Well, I agree with you there…in fact, I’d go further than you and say that we should ban any Neo-Saddamist party too. I just don’t think that a total purge of Baathists is practical or desirable. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are Baathists out there, for that matter, who joined the party for selfish reasons…not because they believed in the party or loved Saddam, but just because, to get a decent job, you had to be a member of the party. I think it needs to be looked at on a case by case basis…if the Baathist was involved in the terrors of the regime, ban him, and prosecute him…if not, don’t.
I thought the US is in Iraq because of the immediate threat of WMDs. Or maybe it was because them poor Iraqis needed help to get rid of Saddam. I mean, it was all humanitarian, wasn’t it?
No, it was because Saddam had links to A-Quaeda, and masterminded 9/11…or something.
DtC:
So let me see if I get this straight. Your worldview is such that you believe the UN is a better organization than the US for dealing with situations like Iraq. You believe that the UN could save lives of both Iraqis and non-Iraqis, but you’d rather not save those lives so that you can get back at Bush. Interesting thought process…
Of course, what you like about the stance you’ve advocated is not that it saves any lives (because it won’t), but rather that it might hurt Bush’s reelection chances.
Sticking around to try and force democracy and western ideals on people who don’t want them isn’t going to solve anything, whether it’s the US or the UN or any coalition trying. Our meddling is just setting them up for a bloody civil war. Naturally, when that war comes, the interventionists will be calling for our “peacekeeping” efforts there, and all sorts of international coalitions will plow in to try to stop it, and yet more of our guys will die.
We need to get the fuck out of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to the business of deciding how they want to govern themselves. If it’s an Iranian-style theocracy, so be it. Continued presence of soldiers there, whether US or UN, isn’t going to do any good. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses and get out of the game. We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, we have no better reason to be there now.
And it’s not Bush over there in Iraq, it’s our soldiers. Those are friends and family of mine, and surely those of most Americans on this message board. Putting them under UN control only punishes them, not Mr. Bush.
BTW, RedFury, no matter how bad Iraq might be now, we could leave today will the sure knowledge it’s better off than it was when we showed up. Or do you think the Iraqi people preferred pre-war Iraq (living in fear of Saddam’s secret police, being murdered and piled into mass graves) to post-war Iraq?
OK, here’s the scenario. The US withdraws immediately, and a theocratic fundamentalist group takes over Iraq and begins causing trouble in the region. The US warns them, but they still keep murdering innocent people, exporting terrorism, etc. So the US is forced to invade Iraq for the third time, kick out the terrorist thugs, and establish a new government.
How about we skip a step, and simply not allow the fucking terrorists, fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, and other nogoodniks to take control of Iraq in the first place? Yes, eventually Iraq will get the sort of government it desires. But democracy is more than just holding votes. If the majority votes to murder and enslave a minority, does that make it morally correct? Of course not. If a majority of Iraqis want to install a dictatorship, does that mean we step aside and let them create that dictatorship?
The most important principle of representative government is not holding elections and then doing whatever people voted for, the most important principle is the rule of law and human rights. Handing over Iraq to any sort of dictatorship, Islamic or secular, would be a betrayal of the Iraqis…even if they claim to want such a dictatorship.
Coldfire: not in the Constitution. The injunction against getting too entangled in the affairs of other nations appears in George Washington’s Farewell Address:
One of my favorite quotes. Thanks for giving me the opening to post it.
Still, as for Iraq, we at least have to stick around to give them some sort of Federal style government that will allow the minority Sunni Arabs, Kurds, and whoever else a chance not to get steamrolled by the Shias. Brutus is being straightforward about this. Unfortunately, in the present situation, he is correct to this extent: we have to forge a system with the kinds of checks and balances that keep the tyranny of the majority away.
And by “we” I’m not excluding the UN; far from it. I agree with the OP that the UN has to insist on the US ceding control. The return on that for us here in the US should be an international force that allows a majority of our boys to come home.
When Washington left office he left a warning that the United States beware of European entanglements. Would you rather we had stayed out of WWI, WWII, and Bosnia?
Marc
Yikes! That was Boo Boo Foo? I made a boo boo?
Anyway, MGibson, WWI at least, and I’m not too sure about Bosnia: the EU should have had the courage to take the lead on that.
How does putting US soldiers under UN control punish them?
What it does do is take the decisions establishing Iraqi policy out of Bush’s hands, which I consider a good thing.
Perhaps you should read your own sources on the US order of battle. The fourth paragraph on the page, bolding mine:
And what are Sen. Byrd and the CBO saying?
Those 2 National Guard divisions your own source talked about federalizing are going to need to be replaced by something eventually. If they remain permanently federalized they are de facto 2 new divisions that will then need to have their old roles replaced by 2 new reserve divisions. It seems your source is in agreement with Byrd and the CBO.
Then my rant wasn’t aimed at you.
