Should the U.S. government support the United Nations with more troops and equipment rather than just primarily money?

2015-08-05T08:59:58-04:00

Although the overall motives of the Bangledesh government might be just about money, I find it odd that this country supports the UN with more troops than any other nation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/why-1-small-nation-plays-a-major-role-in-peacekeeping/ar-BBlps6t

Why 1 Small Nation Plays a Major Role in Peacekeeping

For poor nations, standing up for world peace can be a profitable business.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 5 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-08-05T09:02:23-04:00

I may be wrong, but doesn't the US provide support to UN missions with money AND manpower? Granted, we don't often serve under the UN flag but rather along side the UN forces. Then again I can be way off.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2015 4:54 PM

2015-09-22T16:54:06-04:00

The United Nations receives considerable monetary support and with such broad interests represented, there are very few tangible benefits (if any) to using our own manpower to support UN operations, which have a truly terrible reputation for failure and bureaucratic infighting. UN military operations have a record comparable to the 2008 Detroit Lions: Srebrenica (Bosnia), Darfur, Rwanda... the list goes on. Not to mention that these troops would most likely be used to stabilize African countries in which we have little to no stake
Organizations with less broad interests, such as NATO, are a far better use of our money and manpower, especially given the permanent member status of China and Russia in the UN since their veto will effectively stop any real progress. They're skeptical of Western designs on other countries, even if those designs involve stopping genocides.

The UN is a good tool for achieving dialogue with other member states, but little more.