Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
The difference is not so apparent to me. Although the original UN peacekeeping mission generally involved no armed conflict, the US bombings there, as well as on the ground enforcement of UN regulations, were harsh and immediate. The situation is not exactly the same, but it does illustrate that UN actions can involve significant military actions.
Pakistan, Indonesia and the Phillipines are all allies of ours and have been for quite some time. The governments of Indonesia and the Phillipines would like nothing better than for their extremists to disappear, so they can hardly be considered state sponsors of terrorism. Iran is a country in flux, but it is far too soon to say that our actions have had a positive effect there.
|
"Involving significant military action" and invading a country to enforce international law are very different. The force level commitments are vastly different and the likely number of dead and wounded substantially higher. Something like 38,000 UN forces were deployed for the peace keeping mission versus about 150,000 US forces for Iraq.
Pakistan was hardly helpful to us prior to our plans to invade Afghanistan. The Phillipines and Indonesia were not committing very many resources toward shutting down their terrorist groups. It wasn't until the US increased pressur on all governments with terrorist groups operating and training within their borders that they upped the search.
I agree with you about Iran. It's far too soon and they seem to now have taken the tack of developing nukes to help insure that they won't face military invasion. It's purely a gamble on their part. They hope that they can develop nuclear capabilities in the next few years while we are tied up in Iraq because they are convinced (by the well documented force constraints on our military and the political opposition stateside) that we do not have the will or ability to open another front until we are either out of Iraq or Iraq is well on its way toward self rule.