NationStates Jolt Archive

Out of curiosity, I went looking for the ranking of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Which country sends the greatest number of troops to multilaterally maintain international peace and security?

Figures are compiled monthly, and I picked the most recent available month - December 2005.

The winners are:

1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Yep, the Indian subcontinent scoops the top three prizes. Nigeria, one of the most consistently important contributors, only makes 9th place.

As for the Western countries, Ukraine, Poland and France rank 20th, 21st and 22nd respectively, with well under 1000 men each. Pretty pathetic. The US, for all its bitching about the UN never doing anything, only contributed 387 men, taking joint 31st place with Canada, just above the UK. :rolleyes:

The moral of the story? The wealthy countries of the traditional West ceaselessly complain about having to give the UN funding equivalent to the funding of one city police force, and expect it to save the whole world. Then they act surprised it doesn't work. And they prefer to start wars of their own, instead of working with others. But when it comes to sending soldiers and police to monitor borders and ceasefires, guess who really tries to make the difference? :)

Oh yeah, and linky: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

What does my country do for world peace?

......um.

We, ah....we....respectfully avoid bombing people for no reason, unless we have a good cover-up, and then I suppose we only bomb them a little, and of course we don't pull out the nukes, so.......

Actually, not a whole lot, in my opinion.

We've known for a while that the West(especially the US) likes to bitch and moan about the UN's ineffectiveness... while contributing to that ineffectiveness by not maning up and, well, manning and funding the UN.

Since when is France not a "wealthy country of the traditional West"?

I'm afraid that's not a very good indicator of what a country does to maintain peace and security. Of course, that's a big part of it, but it doesn't mention non-military interventions, or monetary donations, and providing of basic supplies needed. Take Switzerland for example. They probably don't figure on the ranking at all, but not because they don't do anything to help out other countries, but because they try to help in other ways.
Also, the numbers are not representative because it depends on the size of the country how many troops they can send. Liechtenstein could send all of their population abroad to "peace-keeping" missions and still coulndn't beat India :p

Since when is France not a "wealthy country of the traditional West"?
Erm, it is. I never said it wasn't. :confused:

Out of curiosity, I went looking for the ranking of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Which country sends the greatest number of troops to multilaterally maintain international peace and security?

Figures are compiled monthly, and I picked the most recent available month - December 2005.

The winners are:

1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Yep, the Indian subcontinent scoops the top three prizes. Nigeria, one of the most consistently important contributors, only makes 9th place.

As for the Western countries, Ukraine, Poland and France rank 20th, 21st and 22nd respectively, with well under 1000 men each. Pretty pathetic. The US, for all its bitching about the UN never doing anything, only contributed 387 men, taking joint 31st place with Canada, just above the UK. :rolleyes:

The moral of the story? The wealthy countries of the traditional West ceaselessly complain about having to give the UN funding equivalent to the funding of one city police force, and expect it to save the whole world. Then they act surprised it doesn't work. And they prefer to start wars of their own, instead of working with others. But when it comes to sending soldiers and police to monitor borders and ceasefires, guess who really tries to make the difference? :)
You know why third world countries send alot of peacekeepers? Because the UN pays them for it. It's not enough money to make it worth a rich nation's time and effort. We'd actually lose money in the deal because of what we pay our troops and replacing and repairing state of the art equipment, but for a poor country it's a good way to supplement their budget.

You know why third world countries send alot of peacekeepers? Because the UN pays them for it. It's not enough money to make it worth a rich nation's time and effort. We'd actually lose money in the deal because of what we pay our troops and replacing and repairing state of the art equipment, but for a poor country it's a good way to supplement their budget.
It is a sad world when you need financial incentives to go monitor a ceasefire. :(

Sure, it's OK to go to war for cash, that's how Europe struck it rich back in the day, but you would think that where the goal is effectively a form of charity...

It is a sad world when you need financial incentives to go monitor a ceasefire. :(

Sure, it's OK to go to war for cash, that's how Europe struck it rich back in the day, but you would think that where the goal is effectively a form of charity...
Well, money makes the world go round. That's why I never believe conservatives and libertarians when they say that private charity is more effective against poverty than welfare programs. People just don't give all that much out of the kindness of their hearts.

Out of curiosity, I went looking for the ranking of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Which country sends the greatest number of troops to multilaterally maintain international peace and security?

Figures are compiled monthly, and I picked the most recent available month - December 2005.

The winners are:

1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Yep, the Indian subcontinent scoops the top three prizes. Nigeria, one of the most consistently important contributors, only makes 9th place.

As for the Western countries, Ukraine, Poland and France rank 20th, 21st and 22nd respectively, with well under 1000 men each. Pretty pathetic. The US, for all its bitching about the UN never doing anything, only contributed 387 men, taking joint 31st place with Canada, just above the UK. :rolleyes:

The moral of the story? The wealthy countries of the traditional West ceaselessly complain about having to give the UN funding equivalent to the funding of one city police force, and expect it to save the whole world. Then they act surprised it doesn't work. And they prefer to start wars of their own, instead of working with others. But when it comes to sending soldiers and police to monitor borders and ceasefires, guess who really tries to make the difference? :)

I hear that Sweden and Fiji, on a per capita basis, used to be the leaders in this regard (not in total number, but in total number of missions, etc).

