expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq

[Alpha1]

Aug 10, 10:57 AM (ET)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070810/D8QU7QN80.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq in a move aimed at reconciling the country's rival groups, winning support from neighboring countries and tackling Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

The resolution authorizes the U.N., at the request of the Iraqi government, to promote political talks among the country's ethnic and religious groups and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees.

The United States and Britain, who have the largest military forces in Iraq and cosponsored the resolution, believe the U.N. should play a greater part there because the world body is viewed by many as a more neutral party that can facilitate talks among feuding parties.

The U.N. mission has helped organize elections, draft Iraq's constitution and develop institutions for representative government.

"It is a recognition by the international community that what happens in Iraq affects the future of the world and ... it can contribute to helping Iraqis in this very difficult transition that they are in," Khalilzad said.
---------------
Surprising we can't seem to convince our own Democrats of this important fact....

 

[Annie]

Aug 10, 10:57 AM (ET)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070810/D8QU7QN80.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq in a move aimed at reconciling the country's rival groups, winning support from neighboring countries and tackling Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

The resolution authorizes the U.N., at the request of the Iraqi government, to promote political talks among the country's ethnic and religious groups and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees.

The United States and Britain, who have the largest military forces in Iraq and cosponsored the resolution, believe the U.N. should play a greater part there because the world body is viewed by many as a more neutral party that can facilitate talks among feuding parties.

The U.N. mission has helped organize elections, draft Iraq's constitution and develop institutions for representative government.

"It is a recognition by the international community that what happens in Iraq affects the future of the world and ... it can contribute to helping Iraqis in this very difficult transition that they are in," Khalilzad said.
---------------
Surprising we can't seem to convince our own Democrats of this important fact....

So wonderful for them never to lose site of what's important:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080701076.html?nav=rss_world

...

B. Lynn Pascoe, the top political adviser to Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, told the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday that the United Nations was prepared to boost its personnel in Iraq over the coming months. The organization is also seeking $130 million to build a heavily reinforced compound in Baghdad to house the growing U.N. mission.
...

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Aug 10, 10:57 AM (ET)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070810/D8QU7QN80.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday expanding the United Nations' role in Iraq in a move aimed at reconciling the country's rival groups, winning support from neighboring countries and tackling Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

The resolution authorizes the U.N., at the request of the Iraqi government, to promote political talks among the country's ethnic and religious groups and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees.

The United States and Britain, who have the largest military forces in Iraq and cosponsored the resolution, believe the U.N. should play a greater part there because the world body is viewed by many as a more neutral party that can facilitate talks among feuding parties.

The U.N. mission has helped organize elections, draft Iraq's constitution and develop institutions for representative government.

"It is a recognition by the international community that what happens in Iraq affects the future of the world and ... it can contribute to helping Iraqis in this very difficult transition that they are in," Khalilzad said.
---------------
Surprising we can't seem to convince our own Democrats of this important fact....

JESUS H DATEBALLS!!

Only a pinheaded Seppo could parley proposed U.N. peace talks into belated world support for America’s premeditated programme of mass murder in Iraq!

The reality is the Reich is baling out of it's "Boys Own" Iraqi adventure and leaving the damages bill with the non-belligerent nations - again!

 

[Alpha1]

Get back on your meds......

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Get back on your meds......

Get ya hands offya cock!

 

[Diuretic]

Chips is right. The Brits are getting ready to leave. We, of course, will stay until George tells us it's okay to leave. The UN is going to be left to sort out the ruins of Iraq. That's patently obvious to anyone who bothers to watch anything other than FoxNews and reads anything other than the Moonie Times.

 

[maineman]

"It is a recognition by the international community that what happens in Iraq affects the future of the world."

Oh, I firmly believe that. I just happen to also firmly believe that our continued presence there only makes matters worse. The Brits figured that out. That is why they are leaving. They know that this is a matter that must be settled by Iraqis, arabs, and muslims...not invading, conquering, occupying crusader christian armies of westerners.

It is as if we started a fire..and now, for four years, we've been trying to put it out by pouring gasoline on it, and republicans remain convinced that just one more gallon of gasoline...or maybe two...and the fire WILL start to go out.

 

[dilloduck]

Chips is right. The Brits are getting ready to leave. We, of course, will stay until George tells us it's okay to leave. The UN is going to be left to sort out the ruins of Iraq. That's patently obvious to anyone who bothers to watch anything other than FoxNews and reads anything other than the Moonie Times.

