This is not an accurate representation of what has happened in this thread. The actual situation is more accurately discribed thusly. Dogface posted a drive-by assertion that the situation in Rwanda is par for the course for the UN. A poor assertion and almost useless in the greater scheme. It should have been supported by fair and unbiased reports on the UN’s role in Rwanda. The proper way to respond to this situation was with a polite request for Dogface to back up his assertions about the UN and/or give some facts to let the gentle reader understand that his assertions were incorrect.
You didn’t do that. You took issue with his assertion(which is just fine) and asserted that the US was partly, or even mostly, culpable for the failure of the peacekeeping effort in Rwanda. Sua, fairly rudely and with some minor ad hominems(bad Sua!), called you on the second part. Your independent assertion, not your refutation of Dogface’s unsupported assertion(as you, correctly, noted, unsupported assertions do not require supported refutations, even though supported refutations are preferable). You replied with ad hominem and more unsupported assertions. Sua was rude, but he wasn’t making any assertions which required support. He was asking you to prove yours.
You are asking me to behave according to the accepted rules of GD by launching not one but SEVERAL ad hominem attacks against me. That’s certainly an interesting standard.
Of course it is entirely inconceivable that having the efforts HAPPEN, but not succeed, is an advantage in itself, and can be used for other goals. Such as the infiltration of a country with intelligence operatives as happened in the case of Iraq, as confirmed both by inspectors such as Ritter and others, and the usual anonymous members of the intelligence community cited in several media reports (such as the one cited on http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/scomspy3.htm ). As the inspectors point out themselves, confidence is critical to their work. Such infiltration undermines confidence in them on the Iraqi side.
Likewise, sabotaging the new efforts by inundating the inspectors with bogus ‘intelligence’ was very helpful in supporting their ‘ineffectivity’, as was the deliberate fabrication of evidence as to how Iraq allegedly circumvented the inspections, such as the ‘before and after’ satellite pictures. It was a big operation of PR to enable the government to say ‘We tried to go through the UN, but the UN can’t do it’.
You were furthermore shown by now that US objections were a factor in getting more peacekeepers into Rwanda. Add to that the undermining of the Small Arms conference -which not the least directly endangers the lives of peacekeepers and subverted the attempt to reduce the number of firearms at the disposal of rogue militant groups. Add to it US insistence of multiple parallel chains of command in Somalia, which, along with the attitude of US troops towards civilians, was a factor in the failure of the operation. (cf. eg. ‘There is no Frontline: Lessons from Black Hawk Down’, The Army Journal, September 2000. 73-88.) Add to it the US insistence on bombing in Yugoslavia, rather than sending in troops on the ground, which caused plenty of collateral damage and supported the nationalist agenda in Serbia. It was specifically that bombing campaign which led to Zoran Djindjic making plenty of enemies among nationalists when he didn’t condemn the attack. (Cf. e.g. http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/884133.asp )
Add to that the consistent funding problems for peacekeeping operations in which not the least US refusal to pay its dues is a factor. (cf. eg. http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/uncrisis.html )
Add to it the sabotage against the nuclear test ban treaty, the verification protocol on the bioweapons convention etc and the US has done plenty of fostering of arms races, in many cases thereby endangering UN peacekeeping missions, such as in Pakistan.
Sabotage can be done with full intent, as in the Iraq case. It can happen out of cowardice and unwillingness to chose the proper means to a goal because the price is deemed too high, such as in Serbia. It can happen out of sheer nationalist arrogance such as in Somalia.
And sorry, man, ‘allowing’ the UN to do the job is no proof of anything, and brings little share in the responsibility of a success. Words don’t bring results, actions do.
As for UN share in nationbuilding and peacekeeping, the UN has contributed to the democratic development in numerous nations, such as Mozambique, with long-term positive effect. (Cf. http://www.un.org/events/facts.htm )
See, if you actually stop spewing insults for a moment, you actually get some cites. But as long as your posts are limited to ad hominems, you will neither get cites, nor do you deserve getting them.
I am curious. Why do you think Germany should get France’s seat? Germany has neither the military nor logistic capabilities of France, it’s practically sole strength is in its economy. France has a)a professional army (even if that’s a somewhat new fact)
b)bases all over the planet
c)nuclear weapons
d)strategic submarines and
e)a somewhat buggy aircraft carrier as well as
f)the first warship on the planet designed mast to keel for stealth considerations
On top of that, France is much less restricted in its use of armed force than Germany is, due to Germany’s constitutional restraints. And while Germany has the stronger economy, France is a member of the G7/8, too.
To be honest, it was a tossup between Germany and Japan as the suggestion. Germany seems to be more central and less psychotic in the EU than France does.
Ah! Yes. You said
So, since money matters, give one of them a seat. As a random suggestion.
By the way, what ship is this that the French have that predates the Sea Swallow and the … hm. DD-21, I think? program? Course, that’s surface navy and radar stealth. The first ship designed for stealth considerations, mast to keep would be American… Revolutionary War. The Turtle.
The french Lafayette class frigate has already been exported in several other nations. Its modular design allows it to easily be adjusted for a variety of tasks, such as anti-sub warfare, surveillance. (Taiwan is using them as the Kang Ding class, for example, though these have been adjusted even more to try and get more equipment in Taiwan bought from the US).
Are the veto-holding states really that essential? It appears that the money they have already promised but not yet paid would be more useful than their immediate involvement.