[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[JF Mezei]

Doug Phillips wrote:

> Bosnian Muslims were being slaughtered and the UN wanted to stop arm
> shipments to them. The Serbs were still getting arms from someplace,
> though.

The USA refused to help impose the blockade on serbs and then fueled the
fire by sending arms to muslims. WHILE UN PEACEKEEPING FORCES WERE THERE
AND TOLD NOT TO USE FIREARMS.

> Hmmm. My memory of that is bit different, as are the accounts you
> could read if you cared to. The UN was operating under a defensive-
> fire only order from the UN, if that's what you're talking about.

The nations who had sent troups there requested in multiple occasiosn
the right to use firearms to deal with the fact that everyone there was
armed and they were using their arms. The USA vetoed the requests
consistently even though the USA had nobody on the ground there.

Then the USA complained that the UN forces were ineffective.

It was a canadian in charge of the mission and when a canadian solder
was kidnapped by muslim forces, the canadians forces were denied the
right to use force to free their soldier.

The point I am trying to make: The USA took steps to ensure the UN
mission failed, and then they walsed in there without any UN
restrictions and got the dayton agreement and americans think it was all
solved by americans and that the UN was incompetent.

The best thing that could happen to the UN would be for the "veto" to be
removed from security council members.