I'm fed up with the UN - Page 12




 
--
Boots
 
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
That was ECOMIL the UN provided transport and logistics.
December 7th, 2004  
Kane
 
There have been major criticism about the UN militarily and there have been suggestions of creating an independent Security Force funded by the UN, but that will cause major concerns about who will be running it.
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Another question would be how to fund it. Will it be strictly UN or will they continue to lease, for lack of a better word, troops.
I also wonder if the current powers that be in the Un would actually commit them.
--
Boots
December 7th, 2004  
Kane
 
Yes, these are also other considerations I've heard following that suggestion.
December 7th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
[quote="03USMC"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
And the US has its hands clean in South America?

ote]

I don't really know what you mean by that. Does the US send aid and material to Latin America? Yes.And probably will always do so.

I believe the point that Hulk was making is that the UN has had opportunities to step in in Latin America for the right reasons and has failed to do so.
From an historical perspective. eg involvement in Chile was a rather nasty episode. I agree, the US has been generous with aid and material. You have no argument with me that the UN has been at times slow and ineffective but I believe some of the comments on this topic about doing away with the UN are ridiculous.

ALSO

Kofi Annan has his supporters.(the following is from The Age)

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed him saying that criticism of him was unfair and that he was doing "a fine job".

He went on to say "I believe he is doing a fine job as United Nations Secretary-General often in very difficult circumstances", Mr Blair said.

The top Democrat on the House of International Relations Committee, Tom Lantos of California, said yesterday that calls for Mr Annan's resignation were "way, way over the line".

The US is conducting several investigations into the oil-for-food program, prompting critics to suggest Republicans are using the scandal to deflect attention from problems in Iraq.

The UN is conducting its own investigation, headed by former central banker Paul Volcker, but that inquiry has been criticized because it is funded by the UN.

In Washington yesterday, 77 lawmakers co-sponsored a bill that would see US funding of the UN cut by $40 million. This is to blackmail the UN into co-operating with the oil-for-food program investigation.
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Yeah your right there and Guatamala and other Central /South American countries. I think however since the Cuban money has dried up that those type of endeavors are about over. Unless of course Mr. Chavez decides to fund civil wars.
December 7th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
O3, you are very quick. I added some more to my post. I would like your comments (and anybody else's) regarding the oil-for-food program investigations.
December 7th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
My first thought is this. The UN funding the investigation is like the fox guarding the hen house.

As far as Lantos backing him. Well Democrats see the UN as a scared cow and have refused to acknowledge any questions as to their viabilty as a Security Organization that can cure the worlds ill's.

I imagine that the accusations of trying to deflect attention from Iraq are also coming from the Lantos camp.

As for the 40 million I will say this. If it is being pulled from funds to fund peace keeping missions. That is to "lease" troops transport troops etc. I don't have a problem with it. If it is being pulled from food, medical etc then it is ill advised. However after the constent anti American, illegal war comments this was probably coming anyway.

All in all I think the UN got caught with their hand in the cookie jar we just have to wait to see how far it extended.
December 7th, 2004  
EagleZtrike
 
 
Yes in my opinion I think the UN is not taking proper responsibility for conflicts and peacekeeping. I think they are just making it worse. For example look at the Chechnyans or however u spell it and then the Israeli conflict. The UN takes one side only and fights alongside one group instead of standing in between the two to resolve conflict.
December 8th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
The exploitation of the Oil for Food program heavily involved UN corruption and shatters the mystique that the world can trust the UN. Lots of nations were involved and it's one giant catastrophe for all parties involved -- both those exploited and those who profitted.

I think we all agree that the UN, in its current form, is almost 100% incapable of filling the role of military intervention -- aka World Policeman.