Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (134810)	5/29/2004 5:41:43 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

KLP, my point about Rwanda wasn't that the USA should have done anything about it. It was to point out that the USA isn't in Iraq for the health of Iraqis. It's for oil, power, security, revenge, money etc. My point was that the constant refrain from the USA that "We are saving the world" rings very hollow. The USA acts to benefit the people running the USA and as a corollary to that, the people who support them and vote for them. Similarly, other countries act in the way their bosses think is in their interests. Mqurice

To: KLP who wrote (134810)	5/29/2004 8:16:44 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Where was the rest of the world on these problems???: Rwanda and East Timor...The US can't always do all the heavy lifting. And the US shouldn't. Look at all the flack we take no matter what our position is. "...103. The absence of detailed statistics on responses notwithstanding, many Member States are saying "no" to deploying formed military units to United Nations-led peacekeeping operations, far more often than they are saying "yes". In contrast to the long tradition of developed countries providing the bulk of the troops for United Nations peacekeeping operations during the Organization’s first 50 years, in the last few years 77 per cent of the troops in formed military units deployed in United Nations peacekeeping operations, as of end-June 2000, were contributed by developing countries. 104. The five Permanent Members of the Security Council are currently contributing far fewer troops to United Nations-led operations, but four of the five have contributed sizeable forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo that provide a secure environment in which the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) can function. The United Kingdom also deployed troops to Sierra Leone at a critical point in the crisis (outside United Nations operational control), providing a valuable stabilizing influence, but no developed country currently contributes troops to the most difficult United Nations-led peacekeeping operations from a security perspective, namely the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)..... un.org There are 14 current peacekeeping operations with 96 countries participating. un.org Does that make you feel better about the US not "always doing the heavy lifting"? jttmab

To: KLP who wrote (134810)	5/29/2004 9:06:49 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The US can't always do all the heavy lifting. And the US shouldn't. I just found this at the US Mission to the UN web site. ..At present, U.S. troops and civilian police account for 464 of the 42,597 UN peacekeepers worldwide... un.int Impressive: 1% I hope to god that's a typo. Should I reasonably hope the US Mission to the UN made a typo? jttmab