NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060212/ts_nm/sudan_un_usa_dc



By Evelyn Leopold Sun Feb 12, 1:41 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Secretary-General
Kofi Annan intends to ask
President George W. Bush on Monday what the United States can contribute to a mobile UN force to stop the killings, rape and pillaging in Sudan's Darfur region.
ADVERTISEMENT

The United States has offered military planners for the Darfur operation, which will arrive on Monday. But it has made no offer of air coverage or other assistance for the venture, expected to be comprised mainly of African and Asian troops, who form the bulk of all UN forces.

At issue is a transfer of command from an underfunded African Union force of 7,000 monitors and troops in Darfur to UN peacekeepers, a move U.S. Ambassador John Bolton promoted in the Security Council last week by drafting a statement asking the world body to begin contingency planning.

Annan said Darfur's plight, which the United States has characterized as genocide, was too dire for rich nations to pay but not participate in the mission, which will increase the $5 billion spent on peacekeeping last year.

"It is not going to be easy for the big and powerful countries with armies to delegate to third world countries. They will have to play a part if we are going to stop the carnage that we see in Darfur," Annan told reporters on Thursday.

Asked if Bush would be asked to participate, Annan said, "I will share with him the facts that I have shared with you, the needs that we have, and the countries that I think can supply those needs, and that will include the U.S."

HIGHLY-MOBILE FORCE

Annan said he envisioned a highly-mobile force with APCs and jeeps and air support that "would be able to be on the ground when there is an SOS -- not to arrive after the harm has been done."

More than 2 million people are homeless and living in squalid camps in Darfur, a region about the size of France, partly as a result of targeted Sudanese government attacks in 2003-2004 when a rebellion over resources began. In January, tens of thousands of non-Arab villagers were uprooted again by the Janjaweed militia after the capture of a garrison town by one of the rebel movements.

The government and military deny they armed and gave air cover to the Janjaweed.

Peace negotiations among the rebels and the government in Abuja, Nigeria, have not made much headway, with a divided rebel leadership considered weak and the Janjaweed not at the table.

The
United Nations has a peacekeeping operation in southern Sudan of about 7,000 troops to help keep the peace after a nearly three-decade old civil war.

That operation is also short of resources, with Russia only last week having approved 200 soldiers and four Mi-8 military transport helicopters, which the chief UN envoy in Sudan, Jan Pronk, had said were delayed for a year and greatly hindered the mobility of that mission.

Annan also plans to meet U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a host of issues, his office said.

Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a Delaware Democratic, suggested last week that
NATO contribute to the operation.

"NATO is already helping the AU with airlift support and training," Biden wrote in the Baltimore Sun. "We should increase NATO's presence by deploying a few thousand NATO troops to work side by side with AU forces."

But the Sudan government would probably turn down any force under a NATO flag.

The UN doesn't have an army of its own, the UN Peacekeepers are made up of member nations, and have to be loaned to the UN. I fail to see how this is the UN being unable to do its job when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in the first place (finally).

The UN is like Communism, it looks good on paper but it doesn't work at all. Acutally, the UN is less than useless.

The UN is like Communism, it looks good on paper but it doesn't work at all. Acutally, the UN is less than useless.
Excellent. And now with the thesis put forward, it would be time to support it with some evidence, right?

-snip-
The US spends heaps of money on its military, it has the strongest and most mobile force, it has for a long time been going on about Darfur - I think it's obvious that they would be the first to be asked for help when troops are supposed to be deployed.

The UN is like Communism, it looks good on paper but it doesn't work at all. Acutally, the UN is less than useless.
Agreed. The UN proves itself to be less and less relevant as the days pass.

The UN is like Communism, it looks good on paper but it doesn't work at all. Acutally, the UN is less than useless.

Oh it works alright. It's just that what they work at has nothing to do with what's on the paper. Where else could a bunch of limousine leftists sit around and debate the evils of the world while raking in billions under the guise of international cooperation?

I believe that the UN signed something after the Halocaust saying that "We will prevent all future genocides." That's funny, if they don't use the term genocide then genocide isn't genocide!

