Iraq Says It Needs Multinational Force

[cosmicone]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040604/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Iraq (news - web sites)'s foreign minister said U.S.-led forces are keeping his country from falling into chaos and must stay, but he joined key Security Council nations in insisting that a U.N. resolution ensure greater Iraqi control over its own security.


Hoshyar Zebari appeared before the Security Council Thursday, two days after he was named part of the 33-member interim government that will assume sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition on June 30.


"I stress that any premature departure of international troops would lead to chaos and the real possibility of a civil war in Iraq," Zebari said. "This would cause a humanitarian crisis and provide a foothold for terrorists."

<snip>

[Aidoneus]

1. "Iraq" is not saying this

It comes from the mouth of the unelected pack of Vichyite quislings. I don't expect that subtle nuance to be picked up.

[struggle4progress]

2. It looks like they're squabbling over control of the Occupation Army

Iraq wants authority over 'security matters'

Iraq's incoming government needs the U.S.-led multinational force to stay to prevent civil war but insists on command of Iraqi forces and authority over "security matters," Iraq's new foreign minister said Thursday.
<snip>

Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council that a U.S.-British draft resolution on Iraqi sovereignty must spell out the relationship between the government and the multinational force to ensure that Iraq's self-rule isn't compromised and the force is able to defend itself.
<snip>

Several countries - including Algeria, the council's only Arab member - say they want the new resolution to affirm Iraq's sovereignty and give the country's new leaders a final voice over the multinational force that will stay after the hand-over of power.

But in an interview Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraq would not be given a veto over U.S. troops. The 138,000 U.S. troops will remain under U.S. command, Powell said.

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2004/06/04/build/world/68-iraq-security.inc

[saigon68]

3. TWO CHANCES OF THIS HAPPENING

SLIM and None and Slim just left the building

[Cooley Hurd]

4. I don't care who's saying it...

That's EXACTLY what needs to happen - get our troops out NOW! They are more of an irritant than a force of stability.

[sandnsea]

5. He's not saying that

He's asking for the troops to stay. Don't see how you missed that.

[Cooley Hurd]

6. Hmmm... maybe the headline?

"Iraq Says It Needs Multinational Force."

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

7. Yeah, U.S. troops

We've got a "multinational force" in there now. They want them to stay. They aren't asking for U.S. troops to leave anywhere in that article. If they were asking for them to leave, why would they want to be guaranteed control over security?

[Cooley Hurd]

8. Because the presence of US troops are the greatest impediment...

...to peace in Iraq right now. A multinational force made up of arab countries, as well as UN forces (consisting of troops NOT already in Iraq) is the only way things can begin to calm down there. As long as the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib are in the country, they'll be targets.

[sandnsea]

9. Read it again

The article says "Iraq (news - web sites)'s foreign minister said U.S.-led forces are keeping his country from falling into chaos and must stay.."

The headline referring to the multinational force is Bush speak. It's the so-called multinational force that's already there.

Nobody is calling for U.S. troops to be withdrawn. Iraq would certainly be better off with much less U.S. troops and more troops from various countries, but people are kidding themselves if they think there's 150,000 troops from around the world ready to take control of Iraq.