Bush, Kerry Want UN Help in Iraq But UN Cautious

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-un-future.html

By REUTERS
Published: April 15, 2004
Filed at 0:16 a.m. ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President Bush said he was counting on a U.N. envoy to come up with plans for an interim Iraqi government and hopes a new U.N. resolution will persuade more countries to provide troops.

But U.N. officials are holding their breath, reluctant to promise more than they can deliver. And diplomats are cautious about inflated expectations from nations where most people opposed last year's U.S.-British invasion of Iraq.

Bush at a Tuesday night news conference said he was counting on U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi ``to figure out the nature of the entity'' that would assume sovereignty when the U.S. occupation is to end on June 30.

Brahimi, in Iraq since April 5, on Wednesday did propose that a caretaker Iraqi government led by a prime minister, a president and two vice presidents take over until elections can be held in January.

MORE -

Comment: Note that the headline id's both * and Kerry. Kerry should initiate a parallel cabinet (that's 'hyperbole' for those who can't tell).

:mad:

we have now "invested" $160 billion dollars in Iraq, and we are no closer to our goal.

We are just about to enter Dante's Inferno in that country.

And they believe we are just going to 'turn it over' to the UN, after untold thousands of deaths, and budget deficits as far as the eye can see.....

.
.
.

"when the U.S. occupation is to end on June 30."

They are NOT gong to end the "occupation"

If anything - the military is taking MORE control, and increasing troops, and their aggressiveness.

How can a nation be "sovereign" when a foreign military is in there doing whatever the f*ck it feels like?

AND

If the UN goes in there while the US says that the US is going to run the show - what's the point?

This whole mess is BECAUSE the US is running the show and went ahead without the UN.

I hope the UN remains firm and does NOT get involved as long as the US is running the show.

If the US wants the UN to get involved, and put US troops under the auspices of the UN, then fine.

But I'll bet the US won't do that.

And killings will continue.

USA #1 - right!

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Why would he share his plans with Bush?...

Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq, never did, and never will.

Thus, the sublimate merging of the two in the headlines.

Kerry should clearly state, * needs to ride in on his own coat tails.

as long as bush* remains planted in oval office

with his "big talk" about "going it alone", and the slam about the UN being "not relevant" -- I seriously doubt the UN is keen on helping bush* dig his way out of that "spider hole"

Troops are now on extended duty for another 3 months, no one to turn over control to by June 30, violence increasing, death toll growing, hostages being taken and killed

and we will probably see even more troops sent in to Iraq and not as "replacements" for those being rotated out

there is NO COURSE TO STAY, NO MAP, NO PLAN -- bush* inc. are still waiting for the flowers to be thrown and winging it to save bush*'s campaign -- future "policy" regarding Iraq and other issues are going to based solely on political maneuvers to salvage bush*'s campaign