Sunday, November 16, 2003

"International Community"Useless
Democrats seem to have some fantasy that if there were more international troops in Iraq, that everything would be groovy. For example, Sen John Edwards says "I would turn over the Iraqi civilian authority to the United Nations tomorrow. The second thing is, I would make this a NATO security force instead of just an American security force."

But what good is the UN? The AP reports,
After the August attack, Annan drastically reduced staff in Iraq and earlier this month withdrew the last 20 from Baghdad after a week of violence that included the bombing of the Baghdad headquarters of the International Committee for the Red Cross.

And most other militaries are not actually built for fighting. The Koreans and Japanese are fair-weather friends only.

South Korea and Japan expressed new resistance Thursday to U.S. requests to dispatch troops to Iraq, saying their plans to deploy peacekeepers would be limited or delayed.

Furthermore, those that do send forces, send medics, or "peacekeepers" and then station them in Kuwait or some other backwater.

Here is the European position on Iraq:
There's still quite a pronounced feeling among many Europeans that the Americans got themselves into this mess so why should we extend our blood and treasure to get them out," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because we DEFENDED YOUR LIVES AND FREEDOM FROM THE SOVIET EMPIRE FOR 50 YEARS! How's that for a reason? And same goes for Japan and Korea. Or maybe because MI5 says it's "only a matter of time" before terrorists launched a biological, chemical or nuclear terrorist attack on a western city. How's that?

My point is, getting more participation would mostly likely be more of an anchor than an assistance.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?