Iraqi Crisis

[GeoMuller]

Where is the United Nations in all this? Isn't this what it was created for? Why aren't UN peace-keeping forces there

[ToraToraTora]

what ever gave you that idea? The UN has no forces, it does have some blue hats to dish out though. It's primary job is to elect a leader with a silly name and to pass resolutions against Israel. They also do a lot of talking, they have no useful function really, although their building did help with the start of Live and let die.

[jim360]

The UN does have a peacekeeping force but the problem is that there is a lack of "unitedness" in the UN. At the head table sit the US, Russia and China, who are so often just poles apart on issues like this. As is usually the case that's because of internal politics. A UN just doesn't work on principle if there is more than one nation involved.

[youngmafbog]

Well more than one 'powerful' Nation.

The UN is a total waste of time and money and is just jobs for the cronies.

[ludwig]

// It's primary job is to elect a leader with a silly name //

Boutros Boutros Ghali was my favourite.
So good they named him twice.

[ludwig]

I think they'd say there's no peace to keep at the moment.
They'd get slaughtered if they went into Iraq.

IS would think, 'Look, these infidel idiots are in white tanks - don't they realise that makes them easier targets?'

[Quizmonster]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Boutros Boutros Ghali actually means "stone stone cheap" in Arabic, but I'm happy to be corrected by anyone who is more familiar with that or whatever other language is involved. As it is, I think I actually prefer the English translation!

[ChillDoubt]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1354511.html

[ichkeria]

A peace keeping force only makes sense if there is peace.
Which there isn't

[1rovert]

league of nations was worthless like the united nations, they are are only there to fill their pockets.

They have never meant to keep peace, just collect money to spend on goodies.

keeping peace, was irreverent.