US Missile Shield over Canada

[Black Dog]

We sent troops after the carnage was completed a field hospital, and HQ organization barely 300 troops ..Gen Delaire pleaded with the world to act...they did not...he also pleaded to Canada his own country...they did not act...so we are hardly the postition to throw stones

Wit: so how is this the UN's fault? I think we shoul look at the lessons of the universal failure of the international community in Rwanada rather than just using it as a stick to beat the UN with.

The UN does have it's place, but not in keeping the worlds peace or even handing out world aid....my comment was it was run by third world wanna bes with there own agenda.....

As oppossed to those first-world superpowers with their own agenda? I'm curious to know how Russia and Frances undermining of the oil-for-food program or the U.S.'s unilateralism (how about naming anti-UN huckster John Bolton as ambassador to the UN?) are indicative of a group of nations who are really committed to working together to make the world better?

[kimmy]

one might say that for the US to depose the regime in North Korea or Iran would be like taking candy from a baby

Where did you come up with that idea. Look at the problems that the USA has had in Iraq which was basically disarmed with no WMD. Is that your idea of taking candy from a baby. Well look out for "BABY"

Hi, caesar.

Yes, the US has had huge problems in Iraq *after* the Saddam regime was deposed. But how much trouble did they actually have defeating Saddam and his military? If I recall, the US forces sustained more casualties from crashing their own vehicles than from combat with Saddam's forces. The Americans threw down Saddam with complete ease. They've had great difficulty in establishing a new government, but destroying the old one WAS like taking candy from a baby.

And it would be the same in North Korea. The US would take only a matter of days to demolish Kim Jong Il's military. It might take them years after the fact to sort out the aftermath, but that would be cold comfort to Kim Jong Il who would be stuffed into a cell across the hall from Saddam within a week.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

Dear kimmy,

(...)

here is a strange analogy of the Canada/US relationship....

suppose your next door neighbour joins the Hell's Angel's, and starts a couple of 'turf wars', assassinates some rival gang members, and gets really, really rich. Then, your neighbour says..."Things are starting to get pretty hot, and there may be some shooting around here...no fault of mine, of course,...But, I am going to build a bulletproof fence around my property. Say, why don't I include your place when I build it? Just think, a free bulletproof fence! How could you possibly not want it?"

Well, if the Rock Machine, or whoever it was spraying my neighbor's house with bullets, were already sure that I was his associate, or that I was involved in the Hell's Angels too in some capacity, then yeah, I should probably consider participating in that fence.

There's no doubt in our minds that we're separate and sovereign from the United States. But do the people who have issues with the US see it the same way? We always wind up on Al Qaeda's top-5 hit-list. Maybe the distinctions we seek to maintain are just not as apparent to those abroad as we wish to believe? It might depend which people, I suppose. I suspect for instance that the Cubans understand that Canada and the US are different much better than, say, Iranians or Afghanis.

-kimmy

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Wit: so how is this the UN's fault?

the debate on what to do lasted more than 100 days...

You enter a hospital, the 2 doctors that are suppose to treat you have decided that they are going to debate your treatment....while waiting for treatment you die...who is at fault....even Canada could have sent enough troops to make a major difference in the Rwanda crisis...by acting first...debating later....this is 800,000 lives we are talking about....

I think we shoul look at the lessons of the universal failure of the international community in Rwanada rather than just using it as a stick to beat the UN with.

Rwanda was not the only UN failure in this arena of peacekeeping...the list is large....

But your right if even "one"nation such as Canada had come to the aid of Rwanda then many more would have followed....the UN as an an organization will never be able to react fast enough to look after peacekeeping or humanitarian missions period.

[Black Dog]

You enter a hospital, the 2 doctors that are suppose to treat you have decided that they are going to debate your treatment....while waiting for treatment you die...who is at fault....even Canada could have sent enough troops to make a major difference in the Rwanda crisis...by acting first...debating later....this is 800,000 lives we are talking about....

