers for mercenary work. In the 20th century one would think that the sovereign nations have gotten over that concept, but sure enough Bush Administration hasn't.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Mushraff lends the Pak Army in Iraq wearing UN blue hats while India still stick to their NO.
The UN wasn't important enough prior to the invasion and no extra time was given to Blix & Crew despite pleas from the world.
So why on earth is the US hounding for a resolution now? Either way, the US should not get any support.
By the time the US is finished paying for their mess, the economy will be in the gutter and the recession will have kicked in perfectly. The clock is ticking.
'A wise man once said, 'a human only needs to be reminded once and they will take heed, however a jackass will constantly be reminded but will never take heed'.
When will the US ever learn.
I read that once again the US is failing to get even a simple majority on the UN SC to approve it’s plans, with France, Germany and Russia taking the lead in opposing US plans.
Dangerous self-delusions.
Rumsfeld Hails ‘Wonderful Start’ to New Iraq, Yahoo News, 6 September 2003
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lauded the “wonderful start” to rebuilding Iraq on Saturday even as guerrillas attacked his troops and hundreds of protesters marched to demand jobs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: US goes begging to the UN and the world for help in Iraq
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
Iraq might be better served but I would think Pakistan would need to look at how it would serve their own interests first. Iraq is a very dangerous place at the moment and unlike the US or UK Pakistan won't reap any big financial spin offs to offset the losses of it's soldiers - neither has their role as UN policemen got them much positive publicity in the past.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I think Pak has been served, and thats my b.s. Secondly, I think a country like Pak is desperately needed. A muslim country with voice is what my country needs as friend. I think the Iraqi's would trust your soldiers to do the right thing,
(unless they want to blast em in the head for being a different sort of muslim...)
More Avg. b.s.
Seriously, Yes. My future children's children need your help.
And so do yours.
***“I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision to enforce the Security Council resolutions and remove Saddam Hussein from power,” Bush said. “Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties.” ***
I found that statement by GWB absolutely hilarious. His regime spent months insulting the UN and 80% of the UNSC members and now it wants to forget all that. 
ye to hona hi tha :-/
The problem with all this is that the US admin needs to admit some mistakes were made. We don't have to come out and say we screwed up big time.. just some token apologies, small stuff. This whole "we planned that all along" line is what's annoying everyone. So what if the euro geeks get an inflated ego, as long as we keep our thumb on the valve. They need that ego and self-importance, otherwise what reason do they have to play along? (OK, plenty, but the world doesn't work like that) Throw them a bone, meaningless crap goes a long way in international relations. Then suck it up and get things in order.
Well what can you expect from a Bush, Dick and Rumsfeld plan. They are cowboys. You know, shoot first and then we will figure things out. Well, they are figuring things out now.
For those few that still think we shouldn’t use the UN:
Shoot first and ask questions later - yep that’s what the American occupation regime is all about in Iraq. Terrorists. If the US is really concerned for the well being of the Iraqi people it will listen to the vast majority of the countries of the world, and hand over of Iraq to the United Nations and the Iraqi people. But the American regime sees that as some kind of defeat if it does that, not realising that is the only way it can save some face from the quagmire it is now mired in Iraq.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Malik73: *
*He described last month's deadly bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad as a "breakthrough -- a sad one" -- in bringing the international community aboard. **
That is the sort of sick comment that makes people suspect ulterior motives of the US in Iraq, and the recent bombings.
As it is the good old French and German's are rightly demanding that the UN and the Iraqi people and not the US have supremacy over Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
Yes today they are...but in olden times.... was the gud alt Germans that would ..........
and the French hokey-pokies that agreed.
Looking at the help provided by “alliance” countries, Pakistan not being in alliance against Iraq should not provide more than 10 soldiers if it really has to send any.
For the third time in as many weeks the United States goes begging to the UN to help it out in Iraq, but still the others powers are saying NO…
Russia has rejected the revised US draft resolution on Iraq’s future and has said the resolution should not be put to a vote at the United Nations Security Council.](BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN Iraq vote delayed)
So the question is did the US get a penny or a nickle? Personally think the US should do its own dirty work and get its own men killed. Though an interesting area to look at is how the EU and other "important" countries are reacting. If the EU, Russia, China can say no, more countries may fall in line.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
So the question is did the US get a penny or a nickle? Personally think the US should do its own dirty work and get its own men killed. Though an interesting area to look at is how the EU and other "important" countries are reacting. If the EU, Russia, China can say no, more countries may fall in line.
[/QUOTE]
I hope there is a UN Resolution on Iraq, because then so many American's will have to eat their own words, and start trumpeting the UN again. :)
But more importantly it will show that it was the world community, especially the likes of France, Germany and Russia, that the US had to plead and concede to in the end.