Originally Posted by 03USMC

Are referring to Britians Parliment?

And yes the US does deploy forces in support of the UN. At our pleasure just as every other Nation does. At their Pleasure.

You made a promies, now you say you can break it?
No just polititions in general.

No. There is nothing in the UN charter that requires any member nation to provide troops on demand to the UN. Member Nations may at their discretion provide troops as they see fit.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

No. There is nothing in the UN charter that requires any member nation to provide troops on demand to the UN. Member Nations may at their discretion provide troops as they see fit.

Who was talking about troops, you dont always need troops to keep world peace.

So pray tell what are you refering too?

Originally Posted by 03USMC

So pray tell what are you refering too?

You said that polititions water down the ROE's but i was saying how most polititions are ex-military and therefore know what the ROE's should be.
Also i am saying how america made a promise to keep the world safe yet you insult it and yourself by calling it useless therefore calling yourself stupid.

Well excuse me if I don't share your high opinion of the UN. If that makes me stupid so be it. And please excuse my opinion that no Nations Military should be at the beck and call of a psuedo World Goverment.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Well excuse me if I don't share your high opinion of the UN. If that makes me stupid so be it. And please excuse my opinion that no Nations Military should be at the beck and call of a psuedo World Goverment.

I dont see it as a world government , i see it as someone trying to organise the help of the world and stop another WW1 two armed camps situation.
Hey its your opinion.

The UN has steadily lost it's influence over the past 20 years to where it's at today - a toothless tiger that huffs and puffs when real action is required. It needs to be completely overhauled to make it viable. What happened in Rwanda was a disgrace really and too often the UN seems to pander to politics.

The UN is too busy trying to be all things to all men. This will never happen.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The UN has steadily lost it's influence over the past 20 years to where it's at today - a toothless tiger that huffs and puffs when real action is required. It needs to be completely overhauled to make it viable. What happened in Rwanda was a disgrace really and too often the UN seems to pander to politics.

Yeah it has lost its touch, it really wasnt meant to be a tiger anyway.

The UN is too busy trying to be all things to all men. This will never happen.

People will try anything for peace, even if that means working with the devil.

Originally Posted by Big_Z

Because America wasn't under attack by Africans........... We have no obligation to help every single country that has problems. America isn't here to hold the hand of every country on the planet, thats what the UN is for and they obviously cant handle it. Why didnt Malaysia or Serbia send troops to help?

Did Iraqi attack American? Bush himselfs says he wants world peace so he declared 2 wars. Today USA r the world police plz. The American do not have obligation to help every single country, and THEY ALSO HAVE NO RIGHT TO LAUNCH MILITARY INVASION STUBBORNLY WITHOUT TAKING UN ADVICE.

Secondly, if USA just attack like that as what u say. USA reaction is like doing revenge action, is this right? Especially they cannot prove Iraq did something harmful and they were seems ton be innocent from 911.

Malaysia send the their soldiers to join the UN military service for many kinds of activities. Like Bosnia conflict. We r a small country and we r not like Bush who look down at the authority of UN. All the Nations should take UN in the first place, I don't think American did.

Basically the whole incident is -- There comes to an obligation to American when a certain middle east country holding oil procution.