HOME | DD

cloudmonet In reply to Skoshi8 [2008-12-02 21:36:51 +0000 UTC]

Actually, it's mashed potatos with a little bit of beef stew, and they're having it for breakfast. Yeah, that's odd, but they are in a famine area, and running short of supplies.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Skoshi8 In reply to cloudmonet [2008-12-04 01:28:04 +0000 UTC]

I have no problem with eating beef stew for breakfast.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cloudmonet In reply to turbolover175 [2008-12-02 09:40:13 +0000 UTC]

This probably isn't the time or place to get into a lengthy defense of the UN, and I'll admit as an institution they're far from perfect, but they're definitely worthy of respect, and often quite useful. Kofi Annan impressed me quite a bit— he's retired now, and I don't know as much about the new guy.

Is the UN often victimized by all sorts of third-world corruption? Sure! It's hard to deal with or help third-world people without having this kind of trouble. That's partly what this story will be about. Trying to clean up the corruption can sometimes cause worse trouble than leaving it alone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

turbolover175 In reply to cloudmonet [2008-12-03 09:10:24 +0000 UTC]

The UN could make a lot of itself, except its peacekeeping forces always cut and run when they ever have to keep the peace. Like with this pic, Kim, Ron and the lot will drop off their supplies and leave, and then the warlords will run straight in and steal, rape and kill. Cleaning up corruption can be awfully messy, but you need to do a thorough job of it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cloudmonet In reply to turbolover175 [2008-12-03 10:12:04 +0000 UTC]

That's a good point— but it's probably going to be some time before the UN's allowed to intervene militarily to that extent. And if they did have this power, it might only lead to the kind of mess that happened when the US intervened in Somalia a while back.

When to use more force, when to use less— these are very tricky questions for which there is as yet no definitive handbook. We are all stumbling around, trying to improve human nature when short-sighted self interest offers tempting counter-arguments.

At least there is a UN, Alsace-Lorraine is no longer quarreled over like Kashmir, and there's no longer a world war every 25 years. Things do seem to be improving, though I suppose they could get worse again.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

turbolover175 In reply to cloudmonet [2008-12-04 08:24:10 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, Somalia was a problem. If you're going to intervene militarily, you need to be ready to go all the way, and not send in just enough to conceivably end the struggle. I mean, whether you're talking about the UN or the US, if either one just went in full-scale and levelled the entire country, there would be no more insurgents. It's like what that "Punisher" guy said, "to secure peace, you must prepare for war". Peacekeeping is not a seperate entity from war, it's just disguised in a friendly wrapper, naddamean? And to treat it differently from war, like Somalia, Iraq, etc., will always lead to problems.

As far as an all-out war goes, I think all the possibly evil countries are scared into inactivity by their surroundings. If Iran really acted the fool and crossed the line, India and Israel would blast them back to the stone age. It's the same with North Korea, surrounded by China, Japan, South Korea, etc. China might seem a little iffy from time to time, but they're all enjoying the wonders of gigantic Western-style economic growth, you know, capitalism, Olympics, McDonalds, etc., to risk it all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

cloudmonet In reply to turbolover175 [2008-12-04 21:04:18 +0000 UTC]

I would argue that peacekeeping is somewhat different than other military intervention, even peacemaking— note the UN distinguishes between these two. It's rarely willing to peacemake. NATO usually gets this job. Peacekeeping is kinda like standing guard. Peacemaking more like quieting a riot in progress.

And it's way, way more difficult than some other kind of war, precisely because going all the way isn't an option. You're trying to save lives, right? The final option isn't levelling the place in question, but withdrawing completely.

At least usually. If you're trying to stop a genocide, the problem is even worse, because then giving up is pretty much off the table.

I think where the US went wrong in Somalia and to some degree Iraq, to whatever extent our role in Iraq is peacemaking or peacekeeping, was that we chose enemies.

I know this sounds bizarre, cause someone who's trying to kill you is an enemy, right? In regular war, yes. In a peacemaking mission, you're supposed to be objective, a third armed force coming between the antagonists. If you completely join one side, you're just getting involved as that side's ally.

This certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot back at anyone who's firing at you. You do. Cops do this. But the main objective is to impress those guys with your prowess that they're willing to consider negotiating a truce. You never try to wipe them out.

We won the war in Iraq. We beat Saddam Hussein and the Baath party and army. We wiped them out. They surrendered or disappeared.

But then we elected to stay as peacekeepers— and there's where we got in trouble, precisely because we continued to take sides. It was when we started negotiating with the Sunnis and Iran-loving radical Shi'ites that things started getting a little better.

But at this point almost all the Iraqis don't want us there anymore— and that's another characteristic of peacekeeping or peacemaking, the locals have to invite you!

Anyway, thanks for this continuing discussion. The more I think about every angle to these problems, the better the story I can write.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

cloudmonet In reply to slicknickshady [2008-12-01 20:34:16 +0000 UTC]

Hmm. Well, I guess you haven't been reading my DA journal pages, until maybe just now, have you? A classic fanfiction? We'll see! I am pretty excited about the new story, but it is different from all the others.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0