I don't believe that the UN was meant to save the world, or even save a few countries.

In fact, except on behalf of the permanent members of the Security Council, I don't believe it was ever meant to work.

And since the permanent members all have to agree in order for something to be done... it's rarely, if ever, going to work.

Well, money makes the world go round. That's why I never believe conservatives and libertarians when they say that private charity is more effective against poverty than welfare programs. People just don't give all that much out of the kindness of their hearts.
Alas, that's true. :(

Finland does quite a bit. Sweden too.

Oh, wait. MY country. Um...not...too...much...according to this ruler.

My country kills and imprisons radical islamist terrorists. Does that count?

Same as every other nation....nothing.
They are all out for their own ends and peace is not in the equation.

My country kills and imprisons radical islamist terrorists. Does that count?
Like I said, yes.

I suppose all those troops in South Korea don't count. :rolleyes:

Of course not. Deep down the UN is dominated by the tin-pot dictators of feculent countries. And they want the rest of the world to be just like them.

It's like something from Atlas Shrugged.

We just stopped having wars two centuries ago.

Crazy notion, I know.

We just stopped having wars two centuries ago.

Crazy notion, I know.

Having Sweden involved in things like the Thirty Years War made it realize that extended war sucks.

But you do send a lot of peacekeepers on a lot of peacekeeping missions.

We um.... We make cartoons that makes muslims around the globe sad, how many point's that worth?

473! That's 470 more than Iran! Go Ireland!

My country does more for world peace than any other.
We assault third world countries, rich in oil, and knock over thier regimes, cuasing years of uprisings and insurgency, killing thousands of innocents, all in the name of peace!

Then, after we oppress the natives, all the while telling them how free they are, and the fires of insurrection die down somewhat, and the car-bombs fade away, we remind everyone how lucky those conquered nations are, to have us to give them, and other nations like them......peace.

Isnt it a peach?

My country does more for world peace than any other.
We assault third world countries, rich in oil, and knock over thier regimes, cuasing years of uprisings and insurgency, killing thousands of innocents, all in the name of peace!

Then, after we oppress the natives, all the while telling them how free they are, and the fires of insurrection die down somewhat, and the car-bombs fade away, we remind everyone how lucky those conquered nations are, to have us to give them, and other nations like them......peace.

Isnt it a peach?

You touched my heart...

Having Sweden involved in things like the Thirty Years War made it realize that extended war sucks.

You'd think central Europe would have been more prone to that realisation.

But you do send a lot of peacekeepers on a lot of peacekeeping missions.

Unfortunately. We lost a few soldiers in Afghanistan last year mopping up that humongous failure of "liberation," so I do not favour Sweden's involvement in something that should be handled by the "liberating" aggressors.

You'd think central Europe would have been more prone to that realisation.


My pet theory is that with Sweden, more than a few men went off to war without reproducing, and so died out.

Sort of a "survival of the non-violent" kind of thing.

In all likelihood, not a great amount. I rather get the impression Britain plays one of two roles: -the sycophantic runt in a gang who follows the biggest bully to acquire power
- the pale, anemic, manipulative kid who compels his bigger, stronger but frankly stupid associate to pursue his course.

I'm afraid that's not a very good indicator of what a country does to maintain peace and security. Of course, that's a big part of it, but it doesn't mention non-military interventions, or monetary donations, and providing of basic supplies needed. Take Switzerland for example. They probably don't figure on the ranking at all, but not because they don't do anything to help out other countries, but because they try to help in other ways.
Also, the numbers are not representative because it depends on the size of the country how many troops they can send. Liechtenstein could send all of their population abroad to "peace-keeping" missions and still coulndn't beat India :p

very good point...

As far as Imperiux is concerned we do too much. The UK is now sending troops to afghanistan, and our defence secretary is refusingto withdraw from iraq. Our troops are called a 'peacekeeping force' but in reality most of the British view them as 'a human shield for the corporate loving, MacDonald all day round, United States of Idiots, in which the population chooses a succesful democrat administration, but due to the Bush Administrations false promises and tampering of election votes, they are stuck in an endles bus on the way to hell, when they've got a 1000 M.P.H. elevator to heaven waiting for them with Hillary Clinton (Hopefully) at the next election.

The UK should withdraw all it's troops since our current Labour government has starved our armed forces to the point we can't defend ourselves and send our only man in a rowing boat abroad without getting killed.

My pet theory is that with Sweden, more than a few men went off to war without reproducing, and so died out.

Sort of a "survival of the non-violent" kind of thing.

You're under the impression they could choose not to go? Well, there was this thing called "despotic monarchy" and this other thing called "draft"...

We um.... We make cartoons that makes muslims around the globe sad, how many point's that worth?

lmao

My country went a little overboard and taught the world some horror, so that we may have some real good stories to tell the kids when teaching them that war is indeed an evil thing.
Killing two birds with the same stone, we're also ready to serve when you need a good slippery slope argument for anything oh so bad.
We might have done well, after all.

