Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cthulu23
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those "peacekeepers" are composed of troops donated from other nations. The actions that you name were instances when the US did lend troops, but we don't give troops every time there is a crisis. I'm not saying that we should do that but let's not be too harsh on the UN for sudan unless we are willing to do something about it. We outspend the rest of the world combined when it comes to military expenditures.
|
Okay let me put it this way
When Spain backed out of Iraq after the Madrid train Bombings- to the Terrorists- is it not concievable that they viewed it as backing down? Cause enough damage and they will pull out?
I view the U.N. the same way, but being inactive on these issues, for WHATEVER reason, it gives countries a reason to doubt them. Iraq Part 1 was by and large a U.S. opperation, but I' am not saying we didn't have support- simply we ( and the Brits) were the one with the 'boots' on. When an organization is inactive after resolutions - again for whatever reason, they loose any crediability
An interesting Article
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3453
Some 47 member nations are dictatorships and the UN roster includes six terrorist states.
My opinion- do away with the Security council. The U.N. is, for reasons you stated, worthless. They have no military power- they have no force to backup resolutions, and they have little credibility. Sudan figures they can get by with 10 - odd years of resolutions like Saddam while they murder their own people. I'll admit, it is a huge undertaking to police the world, but that doesnt change the fact that they are largely inactive. I think they should stick to Humaniatrain Efforts ( like they are NOW doing in *SOME* of Sudans refugee camps).
They are best suited as another International Red Cross.
Hell even the pope has more soldiers than the U.N.