http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,,2138922,00.html
According to the news article the UN is actually going to send a force to Darfur that will be able to intervene.
I can't recall the UN ever intervening on an issue of this magnitude before. Is this a sign that the UN is attempting to become an effective global governing force?
2007-08-01 02:31:30 · 11 answers · asked by xoil1321321432423 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am pleased to see this. It seems that Mr. Brown is trying to do the right thing. Actions like that, do a great deal for the reputation of the UK; it actually reduces the threat of terrorism in Britain by making friends throwout the world.
About the UN: The UN will do good if the security council members want to do good. It certainly can be an instrument for peace if the members are so inclined.
2007-08-01 08:29:40 · answer #1 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes the UN has created another dependency.
That area of the world can not support it's population. That was why the tribes were engaging in genocide. So now we will create a semi state that will exist on charity. It's population will swell and the situation will get worse.
2007-08-09 02:13:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i applaud them for their actions are a step further in ending the conflict how ever this is a long time coming however i think action should have been taken several years ago i think that in some cases the violence needs to be stopped before we plant about the future if the UN is to keep being affective they have to understand the the forces they are trying to stop wont wait until the next resolution
2007-08-07 13:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by historyscott13 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UN "peacekeepers" do not keep the peace, and "effective global governing force" by an entity that puts Cuba on the Human Rights Committee...is non-sequitor.
2007-08-08 06:48:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saying they are going to do something and actually doing it are two different things. Actually the UN intervened in Korea in 1950------a little larger scale than Dafur.
2007-08-01 09:36:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's about bloody time. They voted unamiously to send forces in to stop the genocide. But I think it was declared genocide over a year ago, took too long. Too many innocent men women and children are dead or dying.
2007-08-01 09:36:56 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Now lets how fast the world will turn on them Not that it means anything
2007-08-01 09:39:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
uh... you have been sleeping all the while. the UN has done soooooo many things like imposing economic sanctions in S. Africa, sending troops to many other countries, etc
2007-08-01 09:44:08 · answer #8 · answered by Raga s 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hopefully they will do more in the Sudan then they did in Rwanda
2007-08-01 09:38:38 · answer #9 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hooray for the UN! Whyever they're doing it, more power to them.
2007-08-01 09:35:32 · answer #10 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