It was aimed at anyone who would agree that what is in the best interests of reconstructing Iraq into a civilized nation should be disregarded, in favor of carrying out Diogenes the Cynic’s masturbation fantasies of revenge on the anti-Christ, George Bush.
Regards,
Shodan
If Brutus is so gung-ho for the US to go it alone in Iraq, let’s send him the bill. 
As for the OP: While I can certainly sympathise with DtC’s desire to see George W. Bush shamed by the UN for getting the United States into this fiasco, the pragmatist in me thinks that the best thing for Iraq right now would be a UN-led multinational peacekeeping/stabilizing force. The US can’t go it alone, either financially or politically, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Of course, the odds are almost nil that the Bush Administration would agree to such a plan, but it’s the fastest way to salvage this deteriorating situation.
As for embarassing George good 'n proper, maybe the UN Security Council could require him to put on a clown suit, juggle a few eggs, and sing “I’m a Little Teapot” before the General Assembly before agreeing to save his bacon… 
Not to mention that the word “permanently” isn’t applicable anyway. As terms of enlistment expire, and “working conditions” continue to be much different from those expected when the Guard troops signed up, re-enlistment and replacement is going to be a growing problem. It’s always been one, anyway. That’s true of Reserve units, and even regular forces, to some extent.
Couple of points:
Coldie, that post of yours on the first page describing the Iraq invasion and Bush/Clinton from a foreigner’s perspective? Bullseye! Succint and to the point. I subscribe to it heartily. Well said.
Of course, as you well know by now, our non-American opinions don’t count. No matter that as a direct result of this mess, both of our countries have sent soldiers to spill their blood for American interests. That’s right, our own prominent pom-pom waver, Assnar, has had little choice but to commit 1,300 of our finest “peace keepers” in order to justify all of his pre-invasion bluster. Ironically enough, he’d been trying quell public outcries by pointing out that the Spanish-led Plus Ultra brigade was going to be in charge of a “very tranquil” part of Iraq. Lo and behold, the mission includes taking control of Najaf. Yep, real “peaceful,” so much so that the transfer’s been delayed for a while – besides the fact that Latin-American troops under Spanish command have yet to receive the technological equipment promised by the US, night goggles and radios, thus rendering them useless for night patrols.
BTW, you gotta love the logo the Spanish Defense Ministry came up with for our troop – Spanish troops in Iraq to wear St James “the Moorkiller” Cross patch on their sleeves. Great thinking there. Perchace we’ll build a Church right in the middle of Najaf while we’re at it. :rolleyes:
As for Brutu’s screeds, lovely, “liberation” becomes “protection.” Paid for in Iraqi red blood and black gold, no doubt. Not that it should come as surprise to anyone – those opposed to this invasion have been saying as much from the start and most of those in favor, have copped a new plea as seen right here on this board: “I didn’t support the war on the basis of WMds and their immediate threat, it was always about Saddam being eeeeevil.” Which of course, when you get right down to it, is saying basically the same thing with some added flourish.
Wow, RedFury. The Spanish government appears to have found a true peer in Dubya. Sheesh.
Yikes, RedFury, I though I was the only spanish around here, hello!
And yep pantom, our government supports heartedly Bush administration due to economical interests.
sickboy51: Actually, I meant in terms of its apparent intellectual firepower, which appears to need some reinforcement, much like Bush the Unready.
Alas, poor Brutus the december that cannot rhyme.
Also when someone shoots down your misinformation and goofy historic falacies, pretend you said something different. Nice- except what you said was in this thread rocket scientist.
You stupidly stated as immutible fact:
Your own dumb words, exactly.
To which I pointed out:
Oops. Given the large forces involved and the rather poor results to date in each of those conflicts your statement holds no water.
So you pull a december and pretend you said something completely different. Now you claim to have said:
Nobody said anything remotely like that but you, just now. That is the sort of intellectual cowardice I expect from you. No cites, evasive answers and now abject bullshitting when caught out. Nice.
More from our self-appointed military expert:
Well, looks like nobody agrees with our “expert” yet again:
and
But what would a Republican Senator and war hero know? Brutus has opined, so it must be true! :rolleyes:
Stupid George W. Bush, didn’t he get Brutus’ memo?
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3380059
Oh my god, they fooled Rupert too!
Either that, or somebody forgot to get this week’s talking point sheet.
“UN in Iraq is now good. Please adjust your rhetoric accordingly.”
Oops I cited again:
And more from the Bush Administration:
Brutus its clear those crazy liberals in the Bush White House need the help of a military genius like you. Your wisdom is wasted here-- off to D.C. with you before George signs us up for the one world government!
:smack:
Or you can research before you post (a novel concept):
Ooops! my mistake. Anyway you´re right too. He also has Bush´s manners. When he had an interwiev with “Dubya” in his ranch, he came back speaking with a Texan accent… in Spanish!!! Oh boy! How we laughted at that!