It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UN Forces

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I would like to know how many units and units the UN has.

I understand that every counrty gives some.

But what number is that some?

Out,
Russian




posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Does anyone know?

Out,
Russian



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I don't know it for sure, but I think UN has no permanent forces. I think all military UN forces are temporary created for some crisis and when the scrisis is gone the units are gone.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Russian, glad to see you back! Haven't heard from you in a while!
Here is the info you are looking for I think:


Troop Strength Worldwide



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
Russian, glad to see you back! Haven't heard from you in a while!
Here is the info you are looking for I think:


Troop Strength Worldwide





Thank You

Out,
Russian



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Deos anyone else know anything about the UN Forces?

Out,
Russian



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
they cant return or open fire
they are just for show



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
they cant return or open fire
they are just for show


That must of suck!!!

Just look at your wqeapon but dont shoot it!


Out,
Russian



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
can any 1 send me pdf so i can open these sorts of webpages

because for some reason i carnt :/



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 06:59 PM
link   
yes russian but i do belive that sometimes they have the authority to fire but only under nato comand or something like that



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   
here in Canada, if you're are part of the regular force...i believe you have to do a minimum of one tour with the UN (just 6 months) before your 3-4 years is up. Plus, you have soldiers who continue to volunteer for the UN...so there really isnt a set number for the UN forces as a whole. It would probably be better to find out which country contributes the most soldiers



posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
i can tell u that right now the US cause they have a really large military and have always been UN likeing ,well not likeing but associated



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Interesting, UN uses school bus to transport it troops




posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:07 PM
link   
US gives the most and our guys are the most used in the UN. i liked how it was us and the pakastanis in somilia. the UN needs to call on someone else for a change. they want to give all this humanitarian aid but who ends up actually doing it? most of the time its the US. i say we dont help em on the next african civil war!



posted on Jun, 4 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
US gives the most and our guys are the most used in the UN. i liked how it was us and the pakastanis in somilia. the UN needs to call on someone else for a change. they want to give all this humanitarian aid but who ends up actually doing it? most of the time its the US. i say we dont help em on the next african civil war!



Actually, as a percentage, UK and French troops are called up more than US troops. Why shouldn't America provide more? You have the stronger military, you consume more of the world's resources in a year than over half the other countries in the world combined.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

i say we dont help em on the next african civil war!

Been there done that Rwanda 1994 800 000 Rwandans died in genocide because the U.S. amoung the other leading nations of the U.N. refused to send enough troops in.
Also what a U.N. solider can do is dependent on the mission, they're best known for their peacekeeping where it's true they have very restricting rules of engagment. On the other hand the U.N. can send troops in on a more agressive RoE under some of the other chapters, recently the idea of a chapter 7 and a half(I think) mission has come up. This is for maintaining and policing a ceacefire and if the situation calls for it, using force to keep the two parties good.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   
why are we caring about who provides more forces ?
we should care about how many troops WE can send not how many our neighbor can.
besides the UN is very impressive dont u think ?



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

besides the UN is very impressive dont u think ?

Only as impressive as the donor nations.
In Rwanda(I read a book about it so it's my example of choice) the donor nations that were most liked were the Ghanians and Tanzanians who were well diciplined well equipped and well led. The Beligians on the other hand weren't as well diciplined and treated to civilians with great disrespect, but they weren't too bad. The worst was by far the Bangledeshi who came with little equipment were poorly led and diciplined, so bad that they were very difficult to order into any situation that they deemed a bit dangerous(in Rwanda that was everything).



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
yeah but it is impressive when u c lots of soldiers from difrent countries fighting together and with the same goal



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The link below list troop and other personnel from 1995 to jan 2004.
Jan 2004 48,590 personnel of which 42,076 troops active in 15 missions.
link


As of January 2004 93 Countries contribute troops

BANGLADESH 6,258 TROOPS
INDIA 2,534 " "
NEPAL 2,078 " "
NIGERIA 3,236 " "
PAKISTAN 6,521 " "
U K 412 " "
RUSSIA 114 " "
USA 2 " "

PULLED INFO FROM U.N WEBSITE SUPRISED ALL YOU YANKS WHO THINK YOU ARE EVERYWHERE IN LARGE NUMBERS,BUT REMEMBER U N FOR PEACEKEEPING IF THEY SENT TO MANY YANKS YOU START TO MANY WARS


[edit on 11-6-2004 by weirdo]

[edit on 11-6-2004 by weirdo]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join