Actually the UN peacekeepers have proven useful in quite a few places. As for the Arab League comment, I completely agree; it's a bit like the plaintiffs in the recent Obamacare case suggesting that Congress can just fix the law. Yeah, sure, this Congress will get right on that.
Couldn't find the old video on youtube, but I recall an interview of Omar decades ago, where he was asked about this. IIRC, his reply was along the lines of, "Arabs have been killing each other for hundreds of years. No one cared, until oil was found under them."
I remember they were very useful for Mladic when they helped him round up folks in Srebrenica and put on them buses which drove them out into the woods, where they were slaughtered.
Yeah, but that's far too cynical. We haven't given a shit about Lybia's oil for 30 years (since Hunt's oil was taken from him); the notion that we wanted oil from Lybia is silly. We're still the country that has pangs of guilt over Rwanda, and there's never been any oil there. The truth is, it looks bad when the world's cop doesn't try to stop a murder in progress.
Omar may have been a cynical guy. The general point remains, that Arabs continue to have a thing for slaughtering their opponents, given half a chance. While the world's reaction varies from shock to indifference, nothing much seems to be done about it. Israel has taken note of this. The quote was probably from before that time, when we cared a little bit about Libya. I've a story about Rwanda, but it's not for this board. Unfortunately, we can't stop all the world's murders. Many expect us to always step in; no one else seems to act, or act appropriately. When we do, there's still criticism, or lack of appreciation, even when it's humanitarian. http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/03/06/does-humanitarian-aid-improve-americas-image/
Boy, is that ignorant and offensive http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/dutch-liable-srebrenica-massacre-deaths
Care to elaborate? I suppose what constitutes or defines useful is important as well. Also defining mission and what constitutes its success is important to define as well. When looking at overall mission I believe you have a point and may even be right about usefulness but when looking at the UN failures it is the latter that far overshadows any successes. With regards to Srebrenica since it was brought up, there is witness testimony from survivors that claim to support what Sudzuka posted which you in turn referred to as anecdotal. The actions of the Dutch UN peacekeepers or more importantly the non-actions make them complicit in my opinion in the atrocities committed as a direct result of Srebrinica. Anecdotal evidence alone doesn't lead to the Dutch government resigning en mass nor does it lead to high ranking officers resigning. Even the Hague found that the Dutchbat failed the mission. On the bright side, the Dutch did award medals to the soldiers that served in Srebrinica. FFS they even erected a plaque at their barracks praising them for what I haven't a clue.
It's neither. The fact that there was an incident of UN peacekeeping troops exercising bad judgment doesn't mean they're bad generally.
Not sure how Israel works into this, but the truth is, it is overly cynical. We didn't react t Lybia because of the oil. If we had, we would have ensured that the oil would have continued to flow or that, at least, the oil fields that used to belonged to the Hunts were returned; we did neither. We left once Qadaffi was gone and now there's barely any oil because of all the fighting. For instance, the western governments were starting to make unpleasant noises about the Rajpaksas activities in Sri Lanka recently, and they're not Arabs. We also got involved in the secession of East Timor (via the UN), etc. The real politique view of American foreign policy mostly suffers from being incomplete. But you're applying it to today. I too have tales of adventure, but what's your point? As I said, it looks bad when the world's cop does nothing. And Libya* is much more in the popular imagination than, say, the Congo, where most of the world can't tell who the bad guys are. (Everybody, basically.) Libya was also an easy target, since it's a mostly flat sparsely populated region that was well suited to air support missions. *To show @Timon19 I can spell when it's not really late
This may not be enough to make a general statement either, but the original cholera breakout in Haiti after the earthquake was traced back to Nepalese UN peacekeepers literally dumping their shit in places that would eventually wash down to Port-au-Prince's heavily populated shantytowns.
I know a number of people who work at the UN - the number of missions they have is quite high; the odds of all of them being successful are very, very low.
One man's cynicism is another's realism. Seems appropriate, as Arabs/Muslims continue to slaughter each other. Frankly, since we're currently energy self-sufficient, it may be a good time to step back and let others prove that they can solve the ME's problems. We're still in Afghanistan; that should be enough for now. Any US boots on the ground will lead to efforts to cause US casualties. If we have to deploy a few drones, that's enough for the time being.
But again, that's my very point - the fact that we get involved shows that our foreign policy is NOT "real politique". We may be bad at upholding our ideals at times, but these days, we often do act in their spirit. There was no other reason to intervene in Libya. Whether we should now ignore such actions raises difficult moral decisions.
There have always been difficult moral decisions. We can't be everywhere. We can't take on everyone. Some lines have to be drawn. We've stayed out of some conflicts, for a variety of reasons, sometimes strategic, sometimes political. The US does not have to become isolationist; it can still act indirectly. Unfortunately, the sides and loyalties in many of these conflicts shift, and there seems to be little overall progress.
Well it looks like things are going to heat up between SA and Iran. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32061632 I found that amusing given how much Iran is interfering with Yemeni soverignty.
Good news imo. Let the saudis trap themselves in a quagmire and bleed themselves out in Yemen (if they decide on a ground invasion), a country where historically nobody has been very successful, not even the Egyptians. And from recent report it seems the Houthis are advancing despite these airstrikes, making ground operation more likely. The Arab world is simply just a fail. They kill their own kin or arab brothers, to somehow poke at Iran lol