Is it time to let the U.N. take over?

Who thinks it's time the U.N. takes over the running of the United States in an emergency session because of Bush's incompetence?

If George W. Bush is an un-elected President, why replace him with another unelected governing body?

.

Kerry? Gore or Cheney? I'm confused by your post.

x(
See what Kucinich said in the "Kucinich should go to Iraq" thread.

You know how he will never follow any good ideas of Democrats, like listening to Sandy Berger's advice on terror and terrorists.

But, yeah, it's a GREAT IDEA.

Just like K-force or any other UN mission. It wouldn't end any violence, it would just diversify the victims.

and MUCH LESS VIOLENCE, with trained troops who are even-handed.

A LOT less violence if we don't pay them next to nothing for their oil royalties and allow them to decide who gets the oil pumped and at what price...AND if we get those scummy contractors outta there, and let THEM decide who will rebuild Iraq(BUT WE gotta pay for it) AND if they use Iraqi labor and engineers and designers...And if we let the UN take over the water & treatment facilities and don't have any more privatization of water....

A LOT OF IF'S, but the UN has been doing this for a long time and they are experienced and capable...

But Rummy won't let them: "TO THE VICTORS GO THE SPOILS!!" SEZ HE.

Unfortunately, to the victors go the consequences, but he never thinks about things like that.

And let someone try to establish a government over there..

At least the UN has the consent of the governed, something WE used to have.

US troops should not be doing "peacekeeping" - that's what UN peacekeepers are for.

On edit: Sorry, I thought you meant Iraq. Of course the UN shouldn't take over the US. That's just freeper talk.

when they need good ones, they come from here.

thankfully!!