Again: how is that the UN's fault. Othe rnations could have stepped up. But they didn't. The U.S. failed. France failed. We failed. So, as I said, Rwanada was a universal failure of the international conmmunity. The UN is only as potent as its members allow it to be. It can't act on its own. So the failures of the UN are all universal failures.

That's not to say the institution doesn't need reform: it does. But to use the failures of the whole world to decry the priciple of multilateralism (not that that is what you are doing, mind you) is wrongheaded.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

or that I was involved in the Hell's Angels too in some capacity, then yeah, I should probably consider participating in that fence.

What about calling the police (UN)? Taking the moral high road, for example, and reporting, or fighting them both? Especially if...the Hell's Angel's come up to you and say "Look kimmy, were are about to go and knock off a rival gang leader. He's a bad guy, so the neighborhood should be glad to be rid of him...we'd like you to come along, though. Everyone in the neighborhood thinks you are a good person, but everyone is suspicious of us. If they see that you are involved, they might think that we are really only out to eliminate a bad guy, with nothing to gain for ourselves. Look, you don't have to pull the trigger, just be seen with us, and everyone in the neighbourhood with think 'it's ok'."

If you asked my advice, I'd say 'don't get involved with that crowd, go to the police'.

There's no doubt in our minds that we're separate and sovereign from the United States. But do the people who have issues with the US see it the same way?

That shouldn't matter. If someone thought (mistakenly, or otherwise) that you were a thief, should you begin stealing from them because 'they're going to think that of me anyway'?

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Again: how is that the UN's fault.

Because it was and still is the only organization that was to ensure that this genicide does not happen. To enforce inter-national law......they knew of it, watch it happening like we all did...they went to work each day and debated it...when the people under them like Gen Dalaire begged ,demanded ,they act.... they sat in thier smug chairs and did nothing but debate....for more than 100 days.....No the UN is full of fat politions from across the globe with no where else to go or do but bumble with world crisises....

Othe rnations could have stepped up. But they didn't. The U.S. failed. France failed. We failed. So, as I said, Rwanada was a universal failure of the international conmmunity. The UN is only as potent as its members allow it to be. It can't act on its own. So the failures of the UN are all universal failures.

If it can't act then it need sto be abolished in regards to military or humanitary events. It can't act to save a nation but would be the first to speak-up on why a nation did not get it's blessing first, before taking military action on another nation.

Because we are not going to get every nation in the world to agree on any matter regardless of what it is...

perhaps Nato could take the lead form a Multi national military group to act on behalf of another nations people Like solmolia , use military force to feed the masses....Bosina to stop ethinic cleansing...Rwanda to stop the killing....

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army guy,

perhaps Nato could take the lead form a Multi national military group to act on behalf of another nations people Like solmolia , use military force to feed the masses....Bosina to stop ethinic cleansing...Rwanda to stop the killing....

While this would be a good idea, NATO would not be able to acomplish this anymore than the UN can. Canada claims it doesn't have the money or materiel to commit, the USA says it doesn't want to, (nor did it pay it's UN bills), people get twitchy when Germany or Japan sends troops outside their borders, etc. There would be a required spirit of benevolence that, sadly, just doesn't exist yet.

[ft.niagara]

Because it was and still is the only organization that was to ensure that this genicide does not happen.  To enforce inter-national law......they knew of it, watch it happening like we all did...they went to work each day and debated it...when the people under them like Gen Dalaire  begged ,demanded ,they act.... they sat in thier smug chairs and did nothing but debate....for more than 100 days.....No the UN is full of fat politions from across the globe with no where else to go or do but bumble with world crisises....

While saving human lives might be an ideal, places like Somalia and Indonesia have shown that not everyone wants the help. And lets face it, there is a racial over lay to Rawanda. These people are expendable in the world's eye.

[Black Dog]

Because it was and still is the only organization that was to ensure that this genicide does not happen. To enforce inter-national law......they knew of it, watch it happening like we all did...they went to work each day and debated it...when the people under them like Gen Dalaire begged ,demanded ,they act.... they sat in thier smug chairs and did nothing but debate....for more than 100 days.....No the UN is full of fat politions from across the globe with no where else to go or do but bumble with world crisises....