No--we will be there until someone else decides evacuate the mideast.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Get back on your meds......

Evidently many others need sedating too!

(BTW, "Meds" are ladies' "tea bags" down here, Bird Brain. )

 

[onedomino]

Chips is right. The Brits are getting ready to leave. We, of course, will stay until George tells us it's okay to leave. The UN is going to be left to sort out the ruins of Iraq. That's patently obvious to anyone who bothers to watch anything other than FoxNews and reads anything other than the Moonie Times.

Ridiculous! Chips accused the US of mass murder. You leftist Aussies so despise America that you accuse it of mass murder. Chips will say any insane thing, and you agreed with him.

 

[Ruby]

Ridiculous! Chips accused the US of mass murder. You leftists Aussies so despise America that you accuse it of mass murder. Chips will say any insane thing, and you agreed with him.

What else shall we call an invasion, an un-justified war foisted upon a country that had no hope of defending themselves against, an invasion for greed and to force changes upon a sovereign nation to shape their economy and resources to our desires.

Shock and awe? The amount of casualites we have created are certainly massive, the people died to deliberately fired weapons and bombs while they were in their HOMES, schools, religious places, shops etc.

We are going to have to stand up and take responsiblity for what we have done and call it like it is and not pretend that the SAME criteria that constitutes mass murder dosent apply to us as it would someone else.

 

[CSM]

What else shall we call an invasion, an un-justified (says you!) war foisted upon a country that had no hope of defending themselves against, (they didnt think so...care to go back and see what Saddam thought would happen?) an invasion for greed (yeah, Saddam knew damn well just how greedy the UN could be!) and to force changes upon a sovereign nation to shape their economy and resources to our desires. That's what happens when you lose a war...ask Japan.

Shock and awe? The amount of casualites we have created are certainly massive, the people died to deliberately fired weapons and bombs while they were in their HOMES, schools, religious places, shops etc. Pure unadulterated bullshit. The US does not DELIBERATELY target schools and religious places UNLESS they are used by the enemy for military purposes.

We (are you saying you are one of the ones who deliberately targeted schools and churches?) are going to have to stand up and take responsiblity for what we have done and call it like it is and not pretend that the SAME criteria that constitutes mass murder dosent apply to us as it would someone else. Again, pure horse hockey.

*yawn*

Same old bullshit that has been done to death on this board and many others.
Looks good on paper but merely a bunch of unsubstantiated and inflammatory rhetoric.

You anti-war, terrorist supporting pukes need a knew line.

 

[Ruby]

*yawn*

Same old bullshit that has been done to death on this board and many others.
Looks good on paper but merely a bunch of unsubstantiated and inflammatory rhetoric.

You anti-war, terrorist supporting pukes need a knew line.

There isnt any way to bomb large community residential areas without targeting homes, schools, stores, hospitals etc. We have taken a bad situation and made it many times worse. This is clear from the facts. The water, power, deaths due to violence, health care, education etc. have all GOTTEN to be in a worse situation due to our invasion.

The war was unjustified, there were no WMD which we could have found out and were finding out which is why the US decided to move forward fast and told Blix to clear out. Iraq had not threatened the US nor could it have attacked the US. No self defense excuse holds up and they certainly didnt have any WMD.

I am quite proud to be anti-war, how ridiculous that NOT WANTING so much bloodshed, death and destruction should be considered a "bad" thing. It says more about the dark state of your mind than I ever could.

 

[Annie]

Chips is right. The Brits are getting ready to leave. We, of course, will stay until George tells us it's okay to leave. The UN is going to be left to sort out the ruins of Iraq. That's patently obvious to anyone who bothers to watch anything other than FoxNews and reads anything other than the Moonie Times.

Whether or not the Brits leave, the UN will not be 'taking their place.' The UN is, as usual trying to burnish their reputation. They hightailed it out when they were attacked, now that the surge is making their return safer, they are coming to spend more money on their 'mission' and try to spin their role.

They will reprise the great job they are doing in Lebanon, watching the terrorists take over villages and bring in arms.

 

[onedomino]

There isnt any way to bomb large community residential areas without targeting homes, schools, stores, hospitals etc. We have taken a bad situation and made it many times worse. This is clear from the facts. The water, power, deaths due to violence, health care, education etc. have all GOTTEN to be in a worse situation due to our invasion.

The war was unjustified, there were no WMD which we could have found out and were finding out which is why the US decided to move forward fast and told Blix to clear out. Iraq had not threatened the US nor could it have attacked the US. No self defense excuse holds up and they certainly didnt have any WMD.

