Re: [OT]UN operations

Laserlight schrieb:
> >
> > Not as far as I'm informed. The Osprey Elite on 'UN
> Forces 1948-1994 lists 29 US
> 
> ""UN", I assume

Oops, sorry, yes.
> 
> > The only ones where the UN (at the urging of over-wary
> member states) abandoned people to genocide are Rwanda and Kosovo. 2
> out of 29 is bad enough, but not really typical.
> 
> And of course, with the current set up, you could get
> some really top notch troops, or you could get something
> worthless--something for everyone.

Note, though, that this is not just typical of the UN, you can have
that in any multi-national operation, for example the recent US
(et.al.) Special Forces and the Northern Alliance warriors. Or look at
a lot of WWII actions.
 
> Per Carlos Laurenco, 3/21/01:
> 
...
> Outside of a few isolated pockets you are looking at reliable
partners in such
> situations from my experience being:
> 
> Canadian forces (particularly the RCMP..they get a red
> chit)Other western European UN forces A smattering of odd little
countries
> 
> Notably horrid, unreliable, or otherwise "we'll leave you in the
lurch
> at the first sign of trouble" countries: (give all these
> guys a green "3" chit):
> 
> Anyone units from or near the Indian subcontinent, Middle
> East or African Nations
> 
> I have no experience working with the Aussies or Kiwis but I've no
doubt they > are in the first column from what other colleagues of mine
have told me. Also 
> there have been notable exceptions of occasional individuals good or
bad from 
> all sides.

Absolutely no problem with those statements. Pretty much what I gather
from the media.

Still, they are in a different class from John L's generalized "they
are not allowed to have ammo, as they might offend the locals who have
genocides to complete."

Greetings