Of course, the following places have never undergone anything even close to genocide:

Cambodia
Uganda
Sudan
Plenty of other Sub-Saharan African countries.

Ethnic cleansing was stopped in Yugoslovia, but of course that would reflect poorly on Europe in general.

My Conclusion: The UN only saves those that they feel like.

Oh it works alright. It's just that what they work at has nothing to do with what's on the paper. Where else could a bunch of limousine leftists sit around and debate the evils of the world while raking in billions under the guise of international cooperation?

Yes, because the American government is reserved for limosine conservatives!

I believe that the UN signed something after the Halocaust saying that "We will prevent all future genocides." That's funny, if they don't use the term genocide then genocide isn't genocide!

Of course, the following places have never undergone anything even close to genocide:

Cambodia
Uganda
Sudan
Plenty of other Sub-Saharan African countries.

Ethnic cleansing was stopped in Yugoslovia, but of course that would reflect poorly on Europe in general.

My Conclusion: The UN only saves those that they feel like.


The exact same reasoning can be applied to the U.S.

Why is it that whenever a topic appears which criticises the ability of the UN, all it is followed by is mindless unfounded opinion.

The exact same reasoning can be applied to the U.S.

I thought it was the UN's job to preserve world peace, not the US's.

I believe that the UN signed something after the Halocaust saying that "We will prevent all future genocides."

Haha, after the Master Chief finished up with the Covenant it was a Halocaust all right.

Back on topic though, of course the UN doesn't work. This is only the second iteration of a "global democracy" if you will. It is only 60 years old. Did you really expect that once the UN was formed the world would change and we would live in a perfect utopia? If you did, I'm sorry but your head is in the clouds. It doesn't happen like that. Real change takes time, more than half a century. It will take years before we really come up with something effective in securing global peace. The UN isn't it. It is just a stepping-stone in the tight direction.

...Sudan...
Which brings us back to the topic at hand...the UN is asking for troops to stop whatever is happening in Sudan.
Why would you refuse?

My Conclusion: The UN only saves those that they feel like.
you can usually determine that by looking at what color skin they have and what god they worship.

I am happy to see that maybe something will be done about Darfur. I only hope it isn't too late...

Why is it that whenever a topic appears which criticises the ability of the UN, all it is followed by is mindless unfounded opinion.
Welcome to NS General!

To be fair, you could make the same joke about any number of topics.

Um, what Nazz said. (only a few posts away from being able to sign the ritalin petition)

Why is it that whenever a topic appears which criticises the ability of the UN, all it is followed by is mindless unfounded opinion.

Because the UN provides it supporters with no evidence that it has a useful purpose, short of an efficiency in laundering money and obstructing all efforts to correct it.

The UN is a bit too socialist for our time, the only global superpower left is probably one of the most facist nations today. I refuse to say any more about the United States because most who argue about how good the US is have no idea what they are talking about. And so dont reply saying the united states is good, i dont care and no one else does. The UN has no economy, it cannot export ressources to generate money to buld an army, it relies on the support of well off nations and their man power. They obviously are not doing too great of a job, by they arent to blame, your country is.

The UN is a bit too socialist for our time...
It is?

well socialist in the true utopic sense, everyone comes together to work not for profit but for the greater good of humanity. Of course socialism and the left in general have been tainted by communism and other leftist movements. So yes, the UN is socialist but not in the sense that most think.

The UN is a bit too socialist for our time, the only global superpower left is probably one of the most facist nations today. I refuse to say any more about the United States because most who argue about how good the US is have no idea what they are talking about. And so dont reply saying the united states is good, i dont care and no one else does. The UN has no economy, it cannot export ressources to generate money to buld an army, it relies on the support of well off nations and their man power. They obviously are not doing too great of a job, by they arent to blame, your country is.


Waaah?

