Author Topic: U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (Read 3720 times)

Tumor · « **Reply #135 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:39:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
blah blah drivel drivel troll troll whine whine

Martlet, I beg of you... please stop quoting him.

Martlet · « **Reply #136 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:47:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tumor
Martlet, I beg of you... please stop quoting him.

I understand. Watching him defend rapists and criminals gets to me, too.

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
That is a "fact" you have yet to "prove". Tsk tsk, you mean you are "completely full of crap"? Thought so.

I've got work to do, so go ahead; I'll let you have the last word for now.

Ahhh, so you didn't read a single thing I quoted, and your argument has sunk to

"prove it".

That guilt must be eating you alive.

Tumor · « **Reply #137 on:** February 27, 2005, 02:51:13 PM »

Oh, by all means... carry on the fight. It's just that I haven't read any of his garbage for months, not that I can avoid anyway. Just a friendly request.

Toad · « **Reply #138 on:** February 27, 2005, 06:17:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
LOL I love that little attack on my service at the end there. Where were you standing at the time? Watching it on TV would be my guess "Oh that's terrible - Honey! Bring me another beer!".

It's not an attack on your service.

1. We all know you served with the Norwegian contingent.

2. We all know you were in the area at the time; you've mentioned it more than once.

3. I said this earlier in the thread:

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I'm sure he went with the best of intentions. I'm sure he didn't realize that the UN ROE were setting him up for painful failure not of his own making.

Clearly, I don't see that you had any responsibility with respect to the slaughter. I assume you served quite honorably. The Norwegians weren't The ROE you had screwed your mission from the very start.

Ask yourself when the situation over there began to stablize. What did it take? You know the answer and that's what it's going to take for UN "Peacekeepers" to be taken seriously anywhere.

Martlet · « **Reply #139 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:48:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
When it comes down to it no government really cares what goes on in these backwater hellholes, at least not enough to do something.

Including stopping the corrupt UN from exploiting the population.

Martlet · « **Reply #140 on:** February 27, 2005, 07:53:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Whatever.

Shhhhh. Ignore it. People will think it never happened.

Toad · « **Reply #141 on:** February 27, 2005, 08:37:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
You may not like it, I may not like it, but that's the reality of the world we live in.

You still don't get it.

"Like" isn't in it.

It's just pointless, worthless and just cost the Bangladeshis their lives. All because UN ROE is beyond stupid.

A waste.

Toad · « **Reply #142 on:** February 27, 2005, 10:37:26 PM »

No, I think you might as well leave the soldiers at home.

Have you read that before in this thread?

Lizking · « **Reply #143 on:** February 27, 2005, 10:43:03 PM »

Given those (debatable) examples, Gscholz, it looks like the last 10 years have left the UN a useless, corrupt organision.

Toad · « **Reply #144 on:** February 27, 2005, 10:45:47 PM »

No, you never state my position correctly.

Peacekeeping missions are worthwhile.

However, the way the UN runs them, the ROE they use, they are pointless. They get people killed, like the Bangladeshis, for stupid reasons.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #145 on:** February 27, 2005, 10:58:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf

That kind of criminals can be dealt with only in one way - surgical removal. But as long as the leadership of the world is full of sissies and treehugging politically correct ladies, the countries will never unite to form a true force that would dictate the rules and supervise them effectively.

Hitler was close to achieve that situation. That fact remains no matter what you think of the ideology behind his actions.

Did you actually read that before you posted it?

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #146 on:** February 27, 2005, 11:07:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Toad did you read the link you did post?
Here; let me help you:
"
(CNN) --
U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush'[(b]

At least nine U.N. peacekeepers have been killed after unidentified gunmen attacked two patrols in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to the U.N.

One U.N. source said it was unclear how many troops had been on patrol but the number should have been between 20 and 30.
He said 90 peacekeepers backed by two Mi25 attack helicopters had since been sent to the scene.
"

So they were ambushed and had casualties. Well that happens quite often when soldiers got ambushed you know?
Out of 20-30 men 9 died. Heavy toll but nothing new in combat zone; I'm sure you have read similar stories from Iraq.
You said UN soldiers were not allowed to fight... well from 20-30 soldiers 9 died; what happened to the rest?

Also if they aren't allowed to fight... Why send more troops backed up with a frigging Mi-25 "Hind" attack helicopters?? Were they sposed to act as moving targets or what?

Man You don't make much sense.

Please explain.

That's 30% casualties, fatal casualties, not counting wounded. It happens when you send amatuers to do a professional job. UN "peacekeepers" are human targets, lacking enough firepower and manpower to get the job done. They merely provide targets, for groups who don't want peace, to focus their efforts on. It's a waste of human life. Send soldiers to do a soldiers job, and let them be soldiers. Give them what they need to do the job. Send diplomats, construction workers, and other humanitarians to work out peace. The two can work side by side, but "peacekeepers" will never be soldiers, and should never be sent where soldiers are required.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #147 on:** February 27, 2005, 11:19:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
As for the rest of you people whom are (shamelessly) attacking the UN for this ... you're either too ignorant or too stupid to understand that a peacekeeper's job is not to win a war or fight a battle or make peace.

The job of a peacekeeper is to oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see. In every conflict where UN peacekeepers have been deployed they were invited by at least one of the parties to the conflict to act as neutral observers.

You'll obviously never get it.

My position on the UN is the same as it has been. It is no longer viable. It is corrupt, and morally bankrupt. The UN should get out of policy making and do nothing but humanitarian aid.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #148 on:** February 27, 2005, 11:22:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I find it comic how much many of the posters here seem to hate UN and France even though they have no real sensible reason to do so.

Power of the media.

At least they aren't pointing out and extolling Hitler's better "virtues".

Lizking · « **Reply #149 on:** February 27, 2005, 11:25:31 PM »

I would give the UN 100% support as a humanitarian aid organisation, so long as there are strict controls in place to prevent anyone involved from making money from their "assistance".