We just stopped having wars two centuries ago.

Crazy notion, I know.
Staying neutral during World War II is hardly a badge of honor.

Staying neutral during World War II is hardly a badge of honor.

It worked out well for us. :)

My country went a little overboard and taught the world some horror, so that we may have some real good stories to tell the kids when teaching them that war is indeed an evil thing.
Killing two birds with the same stone, we're also ready to serve when you need a good slippery slope argument for anything oh so bad.
We might have done well, after all.

Kudos.

You know why third world countries send alot of peacekeepers? Because the UN pays them for it. It's not enough money to make it worth a rich nation's time and effort. We'd actually lose money in the deal because of what we pay our troops and replacing and repairing state of the art equipment, but for a poor country it's a good way to supplement their budget.

Bangladesh sure can use that money. India sends peacekeepers not for the money. Well money helps, but it is more of a tradition (right from the Korean war), exposure and experience and some genuine belief in the UN peacekeeping missions.

Pakistan is there because we are there. They just can't not compete with us.;)

You touched my heart...


Really?

I was aiming lower.

Well..."whoohoo" for touching!

It worked out well for us. :)
Yes, and you should still be kissing American ass for that for another few decades.

Staying neutral during World War II is hardly a badge of honor.
I suppose it's better than being a nazi.

Yes, and you should still be kissing American ass for that for another few decades.

Why not Soviet ass? Or British ass? Or French ass?

I suppose it's better than being a nazi.
Inaction is complicity.

I suppose it's better than being a nazi.

Or Communist.

Why not Soviet ass?
Well, I only really said American because I knew that would piss Fass off the most, but essentially Sweden should be kissing Allied ass ;)

Inaction is complicity.
Not always.

Yes, and you should still be kissing American ass for that for another few decades.

No, we should be kissing Russian ass. The US was tardy, and minor compared to Russia, which would have defeated Germany eventually. Nice try, though.

Oh, and you know that "not having wars" thing? Imagine what would have happened if Germany hadn't had them. If nobody had them. Go ahead. Try. As I said: crazy notion.

The winners are:
1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Not surprising. They practice what they preach. Awesome.

The USA? We preach what we practice.

What does my country do for world peace?

Well, how about not starting world war 3, as a start?

(Although, technically, we didn't really start the Great War - we just took the blame; and the Japanese were going wild in Asia even before Sep. 1st 1939...).

On a more serious note - while Germany might not contribute heavily when it comes to numbers, our monetary contributions to the UN and its various organisations shouldn't be disregarded.

After all, IMHO, there is a slight difference between a German, French, British or American soldier and one from those countries winning by numbers.

(And I certainly do not wish to create any impression that I might be looking down on their contribution - just saying that those Westeners mentioned put more money into the training of each soldier than those supplying great numbers and thereby "winning" this "contest").

I'm grateful for each and every contribution to the common UN effort - and yes, maybe us Western nations could indeed take this example and improve our involvement when it comes to peacekeeping or peace enforcing missions.

Then again - Germany does contribute in NATO efforts all around the world - often in missions that were started as UN peace keeping ones, so those numbers aren't really all that is to the big picture.

No, we should be kissing Russian ass. The US was tardy, and minor compared to Russia, which would have defeated Germany eventually. Nice try, though.

As I clarified, Allied ass. Any country that gave a shit enough to stop the Nazis is better than Sweden.

Oh, and you know that "not having wars" thing? Imagine what would have happened if Germany hadn't had them. If nobody had them. Go ahead. Try. As I said: crazy notion.

Yes, and in an ideal world, Communism would work, too. The rest of us live in reality. Peace is promoted through action, be it violent or nonviolent, not inaction.

Not always.
Okay, so how is not acting to stop Nazi Germany in any way promoting peace? I suppose you could make the argument that the world would be peaceful if it were all run by Nazis and all the Jews were already roasted, but I think most people would agree that such a form of "peace" isn't worth the price of admission.

Out of curiosity, I went looking for the ranking of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Which country sends the greatest number of troops to multilaterally maintain international peace and security?

Figures are compiled monthly, and I picked the most recent available month - December 2005.

The winners are:

1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Yep, the Indian subcontinent scoops the top three prizes. Nigeria, one of the most consistently important contributors, only makes 9th place.

As for the Western countries, Ukraine, Poland and France rank 20th, 21st and 22nd respectively, with well under 1000 men each. Pretty pathetic. The US, for all its bitching about the UN never doing anything, only contributed 387 men, taking joint 31st place with Canada, just above the UK. :rolleyes:

The moral of the story? The wealthy countries of the traditional West ceaselessly complain about having to give the UN funding equivalent to the funding of one city police force, and expect it to save the whole world. Then they act surprised it doesn't work. And they prefer to start wars of their own, instead of working with others. But when it comes to sending soldiers and police to monitor borders and ceasefires, guess who really tries to make the difference? :)

Canada has only 387 peacekeepers in the field right now? What happened to all our guys in Afghanistan? Or doesn't Afghanistan count?

Canada has only 387 peacekeepers in the field right now? What happened to all our guys in Afghanistan? Or doesn't Afghanistan count?
I believe that's a NATO operation, not UN.

