If the UN took over the peacekeeping and occupation of Iraq would.....

[funkyflathead]

they still be attacked like the US lead force today if the US pulled out almost completely?

That is ,unlike earlier, it's soley the UN running the show- no US or Britian.

What is your thought?

[grytpype]

1. Any foreign force in Iraq is going to be attacked.

Period.

[Mattforclark]

2. ummm

hell yes

[arewethereyet]

3. they're attacking the UN now

no reason to think it would change.they want their old paychecks back only Hussein will do that

[maha]

4. Keep in mind, the UN doesn't have its own Army

It's not like the UN has its own military ready to go in when called. The UN can only request that member states lend them troops from their armies. Members can refuse, I believe. I doubt the UN could pull together a force big enough to "run the show" in Iraq, even if it wanted to.

[tritsofme]

5. I have been under the impression,

that any UN lead force would still be predominantly American in its makeup.

[funkyflathead]

6. I never thought of that

I was thinking the US would leave a few Spec Ops troops on the ground to catch war criminals and maybe the US would leave a troops for transition protection until the UN fully took over.

[tritsofme]

7. But what would the UN force be made up of?

Dont American forces usually make up a substantial amount of most peacekeeping missions?

[funkyflathead]

9. Not recently

I don't think Bush has sent our troops on a peacekeeping mission one.

I know that the Polls, Italians, Japanese, Koreans and Aussies are in Iraq. They'd have no trouble being under UN command I would suspect.

Dunno about US and Britian.

[tom_paine]

8. The situation there is so screwed up that I'm not sure

if shifting control to the UN would be an imporvement, attacks-wise.