UN or no UN?

[OrdinaryGuy]

Well, the debate is still being waged on the UN's political role in the new Iraq. Wanted to know everyone's opinion out here.

As for my opinion, I see no UN political role in this at all. I'd rather see coalition forces taking firm control of the country till a civilian administration is in place. Too risky, not worth it. You'd end up with chaos if the UN took over the political scene

[MerrionComputin]

The UN would mean peace keeping troops from a number of countries including the muslim nations which would make this look more like peace keeping and less like pacification. Although this is a small distinction it would add greatly to the legitimacy of the civilian government that follows, IMO.

There also needs to be a period of rebuilding the UN because, incredibly flawed as it is, it is still the only forum on which nation can talk peace unto nation.

[hellswraith]

The way I see it, the UN couldn't back up its own resolutions. How can they run a country?

Humanitarian aid and stuff like that....sure.

[MerrionComputin]

Well, if everybody paid their dues perhaps the UN would have the resources to back up their own resolutions.

[OrdinaryGuy]

Originally posted by MerrionComputin
The UN would mean peace keeping troops from a number of countries including the muslim nations which would make this look more like peace keeping and less like pacification. Although this is a small distinction it would add greatly to the legitimacy of the civilian government that follows, IMO.


I agree there, it would look better. But would it work? That's the question I ask. Could the UN actually reach an agreement in the Security Council? Could the UN actually bring about political stability in the country?

[DeadEyes]

The UN's record for rebuilding countries is better than America's
plus American soldiers seem incapable of carrying out peace keeping missions (or they just don't want to).

[MerrionComputin]

I think that a UN/US cosponsored mission might work - that way it wouldn't have to go through the security council. The UN would supply it's humanitarian, administrative and policing backed by the US/UK/Aus/Spainish troops as needed.

[Xanith]

The UN would have to pass more resolutions if they wanted to administer post-war Iraq. Right now all they have the authority to do is provide humanitarian aide. Personally I think the UN is quite worthless when it comes to running anything. They have had quite a few failures when it comes to agreeing on providing simple humanitarian aide and stopping genocide (Bosnia and Rwanda...Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm) ) and have failed in backing up many of their own resolutions (Iraq, Israel, and so on).

The countries who were against this action should have 0 say in how Iraq gets run and rebuilt. They were not the ones putting their troops or political reputations on the line therefore they shouldn't have a say in anything that gets done inside Post-war Iraq.

X

[Arc]

I say we let the U.N. Control the Humanatarian and Policing efforts while the U.S./U.K establish the new government and start rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq.

As far as France getting a say in the Political structure of Iraq...i just have to laugh at that.

[hellswraith]

My tax dollars funded this war. Why should France get the good contracts to rebuild when America is the one footing the bill for the war? I want to see a lot of American companies getting the dollars.