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

At 12:12  22/07/01 -0400, Ryan wrote:
>>[ Derek ] 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.

Which is my point exactly, without US support the UN would not have been

able to intervene and this is difference between the UN of today and the
UN 
of the GZG-verse. The latter body has the means to back up it's
resolutions 
and that means is of course is the UNSC.

>>[ Derek ] 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.

The Cold War is a different can of beans to a group of nations following

their own agendas butting heads in a peace keeping operation.

>>[ Derek ] 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.

And the American government of the day helped set that mess up by 
torpedoing the original European (British sponsored) attempt at a
solution. 
This IS a 'red herring' Ryan :) and I am more than willing to discuss
this 
point off list.

Derek

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

Phone; (03) 62459123
Mobile; 0438459123
Email; derekfulton@bigpond.com