What do you think about it?
2007-07-31 10:01:08 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
First, the U.N. just cannot walk into any country and take over, they can only go where they are allowed, or where they are asked, they do not invade.
Second, the job of the U.N. Peace-keeping missions (which is a small part of the work done by the U.N.) is to establish a dividing line between the warring factions, the weapons they bring are mainly for self defense and to protect the area in which they work, they seldom, if ever, bring heavy artillery, Tanks or air power.
With regards the Darfur situation the U.N. will be going in alongside African Union Forces, nobody has stated the U.N. will be in total charge.
As the area is predominantly a Muslim area, Muslim counties will be asked to supply men and equipment, its not even certain amy American troops will be involved on the ground yet.
Most of the posters here are under the impression that there is a big supply of U.N.soldiers & equipment available to go to any location in the world at the drop of a hat, which is totally incorrect.
Sometimes the U.N. end up being stuck in the middle and become a target for both sides in the conflict. Most military personel are volunteers who wish to serve in the cause of Peace.
2007-08-01 05:13:18 · answer #1 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It probably won't happen for awhile. Sudan has said yes, bring in the UN to work under the AU, but doesn't really want the UN to be meddling in Sudanese/African affairs. Actually the UN already has some troops on the ground, they just want to send more in to boost their force big enough to be more effective at their glorified security action.
2007-07-31 17:06:14 · answer #2 · answered by JASiege 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a ssssstrange world we live in. peacekeepers with guns, tanks, fighter jets, etc, are we sure its peacekeeping ?.
Our policemen have to keep the peace with no more than a stun gun at the most. So it would add up that any country needing a foreign army needs to get itself sorted. we should supply information, guidance, plans, examples etc, not TROOPS.
2007-07-31 17:11:59 · answer #3 · answered by poppyday.. 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's about ime that the UN pulled its finger out regarding Darfur.
2007-07-31 17:25:05 · answer #4 · answered by captbullshot 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
one person said
Our policemen have to keep the peace with no more than a stun gun at the most
I might be wrong but me thinks you are british and to correct you I have seen pleny of armed police running around your country with MP5's. dont you watch the news?
and for that say we should let them kill each other until they learn to stop. that would be fine with me if they were just killing each other but they are killing innocent people. that is why we need peace keepers there. its late but better late than never
2007-07-31 17:46:01 · answer #5 · answered by Geoff C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe they heard they were going to smoke out the Ginga Weed
2007-07-31 17:04:24 · answer #6 · answered by David R 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
hopefully know nation is stupid enough to send troops to that hell hole till they can quit being sadistic, bloodthirsty, self serving,thugs. no troops or support should be sent there till they learn to stop killing each other for the sake of power, and tribal one up pence, not to mention religion.
2007-07-31 17:34:09 · answer #7 · answered by darrell m 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
sounds to me like our troops are being dumped on yet again
2007-07-31 19:29:08 · answer #8 · answered by gillm 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I know this! "There are not many Liberals enlist for this mission."
2007-07-31 17:03:08 · answer #9 · answered by Boomer 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it is about time .
2007-07-31 17:03:58 · answer #10 · answered by taxed till i die,and then some. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