Skip to comments.
Bush will seek expanded U.N. role to attract more Iraq contributors
Washington Times ^
| Wednesday, September 3, 2003
| By Scott Lindlaw
Posted on 09/02/2003 10:07:19 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:07:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
The Bush administration will ask the United Nations to transform the U.S.-led force in Iraq into a multinational force and to play a leading role in forming an Iraqi government.
President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell met yesterday and agreed to move forward with a new U.N. resolution, an effort to attract more foreign contributions to postwar Iraq, three senior administration officials said on condition of anonymity.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: iraq; un
To: JohnHuang2
I hate the UN!
2
posted on
09/02/2003 10:10:16 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: A CA Guy
3
posted on
09/02/2003 10:10:35 PM PDT
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: JohnHuang2
This was the plan all along folks.
To: coulterfan
This is disgusting and something I'd look for on rotten.com. Is this for real?
6
posted on
09/02/2003 10:22:18 PM PDT
by
merry10
To: floridarocks
exactly, I never thought there would been no UN multi nation troops, just that having them under the UN lead would be a disaster. let them run the food service, just as long as they are not in charge of important stuff.
7
posted on
09/02/2003 10:23:07 PM PDT
by
Pikamax
To: merry10
No, it just shows the typical DU poster entertaining themselves.
8
posted on
09/02/2003 10:24:01 PM PDT
by
mikegi
To: JohnHuang2
This is another reason why it would be nice if we followed the constitution when it comes to declaration of war. Since congress didn't declare war and give the president a mandate for ending the war, our globalist president will be able to use the Iraq quagmire to build a UN force with which to subjugate our troops, even after the bitch slapping he took from them over Iraq, in the first place.
9
posted on
09/02/2003 10:57:56 PM PDT
by
Nephi
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
To: JohnHuang2
Okay, so I have a question maybe somone can answer, I have no clue. It is said that:
The Pentagon estimates it is costing $3.9 billion a month to keep the roughly 150,000 troops now in Iraq, where they make up 90 percent of the peacekeeping forces
How is this different from what it costs to keep the same soldiers stateside? They get paid the same, with the exception of maybe some hazardous duty pay, equipment upkeep still has to be done stateside, they spend un-godly amounts of money transporting unit equipment for field training excercises which is about 50% of stateside time. So is the $3.9 billion on top of what it would cost to keep these units stateside?
To: JohnHuang2
Disgusting!
Weak as water.
To: ScrtAccess
If we're building facilities (instead of living in tents and using field showers, etc.) that could account for a lot of it. When we went into Bosnia they projected expenditures for the one year we were supposed to be there at $1.5 billion. After ten months of deployment we'd already spent $4 billion. A large part of this was spent by the Army, knowing the one year limit on our deployment was nonsense, which built and resurfaced roads, built recreation centers, etc. In any event, my guess is that some of this money is being spent on facilities the Army plans to be in for a number of years.
12
posted on
09/03/2003 10:22:29 AM PDT
by
caltrop
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson