New US ambassador to UN seeks multilateral plans for Iraq

[Barrett808]

Source: AFP

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The new US ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, confirmed Tuesday that Washington wants to involve the world body in Iraq, in light of the high stakes for Iraq and the region.

"The UN can do a lot, a lot is at stake in Iraq," he said.

"What happens in Iraq is certainly important for the Iraqis, but it's also important for the future of the region. And the future of the region, of the broader Middle East, in my judgment, is the defining challenge of our time," Khalilzad said in his first meeting with reporters since assuming his post on Monday.

US President George W. Bush named Khalilzad to the UN post after a stint as US ambassador to Baghdad.

"The president told me that my mission was to work with (UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon) and with the other representatives here to achieve particular goals and my priorities will be to increase UN engagement to improve the situation in Iraq, as well as some other regional conflicts," he said.

"The UN is playing an important role," he said, pointing to an international program to hasten reconstruction and development in Iraq backed by Ban, who is to launch it with Iraqi Prime Minister Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki May 3-4 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070424/pl_afp/unusiraqwar

[ShortnFiery]

1. "Washington wants to involve the world body in Iraq"

:rofl:

Talk about delusional! With the security situation seemingly deteriorating by the day (yes, despite General Betray-Us and his illustrious "master plan" = ongoing surge), The World Community will tell Dear Leader to "go Cheney himself." :P

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. I meant to post a serious, but hilarious article in the UK Daily Mail

last week, in which they adumbrated pretty clearly the extent of the contribution of the "coalition of the willing" to the American war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan - or at least its European members, excluding the UK. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that each one is contributing "one man and his dog"; and with the strict proviso that they should not be put in harm's way.

[Barrett808]

5. I'd love to see that

Couldn't find it with a quick site search. Can you dig it up and post? That would be cool.

[ShortnFiery]

7. And always ... it's understood to be "non-binding"

Kind of like the cruel joke my grandfather played on my dad as a little boy. Grandpa would put manure in Dad's Christmas stocking and quip, "Awe, your pony must have ran away?" :cry: Alas, cruel world! ;)

[lyonn]

3. "General Betray-Us, did you dream that one up? Great!

Wanting UN help is like the bushies saying the Dems don't have a plan for Iraq. They don't want no talk about retreat from a perfectly good war.

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes, I did. However, I'm sure that since it isn't rocket science others may also come up with this

silly nickname independently. BTW, I have a knack for really bad puns too. :blush:

For all the "well intentions" the Good General should know that we don't have enough troops to conduct a viable crack down and provide TRUE security for the Iraqi people.

The only Generals left carrying more than one star have been vetted by the Unitary Executive. IMO the foregoing fact should not imbibe us with a great deal of confidence in either their integrity or good character. :shrug:

[MasonJar]

4. I am sure we do. The UN is not that dumb after we snubbed our

PUG nose at their ideas and lied to their assembly.