Should UN control Iraq after war?

[Always Free]

"Meanwhile Blair arrived in Washington late on Wednesday for two days of talks with Bush at the Camp David presidential retreat. Talks were to focus on how to run a post-Saddam Iraq, with Washington resisting a large United Nations role.

Blair faces an uphill battle to win Bush over to giving the UN oversight of a post-Saddam administration, as Washington officials are still angry at Germany, Russia, and especially France, over the failure to secure UN Security Council approval for military action."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_33805.asp

What thoughts do you all have about UN stepping in to run Iraq after the fighting instead of a US official taking charge?

[Skeptical Greg]

Sure, I think the UN deserves a chance to F**k things up in Iraq, after the coalition gives it back to the Iraqis. Why not..?

[Always Free]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sure, I think the UN deserves a chance to F**k things up in Iraq, after the coalition gives it back to the Iraqis. Why not..?

Why do you say that?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sure, I think the UN deserves a chance to F**k things up in Iraq, after the coalition gives it back to the Iraqis. Why not..?
I agree. It would be nice for the UN to run Iraq for a few years. If they can prove that they are capable in a few years and are successful at it then they can 'run' North Korea too. Better yet, have the UN 'run' Zimbabwe. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Always Free


Why do you say that?

Just being facetious.. It's my job....:D


added:

Just noted that Supercharts did a pretty good job of adding some intellect to my attempt at being an anal sphincter...:cool:

[Always Free]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diogenes
[B]

Just being facetious.. It's my job....:D

Ha ha ha ho ha!;)

[Drooper]

I have a wild and crazy idea.

Let's hand political control over to the Iraqis as soon as possible and just leave UN peace keepers there if requested or necessary.

[ssibal]

If running Iraq includes paying for most or all the costs we have incurred then I am all for it.

[Jocko]

It seems to me that once we have the country stabilized (being a relative term, a-la Afghanistan) we should pull the hell out and let the new Iraqi government call for aid from whoever they wish.

If it's the UN, fine.
If it's the USA, that's fine too.
The optimal result of a true secular democracy in the middle east is a bargain at $75 billion- or even $175 billion.

[Always Free]

Originally posted by Drooper
I have a wild and crazy idea.

Let's hand political control over to the Iraqis as soon as possible and just leave UN peace keepers there if requested or necessary.

I would think the US would only be too happy to hand control back to Iraqis but only after the problem of sorting out which Iraqis will be in charge and that could take a long time.

In the meantime should the US or the UN be in control until then. What difference would it be if either one takes on this task? Maybe some would say the UN have no business taking control, this is Bush's view. Blair wants the UN in there.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by ssibal
If running Iraq includes paying for most or all the costs we have incurred then I am all for it.

1. UN pays for it..

2. US pays for it..


What's the difference?:confused: