THIS is progress! Part Two!!

[Toad]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Well, it depends on the level of crisis and the specific situation.

Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.

I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.

Now name another one.

Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.

I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.

Now name another one.

Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.

If you removed the 25 percent or so US funding of the UN then you can pretty much eliminate all of them.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

I highly doubt its as optmistic as you believe it is Toad, I'm more inclined to believe Jamusta has it right.

If it were for the sake of securing our borders, they'd have been home two years ago.
-SW

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.

I'll give you Timor, but even that had a small US communications component that was necessary but unavailable without us.

Now name another one.

Cripes. UNPROFOR couldn't handle the SERBS fer pete's sake.

US was not in Cypress when it blew up in the early 70s.

[Toad]

IIRC, the UN had a ceasefire in place and it was holding before UN troops went.

Or are you saying the UN troops went into a "hot" shooting war and had to engage like in Korea in the 50's?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
Really? Name one relatively large scale UN operation in a shooting environment that had success without the US.

Toad, this has been a "relatively" agreeable discusion.  Up to the point you wish me to quantify a "relatively" large scale UN operation.  

I wouldn't assume to imagine that we have understood scale, seeing as our last discussion on such matters lead to a less than satisfactory (but appartently mutually agreeable) solution, using US dollar costs.

[Toad]

Thrawn, if you step back you'll realize you are arguing a lost point.

The UN cannot mount a major military operation without US participation. Period.

Now, things can go along quite nicely without us if only "peacekeeping" operations are required in places that have basically a "small arms" situation/problem.

However, using Kuwait as the most recent example of something outside of a "small arms situation", it's clear that removing a mechanized aggressor from an invaded country cannot be done without US participation.

A Korean scenario would be far worse than Kuwait.

The UN can handle "small arms" without us. The world might stumble along just fine for a while but eventually some loony-toon would get the idea that there's no one to stop him. He'd be right, of course. And then the party would be on again all around the world.

[Saintaw]

Originally posted by gofaster
We invade Mexico in the Spring!

*hijack*

That part in "The Day After" where you can see Americans running across the Mexican border was pretty funny

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
The UN cannot mount a major military operation without US participation. Period.

Once again, it depends on specific coutries that support it and their commitment.

It seems to me your saying that combined deployable military forces of the entire world, minus the US, can't win a war against a given country.  And I don't believe that's true.