Quote History Quoted:
What does that even mean? I swear, people here act as if the UN is some sort of body outside of itself. Like a giant Golem for countries to call on? The U.S. and UK pretty much came up with the concept, were founding members, and remain 2 of the 5 permanent Security Council members.
There were no UN peacekeepers in Korea. Still aren't. The UN was considered a combatant.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meh.
Their negatives have far outstripped their positives.
Gee, South Korea? I would have thought that with out our blood and treasure that would have been impossible.........and the UK and the South Koreans.
Are you suggesting the U.S. and UK weren't in the UN? I'm confused.
no, quite the contrary, The US and the UK took the lead..........the comment about a shit load of UN peacekeepers in Korea seemed to say that it was the UN in general carried the load. It was the US along with the UK and the South Koreans themselves..............
What does that even mean? I swear, people here act as if the UN is some sort of body outside of itself. Like a giant Golem for countries to call on? The U.S. and UK pretty much came up with the concept, were founding members, and remain 2 of the 5 permanent Security Council members.
There were no UN peacekeepers in Korea. Still aren't. The UN was considered a combatant.
The history of the UN is relevant today only in the lesson it teaches about how an institution created with the best of intentions (and even a written charter) can evolve into something invidious and overbearing, existing primarily for the benefit of a small class of imperious bureaucrats, martinets, narcissists, and egotists, with a subset of psychopaths and tyrants thrown in for good measure.
Not unlike our current federal government and our Constitution.
Of course, for a statist such as yourself, the evolution of the U. S. government and the U. N. are good things.