:confused:

The US spends heaps of money on its military, it has the strongest and most mobile force, it has for a long time been going on about Darfur - I think it's obvious that they would be the first to be asked for help when troops are supposed to be deployed.wtf i thought people like you believed bush and cheney had allready overextended the us military and that you are first to accuse the usa of playing the world policeman, sticking their nose into everything.

and can we please remember what happened the last time the usa led a un mission in that region? why should us soldiers risk their lifes on the other side of the world? why dont african nations send troops or why doesnt saudi arabia or egypt send any? both countries are neighbours to sudan and both are members of the UN human rights commission, so they should go.

I do wonder at how many wars have been averted due to grievences aired at the UN rather than on the battlefield? It also gives the voiceless a voice. If you do not like the UN then what is your alternative?

wtf i thought people like you believed bush and cheney had allready overextended the us military and that you are first to accuse the usa of playing the world policeman, sticking their nose into everything.

and can we please remember what happened the last time the usa led a un mission in that region? why should us soldiers risk their lifes on the other side of the world? why dont african nations send troops or why doesnt saudi arabia or egypt send any? both countries are neighbours to sudan and both are members of the UN human rights commission, so they should go.

there is nothing wrong with playing the world policeman, but the USA is a dirty cop that should be stopped. The USA is spending a lot of money and a lot of lives in Iraq for no other reason then personal gain, i see no reason why they should not do the right thing, move out of Iraq and help out in Darfour.

And Europe couldn't help us because...

there is nothing wrong with playing the world policeman, but the USA is a dirty cop that should be stopped. The USA is spending a lot of money and a lot of lives in Iraq for no other reason then personal gain, i see no reason why they should not do the right thing, move out of Iraq and help out in Darfour.

I think the Sudan has oil.

*shiftyeyes*

I do wonder at how many wars have been averted due to grievences aired at the UN rather than on the battlefield? It also gives the voiceless a voice. If you do not like the UN then what is your alternative?

Here's a secret. Nobody who bitches and whines about the UN being irrelevant, obsolete, useless etc. and wants it dismantled has any alternative in mind at all. Most if not all of them are content with the U.S. being the 800-pound gorilla that tells people to do whatever it wants.

a little off subject... well scandinavia is pretty much neutral, eastern europe is really poor (borderline third world), as for the rest of europe, they are just as bad. I omitted them simply because they had no previously been mentioned an di wanted to prevent a tangent discussion from starting

And Europe couldn't help us because......because the heap of money the us spends on its military europe has to spend to keep its nationalized healthcare and welfare systems running, there are no funds left for any meaningful armed forces.

Here's a secret. Nobody who bitches and whines about the UN being irrelevant, obsolete, useless etc. and wants it dismantled has any alternative in mind at all. Most if not all of them are content with the U.S. being the 800-pound gorilla that tells people to do whatever it wants.

Only 800? You misunderestimate us.

...because the heap of money the us spends on its military Europe has to spend to keep its nationalized health care and welfare systems running, there are no funds left for any meaningful armed forces.

I believe the UK, France, and Germany, off the top of my head, have quite extensive militaries.

wtf i thought people like you believed bush and cheney had allready overextended the us military and that you are first to accuse the usa of playing the world policeman, sticking their nose into everything.
Overextended in the sense that they can't fight another large war against Iran or North Korea.
This on the other hand would not be that huge an operation.

And generally, there is nothing wrong if the US helps others out. It's when it attacks places for dubious reasons that I get sceptical.

both countries are neighbours to sudan and both are members of the UN human rights commission, so they should go.
I think they already are. The problem is that they don't have the technology and equipment necessary to effectively monitor such a large area and be there in time to respond, should refugees be attacked.

