Bush will seek expanded U.N. role to attract more Iraq contributors

Washington Times ^ | Wednesday, September 3, 2003 | By Scott Lindlaw

[JohnHuang2]

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.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, September 3, 2003

Quote of the Day by WorkingClassFilth

[A CA Guy]

I hate the UN!

[A CA Guy]

Do you want to re-elect George w. Bush?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/170322

From the message board from the ABC show "The View"

[floridarocks]

This was the plan all along folks.

[merry10]

This is disgusting and something I'd look for on rotten.com. Is this for real?

[Pikamax]

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.

[mikegi]

No, it just shows the typical DU poster entertaining themselves.

[Nephi]

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.

[ScrtAccess]

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?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Disgusting!

Weak as water.

[caltrop]

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.