West Coast - the UN does become a bartering market of votes at times but surely a system that tries to accord some agreement between nations must be better than one that does nothing at all? The example you quote of Korea reveals some of the intricacies faced by the UN as the world entered the Cold War. Did the USSR absentee themselves so as not to reveal their hand in supporting the North Koreans? (albeit to a limited extent) Was the war itself a civil war and thus outside the scope of the UN charter that the USA et al wanted to act under? One could argue the relative merits or otherwise of the UN until one was blue in the face but I think that goes beyond the scope of the situation originally under discussion here. I still believe that the UN or a mandate from them lends a "legality" to wading into a country to help those that cannot help themselves and face death or privation through the criminal acts of others.
Fareastdriver - whilst I'm sitting here being a self-proclaimed expert in absolutely bloody everything
I'm pretty sure that rubber is indigenous to the Congo region albeit a different type to that of the Amazon (seeds of which which, as you say, were exported to London and thence to Ceylon and Malaya).
BEags - you are correct in your assertion that military force must be applied in a determined and effective way if it is to have any effect. That way any intervention must have robust RoEs that give the troops the right and means to prevent and protect the innocent from a good ole fashioned African slaughtering. The section of Belgian troops stopped in Rwanda by militias were advised by their UN command structures not to resist and hand over their weapons as no one was sure of the legality of their position (despite being under fire from said militias for some time). That made it much easier to stick em in a room and machine gun them. Similarly UN observers had to do just that as locals were hacked to pieces outside their compounds. Any involvement in the Congo today must be backed by robust RoEs that prevent such lunacy being repeated.
with such corrupt, feuding 'people' intent on taking their primitive tribal issues into the 21st century
Er, Northern Ireland?
I think the topic of Zimbabwe has been discussed at some length and I still believe it's a totally different set of conditions.
PN - more often than not being equipped to peace
make is the required standard to subsequently peacekeep. As mr ripley points out, the op in 2003 to bolster MONUC brought a successful resolution at the time. The well equipped peacemakers then cleared off returning the generally poorly equipped peacekeepers and 5 years later we face the same problem.
Sunk at Narvik -
I'm afraid that letting this run to a bloody conclusion may be the wisest move in the long run..."give war a chance" as someone once said
Wisest move? For whom? You and your Christmas at home? The government and their preference to spunking billions on witless bankers and Olympic sporting venues? I suppose it eliminates the problem of having to clothe and feed all these bothersome folk in the future.. Any chance we could add the feckless, lazy and worthless folk we have here at home in the UK to that list?
In the meantime turn off your TV's
Worked last time eh?
As Confucious say:
To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: Apologies for my repeated insistence in banging on with this subject. Normal service will be resumed soon