Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

What does geometry have to do with it?

Trust you to go off at a tangent. (see sig file)


The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?

Keith has pointed out in another post that the US offered protection
to the UN Aid workers which was flatly refused by the UN Security
service, an atrocious lack of judgement on their part.



The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to effectively
enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even if
it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth the
hot air it was made up of.

The bit in 1441 which allowed the US to invade Iraq :-

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the
area,"

The "all necessary means to _restore_ international peace and
security", was the bit they used to justify the war, the Security bit
was most important due to the 'underwealming' evidence of WMD that
Iraq had stockpiled that could be used within 45 mins.;-).


The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they "rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day.
Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.

A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
timeframe? Without US support,
Why without US support?, you get the 'alternatives' there, setup and
supplied, and ready to go then the UN takes over and day one starts!,
don't expect to drop everything and say theres the mess go clean it
up.
Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get the
hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

You can describe it how you like if it diffuses the situation,
remember its your mess, the rest of the world may help you or not
theres no guarentees they would want to get involved in such a
debarkle.

No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting, but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus" otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.




No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?
That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is better
than not having them there...
Have you ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemies
closer, while there in a structure that is commanded by your side you
have a chance of controlling elements, as opposed to the present
situation.
You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the ground
now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis want to
see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle security?
Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to be a
case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?.

59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...
The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"

Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?

yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
cockup?.
I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying *anything*
good about the US...

What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???

I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.


You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.