And Europe couldn't help us because...
I'm sure they could. France is already doing something similar in Cote d'Ivoire, and various European nations have troops and observers in Southern Sudan to observe a ceasefire.
In Germany right now there is a debate on whether or not to send more German troops into the Congo for peacekeeping. As usual, it's a difficult decision for the Chancellor to make, because the population isn't exactly supportive of overseas deployments, so there is much debate happening.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,398470,00.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1899349,00.html

And generally, there is nothing wrong if the US helps others out. It's when it attacks places for dubious reasons that I get sceptical.dubious as in a dictator being in material breach of a dozzen security council resolutions, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, plotting an assassination of the president and continously attacking planes patroling no fly zones on a un mission?I think they already are. The problem is that they don't have the technology and equipment necessary to effectively monitor such a large area and be there in time to respond, should refugees be attacked.hey, wait a moment! didnt you just write "This on the other hand would not be that huge an operation."?

dubious as in a dictator being in material breach of a dozzen security council resolutions, killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, plotting an assassination of the president and continously attacking planes patroling no fly zones on a un mission?
Yes, reasons like that.

To be honest, if they had made that case, instead of the WMD one, and instead of the "we're really just defending ourselves here, people!"-case, they would have been better off.

hey, wait a moment! didnt you just write "This on the other hand would not be that huge an operation."?
Annan said what it would look like:
Annan said he envisioned a highly-mobile force with APCs and jeeps and air support that "would be able to be on the ground when there is an SOS -- not to arrive after the harm has been done."
Combine that with the modern communication equipment and sat-coverage of the US Military, and I think they could manage quite easily.

I believe the UK, France, and Germany, off the top of my head, have quite extensive militaries.

Yes, they do, and lookie: They are doing things!

http://www.un.int/france/frame_anglais/france_and_un/france_and_peacekeeping/frame_ang_peacekeeping.htm

Nearly 10% of their army is deployed in peacekeeping... seems pretty helpful to me.

Germany contributes about 9% of the budget of the UN. Pretty good amount too.

As for the UK, well, its tied up in Iraq. Not going to defend it too much, personally.

Because the UN provides it supporters with no evidence that it has a useful purpose, short of an efficiency in laundering money and obstructing all efforts to correct it.

Beautiful.

The UN is crap/useless/other derogatory term because a few of their people are screw-ups. Its not like the US has any bad eggs in its government, nor any other nation.

Guess what? Corruption occurs all over the place. When you only look at those things, of course it looks like the organization is pointless. When you refuse to look at the good, the bad is overwhelming.

Beautiful.

The UN is crap/useless/other derogatory term because a few of their people are screw-ups. Its not like the US has any bad eggs in its government, nor any other nation.

Guess what? Corruption occurs all over the place. When you only look at those things, of course it looks like the organization is pointless. When you refuse to look at the good, the bad is overwhelming.

News Flash Chellis, The topic is the UN and it is not a nation. They will teach you this once you make it to basic training, or you will come to the sudden realization when some fool tries to make you wear a baby blue beret and pimp you out to Kofi's highest bidder.

The UN's problems my friend are far beyond a few bad eggs. They are rooted into an evolving organization that has expanded it's scope, purpose and goals without benefit of rational checks and balances. It is a sorely outdated orginazation that has become an inefficient and easily manipulated haven for rogue international elitiests to stroke each others egos and bank accounts at the expense of those who they are supposed to protect. It is far beyond time to reconstruct this organization into something worth more than the value to it's breaucrats, spies and con artists.

I believe the UK, France, and Germany, off the top of my head, have quite extensive militaries.

Germany has employed most of its capacities in Afghanistan at the moment, to make sure the US can use the maximum number of troops in Iraq. Which is where a good deal of the British forces are as well. As for the French, dunno.

News Flash Chellis, The topic is the UN and it is not a nation. They will teach you this once you make it to basic training, or you will come to the sudden realization when some fool tries to make you wear a baby blue beret and pimp you out to Kofi's highest bidder.

The UN's problems my friend are far beyond a few bad eggs. They are rooted into an evolving organization that has expanded it's scope, purpose and goals without benefit of rational checks and balances. It is a sorely outdated orginazation that has become an inefficient and easily manipulated haven for rogue international elitiests to stroke each others egos and bank accounts at the expense of those who they are supposed to protect. It is far beyond time to reconstruct this organization into something worth more than the value to it's breaucrats, spies and con artists.

