Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
|
You are telling me that the French and the Germans would have sent significant troops? Not likely. I agree with Slave, it would have basically been the same troops are are currently there.
If you think that there would have been less shooting, you are just mistaken. Please reread the letter sent by al zawari (I know this is spelled wrong, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The insurgency has nothing to do with who the "occupiers" are and everything to do with not wanting anything resembling a democracy to be established in Iraq.
