First Casualties?
March 23, 2003 10:06 PM   Subscribe

First Casualties? NATO, the U.N. A 3 day old article, but it gave me a much better understanding of the workings of the U.N. and NATO and what the strengths and weaknesses are of each.

"What is surprising, however, is the trouble the U.N. has had acting effectively even after the U.S.-Soviet rivalry ended. Again and again during the 1990s, the U.N. appeared helpless to meet “unsanctioned” aggressions in places like Rwanda, Liberia, the Horn of Africa and, especially, in the Balkans. "
posted by Ron (4 comments total)
NATO is obsolete already? Damn, talk about being late to a party.
posted by Ljubljana at 11:49 PM on March 23, 2003

Aw, come on. Just because the U.N. didn't do shit about those little tragedies where millions died doesn't mean they didn't CARE. Or that they're INEFFECTIVE. I'm SURE there's something, somewhere, in the U.N. archives with the words "regrettable" and "unfortunate" on them pertaining to Bosnia, Liberia, and the Rwandan massacres. And maybe even a resolution or two.

I mean - they CARE, so isn't that the same as actually taking effective action?

It's not? You mean that passing resolutions doesn't automatically work?


Here I thought that passing resolutions was really ACCOMPLISHING something.

posted by JB71 at 6:27 AM on March 24, 2003

U.S. Forms Own U.N.
posted by homunculus at 6:06 PM on March 25, 2003

Interestingly enough, the big winners here are the other world powers, especially Russia, who probably drooled gallons (ok, liters) over the prospect that NATO would turn sour.
posted by namespan at 6:50 PM on March 25, 2003

« Older God bless those courageous stars   |   Tony Fitzpatrick's Complex Color Etchings Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments