U.S. Troops Serving Under U.N. Control

I am totally against the placing of United States military resources under the direct and complete control of the United Nitwits.  

Michael New is correct in his insistence that:
"I have a problem with that, because I am not UN. I explained this to my lieutenant, and told him, 'Sir, I don't think I should have to wear a UN arm band or a UN beret. I'm enlisted in the U.S. Army; I am not a U.N. soldier. I have taken no vow to the UN; I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies foreign and domestic. I regard the UN as a separate power.... Where does my oath say that I have to wear UN insignia?'"

Placing foreign commanders over U.S. troops is foolhardy in the least.  They are not trained in the techniques of how our military is deployed, and therefore are more than likely to put our personnel into dangerous situations.

The restrictions of the Useless Nitwits in executing a “peacekeeping” mission is idiotic from the start.  Go into an out of control situation where people are being slaughtered, but don’t dare shoot at anyone, even if you see genocide taking place.  If the bad guys steal the Humanitarian Aid, right under your nose, to feed their troops and supporters, don’t do anything.  It might just antagonize the situation.

If they are going to send armed personnel to a place that needs to be controlled and then do nothing to assert the needed control, then there is no reason for them to be there.  The only thing accomplished is we end up with a fairly accurate count of how many innocent people were killed while we were there protecting (?) them.