From: RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com (Aengus Lawlor)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: New World Order - what about NI???
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:46:38 GMT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <28557@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
says:
>In article <92352.151542RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, (Aengus Lawlor) writes:
>> Neither the Gulf war, nor the current situation in Sonalia can be described
>> as UN peacekeeping. The Gulf war was not run by the UN, and the soldiers who
>> took part in the Gulf war did not wear the blue helmets of UN forces.
>
>Oh neat-  is this some sort of sporting rule? You can't play for the UN
>unless you wear blue helmets??? Somehow the fact they didn't wear
>blue strikes me as weak evidence that this was not a UN action...
Touchy, touchy, Gary. Ray's original point, and my followup, concentrated
on UN peacekeeping actions. We could argue till the cows come home about
whether the Gulf war was a UN action, or a US action with UN Security
Council approval, but "peacekeeping", it wasn't.
>
>> The US was quite adamant that the forces it committed to Somalia would be
>> directed by US military leaders, and would not be directed by the UN.
>
> No kidding? So how exactly does that make this a non-UN action? Was this
>action at the request of the UN and did not the UN resolution define
>(I admit it was defined in very vague terms) the role the troops would
>play in Somalia - sounds like a UN-backed mission to me...
Nice twisting of the facts there, Gary. A vague resolution, and US control
of the troops, means that anything the US chooses to do is UN-backed.
Sounds like a win-win situation for the US. (And more power to them!). If
they screw-up, it'll be the UNs fault, if everything goes well, the US will
get the glory. Decisions about disarming the various factions, or withdrawing
on January 20th, will be made in Washington, not New York. Sounds like a US
action to me, not a UN one.

(By the way Gary, did you notice how many Irish accents you heard when
aid workers in Somalia were being interviewed? Most of them work for the
same people that has Ireland resembling a throwback to the 15th century).

>> And has the US paid it back dues to the UN yet? (An interestingly
>appropriate
>
>NOw this is very very funny - please oh please somebody who knows the facts
>better than I post a breakdown of UN funding and resource supplies since
>its inception - without the US the UN would never exist and the world would
>probably need to look to the good old European community (hahahahahahahaha)
>for leadership and support....
Good point, Gary. How much of that funding and resource supplies went to
making sure that the UN didn't step too far out of line? Having the UN in
New York meant that the US could refuse entry permits to certain people it
didn't want to talk to the UN among other things.

Of course, nobody forced the US to agree to the funding it was committed to.
It was in the US's interests at the time to provide that funding. But in the
70's and 80's, the US interests lay elsewhere, and it just didn't bother
paying it's dues. The UNs influence on world affairs was weakened, and it
pretty much serves as a rubber stamp for the interests of the permanent
powers on the Security Council. The General Assembly is a joke.
>
>> point in this group. Ireland is one of the nations that the UN owes money
>> to for peacekeeping services. About #13 million, I think).
>
> Uh huh....
Sure, a pittance. Barely enough to stage a good beach landing....
>
>                        gln
Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"