U.S. Hopes Global Troops in Iraq by Sept.

[Nambe]

UNITED NATIONS (AP)

The United States hopes that by September countries will contribute troops to a separate force to protect U.N. staff in Iraq and recognize that building a democratic Iraq is worth the risk to their soldiers, U.S. Ambassador John Danforth said Thursday. "Whether that's going to happen or not, I don't know," he said. "But that would certainly be our hope."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan pulled all international staff out of Iraq in October following two bombings at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and a spate of attacks. A Security Council resolution adopted unanimously on June 8 authorized a separate U.N. protection force under the overall command of the U.S.-led multinational force to guard U.N. staff and facilities in Iraq.

For nearly two months, the United Nations has been negotiating with about half a dozen countries for troops for the U.N. protection force, but Annan said Wednesday that no nation has offered a single soldier. ...

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

[Spinzonner]

1. I thought sure Monaco would have offered some troops by now

[Paschall]

9. Hardly likely

Monaco has no defense forces. When the Grimaldis need troops, they rely on the French.

[Spinzonner]

15. Apparently you require explicit Sarcasm markers

[Matilda]

2. I can't think of a single reason why they would want to.

n/t

[Bhaisahab]

3. keep hoping

the US invades a sovereign nation without any legitimate reason or authority by the world body, and now wants the world body to legitimize this criminal act by authorizing multi-national UN backed troops.
the UN, if it is led by men and women who have the balls, should first demand that the American leadership be prosecuted for war crimes and unprovoked aggression against a member nation, and then efforts to stabilize iraq can be discussed.
said effort should comprise the immediate evacuation of all american and british troops from iraq, infusion of blue helmet battalions, giving preference to iraqi companies for reconstruction contracts, and working with sunni and shia clerics (who are the only people with mass appeal in iraq today) to draw an aggressive timetable to self governance and democracy.

if all happens according to plan, in a small cell in an international prison ten years from now, lunatics like bush and cheney would be smirking and telling visiting journalists how iraq is a flourishing democracy because they acted. well that's a pill i'm willing to swallow.

[Nambe]

4. If they would share the spoils, they would get a few.

But this is not a sharing crowd.

[0007]

5. If one gave the sharing crowd a pig,

one would not get a pork chop in return.

[Disturbed]

6. Rose colored glasses.

Do they hand these out to all of these people. Kerry and Edwards must have gotten some, also.

A reminder why Iraqis want the US and all other invaders out.

Full Sovereignty?

"Throughout the spring, as hundreds died in the spiraling conflict, as Regime bosses applied their hardcore "anti-terrorist" tortures to innocent bystanders raked up in their occupation nets, as Regime mouthpieces prated endlessly of "liberation" and "sovereignty," Bush viceroy Paul Bremer was quietly signing a series of edicts that will give the United States effective control over the military, ministries -- and money -- of any Iraqi government, for years to come, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Bremer has placed U.S.-appointed "commissions" made up of Americans and local puppets throughout Iraqi government agencies; the ministers supposedly in charge weren't even told of the edicts. These boards "will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens," the Journal reports. Any new Iraqi government "will have little control over its armed forces, lack the ability to make or change laws and be unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval, say U.S. officials.


Earlier Bremer edicts laid the Iraqi economy wide open to ruthless exploitation by Bush-approved foreign "investors"; dominance of such key sectors as banking, communications -- and energy -- is already well advanced. The latest dictates aim to ensure that this organized looting goes on, no matter what kind of makeshift "interim government" the United Nations manage to piece together. Bush's plans to build a Saddamite fortress embassy in Baghdad and 14 permanent military bases around the country are designed to provide the knee-breaking "security" for these lucrative arrangements."


http://context.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/21/120.html

[BlueEyedSon]

7. When Grozny comes to Fallujah (Russian army in Iraq?)

Middle East
SPENGLER
When Grozny comes to Fallujah

Do not be surprised to see three or four divisions of the Russian army in the Sunni triangle before year-end, with an announcement just prior to the US presidential election in November. Long rumored (or under negotiation), a Russian deployment of 40,000 soldiers was predicted on July 16 by the US intelligence site www.stratfor.com, and denied by the Russian Foreign Ministry on July 20. Nonetheless, the logic is compelling. Russian support for US occupation forces would make scorched earth of Senator John Kerry's attack on the Bush administration's foreign policy, namely its failure to form effective alliances. For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the chance to make scorched earth of Fallujah is even more tempting.

In exchange for a troop presence in Iraq, Russia would obtain a free hand in dealings with the countries of the former Soviet Union. It would gain leverage against a weakening Turkey in the Caucasus and Central Asia. And it would vastly enhance its leverage in negotiations over the placement of oil pipelines. Most important, perhaps, it would assert its old status as a global military power against the feckless Europeans. In short, the arrangement would benefit everyone, except of course the population of Fallujah.

More: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FG27Ak01.html

[jmcgowanjm]

12. Russia will have to get Superpower status to pursue this

Things like NATO backing off Eastern Europe
deployment.

"The other option is to pursue the enemy regardless of the
cost in civilian lives. Never have American ground forces
done this."

Wrong. See Vietnam, the Phillipines, for
details.

We'll kill as many as we have to.

And it will take at least 3 million dead Iraqis
and 500000 troops to secure Iraq.

[BlueEyedSon]

13. Like when we "secured" Viet Nam? LOL!

:evilgrin:

[jmcgowanjm]

14. Yes, exactly. LOL. Either laugh or cry

'cause we ain't got near the resources of the
Nam era.

I generally see us overextended and we will
have to use our Military soon or lose it.

No gas means no globalization.

Look at the Dow as Terror Indicator.
The lower the more inevitable.

[reprobate]

16. Does russia remember afghanistan? You bet russians do.

This will not happen. If their is one thing the russian people will not want it's another military adventure. And they certainly cannot afford it. Neither can we afford to pay them for this.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. By September what?

2050?

[NMDemDist2]

10. let's see, "hope" in one hand and "crap" in the other

which fills up faster?

[mazzarro]

11. I will vouch that crapola fills much much faster!

eom