NYT: U.S. Now Signals It Might Consider U.N. Force in Iraq

[kysrsoze]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/28/international/worldspecial/28DIPL.html?hp

Oh, now they want one, eh? Well, just as long as we get to keep the oil fields under our semi-control, you U.N. people can do whatever you want.

Bet ya they won't ask the U.N. to look for WMDs, especially since they've already been moved to Lebanon. Case closed.

[Malva Zebrina]

1. not many choices

What are their options? Refuse? Of course not--Bush will now send out his minions to tout how wonderful a leader he is because he "mulled over" allowing the UN in to Iraq. The travesty, the evil, thing has been covered up and forgotten already--there is no price for Bush to pay for the lies, for the murders of thousands of innocent people--NONE--no punishment for a man who did not win an election, who is an evil doer--and who continues on with this fabricated personna as if he is king of the world. Well, he will be once the UN goes into Iraq--no one is, apparently , able to stop him--he literally holds all the cards.

What a travesty this whole barbaric murderous slaughter and utter waste of human life has been. What a sad, depressing predicament Bush has led this country into--

[lanlady]

2. this is the idea that Armitage floated on Tues.

Don't know why the NYT took 2 days to report it. Armitage wants a US commander over this force.

That would still come across as UN endorsing the invasion, and probably raise other diplomatic and tactical issues besides. It would take months to sort all that out, assuming the UN has any interest in the idea.