I am quite proud to be anti-war, how ridiculous that NOT WANTING so much bloodshed, death and destruction should be considered a "bad" thing. It says more about the dark state of your mind than I ever could.

It is sickening how people like you, and the two Aussie leftists above, preferred the status quo of Saddam the mass murderer. Your contempt for the 12 million Iraqis that voted for representative government is obscene. We have targeted schools, stores, and hospitals? You are an abject liar.

 

[Ruby]

It is sickening how people like you, and the two Aussie leftists above, preferred the status quo of Saddam the mass murderer. Your contempt for the 12 million Iraqis that voted for representative government is obscene. We have targeted schools, stores, and hospitals? You are an abject liar.

I prefer self determination and it wasnt me who ever thought Suddam was worth backing but thats exactly what the US did for the monster for many years. Maybe if we just had stayed OUT of their politics from the beginning we might all be in a better situation. You do realize the US were a major factor in helping Suddam to gain power right? You do realize that when he was at his absolute worst, the US was supporting and even supplying him.

Sadly, we did help saddle the Iraqis with Suddam but they would be the ones who needed to remove him and to do so in their way and in their time. We just needed to stop propping him up and learn from our mistakes and stop supporting so many brutal dictators. It never turns out good.

How can you bomb a neighborhood with homes, schools and hospitals but expect that we didnt "target" them? How do you bomb a neighborhood and NOT bomb those facilities? How do you bomb cities, towns and villages and NOT destroy their water and power infrastructure?

The people in an occupied Iraq have no more voice in their lives and govt than they did under Suddam, the problem is that now their situation is even worse.

Congradulations to my country, we have proven that things COULD actually be worse than Suddam.

 

[Larkinn]

Whether or not the Brits leave, the UN will not be 'taking their place.' The UN is, as usual trying to burnish their reputation. They hightailed it out when they were attacked, now that the surge is making their return safer, they are coming to spend more money on their 'mission' and try to spin their role.

They will reprise the great job they are doing in Lebanon, watching the terrorists take over villages and bring in arms.

Peh...you won't give them any power, and them condemn them when they are powerless.

 

[Larkinn]

*yawn*

Same old bullshit that has been done to death on this board and many others.
Looks good on paper but merely a bunch of unsubstantiated and inflammatory rhetoric.

You anti-war, terrorist supporting pukes need a knew line.

Actually unsubstantiated and inflammatory rhetoric looks awful on paper. And really, calling someone a terrorist supporter because they are anti-war is just fucking stupid. As for the rest of your arguments...

(says you!)

Lets see. The justifications were WMD's (nope, none existed), Imminent threat to the US (laughable argument at best, dishonest manipulative lie at worst), humanitarian reasons (patently false and hypocritical)...so tell me again what the justifications were?

(they didnt think so...care to go back and see what Saddam thought would happen?)

Saddam was an idiot. The war was sold as one that would be easy to win and wouldn't require much of Americans.

(yeah, Saddam knew damn well just how greedy the UN could be!)

That has what to do with the claim of the US invading Iraq for greed? Oh wait...nothing. Nothing at all.

That's what happens when you lose a war...ask Japan.

What does happen and what ought to happen are not neccessarily the same thing.

Pure unadulterated bullshit. The US does not DELIBERATELY target schools and religious places UNLESS they are used by the enemy for military purposes.

So she said that people died because the US bombed schools/religious places/homes, and you said pure unadulterated bullshit, and then went on to agree with her...that yes we DO sometimes bomb those places. Alrighty then.

posted by domino
It is sickening how people like you, and the two Aussie leftists above, preferred the status quo of Saddam the mass murderer. Your contempt for the 12 million Iraqis that voted for representative government is obscene. We have targeted schools, stores, and hospitals? You are an abject liar.

You can disagree with the war and not prefer Saddam. I think he should have been gone, but it is a gross and inappropriate waste of available resources for the US to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons.

 

[Annie]

Peh...you won't give them any power, and them condemn them when they are powerless.

That's BS. What 'power' do they wish, that they don't have?

 

[Larkinn]

That's BS. What 'power' do they wish, that they don't have?

How about, for starters, the power to do something in a country without that countries express consent or a UNSC resolution (which are hard to get). Or maybe the power to raise their own army, as opposed to having to depend on states to always contribute forces that are under varied commands. Or how about the power to have a court to try human rights violators without the US trying to undermine it.