RSS

UN Peacekeepers — a quiz

25 Jun

I have to admit this surprised me, so I will let you guess first. This is a quiz, not a poll.

When you’ve done check Prime Numbers: Soldiers of Misfortune in Foreign Policy May-June 2009.

Advertisements
 
9 Comments

Posted by on June 25, 2009 in amazing, current affairs

 

9 responses to “UN Peacekeepers — a quiz

  1. Peter (Worldman)

    June 26, 2009 at 8:37 am

    I clicked for Pakistan. Because I have been in several places where they served in an UN peacekeeping mission. But, personally, I am not very much impressed by such missions. They are not very effective. Because, often, they lack means. UNAMID in Darfur is costing a lot of money. But they cannot operate properyl because they lack helicopters. Is it so impossible to find the “little” money for helicopters to assist the soldiers for which “big” money is being spent?

     
  2. Neil

    June 26, 2009 at 9:06 am

    I’m not surprised that you are well-informed in this, Peter. 🙂 Did you look at the Foreign Policy article? It is very interesting and has more than just the answer to this quiz — it’s on the right hand side there, by the way, and you need to scroll down a bit to find it.

     
  3. Kevin

    June 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    Which military force rapes the most indigenous people that it’s supposed to be protecting, mostly young boys and girls?

    THE UN (small example of almost countless rapes committed by that organization)!

    So duh, of COURSE it isn’t America in charge of the peacekeepers, or even another western country. We’ve got standards that much of the world does not.

    I cannot for the life of me understand why we (I mean Americans) support such a child-raping, self-serving, jew-hating group of people as the UN. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. How can we align ourselves with such a pro-rape group?

     
  4. Neil

    June 28, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Seeing that Australia contributes to this force, Kevin, I think I might disagree with some of what you say. It is also hard to fault Peter (Worldman) who commented before you, who is a very experienced field worker with the UN Food Program currently in Sri Lanka and previously in Darfur. Unlike us, he has been there and seen what happens. He is not sitting in an armchair in his native Switzerland and pontificating. There really are times when we need to shut up and listen.

    I note too that many of the cases going back 12 years referred to in your link involve Westerners with “standards”. Try googling american military sexual abuses and see what you find.

     
  5. Kevin

    June 29, 2009 at 8:36 am

    Thorough disagreement. Just because someone saw some peacekeepers NOT raping people, are we supposed to disbelieve all of the victims of rape by UN personnel?

    You’re kind of making my point though. When an American in the military does some dastardly deed, he goes to Levenworth (jail, or gaol as you guys say). When UN peacekeepers rape 12 year old boys and girls, they don’t get in trouble. That’s why it’s so prevalent in the UN and so rare in American (and I suspect Australian) forces. They don’t get into trouble when they commit atrocities. So they keep committing them.

    If the UN ever came to my town, I’d pack up the kids and leave. It’s a horrible organization, headed by horrible, greedy people. I’d shut it down if I could.

     
  6. Neil

    June 29, 2009 at 8:48 am

    The UN is not perfect, that I agree with. Very little in this world is perfect, but I thank God that it exists for the great good it does do, and am happy the US and other allies began it after WWII. The ambivalence at times of the USA to the UN has been most unfortunate, though it appears we are in a more constructive phase in that respect right now. This can only be good.

     
  7. Kevin

    June 30, 2009 at 7:14 am

    Fair enough. I just can’t remember the last time they did something worthwhile that the western powers didn’t do better, quicker (remember, Aussie and US forces beat the UN to tsunami and pak earthquake victims by almost a month). They are a noble concept that is an abject failure, much like the League of Nations was.

    Maybe if they were replaced with a ‘United Democratic Nations’ or something to that effect, they’d be a more positive influence on the world. As they stand now, they are almost universally hated by everyone except idealistic college professors and their ilk. It’s a great idea, it just doesn’t work.

     
  8. Neil

    June 30, 2009 at 9:29 am

    Australia has historically had a generally more positive view of the UN than the USA has.

    Key Facts

    * Australia was a founding member of the United Nations and played a significant role in drafting the UN Charter in 1945.
    * Australians have been presidents of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and have headed many UN commissions and agencies.
    * Australia has been a member of the UN Security Council on four occasions and is a founding member of and active participant in many UN agencies.
    * Australia was a member of the first UN peacekeeping operation in 1947 and has since participated in more than 30 UN peacekeeping and monitoring operations.

     
  9. Kevin

    June 30, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    And South Korea thanks you for your efforts! It probably wouldn’t be the magnificent country that it is today if it weren’t for great democratic countries like yours. That’s the kind of thing that really makes one proud of their country. Millions and millions of South Koreans remain free today, in a very large part because of Australia and other members of the UN. That was their shining moment (thank God the Soviet UN guy called in sick that day, huh?)

    Sadly, 1950 is about the last time the UN helped people stay free, and now spends most of its time complaining about Israel when she defends herself. Even when the UN tries to feed starving people in Africa, much/most of the food is stolen or sold on the black market. That’s certainly not true when the US military does a food drop, as we saw in Pakistan in that earthquake they had. Same for Aussieland, as we saw in the tsunami (I think you guys even beat the US to the rescue there by a couple of days, and we’ve got one point four bazillion military ships! Roughly).

    My point is simple. When it comes to emergency assistance, the military of the US, Australia, Britain, India and France run circles around the UN. Plus, we’re all (sans-India) massively stockpiled. And when it comes to peacekeeping, the UN doesn’t do that. When violence breaks out, they don’t stop it, they flee. Yugoslavia and Rwanda are the best examples, but there are plenty more.

    It’s not a good organization. It’s just a good idea. That’s a huge difference. They waste hundreds of billions of dollars, and accomplish so very little. A better use of that money would be to buy $100 billion worth of food every year, put it in big containers and just drop it in random places across the globe via parachute. I would support that, and it would save $billions, and lives.

    I’ll stop commenting about the UN now, since I’m dangerously close to wearing out my welcome :). But let me leave you with this statement, in case I didn’t make it clear:

    I’m not a fan of the UN.

    😉

     
 
%d bloggers like this: