UN Votes for Involvement in Iraq

JaJae · 08-10-2007, 01:29 PM

UN votes to expand its role in Iraq
Last Updated: Friday, August 10, 2007 | 11:43 AM ET
The Associated Press

The United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday expanding the world body's role in Iraq.

The move is aimed at reconciling the country's rival ethnic groups, winning support from neighbouring countries and tackling Iraq's humanitarian crisis.

The resolution authorizes the UN, at the request of the Iraqi government, to promote political talks among the country's ethnic and religious groups and a regional dialogue on issues including border security, energy and refugees.

The mandate requires the UN to "advise, support and assist" Iraqis on "advancing their inclusive, political dialogue and national reconciliation," reviewing the constitution and conducting a census.

The United States and Britain, which have the largest military forces in Iraq and co-sponsored the resolution, believe the UN should play a greater part there because the world body is viewed by many as a more neutral party that can facilitate talks among feuding parties.

Sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia groups has been on the rise in Iraq, while rival government factions have stalled political progress within Iraq's government.

The unpopular mission to Iraq has put U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown under pressure to withdraw their troops.

The UN is finally willing to get involved politically in Iraq. We'll see if this is good news or bad news. It comes at a bad time when the Iraqi government is out for recess and we are waiting on Petraeus's report.

Much like the US, the UN does not have a good history of dealing with nations struggling with sectarian violence. The only thing I can hope for is that with the two bodies working together we don't actually hinder progress.

RMNIXON · 08-10-2007, 05:38 PM

Sounds nice, but did they bother to mention the negative involvment of Iran and Syria in the violence and chaos? I doubt it!

Donkey® · 08-10-2007, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Sounds nice, but did they bother to mention the negative involvment of Iran and Syria in the violence and chaos? I doubt it!

Iran and Syria are less involved in and less responsible for the violence and chaos than the US and Britain are.

Nonphixion · 08-10-2007, 11:00 PM

Whenever the UN gets involved it's always bad news.

IBoilforfoodprogramontopof300,000barells missingeachdaysince'04

tbone · 08-10-2007, 11:29 PM

Didn't Bush refer to the UN as an worthless organization 30 years passed it's prime or did I just dream that up?

IminWonderland · 08-11-2007, 04:56 PM

This will be bad for us.

They will reccomend we leave, and then we still won't listen.

(We means the Administration.)

(Not Us, because we didn't make this decision. They did.)

RMNIXON · 08-11-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Iran and Syria are less involved in and less responsible for the violence and chaos than the US and Britain are.

Glas to see you have taken sides. Who is killing how many moderate Muslims daily then? Like the hit and run cowards that they are?

It is not a process we want to impede or anything.

RMNIXON · 08-11-2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

This will be bad for us.

They will reccomend we leave, and then we still won't listen.

(We means the Administration.)

(Not Us, because we didn't make this decision. They did.)

Something about Representative Republic bothers you or do you speak for everybody? I am not so sure I like the tone of "they" and does that apply in equal proportion if Mrs. Clinton gets the job?

IminWonderland · 08-11-2007, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Something about Representative Republic bothers you or do you speak for everybody? I am not so sure I like the tone of "they" and does that apply in equal proportion if Mrs. Clinton gets the job?

Don't take it so seriously. I was saying the people who represent us. And nothing more.

And it wouldn't matter who it was in there. Even if it were a Democrat taking over, and the UN has to come to us and tell us to get out of there, the Democrat would still be in the same shitty position this current President is.

motivez · 08-14-2007, 02:35 PM

The UN should have been brought in much earlier, if we were going to go to war with Iraq it should have been an international thing so we didn't have to shoulder so much of the cost by ourselves

Hopefully it's not too late for them to actually accomplish something good politically, but with the largest Sunni Arab bloc quitting the coalition government you really have to wonder..