Canada has only 387 peacekeepers in the field right now? What happened to all our guys in Afghanistan? Or doesn't Afghanistan count?
This is only counting peacekeepers working with the UN, not those working independent of it, which is why it is complete bullshit.

As I clarified, Allied ass.

Nope. Pretty much Russian ass.

Any country that gave a shit enough to stop the Nazis is better than Sweden.

Ouch. That would really hurt my feelings if, you know, I cared about silly nationalism and what people think of Sweden. They bombed each other's rocks off, and then we were there, intact, ready to sell them all the things they had bombed. I may have to rethink my stance on wars. Everyone else can have them, as long as we profit. :)

Yes, and in an ideal world, Communism would work, too. The rest of us live in reality. Peace is promoted through action, be it violent or nonviolent, not inaction.

If inaction = peace, then, indeed, it does. It is a crazy notion - very hard for some people to understand - so you're excused.

I believe that's a NATO operation, not UN.

That's odd. There are Irish guys in Afghanistan, and we're not in NATO, last time I checked.

That's odd. There are Irish guys in Afghanistan, and we're not in NATO, last time I checked.
Tagging along, I guess.

Ouch. That would really hurt my feelings if, you know, I cared about silly nationalism and what people think of Sweden. They bombed each other's rocks off, and then we were there, intact, ready to sell them all the things they had bombed. I may have to rethink my stance on wars. Everyone else can have them, as long as we profit. :)

Go ahead, just don't claim to be doing anything for world peace.

If inaction = peace, then, indeed, it does. It is a crazy notion - very hard for some people to understand - so you're excused.

Unfortunately in this magical world we call "reality", inaction by all parties will never occur, which is the reason that action to promote peace is necessary, and why inaction is in no way contributing to peace.

Tagging along, I guess.

I'm glad to hear that...It makes me happy to see that we have so many nations helping out in Afghanastan. :)

As I clarified, Allied ass. Any country that gave a shit enough to stop the Nazis is better than Sweden.
Ah. I take this superiority to be because of the pure and noble reasons all the Allies had to butt in, in contrast to the non-Allied moral deficiency of not caring, yes?

I believe that's a NATO operation, not UN.
Ah, given your original question (what does your country do for world peace) do you accept contributions outside the UN?

And sheer number of troops/police/military observers doesn't tell the whole story; countries with large populations but poorer economies receive money from the UN to help keep their troops in the field - they actually have a financial incentive to provide peacekeepers, and a larger pool of people to draw on.

Furthermore, one should also consider other aspects to creating peace, such as funding peacekeepers, funding aid organizations, direct aid; as well as humanitarian response in disasters, such as disaster response teams. Oh, and election observers and other humanitarian volunteers.

My country is the largest exporter of arms to third-world countries in the entire world.

*dances in the street*

Ah. I take this superiority to be because of the pure and noble reasons all the Allies had to butt in, in contrast to the non-Allied moral deficiency of not caring, yes?
Screw morals. The question is what a country has done for world peace; motives are irrelevant to the discussion.

Go ahead, just don't claim to be doing anything for world peace.

Doing nothing, when it comes to wars, is doing something. As the old adage goes "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity." Quite futile indeed.

Unfortunately in this magical world we call "reality", inaction by all parties will never occur, which is the reason that action to promote peace is necessary, and why inaction is in no way contributing to peace.

Yeah, and all those wars really brought the world peace. I mean, just look at it, all tranquil and cosy. Nice reality checking there, buddy!

I would also like to add, to mitigate confusion, that I am in no way saying that Sweden has inferior morals/motives/whatever to those countries that *did* participate in World War II against the Axis. I am speaking primarily about what has been *done* for world peace, and not about which country has the fuzziest feelings toward world peace.

Tagging along, I guess.

It's COW for the GOAT.:p

Coalition Of Willing for Global Offensive Against Terror.

Canada has only 387 peacekeepers in the field right now? What happened to all our guys in Afghanistan? Or doesn't Afghanistan count?
For the record, in July (last date I could find online), Canada had 1,200 military personnel (out of 62,000 military personnel including 9,500 sailors, 19,500 soldiers, 14,500 air force personnel and 20,000 administrative and support personnel. There are also about 22,000 reservists.) currently active overseas, all on peacekeeping missions of some sort. At any given time, we have 8,000 troops being deployed to, serving on, or returning from peacekeeping missions (and a few that are not so peaceful, like the JTF2 in Afghanistan).

Still nothing really to brag about, but the deployed number is 4 times the number on UN missions alone (not to mention the numbers of people required to keep them in rotation).

Doing nothing, when it comes to wars, is doing something. As the old adage goes "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity." Quite futile indeed.

Like I said, if you want a world peace in which the world is ruled by the Axis powers as a Facist superstate, then sure, you are contributing to world peace by not fighting them.

Yeah, and all those wars really brought the world peace. I mean, just look at it, all tranquil and cosy. Nice reality checking there, buddy!

When did I say we had world peace exactly? I don't see what your point is here except to state the obvious. We will never actually achieve world peace because we are flawed beings, but it is still something to strive for.

