Quote:

WASHINGTON ? The Bush administration is exploring the possibility of establishing a U.N.-endorsed multinational force in Iraq that would be led by an American commander, a top State Department official says.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (search) acknowledged that the idea is one of many being weighed by the administration as it attempts to deal with continuing violence in that country almost four months after President Bush declared an end to major combat operations.

Armitage outlined his thoughts in an interview with regional U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, a text of which was made available by the State Department.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (search) traveled to New York last Thursday to issue an appeal for a new U.N. Security Council resolution that would reinforce U.N. support for the deployment of additional foreign forces in Iraq.

But initial soundings by administration officials suggested minimal support for that approach, taking into account continuing resentment among many Security Council members about the U.S. decision in March to go to war in Iraq without U.N. endorsement.

Since then, the administration has been trying out other ideas that would address U.S. concerns about continuing instability in Iraq without yielding to American insistence on retaining command over international forces in Iraq.

On Monday, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte (search) highlighted the distance to be traveled before a consensus could be reached when he said, "We are nowhere near a resolution on Iraq."

French officials have said a genuinely international approach to Iraq with a sharing of authority is the best way to bring stability to Iraq and enable the country to move forward.

The proposal outlined by Armitage would not entail the deployment of U.N. forces to Iraq but would simply provide the U.N. endorsement for the deployment of a multinational force.

The most recent example of this type of action occurred this past spring with the U.N. approval of a French-led multinational force to eastern Congo in a bid to bring an end to widespread violence in that region.

---

shakta said:

I would have no problem with something like this happening, as long as we can make sure that what we want to happen gets done in Iraq. Turning total control over to the UN would be a mistake.

---

silversoul7 said:

I think that was our mistake all along. When we use multilateralism, we tend to piss fewer people off, thus making fewer people want to kill us.

---

shakta said:

We want to make sure a democracy is established, and Saddam or someone like him does not return to power.

---

shakta said:

Why in the hell would we turn control over to the UN.

---

Quote:

Autonomous said:
Although I share your dislike for the current administration's foreign policy, the U.S. should NEVER obey the U.N., it should do what is right. If this coincides with the U.N.'s wishes, so be it but the U.S. should always remain sovereign. The people of our country should not be subjected to yet another layer of beaurocracy meddling in their affairs.

---

Quote:

the U.S. should NEVER obey the U.N.,

---

Cornholio said:

Ooh, good point.  And the US Constitution even says "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The United States signed the UN Charter, so we're constitutionally bound by UN law!!!  But we all know Bush doesn't give a shit about the US constitution, nor do his supporters, obviously.   

---

Cornholio said:

Does that make sense?

---

Quote:

I don't think the UN wants to tell us how to run our affairs, only how to run other country's affairs.

---

Quote:

The UN charter allows for members to go to war without approval from the security council to defend themselves

---

Quote:

Saddam represented a major threat to America.

---

Cornholio said:

Nice post! Man it pisses me off when our media is dishonest.

---

Alex123 said:

Before you get too worked up about it, remember this is something Iraq "claimed" they were doing.  Until you have a little more evidence they ever did actually pay a family of a suicide bomber and that it wasn't just Saddams propaganda I'd hold fire. 

---

It doesn't really matter now. He isn't going to be paying anyone anything for long, if he still is even.

shakta said:

Believe what you want to Cornholio. Saddam represented a major threat to America. Maybe not on the day we attacked him, but in the future most definately. That is why we took him out before the threat was imminent. You kill a snake before it bites you, not afterwards.

---

You're right.