Looks like they could have troops on the ground within a month. What say ya'll (as Bubba woud say).
2007-12-07 07:54:23 · 18 answers · asked by R J 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Thanks for that answer Paddy. Had a friend over there and he said they would go through check points in tanks and other carriers. Once they went up to one blocked off and it had an old tank. The head honcho guy with them was from Sweden and got down and went up to talk with the head guy at the check point and the guy pulled out a pistol and shot him in the chest. So I asked my friend did all heck break out and he said no, that they knew the guy was wearing a bullet proof vest and the one that shot him just laughed. It didn't nknock the fellow down just back, so must have been low caliber. He got wounded when they were mortared and was hit with a piece of clay fro the mortar. So what you are saying is that the UN observes and when youswitched to NATO, you could do what you needed to do and I assume that is when everyone was disarmed.
So the UN does not have the power to stop the people from killing one another I guess, jsut stay in certain areas?
2007-12-07 15:38:34 · update #1
So Gunny and RTO the UN could do this, but other overrule the purpose of stipping conflict? At the start they set out to do this, but the countries mentioned stop it's purpose?
2007-12-07 15:43:32 · update #2
Jeeper and Conrad thank you for that information. I wondered about Rwanda. the Belgium had 2,000 troops there and sent 8-9 out in the bush without any weapons and they where murdered. First why would they do that. Then they withdrew and no one filled the void from what i understan. Then the peope were murdered. If they left with no one stepping in I think that was insane. It looks like something could have been done and maybe it was, just too late. I asked the question to learn about the situation and have and appreciate that. "If you don't use it you lose it" and that must be what happened here. Funny how the NATO switch put the fear in them. Different orders?
2007-12-07 16:06:17 · update #3
The UN gets "Loaned military personnel from member countries" the UN mandate is what makes it toothless, it was ironic when I was UN in Bosnia (UNPROFOR) we were toothless, useless to prevent warring factions, unable to keep peace in a war, as soon as we changed hats (literally in my case over night) and became NATO (IFOR 1 and 2) then suddenly the war is over we have a war like mandate no longer toothless but now its peace, one minute we had no respect from bosnians, croats and serbs because they know UN was toothless, next day its different.
2007-12-07 09:54:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
ok, first of all of the project many human beings have with the conflict in Iraq is the alleged loss of connection with 9-11 and the reality that we've not fairly been shown any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. If there is evidence i'd like a link because of the fact I pay attention approximately it yet no you may fairly supply me any evidence. 2d project with Iraq. it is been going poorly and getting worse every day yet our leaders stored on asserting oh it is going so nicely look the best minister sent me cookies they are doing so nicely. if that they had replaced techniques a splash whilst issues fell aside, lots of people who're now adversarial to the conflict would not be. Thirdly, there is very nearly no one over right here complaining relating to the conflict in Afghanistan. there is no one complaining relating to the warriors in North Korea. no person is somewhat complaining approximately something different than the incompetence with which Iraq has been dealt with. If something got here up that replaced into somewhat threatening, i think of we'd see comparable situations to WWII the place human beings would flock to preserve there u . s ..
2016-11-14 00:03:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Toothless tiger would be an accurate description of the lack of actions but the real problem is that it does not have the ability to get enough support to really do anything because of the veto powers of the US, UK, France, Russia and China coupled with the agendas of the rest of the countries and "power blocks" within the General Assembly. It is not so much a toothless tiger as a tiger who can't decide what to do.
2007-12-07 08:30:44 · answer #3 · answered by GunnyC 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The UN has no troops.
We are the UN, America and the other nations that make it up.
The UN has no authority to send troops anywhere.
Only the Security council can do that, after the 15 nations who hold seats on the SC, vote to do so.
Then only if member nations, decide to supply troops to the UN, for those actions.
2007-12-07 08:10:28 · answer #4 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The UN is nothing and if the US were to pull out, which we need to do, it would fall in on itself. They are more corrupt than any organization in history, even more so than any political party, mafia or group of street gang thugs, and they do so under the cover of law. Why anyone in this nation defends the UN I'll never know.
2007-12-07 09:32:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As the United Nations is predominantly a Civil Organization that does not have its own standing military forces, and has to rely on the promises of volunteer troops from U.N. member countries, your ill-informed "question" revels how little you know about the United Nations Organization.
2007-12-07 09:00:40 · answer #6 · answered by conranger1 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The UN is a PAPER tiger with no teeth!
The UN can be shredded as is regularly shredded just as easily as paper!
Just as cars made of Bondo are imaginary cars, the UN being made of paper is just as imaginary!
Wish in one hand, poop in the other and see which one fills up faster!
What can be found at the UN with the worth of a turd?
2007-12-07 08:16:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
all the U.N. does is suck up money (mostly the U.S.'s) in order to provide a platform to countries to criticize each other (but mostly the U.S.) and take up valuable real estate in New York City that could be a nice park or library but is instead a useless building
2007-12-07 08:02:15 · answer #8 · answered by f0876and1_2 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They are a waste of money for the US. We pay money for them to sit around and let the bad guys do whatever the hell they want.
2007-12-09 14:24:06 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Frankly my dear, they don't give a damn. They use it as a forum for their own personal beefs and monetary enrichment. None of these guys will die poor, only their fellow countrymen. A wonderful idea gone sour.
The US should toss them out on their ears and hand in our resignation.
2007-12-07 08:02:06 · answer #10 · answered by MR HENRY S 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