Like I said, if you want a world peace in which the world is ruled by the Axis powers as a Facist superstate, then sure, you are contributing to world peace by not fighting them.

huh... waging war to achieve peace. What a philanthropic thing to do.

huh... waging war to achieve peace. What a philanthropic thing to do.

Dont think of it as waging war, think of it as securing the domestic tranquility.

Face it, with a Nazi Riech, peace would never be in the talks.

Ah, given your original question (what does your country do for world peace) do you accept contributions outside the UN?

And sheer number of troops/police/military observers doesn't tell the whole story; countries with large populations but poorer economies receive money from the UN to help keep their troops in the field - they actually have a financial incentive to provide peacekeepers, and a larger pool of people to draw on.

Furthermore, one should also consider other aspects to creating peace, such as funding peacekeepers, funding aid organizations, direct aid; as well as humanitarian response in disasters, such as disaster response teams. Oh, and election observers and other humanitarian volunteers.
I question the motives of any peacekeeping mission conducted outside of UN oversight. The UN is a unique world forum, other alliances have a private agenda by definition. Thus I would be happier about NATO peacekeeping operations if they were actually conducted under a UN mandate, not as a NATO exercise. It allays any suspicions. ;)

As for the large population / poor economy thing, there is not much justification for inaction. If Nigeria et al constantly have thousands of men in the field each (even if the UN's renumeration is good money by their standards), there is no reason why France, the UK, etc cannot make contributions of a similar size to UN operations. There is no question that they have vastly superior resources. The UN's renumeration in their case may provide no economic incentive, but they have obligations to the community, one would have thought.

Dont think of it as waging war, think of it as securing the domestic tranquility.

Face it, with a Nazi Riech, peace would never be in the talks.
I don't know with respect to Britain at least it's commonly accepted that Hitler was looking for a peaceful alternative. That is if we could have put up with his villainous empire building and jew murdering.

Like I said, if you want a world peace in which the world is ruled by the Axis powers as a Facist superstate, then sure, you are contributing to world peace by not fighting them.

While, on the other hand, the ensuing cold war and US neo-imperialism ended up being so much better. Like that peace those wars got us, right?

When did I say we had world peace exactly? I don't see what your point is here except to state the obvious. We will never actually achieve world peace because we are flawed beings, but it is still something to strive for.

By waging wars. Yeah, can't beat that logic...

I don't know with respect to Britain at least it's commonly accepted that Hitler was looking for a peaceful alternative. That is if we could have put up with his villainous empire building and jew murdering.

With England yes, but how bout with Poland?

Out of curiosity, I went looking for the ranking of contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Which country sends the greatest number of troops to multilaterally maintain international peace and security?

Figures are compiled monthly, and I picked the most recent available month - December 2005.

The winners are:

1) Bangladesh - 9529
2) Pakistan - 8999
3) India - 7284

Yep, the Indian subcontinent scoops the top three prizes. Nigeria, one of the most consistently important contributors, only makes 9th place.

As for the Western countries, Ukraine, Poland and France rank 20th, 21st and 22nd respectively, with well under 1000 men each. Pretty pathetic. The US, for all its bitching about the UN never doing anything, only contributed 387 men, taking joint 31st place with Canada, just above the UK. :rolleyes:

The moral of the story? The wealthy countries of the traditional West ceaselessly complain about having to give the UN funding equivalent to the funding of one city police force, and expect it to save the whole world. Then they act surprised it doesn't work. And they prefer to start wars of their own, instead of working with others. But when it comes to sending soldiers and police to monitor borders and ceasefires, guess who really tries to make the difference? :)

US controbution of only 358 men ??
http://www.stimson.org/fopo/?SN=FO20050414815
what happend to the other 58,200 ? The link is nice, but can u be more direct ? this info I provided is as of March 05. Some how, I doubt we've pulled out of every operation on that list entirely

I question the motives of any peacekeeping mission conducted outside of UN oversight. The UN is a unique world forum, other alliances have a private agenda by definition. Thus I would be happier about NATO peacekeeping operations if they were actually conducted under a UN mandate, not as a NATO exercise. It allays any suspicions. ;)

As for the large population / poor economy thing, there is not much justification for inaction. If Nigeria et al constantly have thousands of men in the field each (even if the UN's renumeration is good money by their standards), there is no reason why France, the UK, etc cannot make contributions of a similar size to UN operations. There is no question that they have vastly superior resources. The UN's renumeration in their case may provide no economic incentive, but they have obligations to the community, one would have thought. Be that as it may, Canada's stretched pretty thin right now. To be involved in more UN missions, we'd have to pull out of Afghanistan, and I don't think that would be good for Afghanistan right now - especially since Canada is in charge of the mission there. (Even though Germany has twice as many troops there.)

On the other hand, I can't honestly claim that things are improving in Afghanistan outside of the major cities where peacekeepers are stationed. The tribal warlords are busy intrenching and establishing new strongholds, poppy production is up...but at least there is reconstruction going on, and things aren't as violent as they are in...other places. (Despite the recent incident.)

Dont think of it as waging war, think of it as securing the domestic tranquility.

