| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Britain, U.S. to Seek U.N. Iraq Resolution, Paper Says |
| 2003-08-09 |
| LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and the United States are ready to support a new United Nations resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, a senior British government minister said in an interview published on Saturday. "We’re currently looking at the possibilities for another resolution and what that might mean, which issues it would cover," International Development Secretary Baroness Valerie Amos told the Daily Telegraph. The United States, stung by the spiraling cost of policing Iraq, in terms of both money and lives -- is now beginning to see the benefits of a resolution too, she said. "The Americans are doing exactly the same thing (drawing up proposals for a new resolution)," Amos said. The Guardian newspaper said on Saturday that Britain was considering using its chairmanship of the Security Council next month to introduce a resolution as a political basis for more troops to join the security operation in Iraq. Russia and France have called for a new U.N. resolution on past-war Iraq, saying such a move would help secure greater international support for efforts to rebuild the country. Amos said the British government wanted to make it easier for countries including India, Pakistan and Turkey to join a U.N.-backed multilateral peace-keeping force. A resolution would give them the domestic cover they needed to contribute. Raise your hand if you think having Indians and Pakis patrolling in Iraq is a good idea. "There are some countries which would like to contribute to the peacekeeping effort but couldn’t do that if there weren’t another resolution," she told the Daily Telegraph. The Guardian said British officials were also looking at ways in which the U.N. mandate could be strengthened in respect of issues such as preparation for next year’s election and advice on the structure of Iraqi security forces. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 SW - man, that's wicked man. You should drop by your friendly local CIA office and have a chat with 'em. Frank Church is DEAD (Yeah!) and we sorely need some of that outside the box stuff! Putting them together in The Triangle™ - purrfekt. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-9 6:54:59 PM |
| #7 Also, there is the possibility of military to military ties if you station the Indian and Pakistani divisions near by. This is a good idea. We put them side by side in the Sunni Triangle and then start whispering to them how much the others have it. Tell the Paks that the Hindoos are converting people or something, and tell the Indians that the Paks have found Saddam's lucky stone. Then step back and watch the fun begin. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-8-9 4:53:28 PM |
| #6 Zhang Fei, you are absolutely right. Villagers along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border all claim that Taliban leaders are handing out weapons in broad daylight. Inciting resistance, encourging Jihad, and cordinating attacks against allied forces in Afghanistan. And we can't do a damn thing because Pakistan won't allow us to cross the border. I read in a articles a week ago that 11 rebel fighters were killed ON the border, fleeing after a attack. |
| Posted by: Charles 2003-8-9 4:52:31 PM |
| #5 Brian - you be a troll, boy. Methinks you haven't posted anything straight, yet. All of 'em are scattered and fuzzy and lead nowhere. Sharpen your point. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-9 1:35:03 PM |
| #4 Yes but if it deteriorates and we hand them the Sunni triangle, who cares? The problem is if the Sunni area becomes a state within a state - essentially an area controlled by Saddam, where he can collect taxes, etc. with the acquiescence of UN troops.* UN troops will pretend he doesn't exist and Saddam will avoid attacking UN troops because he figures they're only there for as long the US stays in Iraq anyway, since UN troops have never done any serious fighting (except in Korea and that was one-time and mostly us and our allies) and are really lousy at it**. A haven in UN-administered territory would give Saddam the ability to reconstitute his forces and prepare for high-volume attacks against US forces. * This is why Mogadishu happened - UN troops were sitting on their rear ends at their base camps while we were trying to wipe out the bandits who were preying on refugees. The UN attitude is see no evil, hear no evil. Given their posture as mannequins with guns, why do we need them in Iraq? ** India, Turkey and Pakistan can't even suppress guerrillas/rampant disorder on their own territory after decades of conflict. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-9 1:07:26 PM |
| #3 Yes but if it deteriorates and we hand them the Sunni triangle, who cares? It's not like they'll field an army against us. It means sporadic sniping for the Paks...a shame, really. Also, there is the possibility of military to military ties if you station the Indian and Pakistani divisions near by. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-8-9 12:45:21 PM |
| #2 You could base the Pakis at the Soccer Stadium, right? This is a Bad Idea™. My hand is not raised. ZF hits some excellent reasons and nails it down. I would personally like to add one more: Fuck Turkey. |
| Posted by: ·com 2003-8-9 11:05:12 AM |
| #1 A resolution would give them the domestic cover they needed to contribute. This is true - when their guys start coming home in body bags, it helps if they're contributing under the UN banner rather than as American allies. This gives you a sense of how anti-American their publics are. Do we really want these countries participating if their people are so opposed to it - especially when we have to bribe them with goodies anyway? I think not. Raise your hand if you think having Indians and Pakis patrolling in Iraq is a good idea. I don't think foreign troops under UN auspices have ever participated in a peacekeeping effort where terrorists were being financed by all of the subject country's oil-rich neighbors. Judging by their lousy performances in dealing with their own under-financed terrorists, I'm not sure they're ready for the big game. With these guys in town, the security situation would deteriorate rather than improve. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-8-9 10:46:19 AM |