Quote:
|
Originally Posted by calculoso
A forum for communication is a good thing.
A forum for setting unenforceable resolutions/demands is a bad thing (ie: useless).
|
Fair enough. What do you suggest? I assume there must be something better than the UNSC to take care of these issues if they're incompetent.
My point is that while the UN does have issues, its the best we've got. Why bother pointing out what it can't do, why not point out (and you've started) what it _can_ do? Ironically, its the Conservative parties of most governments that are against UN involvement. The UN is stuck halfway, its been established as a good idea, but when push comes to shove, world governments don't back up their votes with their military, economy, and politics. The institution is there to be used by the world's governments for good or ill. Blame the wielder of the tool, rather than the tool itself.
Quote:
Listening to various soldiers who have served on UN duties, they most definitely do peace-make. It's what a lot of Canadian UN soldiers are doing in Afganistan (and elsewhere) right now:
Take this quote from Retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie (text found on a blog... but I've heard similar words on the radio and tv from him):
"As we improve our military's ability to project force abroad, we should dispense with the all-too Canadian conceit that what the world needs is "peacekeepers." Peacekeeping in the classic, Pearsonian sense -- whereby our troops occupy a piece of territory at the request of local belligerents -- is no longer in much demand. What is needed now are peacemakers with the weapons and mandate necessary to kill belligerents who don't want us there."
|
Fair enough. I was under the impression that we weren't blue-helmets in Afghanistan. Blue-helmeted peace-keepers are just that, peace-keepers. Is that what Canada is doing in Afghanistan? Have they stopped wearing the blue helmets???