Face it, with a Nazi Riech, peace would never be in the talks.
A war is a war, from both sides. You can't say the nazis were at war and all the others did was to 'secure the domestic tranquility'.

Okay, so how is not acting to stop Nazi Germany in any way promoting peace? I suppose you could make the argument that the world would be peaceful if it were all run by Nazis and all the Jews were already roasted, but I think most people would agree that such a form of "peace" isn't worth the price of admission.
Did the Swedes know that there was a genocide going on? If not then they might just have decided not to get involved in a large-scale war over territory.

US controbution of only 358 men ??
http://www.stimson.org/fopo/?SN=FO20050414815
what happend to the other 58,200 ? The link is nice, but can u be more direct ? this info I provided is as of March 05. Some how, I doubt we've pulled out of every operation on that list entirely Um. the link you provided still shows US troops as 363. The other 58,200 are UN troops, not US ones.

In fact, the table in your link shows:

11 US troops, 332 US police, 20 US observers.

huh... waging war to achieve peace. What a philanthropic thing to do.
To heck with philanthropy. Nazi Germany was an aggressive power that would have caused even more war if it hadn't been put down when it was. It's pragmatic, if anything.

US controbution of only 358 men ??
http://www.stimson.org/fopo/?SN=FO20050414815
what happend to the other 58,200 ? The link is nice, but can u be more direct ? this info I provided is as of March 05. Some how, I doubt we've pulled out of every operation on that list entirely
Actually, if you look closely, what the table says is that there was a total of 58,200 UN troops in those missions which had US participation. The US had only 11 troops.

Another pair of columns in the table indicates that total UN personnel (military and non-military) involved was 67,132, of which 363 were US. The other columns break this down - the vast majority of US personnel supplied (332) were police.

Thus the figures in the tens of thousands are total UN peacekeeping personnel, military and military+civilian, while the US contributed a few hundred police officers to those operations.

While, on the other hand, the ensuing cold war and US neo-imperialism ended up being so much better. Like that peace those wars got us, right?

If you're going to argue that we're not better off now than we would have been under Nazi rule, there is no point in this discussion.

By waging wars. Yeah, can't beat that logic...

Waging wars that result in peace, yes. Europe hasn't done too badly after WWII, has it?

Dont think of it as waging war, think of it as securing the domestic tranquility.
Funny how that is rather a lot like what Hitler said. To his people.

Did the Swedes know that there was a genocide going on? If not then they might just have decided not to get involved in a large-scale war over territory.
Are you implying that (most) Allied countries joined the war with the main motive of fighting the genocide?

Be that as it may, Canada's stretched pretty thin right now. To be involved in more UN missions, we'd have to pull out of Afghanistan, and I don't think that would be good for Afghanistan right now - especially since Canada is in charge of the mission there. (Even though Germany has twice as many troops there.)

On the other hand, I can't honestly claim that things are improving in Afghanistan outside of the major cities where peacekeepers are stationed. The tribal warlords are busy intrenching and establishing new strongholds, poppy production is up...but at least there is reconstruction going on, and things aren't as violent as they are in...other places. (Despite the recent incident.)
Yes, the UK is also supposed to be stretched pretty thin, and apparently 4000-6000 British troops are being sent to fight the War on Drugs in Afghanistan later this year. At the same time, we still have a whole division defending Germany from Soviet invasion. We really need to review our priorities before we say we can't afford to help the UN.

Oh, by the way, Tactical Grace, I don't know why Afghanistan isn't considered part of the UN missions. I found a link that said that the UN Security Council authorized the force in Kabul:The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is an international peacekeeping force in Kabul, Afghanistan consisting of about 6,500 personnel. Authorized by the United Nations Security Council in December 2001, the ISAF was charged with securing Kabul and its nearby Bagram air base from Taliban and al Qaida elements and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment and security of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai.
http://www.answers.com/topic/international-security-assistance-force

The official ISAF website states that they are a "UN-mandated Operation; the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1386, 1413 and 1444 give further information." http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm

Why send manpower to an organization that places corrupt leaders in important places? I'm glad the US is not on top of that list. The UN needs reform and I will be all for supportinfg it once they address their issues.

Yes, the UK is also supposed to be stretched pretty thin, and apparently 4000-6000 British troops are being sent to fight the War on Drugs in Afghanistan later this year. At the same time, we still have a whole division defending Germany from Soviet invasion. We really need to review our priorities before we say we can't afford to help the UN. <grin> Well, someone has to protect Germany from the Soviets, we don't have enough troops to send any.

Seriously though, Canada's peacekeeping contributions, troop numbers, military budget, equipment, etc is a huge topic here. The one good thing about having a Conservative government in is that something might actually done about all this. (And given the situation in Iraq, I suspect that Harper won't be sending any troops there these days, no matter his feelings on the subject in 2003.)

Oh, by the way, Tactical Grace, I don't know why Afghanistan isn't considered part of the UN missions. I found a link that said that the UN Security Council authorized the force in Kabul:
http://www.answers.com/topic/international-security-assistance-force

The official ISAF website states that they are a "UN-mandated Operation; the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) 1386, 1413 and 1444 give further information." http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/index.htm
A UN-mandated NATO-managed operation. As with any project management organisation, the phrasing on the paperwork can have specific legal meaning which is not immediately apparent. The UN gave the deployment its endorsement, but it is under NATO management. Somewhere, someone made a clear distinction in this case.

