No Flames >> Which Canidate Will Push For U.N. Take Over in Iraq?

[bpilgrim]

make it a PRIORITY?

as a follow-up to the thread started by Skinner here...
No Flames >> What now in Iraq?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=172078&mesg_id=172078

it seems a concensous was reached on the U.N. taking over there... now my question is, which dem canidates will push for this?

I know kucinich will but who else?

thanks in advance :hi:

peace
btw: Skinner deftly dodge the issue ;->

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. Kerry came out strong for this almost a month ago.

Kerry came out strong for this almost a month ago:

Senator Kerry: End US Occupation of Iraq
July 16, 2003,

Washington, DC (AFP) - US Senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry called for an end to the US occupation of Iraq and criticized the administration's use of now discredited intelligence as a basis for launching the war.

"I fought in Vietnam, and half the wall -- half the (Vietnam Veterans Memorial) wall -- is filled with the names of people who were there because leaders were filled with pride and wouldn't make the right decisions," Kerry told NBC television.

"We need to get the sense of American occupation over with. We need to protect our troops. And that means that pride should not prevent this administration from going to the United Nations and doing what they should have done in the first place," he declared.
http://veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=897

[bpilgrim]

4. do you have another link?

that one took me to another page with no kerry article :shrug:

i hope all the dem canidates will push for this.

thanks :hi:

peace

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. sure

same article tho

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803A.shtml

[Cocoa]

2. I think they all have

plus many non-candidate dems, like Kennedy and Biden, and some republicans too.

[bpilgrim]

5. last i heard biden, he was pushing for getting more troops but not U.N.

take over, last week or so.

any links?

thanks :hi:

peace

[dajabr]

3. Dean: April 9, 2003

"We knew from the outset we could win this war without much help from others. But we cannot win the peace by continuing to go it alone," Governor Dean said. "Our goal should be what the Administration has promised-an Iraq that is stable, self-sufficient, whole and free. Our strategy to achieve that goal should be based on a partnership with three sides-U.S., international and Iraqi-and a program that begins with seven basic points."

Those points are:

A NATO-led coalition should maintain order and guarantee disarmament.
Civilian authority in Iraq should be transferred to an international body approved by the U.N. Security Council.
The U.N.'s Oil for Food program should be transformed into an Oil for Recovery program, to pay part of the costs of reconstruction and transition.
The U.S. should convene an international donor's conference to help finance the financial burden of paying for Iraq's recovery.
Women should participate in every aspect of the decision-making process.
A means should be established to prosecute crimes committed against the Iraqi people by individuals associated with Saddam Hussein's regime.
A democratic transition will take between 18 to 24 months, although troops should expect to be in Iraq for a longer period.
"We must hold the Administration to its promises before the war, and create a world after the war that is safer, more democratic, and more united in winning the larger struggle against terrorism and the forces that breed it," Governor Dean said.

"That is, after all, now much more than a national security objective," he added. "It is a declaration of national purpose, written in the blood of our troops, and of the innocent on all sides who have perished."

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

[bpilgrim]

7. a NATO led coalition of troops, though

but thats much better than the busies plan.

and it isn't clear who would have ultimate authority over the troops, NATO?, i think it should be the U.N. if we truly want to win the support of the iraqi people and others in the region.

peace

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. UN would definately have more credibility

[AP]

6. I believe this a core principle in Edwards's 60 page policy

statement available at his web site (www.johnedwards2004.com).

He's been making this point every time he's asked about Iraq.

[bpilgrim]

8. i'll check it out, thanks - n/t

:hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

9. looks like he is pushing NATO...

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis - including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds - deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

We know that military planning is in high gear, and that's good; but democracy planning needs to be in high gear as well. For example, we should be asking NATO now to start planning for a post-conflict peacekeeping role, and we need to start consulting with others now about sharing the financial burden of reconstruction.

We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security - because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.

We must lead our allies to greater collaboration, we must lead our friends to greater vigilance, we must lead our partners to greater participation - and we must lead problem states into adherence with the international agreements and programs to prevent proliferation.

If we're serious about dealing with this problem once and for all - and if we want to prevent future threats like Iraq from arising - then the United States must see non-proliferation for what it is: a strategic imperative, vital to our national interests.

more...
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=62

that doesn't seem broad enough to me unless the U.N. asks for a NATO led force under U.N. suppervision, no?

but this is my first glance.... would apreciate any direct quotes with links if you got any.

thanks again :hi:

peace

[rucky]

12. Leiberman wants NATO

http://www.joe2004.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5417


(excerpt): Commit more U.S. troops and resources to Iraq. Despite the president's assertion that we have enough troops there, we clearly need both more forces and the right kinds of forces -- and we need them now. In Kosovo today there are 16 peacekeepers for every 1,000 citizens; in Iraq, a much more dangerous and tumultuous place, the ratio is less than half that.

* Ask NATO to assume command of the forces in Iraq. America cannot sustain supplying 150,000 out of 160,000 of the troops on the ground for any length of time -- but the nations we need as partners are unwilling to join forces with us under unilateral American command. NATO command is the answer; as we saw in Kosovo, it works.