They will teach be the evils of the UN in the army? Thank god I got out of it, then. EDIT: If there is some way to apply to work in the UN peacekeeping forces, I would gladly take a few years to do it.

Replace the US government with the UN, and take out international in your second paragraph, and it still works fine.

The UN is made up of people from multiple nations, so its only as efficient as we make it. If people constantly believe it will fail, of course it will, because its on our shoulders to make it work(people in general).

They will teach be the evils of the UN in the army? Thank god I got out of it, then.

Replace the US government with the UN, and take out international in your second paragraph, and it still works fine.

The UN is made up of people from multiple nations, so its only as efficient as we make it. If people constantly believe it will fail, of course it will, because its on our shoulders to make it work(people in general).

Seconded...
The problem is, the goodwill of people (in general) is overrated. Personally, I would like to see the UN to obtain a status that will end its current state as the constant beggar relying on the pittance of the great nations, and actually gives it authority and real influence.

Germany has employed most of its capacities in Afghanistan at the moment, to make sure the US can use the maximum number of troops in Iraq.frightening if the 2300 bundeswehr soldiers in afghanistan would actually be "most of germanys capacities". for comparison, the us have about 18000 soldiers in afghanistan.
but atm germany has actually more soldiers in the balkan than in afghanistan.

maybe the woman should leave military matters to men and return to cooking ;D

They will teach be the evils of the UN in the army? Thank god I got out of it, then. EDIT: If there is some way to apply to work in the UN peacekeeping forces, I would gladly take a few years to do it.

Replace the US government with the UN, and take out international in your second paragraph, and it still works fine.

The UN is made up of people from multiple nations, so its only as efficient as we make it. If people constantly believe it will fail, of course it will, because its on our shoulders to make it work(people in general).

Read the words Chellis, not what you imagine them to be. Glad to hear you got out of it, as I told you at the time, you simply are not cut out for it. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide for your future.

Read the words Chellis, not what you imagine them to be. Glad to hear you got out of it, as I told you at the time, you simply are not cut out for it. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide for your future.

Don't pretend you know me, so don't try to tell me these things. I handled it fine. The things like not paying me on time(or at all at times), me picking a job that I regretted, and having a good chance of being sent to iraq, despite not supporting the war, were my reasons.

Don't pretend you know me, so don't try to tell me these things. I handled it fine. The things like not paying me on time(or at all at times), me picking a job that I regretted, and having a good chance of being sent to iraq, despite not supporting the war, were my reasons.

I would never pretend to know you. I would not want to know you. But like it or not I did advise you to reconsider. I have been there and your attitude, concerns and misconceptions made it quite obvious that you were simply incapbable of adapting to the life. It would have been a major mistake. Once again best of luck to you.

I thought it was the UN's job to preserve world peace, not the US's.

Then why did we go into Iraq?

Then why did we go into Iraq?

Because there were genocidal terrorists with nuclear weapons that hated us for our freedoms.

frightening if the 2300 bundeswehr soldiers in afghanistan would actually be "most of germanys capacities". for comparison, the us have about 18000 soldiers in afghanistan.
but atm germany has actually more soldiers in the balkan than in afghanistan.

maybe the woman should leave military matters to men and return to cooking ;D

I would assume that the German army doesn't usually put all its soldiers onto a UN mission, especially considering the fact that tha vast majority of them are Wehrdienstleistende, who, as far as I know, cannot be sent on any such mission without special request (if at all, they are supposed to be defense forces, nothing else).

And thank you for that brilliant comment about cooking.... true, my mental capacities barely strech beyond kitchen matters.

I would assume that the German army doesn't usually put all its soldiers onto a UN missionwhich army in the world ever would?especially considering the fact that tha vast majority of them are Wehrdienstleistendethat the soldiers were drafted has never been a particular concern.at all, they are supposed to be defense forces, nothing elsebut as the german secretary of war said: "Germanys security is also being defended at the Hindu Kush."And thank you for that brilliant comment about cooking.... true, my mental capacities barely strech beyond kitchen matters.welcome, identifying other peoples talents has allways been one of my great strengths.

which army in the world ever would?that the soldiers were drafted has never been a particular concern.

