When the horror was going on in Rwanda, it was the United States leading the security council charge to do nothing except maybe recall peacekeeping troops.

The same crap is going on in Africa now. Which thugs in the U.N. are responsible again for doing nothing?

It's always the security council and it's always about self interest - The U.S. included.

>But in my opinion UN Is run by bunch of thugs and thieves.
>
>The majority of countries represented at the United Nations are totalitarian regimes. It is not surprising that the United Nations Organization tends to side with dictators. I mean no dictator wants another dictator to be punished, because he could be next. On the other hand, a democratic country such as Taiwan is not represented. The United Nations Organization represents "regimes", not "nations".
>
>This will never happen and can't happen, but the UN should take it's model from EU. EU only allow democratic nation to join.
>
>Yes, I read this somewhere and I agree completely.
>
>
>
>>It is a very fine line they and cannot cross it. There are SO MANY LEVELS of leaders on UN missions it is ridiculous. Then there is the language barrier to deal with as well. It is very difficult to ensure that the original directive is translated correctly all the way down to the troops. In most cases, the UN forces simply are a show of force with no real authority to act. That is why I have a serious problem with UN troops in peace keeping missions. In so many cases they simply show up like a cardboard stature and can actually do NOTHING. They have to follow the Rules of Engagement (ROE). Under the ROE, UN forces cannot carry out offensive operations without specific ADVANCE approval from the UN. They can only use the absolute minimum force necessary and can only use their weapons as a last resort and then only in self-defense. UN soldiers cannot retaliate (I think the problem in Bosnia came from these limits) and they must cease fire when the other opponent
>>ceases fire. What typically happens is opposing forces (if we can call them that - sometimes they are only guerillas fighters and even sometimes they are nothing more than criminals) do everything they can to stay just under the limit of what is allowed before the UN soldiers can act. The only time UN forces can use force without prior approval from the UN is in self-defense. At least that is how it was written when I participated. It has been a LOT of years since then (mid 80s) so I would hope that directives are more clear - especially in the ability to act in order to protect CIVILIANS. I don't think so though. Supposedly the UN Force Commander on the ground has the final say but he still must act within the constraints of the UN guidelines or face International criminal charges afterwards and I think the directives are still so murky that every commander (and they come from different countries) is virtually incapable of making a call. In some UN missions, force is
>>absolutely NOT allowed except in the case of self-defense. Each UN mission is limited to what the host country(ies) agree to in advance and that often means meetings with multiple 'supposed' military commanders (usually nothing more than small guerilla group leaders who are often gone and replaced the next week) as well so there is always that. That forces the UN Force commander to rely too heavily on the local commanders and security forces who supposedly have agreed to the UN forces being on scene. Too often they are attempting to get local authorities and commanders to intervene and cannot act themselves. Local commanders will simply disappear and be 'unavailable' though when it suits them. That helped set the scene for the fiasco in Bosnia. JUST MY 2CENTS.
>>
>>Some interesting statistics:
>>
>>The ten main troop contributors — who provide 67 per cent of the United Nations’ peacekeeping personnel — are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Uruguay and South Africa
>>
>>Less than 5.8 per cent come from the European Union and 0.5 per cent from the United States
>>
>>Currently there are peacekeepers in Sudan, Burundi, the Ivory Coast, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Eritrea, the Western Sahara, Haiti, East Timor, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kosovo, Golan Heights, Lebanon and other parts of the Middle East
>>
>>There have been more than 2,300 fatalities among peacekeepers since the force began in 1948
>>
>>The US pays about 26 per cent of the cost for UN peacekeeping missions
>>
>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2435289_2,00.html
>>
>>
>>>If you've been on U.N. mission(s), maybe you can explain it to me. How are soldiers expected to 'keep the peace' if they aren't allowed to fight? Yelling at attackers and fist shaking doesn't usually have the proper deterrent effect, as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>>>Somehow when I clicked on Send, some of what I typed dissappeared. I will try to fill it in:
>>>>
>>>>I agree with what you wrote. I cannot put the blame on any single group of UN soldiers or even the Dutchbat leaders. When working under the auspices of the UN, even the commanders are limited to what they are allowed to do. I do not know what specific instructions were handed out by the UN - either when first arriving on scene or during the events. UN Commanders onsite do not act without the direction of the UN. Few understand that. I was involved in UN missions in the past and it is often a case of 'we have to wait for our instructions' situation. It is always possible that when they first arrived on site they had one understanding of their role, and when the events unfolded, they were given different instructions. I did not find anything regarding specific directives at the time of the events from the UN to the DutchBat leader. I cannot directly place the blame on any single leader or group of people at this time other than the UN and the individuals committing the
>>>>acts and their leaders. If the UN gave instructions to act and the Dutchbat did not, that would be an entirely different scenario but I have not read anything which points to that. I am still concerned by the meetings which took place (supposedly according to reports) between all of the parties concerned before the events began and the departing Bosnian soldiers. It is very very fishy and I am astounded that none of the after action reports (released to the public) refer to that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Metin,
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Metin's argument that it would not have happened if it would have been Turkish troops is probably not valid. How would a Turkish force have stopped it without adequate weaponry?? Sure, the Dutch are not really Warriors, but the Dutch cannot bear the idea that they are responsible for the death of other people, no matter whether that are christians or muslims. Metin's understanding of the morale of the Dutch is wrong, it is a prejudice.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>First:
>>>>>>They couldn't be attack UN forces. They couldn't dare take all of the world be opposite....
>>>>>
>>>>>>Second:
>>>>>>If dutch soldiers didn't believe them they can defend bosnian civilians, why they asked the civillians "left your guns, we will survive you!..", why? Can you explain that too?
>>>>>
>>>>>The dutch were there for peacekeeping, not to fight. As for the claim, that they said they would protect them, I can't answer that one. Maybe they thought they would be ok, Maybe they thought that the serbs never would do this under the eye of the UN. They just wanted to prevent (innocent) people being killed on the scene. Of course the outcome was dramatic.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you imagine that it could have been even worse?
>>>>>1 - Dutchbat being eliminated ?
>>>>>2 - All citizens (including women, children, elderly) being killed ?
>>>>>
>>>>>So the options of dutchbat:
>>>>>
>>>>>1. Do nothing (essentially what they did), outcome known
>>>>>2. Retreat, outcome would certainly not be better
>>>>>3. Fight, outcome would certainly not be better
>>>>>
>>>>>So tell me, what should have been done ???
>>>>>
>>>>>In short, dutchbat was trapped and could not do much. Sure other mistakes have been made, but you cannot blame that entirely on dutchbat as this could happen on any military force in the world. Dutchbat at that point was not trained for handling these situations.
>>>>>
>>>>>We have learned a lot since then. Our military now is a professional (voluntary) army for more than 10 years now. Our army now have been more equipped and trained for those situations. We have learned from the experience (I certainly hope so) and have been participating in a few other UN missions (like iraq and afghanistan and a few african countries). A large percentage of our military force in on a mission at any given point, just to help in others in need, to protect the innocent people. To prevent escalation of wars. we are NOT dirven by commercial gains (We have no oil benefit from iraq, and there certainly is nothing to gain in afghanistan). At least we try to be there when there is a conflict in the world, trying to help. However this is not a guarrantee for success. Failure still will happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>This does not take away it is a black page in our history (we also have our own vietnam in Indonesia)
>>>>>
>>>>>Walter,