A UN-mandated NATO-managed operation. As with any project management organisation, the phrasing on the paperwork can have specific legal meaning which is not immediately apparent. The UN gave the deployment its endorsement, but it is under NATO management. Somewhere, someone made a clear distinction in this case. But what does that distinction mean? After all, Canada's role in Afghanistan has a lot of public support here because it is a peacekeeping mission, and people believe (whether or not it is true) that the UN and the international community support the mission.

I should add that yes, the stats would look better for the UK, Germany and Canada if the NATO operation in Afghanistan was formally a UN one. However, someone decided to separate it from the UN.

Indeed, the US deployment in Afghanistan is similarly separate from the NATO one. Formally, they are going it alone and the NATO coalition of the willing is a separate entity with a separate mandate. Thus if the NATO deployment was counted as a UN one, the US still wouldn't make the list.

<snipsky>

Are you implying that (most) Allied countries joined the war with the main motive of fighting the genocide?
Not at all. I'm only trying to say that avoiding a run of the mill turf war doesn't make you complicit in evil. If the Swedes were just refusing to get involved in a dispute over who should rule continental Europe they shouldn't be looked down upon. If they were willfully ignoring a genocide, like most of the world did with Rawanda and with Darfur, then they'd be complicit. Turf wars don't demand foreign intervention in my opinion. Genocides do.

But what does that distinction mean? After all, Canada's role in Afghanistan has a lot of public support here because it is a peacekeeping mission, and people believe (whether or not it is true) that the UN and the international community support the mission.
There will be all sorts of legal, financial and management distinctions, not least to the chain of command and accountability. And of course it all means that you do not report your contribution to UN auditors who compile the monthly tables. Morally I suppose there may not be a distinction. It is partly politics, partly bureaucracy. Flying the UN flag would make the situation much more clear. People should do it more often. :)

There will be all sorts of legal, financial and management distinctions, not least to the chain of command and accountability. And of course it all means that you do not report your contribution to UN auditors who compile the monthly tables. Morally I suppose there may not be a distinction. It is partly politics, partly bureaucracy. Flying the UN flag would make the situation much more clear. People should do it more often. :) Agreed there.

Well, if there isn't a moral distinction, I feel much more comfortable. If this was the only way to get peacekeepers into Afghanistan, then overall I'm glad that at least they found a way.

Agreed there.

Well, if there isn't a moral distinction, I feel much more comfortable. If this was the only way to get peacekeepers into Afghanistan, then overall I'm glad that at least they found a way.
Yep. I have to say though, my alarm bells are ringing at the suggestions that the UK contingent will be trying to eradicate poppy growing Colombia-style. They could be doing more useful things with their opportunity, frankly.

Not at all. I'm only trying to say that avoiding a run of the mill turf war doesn't make you complicit in evil. If the Swedes were just refusing to get involved in a dispute over who should rule continental Europe they shouldn't be looked down upon. If they were willfully ignoring a genocide, like most of the world did with Rawanda and with Darfur, then they'd be complicit. Turf wars don't demand foreign intervention in my opinion. Genocides do.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

And I daresay that Sweden knew, and at the very least could have known should they have wanted to know.
I'll agree to split opinions with you over whether or not this renders them complicits, and/or whether a genocide demands military invention in every case.

Yep. I have to say though, my alarm bells are ringing at the suggestions that the UK contingent will be trying to eradicate poppy growing Colombia-style. They could be doing more useful things with their opportunity, frankly. Yes, although I would like to see a reduction in opium production, I think there better ways of going about it.

If farmers could make a decent living growing food and othere legally exportable commodities (and weren't intimidated by the warlords and drug lords), the incentive to grow poppies would decrease.

I wonder what would happen if Canada and other countries made a hard agreement to buy a certain amount of legal commodities from drug producing countries. (IE: If you'll grow cotton and sugar (or whatever their land supports) instead of poppies, we'll provide you with a guaranteed market up to X amount at market price.) Would that help (provided peacekeepers etc kept the warlords from gaining control of the commodity)? Or would that violate other trade agreements?

I wonder what would happen if Canada and other countries made a hard agreement to buy a certain amount of legal commodities from drug producing countries. (IE: If you'll grow cotton and sugar (or whatever their land supports) instead of poppies, we'll provide you with a guaranteed market up to X amount at market price.) Would that help (provided peacekeepers etc kept the warlords from gaining control of the commodity)? Or would that violate other trade agreements?
That is a form of trade subsidy, and the UN would inevitably collide with all sorts of world trade treaties and bodies. I was thinking tobacco or something. But yes, the UN would be treading on people's toes doing that. The UN would also probably avoid encouraging growing a single cash crop, as it has countless development agencies to tell it that's a bad idea in the long term. It is a very difficult situation.

Equus,
But what does that distinction mean?

The distinction is about who is the boss and who calls the shots.