Oh, but it would. Wehrdiensleistende can't be sent on UN missions, as pointed out. So, I still doubt Germany could spare a great number of troops for any additional missions.

welcome, identifying other peoples talents has allways been one of my great strengths.

Fantastic. Now, all you need to do is work on your understanding of sarcasm...

especially considering the fact that tha vast majority of them are Wehrdienstleistende, who, as far as I know, cannot be sent on any such mission without special requestkekeke, as far as you know. this "vast majority" you are talking about is 20% according to wikipedia: The Bundeswehr employs some 250,000 personnel, 50,000 of whom are 18–25-year-old men on national duty who serve for at least 9 months under current rules.
those draftees would be made to vollunteer if need be, but even without them, that would leave 200,000 minus the 5,000 allready deployed = 195,000 for UN missions. do you "still doubt Germany could spare a great number of troops for any additional missions"?


oh you mean you were being sarcastic?

kekeke, as far as you know. this "vast majority" you are talking about is 20% according to wikipedia: The Bundeswehr employs some 250,000 personnel, 50,000 of whom are 18–25-year-old men on national duty who serve for at least 9 months under current rules.
those draftees would be made to vollunteer if need be, but even without them, that would leave 200,000 minus the 5,000 allready deployed = 195,000 for UN missions. do you "still doubt Germany could spare a great number of troops for any additional missions"?


oh you mean you were being sarcastic?


So you would actually assume that Germany would be willing to offer all its troups for a UN mission?

u.n. needs help because american pseudoconservatives in general, and the bush hunta in particular, are deliberately preventing it from doing its job. that's what this so called war on 'terror' and every thing else is really an excuse for an all about. international law is what the u.s. is really makeing war on.

the u.n. has authority in name only, and only the volunteer 'support' of its constituency to enforce that authority. a support that beyond office space for meetings and staff, more often then not, ammounts to little more then lip service.

and even here, the most militarily powerful nation on the planet, the u.s., is the biggest culpret.

in order for a true international civilization to emerge, world government needs to represent the will of all people, not just the coercive capacity of a small handfull of the planet's most dominant soverigntys.

=^^=
.../\...

the UN is doing the best they can with what they got.

Then why did we go into Iraq?

We wern't supposed to go into Iraq in the first place. You're trying to argue from both sides here, champ.

In theory, Germany could send a lot of forces overseas. The problem is of course that it is not just about manpower, but also about the equipment and training levels.

Conscripts are not professional soldiers, IMHO to really send someone overseas they should have at least a year or two professional experience, and conscripts are done today after one year. Not to forget that the Bundeswehr's capabilities still largely rest with its armoured force, which is hardly the thing to send to Sudan.

The good troops, which you would expect to send overseas already have been deployed. If further troops were to be send anywhere, they would probably be those that are part of EU-Units, ie "task forces" or even parts of the "rapid reaction force".

I don't think that Germany will have anything like the global capabilities of the US as far as equipment, mobility and logistics is concerned for some years to come.

This is hilarious.

Anti-United Nations posters seem to view the UN as a challenge to United States power- something to be competed with as if they are two seperate entities.

The United States is part and parcel of the United Nations. Everytime you criticise the ineptitide and shortcomings of the United Nations you, in turn, criticise the United States also.

The United Nations' problems come from the fact that it is a child of the Cold War- people who harp on about the fact that they didn't stop Uganda or Cambodia etc etc fail to realise that in the Cold War the UN (as a entity) was paralysed. It acted as a neutral third party (a relatively trusted one at that) to bring both the USSR and US to the table to talk.

In the post Cold War era, it is subject to the old powers competing with each other for influence and power. This dulls the effectiveness of any action.

When you blame the United Nations, remember: You are only helping to blame your own government too. :)

This is hilarious.

Anti-United Nations posters seem to view the UN as a challenge to United States power- something to be competed with as if they are two seperate entities.

