Should the UN have more power in Iraq?

[NNN0LHI]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3169967.stm

As the coalition decided to ignore the UN in the lead up to the war I don't think that without a significant change in the definition of its role the UN should get itself involved in cleaning up the coalitions mess. The UN should continue its efforts in regards to humanitarian help this might be expanded to include peacekeeping troops but only after the prerequisite of peace is obtained. Remember that a majority of nations were opposed to a military conflict in the first place!
Frank, Belgium

The UN should rule Iraq until the country is ready to elect its own government. I am afraid that is the only alternative to the current illegal occupation by a bunch of war criminals from Washington and London.
John, London, UK

UN has vast more experience in dealing with re-building nations than do US. Let's remember Cambodia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Bosnia etc etc etc. At this particular juncture US should make the prudent decision of handing over power to the UN so US forces can return home and Iraqis and the World can thank the US for taking a noble stand!
R Chowdhury, Dhaka, Bangladesh

The US and UK invaded without UN backing, against UN advice, and violating international law. The UN should have acted and should have commenced proceedings against my country and the US. It did nothing and let this disastrous chain of events go on and on. Now the UN are there too. They should not be, they should leave. The US and UK created this chaos, all pleas for other countries to give us a hand should be ignored. The UN should now remove its HQ from NY, remove the UK and US membership, and concentrate on working towards peace in the world. Standing next to the US will never achieve this.
Tara, London, UK

more

[MaverickX]

1. no...

The UN couldn't run a daycare and is filled with nutty Arab countries that wouldn't agree to Iraq being anything but an anti-Israel fascist dictatorship like Syria. Iraq shouldn't be allowed to become another Syria.

[graham67]

2. Anything the UN does....

will have to be with US backing. Troops, money, etc. I'm not so certain that prominent UN involvement will help at all with the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis. They've been suffering under sanctions for so long. But, the UN can add legitimacy in Iraq that's so far been missing in the eyes of the rest of the world. Personally, I don't think the UN will bend over backwards to help the US in any way.

[TSElliott]

3. Not sure...

But I would have to say they are not exactly doing a great job there right now.

[Jacobin]

4. Smirk created this quagmire

and its a doozy, a real fucking doozy.

Spinning out of control and getting even worse by the day.

How do you unscramble an egg?

If the U.N were truly in charge and not just a fig leaf to cover up the repression and theft of oil, it might possibly have a tiny chance of succeeding.

Using the UN for a fig leaf to advance US goals won't work. Iraqis are not stupid.

More troops? Fewer troops? Withdraw?

My guess is we'll be unceremoniously run out on our asses sometime in the next decade after tens of thousands of americans are killed. It's got ALL the earmarks of Vietnam...every one of them.

[tedzbear]

5. The Iraqis know the UN is under the thumb of the USA.

They know the UN agreed to the US and Britain's demand for sanctions in the first place. Thanks to the UN's acquiescence, half a million Iraqi children have died. No wonder the Iraqis blew up the UN headquarters. Duh!

This bombing shows that some of the Iraqi people (if not all) feel like the United Nations and the US are partners in their decade old oppression. If the UN wants to stay in Iraq, it will have to accept being the eventual enemy of the Iraqi people because it will be aiding the USA occupation just by being involved in this deadly farce.
IMHO, the US and Britain as the occupying power are 100% responsible for security and humanitarian aid in Iraq. The UN should get the hell out and leave Iraq to the conquerors. Why not declare sanctions against the coalition of the willing???
But I doubt if that will happen because the UN is obviously subservient to US interests and in the end will obediently do its master's bidding. I will be shocked otherwise.
:kick: