Lose some: US may stop seeking more troops from other countries

Lose some: US may stop seeking more troops from other countries
WASHINGTON - After a high-profile pitch at the United Nations for more countries to send troops to Iraq, the Bush administration is encountering resistance and may not seek a Security Council resolution after all, US officials said.
'We have not yet made a determination,' Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told reporters on Monday, alluding to the possibility of a new resolution.


Other officials noted the strong stand that some UN members had taken against the US decision to go to war with Iraq in March without the council's blessing.
Asked about the status of any new resolution, US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte, said: 'We're nowhere near a text on Iraq.'

He said that in addition to seeking a broadening of the US-led coalition in Iraq, the administration wants more countries to provide financial assistance and help with police training.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,206742,00.html?


UN doesn't seem like they want to lose any more men in Iraq! :bounce:

they said that once we were successful, everyone would want to hop on the bandwagon to share the spoils?

bandwagon. They know that shrub* will find some way to stick them with the bill for the invasion and the rape.

if Bush would have shared the spoils. He isn't willing to do that.

like to Haliburton and whistle ass arranging for the oil to go through Israel

Coulter can kiss my hairy ass with her "traitor" crap, 'cause I'm going to say it anyway...

We deserve the bullshit we're getting in Iraq right now. Bush gives a high middle-finger to the world and pre-emptively invades a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or WMD proliferation, then he has the audacity to expect that others will pick up the bill or contribute lives. Apparently, the US leadership needs a quagmire of its own making every few decades to relearn the lessions it can never seem to comprehend in the first place.

I'm ashamed of our current leadership in the US and the mess that they have gotten us into. And, if that makes me a traitor, then so be it.

JB

The fourth and final chapter of Barbara Tuchman's book was about the US involvement in Vietnam. I wonder, if she were still alive, whether she would feel compelled to write a fifth chapter on Iraq.

There's a certain ideology in the Bush crowd that is STILL trying to "prove" that Vietnam was a noble, just war. That's where I see Iraq coming from: stubborn, power-hungry white guys refusing to admit that their kind could ever, ever make a mistake.

they know damn well they made a mistake, and they don't really give a damn. To have those types of feelings would require a conscience, which is atypical of your garden variety ignorant neocon egomaniac psycho person.

I couldn't have said it any better. We have no business being there in the first place. Horrible dictator my ass. Sure he was. We can't justify an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation on that basis. The world has established international "rules of LAW" which the neocons use only if convenient.

they won't send troops to die and help the asshole save face? Hell, if they did, he'd laugh at them and then invade Iran

It eclipses the budgets of the next 10 following countries combined.

Cakewalk they kept telling us.

...are much cheaper in China (and Russia) than what our military pays for them.

When you also factor in the ability of trillions of dollars to simply disappear from the Pentagon's bank account, it starts to become more understandable how we can spend so much more than the rest of the world on defense.

What do we actually get for it? I don't know...a big whopping debt for our grandchildren, I guess.

Bribes to countries so that we have access through their land and/or air space.

Also the reward money for bin Laden and Saddam.

I hope the world's other nations stop appeasing the little dictator.

otherwise the US soldiers are the ones who will pay for this. 1, 2, 3 dead daily.

This UN bombing is a little smelly, just like the WTC bombing. I'm still not convinced that Bush didn't have something to do with 9/11, or at least in letting it happen. Bush got a huge rise in popularity after that 9/11 attack. It worked for Bush like the Reichstag fire worked for Hitler.

This UN attack, by this new, unknown group, gets the UN out of Halliberton's oil fields. Maybe Bush's friends wanted to asassinate that progressive Brazilian UN man.

So Bush cries crocodile tears, and pretends he is sorry to see the UN go, while he simultaniously cancels Iraq's previous financial deals with our oil-seeking competitors.

If congress held an investigation into the UN bombing, Bush's Republicans would probably insist that the hearings be held in secret, and the final report would probably have at least 29 pages censored for 'security reasons.'

This has nothing to do with the United States OR Iraq. This has to do with the fact that the Bush Regime has isolated the United States from the rest of the world and the UN and their members want nothing to do with us. We won't play ball when it comes to the environment, womens health care, nuclear weapons, landmines just to name a few. If we won't be a team player then why should they play with us on this one.

I don't care who the democrat is on the ballot, we need a regime change and it begins at home. We need someone to reverse all the damage that Bush has done before it's way too late. Hopefully with a democrat in office, the rest of the world will remember how we were once the good guys for 8 years and will work with us again (and of course, we will once again work with the rest of the world)

...would have the cooperation of the UN in a heartbeat. Of course, neither of them would have put our country into this position.

I'm sure Poland will send more troops....
:eyes: