Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
That depends on what we mean by "run." The UN may have wanted to run the oil contracts and the like, but they certainly did not want to run, and had no capacity to run, the post-war security apparatus. Do you think the "insurgency" would have dropped their guns if the UN rather than the US had been running post war Iraq? Certainly not. So what would the UN have done, held a meeting about it?
|
There would have been member nations' troops there, under UN auspices, like any other UN peacekeeping operation. Why is this so hard to grasp?
If there had been shooting, the UN would have done whatever it does under its rules of engagement. People don't usually bother to shoot at the UN -- they save their bullets for their enemies. At least in theory, there would have been less reason for an Iraqi insurgency against the UN than against the US, and so there would have been less shooting. Whether this would have been true in practice is hard to say, although it is certainly true that the UN has more approval around the world than we do. Some of the Islamists might well have tried just as hard to kill UN troops.
