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

At 12:18 AM +1000 7/23/01, Derek Fulton wrote:
>
>Actually this is pretty much beside the point [ a red herring :) ]

Hardly. France wasn't up to the job. Austrailia could have 
contributed more material/men but they would have been bled dry 
pretty fast. Holding the Pusan perimeter and the amphib landing 
counter attack were pretty much the key to the entire war. Unless the 
US chipped in, South Korea would have ceased to exist.

>Never happen? never say never. Who would of thought that a year or 
>so ago 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?

Umm, lessee, since about 1945? Oh that cold war thing being over is 
just a lull.

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

But doing what? There were UN troops in Bosnia and Croatia for a good 
part of those conflicts, did they do a damn bit of good, not really. 
Too bogged down in committee to allow for realistic ROE.

--
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@SPAMturner.com  I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -