Replies

"Europe should take the lead, the Iraq nation-building process should be internationalized. NATO should offer to go in. That will give United States a continued big position there,"

So, send in NATO. Effectively, NATO is already there, being mostly US and the rest mostly GB. What's the big dif?

The only difference is the U.S. can succeed where nato has failed. We have never lost a war, only to ourselves. What has the U.N. ever done that would suggest they have the ability to take over Iraq. Last time I checked every single country they have been to is worse off now then before the U.N. decided to "help out". I think the democrats are suggesting that we internationalize this so Iraq will turn out badly and it will look like they were right...either that or they are even more stupid then we originally thought they were. I don't think we need to be reminded of france's ability to overcome or the lack thereof their record speaks for themselves, so why are they so vocal about what we need to be doing. The UN did not support the war they were not willing to fail at yet another attempt to make the world a better place, I for one am glad we were fortunate enough to not have their assistance. Although it would be nice for additional funding resources, the price we would have to pay would be too great, and that price my friends is failure.