quote:

Originally posted by .montecarlo. how is it not an offer? is it inconceivable to have some troops under UN command to support their efforts there? i think there's a significant lack of trust in the US, so why would they want to serve under them?

It is inconceivable because unless you change international law by passing a new Security Council Resolution (i.e. declaring that the Ford Explorerer is infact built by Chevey) all UN action in Iraq is under the control of the US. The UN gave this control to the US and UK. Unless they take it back, you can't offer troops in Iraq to the UN without recongizing that indeed the UN offered control of Iraq to the US and UK .... otherwise all you are doing is a diplomatic maneouver to score you some brownie points and make Bush look bad to those that don't want to think about the issue a little bit.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus And so I have a new argument: Since Saudia Arabia didn't offer the UN troops. Nor did it offer the US troops. But only offered Iraq troops (and since even Iraq is under the authority of the US offering such troops to anyone but the US) without willing to accept the premise of US control, this offer was nothing but a diplomatic maneouver.

Except Saudi Arabia originally offered the UN troops. Only after US and Iraqi refusal did they modify the command structure for the troops to be under Iraqi control as opposed to US control. Clearly the plan could have been feasible otherwise Allawi would have rejected the request. However, the Iraqis had no problems with it, the Bush administration was the one that had problems with the plan. And certainly if the administration wanted to truly internationalize the peacekeeping force in Iraq, they could have easily brought forth a new resolution to the UN which would pass with flying colors ... because that's what the UN originally wanted to do.

quote:

Obviously as you pointed out the US does not want to open a second command structure in Iraq - to have two armies so to speak in one land as you put it earlier. And the UN agrees with this, it surrendered all its authority to the US and UK. There is no legalistic way the Arabs can put in forces into Iraq without recongizing the authority unless they pass a new UN resolution. You are right, the blame here is not with the UN (unless of course you argue Koffi is to pass a resolution giving the UN it power back in Iraq), instead I revert to place blame in my traditional political group - the Arabs

The reason why the UN surrendered all authority to the US and the UK was because the US and UK explicitly put it in their draft resolution to the UN. Arabs can put forces into Iraq without a new UN resolution because Iraq has taken over control of the government. Therefore they technically could allow anybody they want into the country if they so please. They’re not going to do that, however, at US insistence because I highly doubt they want to piss off the US because the US is pretty much the only force providing security and reconstruction in the region. However, this goes back to the argument of Bush’s go-it-alone strategy and Kerry’s criticism of that strategy. Bush is clearly content with the status quo. He doesn’t want to make modifications to the command structure, he doesn’t want to relinquish any control, even if that means if the US pays higher in blood or money. Therefore even if Arab countries offered to send peacekeepers which would send huge symbolic messages to Iraqis, Bush will have none of that unless they place them under sole command of the US … something that is completely impossible for these Arab countries to accept. That’s like telling the Arabs they can send troops so long as their commander is an Israeli. If Bush wanted to take the Arabs up on their offer, he can most certainly work to make it happen. And that he’s unwilling to do.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It is inconceivable because unless you change international law by passing a new Security Council Resolution (i.e. declaring that the Ford Explorerer is infact built by Chevey) all UN action in Iraq is under the control of the US. The UN gave this control to the US and UK. Unless they take it back, you can't offer troops in Iraq to the UN without recongizing that indeed the UN offered control of Iraq to the US and UK .... otherwise all you are doing is a diplomatic maneouver to score you some brownie points and make Bush look bad to those that don't want to think about the issue a little bit.

refer to occrider's post above... although you may be disappointed, there is no mention of trucks in his post.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider And certainly if the administration wanted to truly internationalize the peacekeeping force in Iraq, they could have easily brought forth a new resolution to the UN which would pass with flying colors ... because that's what the UN originally wanted to do.

The same can be said of all parties, Koffi, the Arabs, and third parties.

quote:

The reason why the UN surrendered all authority to the US and the UK was because the US and UK explicitly put it in their draft resolution to the UN. Arabs can put forces into Iraq without a new UN resolution because Iraq has taken over control of the government.

This is basically your founding premise to disprove my argument.
Although by and large the UN has granted most authorithy from the Coalition Authority to the new interm Government of Iraq, security was not one of them.

Security Council Resolution 1546, June 8th 2004:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/...pdf?OpenElement

"Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution..."

And more importantly paragraphs 9 and 10:

"9. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command established under resolution 1511 (2003), having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution;

10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its
tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and programme for the political process and benefit from reconstruction
and rehabilitation activities;"


Basically what you have is a statement that says all authority is given to the Iraq Interm Government from the US UK Coalition. Then you have the same document saying that the Iraq Interm Government gives the US UK Coalition authorithy over Iraqi security. This legalistic maneouver is the equvilant of how the UN gave the US and UK its authority over Iraq previously.

quote:

Therefore they technically could allow anybody they want into the country if they so please.

Technically they could only do that with passing another UN Security Council Resolution.

quote:

That’s like telling the Arabs they can send troops so long as their commander is an Israeli. If Bush wanted to take the Arabs up on their offer, he can most certainly work to make it happen. And that he’s unwilling to do.

Bush most certainly can make the offer happen - however since he will have to jump through hoops of fire to make it happen, it is questionable that when indeed it is possible to have Arab troops in Iraq helping the Iraqi government legally, the Arabs will still be as steadfast in offering these troops.

Second, the point still remains, and I will use your analogy: The Arabs offered troops to a UN led mission under the Israeli General so long as their troops on condition that they won't have to serve under an Israeli General. Since the UN isn't going to remove the Israeli general as that would be immoral and unethical, we'd have to assume that the Arab offering of troops is nothing more than a diplomatic ploy to win some points and discredit the UN operation.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.