- Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:22 am
#19870
Hi,
This question was a little challenging for me to get through and understand. My basic interpretation of the passage was that the UNSC authorized the military to intervene in a country in order to make peace in that country, but one country's parliament in the UN who represented his nation condemned the prime minister of his own country for contributing military support to the action. But one parliament leader insists that just because they wanted resolution doesn't mean that they're unwilling to send military and contribute to the action. I see the paradox but don't understand why it exists, which makes it hard for me to come up with a prophase. Clarification for this question would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much.
Kim
This question was a little challenging for me to get through and understand. My basic interpretation of the passage was that the UNSC authorized the military to intervene in a country in order to make peace in that country, but one country's parliament in the UN who represented his nation condemned the prime minister of his own country for contributing military support to the action. But one parliament leader insists that just because they wanted resolution doesn't mean that they're unwilling to send military and contribute to the action. I see the paradox but don't understand why it exists, which makes it hard for me to come up with a prophase. Clarification for this question would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much.
Kim