The United States is part and parcel of the United Nations. Everytime you criticise the ineptitide and shortcomings of the United Nations you, in turn, criticise the United States also.

The United Nations' problems come from the fact that it is a child of the Cold War- people who harp on about the fact that they didn't stop Uganda or Cambodia etc etc fail to realise that in the Cold War the UN (as a entity) was paralysed. It acted as a neutral third party (a relatively trusted one at that) to bring both the USSR and US to the table to talk.

In the post Cold War era, it is subject to the old powers competing with each other for influence and power. This dulls the effectiveness of any action.

When you blame the United Nations, remember: You are only helping to blame your own government too. :)

I mostly agree with your sentiments on this matter, and doubt I could have said it any better myself. ;)

I strongly disagree with the OP's views on this subject, because I believe that the UN asking for US troops is how the UN-system was designed to work, and it is actually doing it's job when it asks the US for contributions this way.

I believe that the UN signed something after the Halocaust saying that "We will prevent all future genocides." That's funny, if they don't use the term genocide then genocide isn't genocide!

Of course, the following places have never undergone anything even close to genocide:

Cambodia
Uganda
Sudan
Plenty of other Sub-Saharan African countries.

Ethnic cleansing was stopped in Yugoslovia, but of course that would reflect poorly on Europe in general.

My Conclusion: The UN only saves those that they feel like.
You are wrong. The UN didn't even stop it in Yugoslavia. The Security Counsel voted it down. NATO had to take action because the UN lacked the balls to do it.

I believe the frustration of the OP is directed at the resolutions the UN creates, which it cannot then enforce. From that POV, the UN is indeed powerless.

The US is certainly a member institution, and far from powerless within the UN. If the UN has faults, the US bears a sizeable chunk of responsibility for them.

I agree with the OP's frustration about one thing: The UN has no business creating ANY resolution that it and its member nations are not prepared to enforce. There are many nations whose governments love to stand up and condemn things, and threaten other countries with all sorts of mayhem if they don't behave... but when it comes time to actually carry out those threats, they get all sorts of squeamish and nothing happens. "One more extension... one more extension..." 10, 15, 20 years go by, and nothing changes. There's a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's a waste of time, money, and energy. We all need to focus our resources on things we can actually change. Talking around in circles helps no one, except maybe the Congos of this world.

You are wrong. The UN didn't even stop it in Yugoslavia. The Security Counsel voted it down. NATO had to take action because the UN lacked the balls to do it.

*sigh*
This has nothing to do with it. You were correct up until this: because of various powers in the SC, Russia decided to veto the resolution (fellow Slavs and all). That is the way the SC works- it has absolutely nothing to do with the United Nations having 'balls'. It is the central flaw in the system... now that the Cold War is over.

You are wrong. The UN didn't even stop it in Yugoslavia. The Security Council voted it down. NATO had to take action because the UN lacked the balls to do it.

Exactly right. Except that to say that "the Security Council" voted something down because ONE of its permanent members (Russia, I think) vetoed it is absurd. Or maybe it just threatened a veto, I don't remember, I was in high school at the time.

The US, however, has a HISTORY of vetoing, probably more resolutions than China, Russia, France, and the UK put together if current trends continue for more than a few years. The whole veto system is fucked. And on top of it all, many of the resolutions vetoed by the US are otherwise unanimous.

While it might have been a good idea in the Cold War to make sure the US and USSR couldn't pass resolutions that might provoke one or the other into n00king them, the veto is no longer needed, IMNSHO. Of course, the nations who have it won't want to give it up, so maybe it should be altered so that two vetoes are needed to block a proposal, or a cap on the number of vetoes per five-year period might work, but of course nobody in positions of power actually comes up with decent ideas, if they did, we wouldn't have this situation.

(By the way, I'm an American myself, so don't think I'm "one of them lib'rul Eura-peeins.")

The UN doesn't have an army of its own, the UN Peacekeepers are made up of member nations, and have to be loaned to the UN. I fail to see how this is the UN being unable to do its job when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do in the first place (finally).

Thankyou.