US fights to take charge of UN peacekeepers around world

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Nov 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. God help us!!!

    For once, I'm grateful of the Chinese seat on the UNSC and the fact that they're now becoming involved in UN peacekeeping. :twisted:
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    Not a good idea.

    However, looking at it another way, if the UN was smart, they would allow this to happen IF they US finally stumped up the massive amount of money that they owe the UN (and not before).

    Don't say it won't happen when there is the chance of a bit of dodgy dealing to be had. Face it, the UN is well practised in the art.
  3. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    I don't think this will ever happen, at least I hope so. ! I vote for the UK to take charge! They can move the UN kit & Caboodle to London too. ;)
  4. Well, in the spirit of trans-Atlantic black humour, why not propose a combination of Radovan Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic. They do have a 'decent' track record in neutralising Islamists, you know. Could give your "GWOT" and the Israeli problem a real shot in the arm - or worse! :evil:


    I've just thought. Trip, you're not suggesting TB take the role are you!!!!!?????
  5. Trip the UK is a very small country, it already carries more then its fair share of the Worlds burden.
    Britian and France to give up their seats and a Euro seat created, which must come one day, and then the load would be spread more sensibily.
  6. My bold.

    Beiruit and Khartoum are about 5,000 km apart. Who gets to look after the rest of the world then?
  7. What happend with the spams in somalia? fine mess, then UNPFOR? wouldn't join would they? Had to be US command. Fcuk 'em.
  8. What a terrible idea. As recent history has shown, the US is good at winning wars. But winning the peace? Give me a break!!
  9. I agree its a bad idea. I would rather see a Canadian or Australian general in charge of UN peacekeepers. I dont see an upside for the US.
  10. The US already has too much power in the U.N. and has shown that it will quite gladly abuse its position if that helps them (or Israel). There is an unwritten agreement among the UNSC that none of the permanent members would provide a secretary general, I would extend that to other UN positions like this one. There is a clear conflict of interest, especially at a time like this when the US is involved with many conflicts and has many strong enemies in the world.
  11. diplomat

    diplomat War Hero Book Reviewer

    On the other hand they could hardly do a worst job than the clowns who run DPKO (Dapartment of Peacekeeping Operations) at the moment!!!