Frankly, the US did the grunt work and I do not hold it against them for not letting the UN to be incharge of peacekeeping there. I only hope they do not botch up...or worse..walk away from the area without having a sustainable representative govt there.

Reg poppy growth, yeah some farmers do indeed depend on them for livelihood. But it is more about the sharks at the top (the drug dealers - warlords - protection mafia - hawala racket) than about the farmers.

I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

And I daresay that Sweden knew, and at the very least could have known should they have wanted to know.
I'll agree to split opinions with you over whether or not this renders them complicits, and/or whether a genocide demands military invention in every case.

If memory serves, Sweden was neutral during the Second World War, as was Norway. Norway's response after the war was to join NATO, while Sweden decided to make sure that they had one of the better militaries on the continent, in case someone decided to invade.

EDIT: Oh, and Sweden served as a safe haven for British operators and agents who wound up in Norway after the occupation.

Equus,

The distinction is about who is the boss and who calls the shots.

Frankly, the US did the grunt work and I do not hold it against them for not letting the UN to be incharge of peacekeeping there. I only hope they do not botch up...or worse..walk away from the area without having a sustainable representative govt there. Well, the US isn't in charge of the international coalition in Afghanistan now, so I'm not sure where you're going with this comment.

Reg poppy growth, yeah some farmers do indeed depend on them for livelihood. But it is more about the sharks at the top (the drug dealers - warlords - protection mafia - hawala racket) than about the farmers. Yes, but if the farmers have a reasonable alternative option (and are protected from the warlords/druglords), they'll grow less poppies. And fewer poppies mean less opium, no matter what the sharks are doing.

If memory serves, Sweden was neutral during the Second World War, as was Norway.
a) Sweden's neutrality was what sparked this off-spin, so yeah.
b) They wanted to, bless their little hearts. It's just that it's kinda hard to be neutral when occupied by one of the forces not even a year after the war started, you know.

Wiki link on the occupation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany)

Well, the US isn't in charge of the international coalition in Afghanistan now, so I'm not sure where you're going with this comment.

For all intents and purposes, it is the US that is running the show.

How many US casualties and non-US casualties in Afghanistan?

Yes, but if the farmers have a reasonable alternative option (and are protected from the warlords/druglords), they'll grow less poppies. And fewer poppies mean less opium, no matter what the sharks are doing.

It is not that simple. Farmers will be threatened to grow opium. There are not enough troops to protect all of them all the time.

Karzai's writ does not run outside of Kabul.

The people at the top of the drug chain are in that business for decades, they are well entrenched and some of them are even generals in the Pakistani army. Those people run the show in those areas. They won't fold up business that easily.

Why would any nation be dumb enough to contribute troops to the UN? Pretty much every "peacekeeping" operation of the UN has been the same: rape women and goats, kill babies, get drunk and terrorize and harass the native population, waste billions of dollars, etc.

Why would any nation be dumb enough to contribute troops to the UN? Pretty much every "peacekeeping" operation of the UN has been the same: rape women and goats, kill babies, get drunk and terrorize and harass the native population, waste billions of dollars, etc.
Heh, kinda like the American ones then. :p

Heh, kinda like the American ones then. :p

Most U.S. troops don't do such things. Hell, most troops from any army don't. However, the majority of U.N. troops do.

However, the majority of U.N. troops do [rape women and goats, kill babies, get drunk and terrorize and harass the native population, waste billions of dollars, etc].
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Shall we call it "reason-free anti-UNianism"?

Most U.S. troops don't do such things. Hell, most troops from any army don't. However, the majority of U.N. troops do.
Bullshit. UN troops are regular army troops from the world's armies. If your first two statements are correct, the third one is false. If the third one is correct, the first two are false.

Apart from very few instances, UN forces have largely been scandal free.

More power to blue helmets !

You know why third world countries send alot of peacekeepers? Because the UN pays them for it. It's not enough money to make it worth a rich nation's time and effort. We'd actually lose money in the deal because of what we pay our troops and replacing and repairing state of the art equipment, but for a poor country it's a good way to supplement their budget.

And heaven forbid the West might have to pony up a little cash for peace.

What does MY country do for world peace? Well my coutnry happens to be Canada :D. Although Canada's "contribution" to "peace" through MILITARY AID is very low, first you must know that Canada is one of the few countries who actually started up peacekeeping in the first place. It has served in every peacekeeping mission to date and will mostlikely continue to do so.
Secondly peace is not trully achieved just thorugh bombing the living snot out of a country, you actually have to do some work.
Third, you may say "well Canada still doesn't send many troops" obviously because its population is under 40 million, it simply cannot sustain a large army(which is around 80 thousand). And Canada's army is not even large enough to defend Canada in the first place.
Anyway im getting off track, so now lets jump back on. Canada has also even today strongly suports human rights and equality withen the world, and also has hundreds, if not thousands of diplomats all over the world, peace can be achieved without muscle.
Also, whenever there is a major desaster in the world Canada always sends as much as it can to aid the people that are in trouble. Canada also has D.A.R.T. whcih i forget what it stands for....but it pretty much is one of the most efficient desaster relief teams in the entire world.
Thats it and thanks for reading :)