quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:


Again, we did not anticipate a geurilla war in Iraq following the war. NO ONE in the military (not just the Bush administration) seemed to anticipate this.

I'm late to work so I just wanted to highlight something that boggled the mind.
[yuh huh] :lol:
Add me to the list of the boggled.
How about posting some evidence to justify your being "boggled"?


quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

The request for U.N. assistance still means that the United States will still provide virtually ALL of the financial and military needs of Iraq. It's only to symbolically show that it's an internationally endorsed effort, and not an American colonization, and appease Democrats in the Senate and Congress who have insisted on requesting international assistance.
Another boggler!

So, you're saying that after avoiding a UN Security Council vote which would have rejected an invasion of Iraq by the US and the UK, the US now wants to have that symbolic nod.

Which France has specifically said it won't get.
Yes, France is holding out for a bigger slice of the spoils and power in Iraq.

And the war in Iraq and reconstruction/building democracy in Iraq are two different things. Despite opposing the first, the U.N. would like to participate in the second.

The U.S. fought the war, and could have let the U.N. take over after the war. And the nations of the U.N, even those who adamantly opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place, still have a vested interest in democracy succeeding in Iraq, regardless of their opposition to the initial war.
The U.S. has re-thought the logic of having Muslim nations, such as Turkey, India and Pakistan, provide Muslim people on the ground that would give legitimacy to the U.S. effort in Iraq, and provide many Arabic-speaking personnel that would help with U.S.-Iraqi communication.
And this is again in the U.N. interest as well (despite the Iraq war) to build a stable democracy in Iraq, that will increase stability of the entire region.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

This assertion is pure spin. What do you say to to the alternative explanation, that the US is seeking UN help of, say, 20,000 troops to supplement its force in circumstances where reserves won't sign on for a second tour?
I say that non-re-enlisters are a problem, but that the U.S. can always pull troops from elsewhere, as they did for the initial invasion in the first place. Many of the troops in Iraq were initially stationed in Europe.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

I don't understand why it gags in the throat to concede that the US is seeking UN assistance for genuine and positive reasons, such as having Muslim peacekeepers, other then obtaining the suddenly necessary "symbology" of UN approval - which, natch, is all the Democrats' fault anyway.
You and others like to say that everything is the Republicans' fault.

I can concede that the U.S. is pursuing U.N. endorsement for positive reasons. That does NOT include a need for the U.N. to "bail America out" in Iraq.

And it is false to imply that Bush's seeking U.N. participation is not partially motivated by Democrats' demand that the U.S. seeks international assistance in Iraq, and threatening to with-hold military/reconstruction funding unless the Bush administration does so.
That is not "positive", that is forcing the Bush administration to change course, and then accusing Bush of being weak and needing to be bailed out when he complies with Democrats' demands.

But otherwise, I do think U.N. participation (beyond the negative spin by liberals) IS a positive thing.

And part of it is still symbolism, to demonstrate with aid from Muslim nations that the occupation in Iraq is not an American/European/Christian colonization. And assistance from Muslim countries, even only two or three, will make that clear.

And I again point to the Wall Street Journal article, that far from the U.S. imposing a hostile occupation in Iraq, a majority of Iraqis WANT us there (as G-Man's post also makes clear, that resistance is not from the Iraqi people, but from remnants of Saddam Fedayeen, and terrorists slipping into Iraq from outside the country).

The advent of U.N. assistance IS a positive development.

But I resent the liberal/Democrat insinuation that (contrary to saying it's a positive development) alleges that the U.N. is "bailing America out."
Rebuilding Iraq is not a fiasco, it is not a disaster, and with or without the U.N., things are progressing along the pre-war projected timetable, even with the unforseen obstacle of some minor pro-Saddam resistance.

Yes, the U.S. is glad to have international assistance. But don't falsely try to paint that as "bailing the U.S. out."
Again, the U.S. has 148,000 troops in Iraq.
The U.N. can --at BEST-- provide 20,000 relief troops, and probably a lot less. Far from the spin-doctored argument of "bailing America out".