REALLY?
The news clips look so convincing!
Show business is supposed to be convincing -- and "news" is a vital part. Ever wonder why so few of us vote?
(Thanks for the thread, folks. Keep going.)
But all of this passion, anger, the tirades ..... I don't get why so few of you vote, given that you seem so involved!
Hey if Kerry wins I expect those people from those different areas to pick up arms and fight for the missions of the un so our soldiers can sit home once in awhile....
After all it seems we are the man power during most of the missions while other countries troops "sit out".
Sure vote kerry in so our troops wont have to deploy on anymore missions and let other countries of the UN pick up the slack for USA, Britians, and Aussie...
Cant wait.....
Gee, I can't wait, either. It'd be good if the US gave it a rest.
Quote:But all of this passion, anger, the tirades ..... I don't get why so few of you vote, given that you seem so involved!
It's a show... It's a show... As a people, we're more concerned with reality TV shows than elections. Which is why the whole process is left to people who are foaming at the mouth to choose between a couple of corporate shills -- all of which would be fine and good, except that they get so excited about it they have to believe that their guy is a
good guy, that he really
cares. The demagoguery is more than a little creepy. I wish we'd treat it for what it is: a big job search for a very high-level executive position of a very large company -- the United States government.
Sorry, that's my two bits, but they come from inside the U.S. and I'm sure strike the empassioned as cynical...
<sigh>
I think you're right, patiodog. And not just for the US, either.
Of course, very large companies don't seem to be doing such a great job in finding executives these days, either.
Armyvet, remember your definition of perception.
Participation
The United Nations Charter stipulates that to assist in maintaining peace and security around the world, all Member States of the UN should make available to the Security Council necessary armed forces and facilities.
Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of June 2004 were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, Uruguay, Jordan and Kenya. About 10 per cent of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and one per cent from the United States.
The largest contributers were from Pakistan (8,652), Bangladesh (8,211) and Nigeria (3,577). The biggest contributer from a western country is Poland with 739 peacekeepers on a 19th place. The USA ranks 26th with 430 peacekeepers. The EU combined have 4,532 peacekeepers.
The lack of United States involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has drawn criticism from other member states. The paltry investment of personnel in UN peacekeeping operations is attributed to "the Mogadishu factor"?-a deep reluctance by US administrations to incur casualties in military operations which do not serve US strategic interests. The US, however, pays 27% of the UN peackeeping budget, down slightly from 30% before 2000. This amounted to $844 million in 2002.
The US also deploys units, not under UN control, alongside UN peacekeepers in the Balkans, East Timor, and the Sinai.
What missions are you referring to?
And you are talking about the EU which is more than one country contributing ... we are one country and lets just contribute the amount that any ONE country contributes...
Hmmm 430 peacekeepers in the US ... Please give me the link where you got that info Please
I really beg to differ on that coonsidering the number of troops commited to ther missions besides Iraq and Afghanistan
Unless of course troops deployed elsewhere are termed NOT peacekeepers but something else entirely.
Our lack in support... which countries are critizing that ? just curious as to that as well...
Please give me the source
Armyvet35 wrote:What missions are you referring to?
I don't know what source Panzade is referring to, but you can find an overview of current UN peacekeeping missions
here at the UN site. There's 16 ongoing ones right now, 7 of which in Africa. It also has
these monthly overviews of "contributors of military and civilian police personnel", but I can't open them myself because my computer won't install Acrobat anymore and they're PDFs.
damn I am having a bit of a PDF problem myself... I shall go check out that site, and thank you
As for financial contributions, we had a long (and slightly volatile) thread here a while ago on "Changes needed to make a more effective UN", and I did some expansive research on who pays how much to what there. See
this short post and then
this long one.
Interesting thread. I think the "they're equally bad" stuff is bogus and itself as much a cause of our current woes as anything else, but don't want to derail the thread arguing it.
What's the problem here Vet?
Every time I give you facts that contradict your perception you start hollerin' for links...like I'm twisting the facts. My source is the OFFICIAL UN site, and I'll go back and get the link for you.
Hmm that site concerns me a bit... I looked at some of the past missions and it makes no mention of one US troop ever serving in Rwanda, I find that interesting and I am sure the 160th nightstalkers and a few other units would as well...
Panze facts based on what?
Can you please link me your source?
