Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The UN seems to have a track record that is overwhelmingly positive. What is more, the military monitoring and peace keeping missions that the world body chooses to fund and participate in seem to have less to do with geo-political and resource driven, self interest, than the places that the U.S.focuses on.
If the U.N. did not do it, it probably would not get done. It seems that as the integrity of the reputation of the U.S. deteriorates in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, the UN, in comparison, seems more welcome and influential.
|
I think that would depend on if you talked to one of the few surviving Bosnian Muslim men from around Srebrenica, or one of the survivors of Rwanda, or survivors of the other various FUBARed UN "peacekeeping" missions or UN-allowed genocides or other UN related atrocities (remember the UN troops raping children a while back?), or talked to the "other side" in those conflicts.
BTW, has the UN issued a resolution telling member states to invade Zimbabwe to stop what is happening there yet?
Oh, and BTW....those UN figures you cite, with fatalities listed? Those are UN fatalities, NOT ALL fatalities, which often were several orders of magnitude higher. "yeah, we only lost X people" sounds a lot better than "yeah, we only lost X people, but 800,000 of the people we were there to protect got massacred, but hey, did we mention we only lost X people???"