I predict that within the next 20 years the United Nations will develop a new agency soley commited to the maintaining current peace (such as the United States and say the European Union,) furthering future peace (say India and Pakistan) and bringing about peace (say between Russia and Chechnya)
I would say that mounting political pressures, especially if Bush wins the election, would force the UN to take up a job that has belonged to the United States and it's allies since the end of the Cold War.
A key difference I would put in however, would be that these neo-peacemakers have more backing than just say UN and IMF sanctions. I would also give the UN a limited strike military, with the intent to conduct stabilizing missions such as was needed in Liberia this past year. This would also give the added benefit of allowing the UN to protect civilians durring larger conflicts as well, say if Israel were to invade the Gaza Strip, the UN could dispach forces to protect civilians in Gaza City, thereby forcing the Israelis not to do anything like carpet bomb, because UN troops would be stationed in positions to counter.

Tell me what you think

~Urban

Originally posted by urbanmastermind
I predict that within the next 20 years the United Nations will develop a new agency

Great. Another useless and expensive UN Agency. All what we needs.

U-P

Your avatar is a piece of #, not fitting your mood at all.

Why not head up the new, useless, expensive UN agency instead? You could watch violent crud all day that way.

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
I predict that within the next 20 years the United Nations will develop a new agency

Great. Another useless and expensive UN Agency. All what we needs.

Yea! UN is pure bull#. Those damn peacekeepers and diplomatics and it's our money!
I want a new Playstation! Fu-ck african states!


---


Can you enlight me which UN agencies are for your disgust so I can understand your extreme opinion about his speculations?