UN Security Council Votes to Extend U.S.-Led Force in Iraq for 1 Year

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year, a move that Iraq's prime minister said would be his nation's "final request" for help.

Authorization for the 160,000-strong multinational force was extended until the end of 2008 because "the threat in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security," according to the resolution.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad formally introduced the resolution Tuesday afternoon and soon after the council met to approve it.

www.foxnews.com...

[edit on 12/19/2007 by rockets red glare]

[edit on 12/19/2007 by benevolent tyrant]

Question: why would it be wrong to do this? thos who want an end to the war now now now will need somebody's support to ensure some kind of sane and stable transition. Those who want to say in the fight until the dust settles will need some form of legitimacy. Won't they?

Well both sides of the Iraq war debate promote false hoods , are blind to facts and defend the war for purely partisan reasons so don't expect any rational debate any time soon. The problem is that Federalism and Iraq just don't mix. US forces should stay in place while the country is decentralized .

Convert the local militias to security and either have a lose confederation of states. Only then can the gains from the improving security situation be met with political solutions .

I wonder how many Americans who support state rights and the Iraq war fail to see my point ?

Edit posting glitch please delete .

[edit on 9-2-2008 by xpert11]

Edit posting glitch please delete .

[edit on 9-2-2008 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
The problem is that Federalism and Iraq just don't mix. US forces should stay in place while the country is decentralized .

The truth of the thing is that America's mission has gone beyond the "war" stage in Iraq. They nation-buildiers now, and that does take time.

Well nation building cant take place in the current security and political climate in Iraq. In effect the coalition attacked the enemy ( Islamic extremists not Saddam ) at his strongest point. In effect it would have been like the allies invading the Japanese home islands first up if that had been possible.

Note I am comparing the fanaticism of the Japanese and the enemy in Iraq rather then the two conflicts themselves . It is never a good idea to attack the enemy at his strongest point unless there is really no other option.

It's my opinion that the Iraq mission is under strength. I say the same thing about the effort in Afghanistan. I never did like half measures.

I agree completely on your last point.
Bush own private war in Iraq is proven to be akin to Hitler invasion of the Soviet Union. There isnt enough manpower available to win the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The consequences of the Iraq war including Iran becoming the dominate player in the region will be felt for a long time.