Author Topic: U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (Read 3584 times)

Toad · « **Reply #150 on:** February 27, 2005, 11:31:39 PM »

Can't have it both ways.

First you say the UN troops won't go unless there's a "peace" to observe.

Then you say you have to have troops to send the missions into these places that are not peaceful.

Everybody knows there's no real "peace" going on in those places. That's why the soldiers are sent with guns, implying the use of force to "keep the peace".

Which is all BS as we've seen.

If it's too dangerous for civilians, it's too dangerous for soldiers with stupidly restrictive ROE.

If people die because the mission doesn't go.. .well then it would be about like Rwanda and all the rest of the failures, wouldn't it?

Not like it'd be anything new.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #151 on:** February 28, 2005, 01:04:32 AM »

Hah Virgil. Everyone is not as narrow minded as you to not to see trees from the forrest.

What I said is an undeniable fact no matter how you judge his other aspirations. In fact, the moral questions do not even need to be taken into the discussion - they're irrelevant.

The point (which you happily missed as you skid off the slippery contact surface of political correctness) was that Adolf was very close to create a unified continent, maybe two. There wouldn't be any mass killings or wars in any of those countries committed by the occupants. Adolf would do that part for them, although selectively and systematically.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #152 on:** February 28, 2005, 02:28:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
If there is no "real peace" why are the UN invited by the conflicting parties?

From what I have seen ceasefires and other temporary peaces are a very frequent and very frequentlyt broken in many of these conflicts. For example wasnt it in Sierra Leone that ther UN came in during some peace and almost immedatly war broke out again and seval hundred UN soldiers were actually taken hostage?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #153 on:** February 28, 2005, 02:41:15 AM »

I'm just suprised by your insitance on the idea that they come into supposedly peaceful areas when some ceasefire is in effect as if that really means anything concrete. I'm sure you are correct legally wrt to UN functioning but from what I have seen over the years these "peace" things seem incredibly unstable and unreliable. Basically that your "chit happens" seems to be the norm.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #154 on:** February 28, 2005, 02:49:35 AM »

How neutral are they percieved to be if only one warring party asked the UN to come in?

Also I'm curious how significant a cease fire is required to start the UN troop deployment process - whch I imagine must take months?

Martlet · « **Reply #155 on:** February 28, 2005, 05:00:42 AM »

Is that the same Bosnia where the UN set up prostitution rings and beat the prostitutes?

Zulu7 · « **Reply #156 on:** February 28, 2005, 05:22:25 AM »

Martlet · « **Reply #157 on:** February 28, 2005, 05:45:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Interesting who tried to cover it up and why.

"Ms Bolkovac was dismissed after revealing that UN peacekeepers went to nightclubs where girls as young as 15 were forced to dance naked and have sex with customers, and that UN personnel and international aid workers were linked to prostitution rings in the Balkans. The employment tribunal accepted that Ms Bolkovac, an American who was employed by DynCorp and contracted to the UN, had been dismissed for whistleblowing. She said the company wanted her removed because her work was threatening its "lucrative contract" to supply officers to the mission. "

"Ms Bolkovac is not the only employee who claims to have been unfairly dismissed by DynCorp over the sex trade scandal. Hours after she won her case lawyers for the company made an undisclosed financial settlement in a lawsuit in Texas with a former employee, Ben Johnston, who also exposed the affair.
Mr Johnston's case included allegations of men having sex with girls as young as 12. His claims also concerned a nightclub in Bosnia frequented by DynCorp employees, where young women were sold "hourly, daily or permanently""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,850107,00.html

So the truth is that an American mercenary company is largely responsible for the coverup. And of course, at the time the soldiers were under the NATO banner, not the UN, so I guess NATO as an organisation is just as guilty by your logic.

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone! We don't want anyone to know that the UN had it's hands in a prostitution ring, exploiting the people it was supposed to help.

The UN is made up of member countries. ANY instance I post you can in turn blame on someone else. What do they all have in common, though? Oh yeah. They were all UN.

Hmmmm. Weren't you a UN pimp?

lazs2 · « **Reply #158 on:** February 28, 2005, 08:29:40 AM »

they go around carrying guns like they were real soldiers and mean bussines. they ran into a real fight and got creamed.

They have a much better survival rate when they simply turn tail and run or call in U.S. air support/.

I say move the damn UN building to norway and forget about it.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #159 on:** February 28, 2005, 08:55:17 AM »

Agreed.

Get the US out, move the thing to Paris and just wait until after the next World War.

I'm sure they'll do a better job of writing the charter for the next one when they see what a goatrope this one turned into.

Toad · « **Reply #160 on:** February 28, 2005, 09:50:31 AM »

See? We do agree!

Staga · « **Reply #161 on:** February 28, 2005, 09:56:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
they go around carrying guns like they were real soldiers and mean bussines. they ran into a real fight and got creamed.

lazs

----------------------------------

Quote

U.S. Troops Ambushed in Central Iraq

KHALDIYAH, Iraq - U.S. troops were ambushed on the main road of this central Iraqi town Thursday, coming under heavy gunfire.
An Associated Press reporter who arrived on the scene saw two U.S. tanks surrounding a smoldering transport truck as helicopters hovered above. Taking fire from unknown position, U.S forces were seen firing in an apparent effort to protect themselves until reinforcements arrived.
Al-Arabiya television reported eight Americans were killed and one wounded.

Quote

Iraqis capture at least 5 U.S. troops in ambush
By Peter Baker, Thomas Lippman & Keith Richburg - Washington Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2003
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 4Next Page

Iraqi forces ambushed U.S. troops moving toward Baghdad today, killing an estimated 16 Americans and capturing at least five soldiers who were displayed on television in graphic footage that also showed dead U.S. soldiers.

Looks like plenty of US troops have gotten their arses handed to them in plate; or like Lazs says "they go around carrying guns like they were real soldiers and mean bussines. they ran into a real fight and got creamed."

Toad · « **Reply #162 on:** February 28, 2005, 09:58:34 AM »

Forgot the initial campaign already Staga?

Yeah... our troops just aren't too good.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #163 on:** February 28, 2005, 10:25:34 AM »

Toad how does the initial conventional attack phase compare to the current situation? It doesn't.

The example Staga gave was a direct match to the enviroment where the UN got in trouble. But let's not let that bother us, right?

Toad · « **Reply #164 on:** February 28, 2005, 10:38:33 AM »

No, Staga made a generalized statement.

As for further comparison, US troops in Iraq are doing what UN troops should be doing on "Peacekeeping" missions. IE: proactive rather than reactive "shoot only in self-defense" operations.

Yeah, we do lose guys in Iraq... but we're going after the bad guys.

The UN loses guys without going after the bad guys.

I'd rather be proactive.