Why does Dean insist we get the UN to take over Iraq when........

[funkyflathead]

they cut and run (rightfully) due to the bad conditions there and don't want to go back??

Merely sticking blue helmets on the troops there does nothing to make Iraq safer.

Does he mean the humantarian and administrative missions?

[Scott Lee]

1. What would you suggest?

And that is a serious question - not a flame.

[funkyflathead]

5. I dunno

I saw Annan on tv say they are not going back to Iraq anytime soon.

[Egnever]

11. At least until we give them some athority over the situation ehh?

Course they wont go in under george boy kings terms did you expect anything else?

[robbedvoter]

16. Clark suggested NATO and an intermediary Iraqi/UN governing body

But he's the man who did it before, not had others write it for him.
See, it's all here (don't copy now!:
http://clark04.com/issues/iraqstrategy/

[aquart]

2. Arghhhh!

Gee, I hope he doesn't mean that since they won't do it.

No, the blue helmets would be there to supervise elections and maintain peace. PEACEKEEPERS being what they call themselves.

Except that isn't bloody likely since we may have seen the first guns in the civil war.

Huge, prolonged negotiations would have to take place to bring in the UN.

But there will be no peace in the region as long as the US is there, in our utter arrogance.

[tsipple]

3. Answer to Excellent Question

There are two parts to the answer.

1. Dean thinks the U.N. would be a good vehicle for internationalizing the security forces in Iraq, but he's flexible on that point. He has said that he would prefer large numbers of Arabic speaking troops, since such forces are most likely to be successful.

2. Doesn't mean it'll work. The situation is badly managed right now. He believes America should try to get the situation back on track, and a large part of that has to do with internationalizing the effort, particularly with Arabic speaking troops. (It also has to do with internationalizing the contracts, and allowing Iraqis to win contracts rather than using the occupation as an enrichment vehicle for U.S. political campaign contributors.) Dean certainly recognizes the difficulties, but he's of the "they broke it, we bought it" school on this one. And that's primarily for humanitarian reasons. There are Iraqi people who would die if a better executed effort is not undertaken.

In this matter Dean does disagree with Dennis Kucinich. He doesn't believe that the U.S. can abandon Iraq in 90 days. He just doesn't think it's viable, and that Iraqis would die in that circumstance.

This is an honest policy debate and a healthy one. Thank you for raising the question.

[windansea]

7. Dean's "strategy" for Iraq

More UN presence, arabic-speaking troops... sound great but have zero chance of ever happening...this is a strong indication of his lack of experience in world affairs.

[Scott Lee]

8. And you think Kerry will get UN support after he badmouthed them?

Now that IS funny! I guess neither bushhole nor Kerry learn that you can't keep dissing the international community and then get support from them when you need it.

[windansea]

9. not the point

Neither Dean, God, or the Pope could get UN or arabic soldiers into Iraq. It's just more kool-aid fantasies.

[TLM]

14. Again says who?

Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, Dean, and Kucinich all seem to agree on the point that they CAN get the UN to send troops to Iraq.

Frankly I think they know more about the subject than you do.

[Metrix]

10. Please provide a reference

for when Kerry dissed the international community.

[TLM]

13. Here ya go...

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000911.html

"He (Dean) stated that, as President he would have acted in Iraq “had the United Nations given us permission and asked us to be a part of a multilateral force” – implying that he would give nations like China, France and Russia unprecedented veto power over America’s security."

This is the same attack Kerry's campaign made on Dean back in Feb of this year when Dean was saying we needed UN support for Iraq.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/opinion/lynch/main541905.shtml

Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, snapped at Dean's insistence on getting U.N. backing (a position supported by three-quarters of Democrats and 53 percent of Independents). "Gov. Dean, in effect, seems to be giving the U.N. veto power over national security decisions of the United States. That's an extraordinary proposition, one never endorsed by any U.S. president or serious candidate for the presidency," he told the Associated Press' Ron Fournier.

[TLM]

12. Says who? Dean's plan has the best shot at bringing peace...

It will take work to undo the damage that folks like Bush and Kerry have done to our relationship with the international communitty... but it can be done.

[windansea]

15. 2000 pound truck bombs

tend to discourage cooperation...no middle east ruler will accept an invitation...and the UN mission got blown up basically cuz they thought they were untouchable

[caledesi]

17. Zero chance of happening? I don't think so. You see, the rest

of the world hates Bush*, but if Dean is elected, he said before his inauguration, he would go to Europe, China and South America to make amends. Bush* "doesn't play well w/ others" and that is why he couldn't even bribe other countries for help.

[bitchkitty]

18. And you're such an expert, right?

I don't think you're an expert on anything except trying to trash Dean at every opportunity. I think that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about, and it's painfully obvious.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. It means two things

1. Less Murkin assets (lives & gear) at risk
2. Remove the perception that the Iraq camping trip is a US occupation/invasion

That's off the top of my head.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. the notion that it would be better to have the Iraqis murdered by

soldiers with a variety of nationalities enjoys wide popularity, with candidates and voters alike.

I believe that the reasoning is that if nationals of several nations are committing crimes against humanity, that makes the crimes themselves somehow more acceptable.

The idea is not likely to generate the same enthusiasm among those populations targetted for slaughter.

[quaker bill]

19. A bit overstated

But I take your point. I have heard from the Bush enablers over and over that the war would have been so much better if we had gotten more allies.

The war was and continues to be just as stupid, illegal, and immoral whether we win or lose, and regardless of who participates.

However, many of the Iraqi's reasonably see the American forces as unwanted aggressors. Removing American troops could be a positive step in defusing this situation. Removing all foriegn military presence should be the goal as quickly as it can be accomplished.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. The complete and total removal of the American presence is not likely

I do not think, in fairness to the candidates, that it would be within their power to do so.

Any troops, be they French, Ghanaian or Fijian, would have the same task the American troops have now: do what is necessary to seize the oil.

[mouse7]

20. The US made the situation deteriorate, and made UN targets

The terrorists are clearly targeting the allies of the US even more than the US itself in order to increase the international pressure on the US. The UN got no say so in Iraq, but made UN people huge targets.

The UN had no ability to affect positive change. All they got to do was be yes men, and get detonated by suicide bombers.

I'd leave too if I were them.