2006-08-14 13:54:17 · 6 answers · asked by Anna 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
The UN troops have done nothing but stand by and watch the killings on both sides happen. Now they want more troops from more countries to be spectators and targets. Why should the United States listen to the UN, and especially a French general who probably already has his white flag ready and waiting?
2006-08-14 13:56:03 · update #1
It really does puzzle me to know UN troops were there all along. What in the world were these people paid to do? Who paid them?
The US should definitely not send troops there. I think the soldiers there should come from all the smaller countries who are part of the UN and who have never been embroiled in this kind of mission before. Start fresh.
2006-08-14 14:50:00 · answer #1 · answered by lottyjoy 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
The UN has been in the region since 1978 and they have failed to do anything. I think before the US supplies troops we should ask why the UN has been so ineffective in halting the violence in the region. Ulimately i believe that the French and other European countries should supply troops, the US is doing enough to bring peace and stability to the MIddle east right now.
2006-08-14 21:02:08 · answer #2 · answered by stewcat123 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The U.S. has enough forces committed to the region. Let the French supply the troops. That'll be a sick joke.
2006-08-14 21:00:43 · answer #3 · answered by Spel Chekker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!
I'm sick and tired of hearing how the USA is no good and we should stop bullying other nations, and how we're the great Satan. But let something happen and the whole freaking world turns to the good old USA to provide help. Let the European nations step up and see if they can keep the peace.
2006-08-15 08:09:52 · answer #4 · answered by vickit447 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way, let him substitute french fries.
2006-08-14 21:39:53 · answer #5 · answered by acid tongue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, screw france.
2006-08-14 20:59:32 · answer #6 · answered by STEPHEN R 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