>I told myself to stay out of this, yet here I go again...
>
>It would be damn nice if the U.N. could be given the opportunity to develop any plan in the first place!
>
>I get the distinct impression that they are virtually always handed the plan. One made in the U.S.A. with the U.S. in full control.
>
>I have read often that most U.S. congress members have a thing against EVER having U.S. troops under the command of non-American officers.
>Now based on at least one experience with a Canadian officer in charge in Rawanda (no U.S. troops, but Cdn and Belgian I think) being 'controlled' from U.N. HQ your members may well have a point (ours was a disastrous outcome). But that makes it very difficult to be able to mount any kind of plan that can involve other nations.

The U.N. has had years, not months, to come up with a viable plan for Iraq. Remember that it was U.N. inspectors who left Iraq in 1998. Even then, the inspectors were saying that Iraq was not cooperating. So the U.N. did nothing. This has been a pattern with the U.N.: they come up with a resolution, Iraq doesn't abide by it, the U.N. does nothing.

Another point is that on one hand you seem to present the case that the United States has this tremendous power in the United Nations. We drew up the plan and have total control over it. Doesn't our current problem with the U.N. disprove that? And if we are the only nation provinding the U.N. a plan for Iraq, whose fault is that? Is it not the responsibility of the United Nations to come up with a plan?