Again: what was the UN suppossed to do? It can't respond on its own nor can it compel its member to act. It was the members, not the organization, that dithered.

If it can't act then it need sto be abolished in regards to military or humanitary events. It can't act to save a nation but would be the first to speak-up on why a nation did not get it's blessing first, before taking military action on another nation.

Again: "it" can't act alone. It's not like it has a stabnding army that it can deploy. The UN, and th eUNSC in particular, is only as effective as its members allow it to be.

So what we need is a renewed committment to multilateralism by the world's powers.

perhaps Nato could take the lead form a Multi national military group to act on behalf of another nations people Like solmolia , use military force to feed the masses....Bosina to stop ethinic cleansing...Rwanda to stop the killing....

Trouble is: how do you ensur ethat such a force is acting in the best interests of the people. I could see such a force being easily corrupted by the political influence of its member nations.

remember this, too: it was the interference of western nations, often acting with the best of intentions, that created many of the developing world's problems (Belgium's excrabation of tribal tensions in Rwanada is a prime example)

[caesar]

Because it was and still is the only organization that was to ensure that this genicide does not happen. To enforce inter-national law......they knew of it, watch it happening like we all did

And WHY???? does the UN get ham strung and unable to carry out missions in a timely manner??

It is becasue those nations that carry a veto do not bargain in good faith. There are bribes and threats that are used to bargain. (very openly as we seen Bush and Co at work trying to get support during the lead up to the Iraqi invasion )

Vetoes are used for political reasons and not on a international and good faith basis. Perhaps we need to have human rights groups and peace movements involved in the selection of delegates to the UN.

Another stumbling block at the UN is that the UN has no mechanisms to collect its own revenue; not even its own armies to command. Without the needed revenues and military; it is completely dependent on the member nations to pay their dues and act in good faith. The USA has always been the biggest dead beat nation when it comes to paying its UN dues. Bush Jr did pay a lot of the back payments when attempting to secure support for his Iraqi invasion (more one of his bribes rather than any support to allow the UN to function)

The UN needs to be allowed to make some changes; vetoes do need to be examined and done away with. Selection of delegates to the UN should be more independent from political control. The permanent 5 members fails to adjust as nations powers and influence wax and wane or for those who fail to pay their dues.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Again: what was the UN suppossed to do? It can't respond on its own nor can it compel its member to act. It was the members, not the organization, that dithered.

So basically you are telling me that if the orginal 5 do not agree that the rest of the what 187 nations or so should follow suit and do nothing, that the UN leadership should not take the lead by denoucing the actions of Rwanda and ask the other nations if they could or would assit in a UN backed mission, or perhaps even acting under thier own flag to stop the genicide.

Then the UN really does not need any leadership, just someone who can chair the meetings or gatherings.

Trouble is: how do you ensur ethat such a force is acting in the best interests of the people. I could see such a force being easily corrupted by the political influence of its member nations.

Most of this is already laided out in the UN charter, and you are correct by saying that not every crisses or situation is going to require a military force to solve it's problem.

Every organization that anyone sets up are going to be open to political influence, but NATO is not limited to only 5 nations votes.

remember this, too: it was the interference of western nations, often acting with the best of intentions, that created many of the developing world's problems (Belgium's excrabation of tribal tensions in Rwanada is a prime example)

This is true, but the military side is only one side of the rebuilding or peace process thier must be other organizations involved in rebuilding the nation from scratch.

This is where the US failed in Iraq ,Yes they defeated Sadams military forces, they failed to provide constant security with the units that were going to stay in the area for a long period of time., over each town,hamel,etc...they also waited to long to start the reconstruction phase...this was blamed on the lack of security in each town or village. In other words they failed to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.... by providing them security and reconstruction it would have gave the people hope and they would have interned helped the US forces with the insurgent problem...

Not doing anything and watching 800,000 people killed is just as bad if not worse than trying to doing something and failing ....