Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

From: Derek Fulton <derekfulton@b...>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:18:11 +1000
Subject: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)

At 07:45  21/07/01 -0400, Ryan wrote:
>Pretty much because with the exception of Great Britain, noone else is 
>able to project that much power so far away.

Actually this is pretty much beside the point [ a red herring :) ]

>>[ Derek] The mandate is to maintain peace within the core but that 
>>doesn't mean the UNSC stops at the core, once again the survey
>>are evidence of that. Smaller less capable nations could also sign 
>>assistance treaties with the UN, just like they would with any other 
>>nation state.
>Granted, but a UNSC taskforce assaulting a FSE base would have to never

>happen. Not unless you want an entirely huge problem.

Never happen? never say never. Who would of thought that a year or so
there would be Russian troops confronting western troops in Kosovo? But 
back to the GZG-verse it would depend on the situation wouldn't it?

>>[ Derek ] What limit are you referring to?
>Well, specifically the Mandate specifying the UNSC's area of operations

>and Authority.

Yes the UN through the UNSC is responsible for the security of the Core
the UN doesn't stop at the boundary of the core and so where you find
UN you will find it's military/exploration body, the UNSC.


Derek Fulton
12 Balaka st.
Rosny, Hobart.
Tasmania,  7018.

Phone; (03) 62459123
Mobile; 0438459123

Prev: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast) Next: Re: [FH] About the UN again (sorry Beast)