Bush Busted On Pre-scripted Battle Banter (Video)

[Grasshopper]

I think the best option at this point in time would be for the US and UK to pull out of Iraq asap and be replaced by large numbers of UN peacekeepers preferably drawn from Muslim countries. Sadly I don't see this happening firstly because it would cause Bush and his team to lose a massive amount of face and secondly because I cannot imagine the UN wanting to touch Iraq with a bargepole at this point. I mean why should they help Bush out when he has repeatedly shown them the finger?

[ChadTower]

Plus, the UN would have to HAVE troops, which for the most part they don't.  What they have is US, so all this would do is result in the UN taking control of US troops on foreign soil.  Not going to happen.

If Bush has done anything right,  it was separating from the so called authority of the UN.

[Dartful Dodger]

If Bush has done anything right,

[Grasshopper]

Plus, the UN would have to HAVE troops, which for the most part they don't.  What they have is US, so all this would do is result in the UN taking control of US troops on foreign soil.  Not going to happen.

If Bush has done anything right,  it was separating from the so called authority of the UN.

Not true. There are UN peacekeepers all over the world. India for instance contributes large numbers. You don't get to hear about them much because peacekeeping is unglamorous. It is true that US troops (or troops from other developed countries) are needed for UN backed invasions but peacekeeping is an entirely different matter. For peacekeeping manpower is far more important than having the best/most sophisticated/most expensive equipment. The US army actually seriously lacks manpower and that is part of the problem. Another problem is that the US has zero credibility in the arab world.

[DrewKaree]

Not true. There are UN peacekeepers all over the world. India for instance contributes large numbers. You don't get to hear about them much because peacekeeping is unglamorous. It is true that US troops (or troops from other developed countries) are needed for UN backed invasions but peacekeeping is an entirely different matter. For peacekeeping manpower is far more important than having the best/most sophisticated/most expensive equipment. The US army actually seriously lacks manpower and that is part of the problem. Another problem is that the US has zero credibility in the arab world.

Aren't those UN guys needed to replace the UN guys dealing in sex abuse rings, or are those guys replacing the UN guys responsible for the corrupt Oil for Food dealings...well, I guess they'll have to solicit bribes to pay the troops they might send to Iraq....wait, that was a leadership problem, not a man-on-the-ground problem.  Well, at least there's no rigging of deals going on by...nevermind, scratch that.  That's only supposed to be newsworthy when it might be able to be tied to Mr Cheney, you probably weren't aware of anything like that going on, right?

Yeah, you're right.  The UN is the better solution to handling Iraq.  They seem to be above the fray with NONE of the problems everyone seems to think are making the current U.S. administration a "failure".  I mean, they'd have to be better, right?  What with everyone "working for the betterment of all"