Middle East - DejaVu?

[Sikboy]

That's a very good point Thrawn. The only suggestion that I have is that when national interests dictate, ANY nation would most likely choose to withdraw from Peacekeeping activities and divert those units to the war front.

-Sikboy

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Sikboy
That's a very good point Thrawn. The only suggestion that I have is that when national interests dictate, ANY nation would most likely choose to withdraw from Peacekeeping activities and divert those units to the war front.

-Sikboy

Hells ya.

[easymo]

Note to self.

  Toad hole is politically incorrect insult. Must come up with new hole.

  Sorry toad.

[Hangtime]

Oh, I know of your WW2 history. Finns can and will fight and fight hard for Finland.

lol!

And there's the rub, ain't it. For Finland. And Swedes for Sweden, as long as they can stay neutral and make money from whoever happens to be winning.

I'm with Toad.. we did the job for the last half a century; stared down the soviets, saw europe thru it's reconstruction and restoration.. time for somebody else to stand up at the plate. I'd love to see the noble swedes and the proud finns settle the middle east problem.. after all; the prevailing winds that will carry the fallout if they fail will sweep over their countrys.. not ours.

When the stuff has truly hit the fan somewhere in the world, when bullets are flying and people are dying, has the cry ever gone up to "Send for the Finns!"

You, Toad; are the master. I salute you!

[Thrawn]

The US was making plenty of money off of Europe, before they got involved in WW1 and WW2.  The US didn't join either war until they were personally attacked.  US for the US if they will.

What war did the US enter this century that wasn't in their own best interests, as far as the political thought at the time is concerned.

Please, don't automatically stick me in american-haters column.  Think about it then stick me in that column.

[Hangtime]

What war did the US enter this century that wasn't in their own best interests, as far as the political thought at the time is concerned.

nato?

korea?

vietnam?

middle east?

mogidishu?

[Sclew]

Originally posted by Staga
16 hour work day behind so I'm too tired to do calculations. Maybe Toad would search population numbers of these countries and calculate percentage of people participated in peacekeeping operations?

Those numbers are suspect. I think they have a VERY narrow consideration of what they consider "contributors".

For one thing UN peacekeepers in Cyprus and the Princess Pats in Croatia equalled well over 300 listed here for canada.

In the PP history book I have it lists in '98 as having 250 ppl in Bosnia alone, and there were Vandoos there as well.

IIRC Candain contribution to UN peacekeepers has not fallen below 1500 bodies for years now. It was bad enough that in the mid 90's we started sending reservists to rotate out non-combat personnel.

[bashwolf]

Read this it will shed some thought  with current situation here and abroad.

http://larouchein2004.net/strategic_update_main.htm

Very Interesting stuff poeple please read with open mind.

Thank You

[Toad]

Or are you saying we openly supported Israel since '48 just to curry favor with the rest of the Arab oil-producing nations?

Once again, why weren't the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel signed in Helsinki in 1979?

Why didn't Jordan and Israel sign the Washington Declaration in Helsinki in 1994?

We haven't done enough in the Middle East peaceMAKING process? Who has done more?

[Toad]

Originally posted by Staga
Lets see Toad:

There were no Finnish troops in desert-storm. Maybe because that really was not a peace-keeping operation.

Exactly. On the one mission that had the probably most agreement and suport world wide... the Finns would not join the coalition.

Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, The United Kingdom, and the United States.

But not.. of course.. Finland.

IMHO Israel does have a right to exist but they do NOT have a right to do what nazies did in WW2: conquering "Lebensraum"

Agreed. And you'll find I've said that long before this in several different threads.

Would Israel exist without support from U.S? I don't know. Do you ?

[/b]

Yeah, I think so.. .the Israelis themselves admit as much, particularly with regards to '73. The Arabs would have conquered them without US arms along with financial and military support.  Remind me again what the Finns gave them to fight with during all those wars?

Yes, Finland does support peacekeeping operations. I've never said they didn't. Those are the missions to keep an established or semi-established peace, correct?

Nothing like Desert Storm, right? Where everyone agreed to actually fight a common foe?

[/b]AFAIR in U.S lives about 265million people so I'm sure you've been participated in more operations than us.
Actually I'm really interested to hear if you have somekind of numbers? [/B]

Most happy to oblige!

Start with keeping the peace in Europe after WW2. In fact, there's STILL something like 30,000+ troops in Germany just in case. You know, in case something really popped in a place like.. say.. Bosnia or something.

Then you can go to this page to see where US troops are currently stationed around the world as of Sept 2001.

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY

Here's the short story though (that's just under 1.4 Million deployed world wide, a little over a quarter of a million in Foreign Countries):

[Toad]

The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history.

Which will give you information on our deployments all over the world. Just click on the links.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan

Talking is all well and good, but realistically it's not going to get the Palestinians anywhere.

I think most rational folks think talking and getting SOME gains is better than blowing yourself up in a restaurant.

Do you really think that when this bloodletting has run its course they're going to get THAT much better of a "deal" than the one they were offered without the bloodletting?


They got something out of Oslo, didn't they? Yeah, the Israelis are in violation and no one has the brass to put them in their place.. not even the US.  

But then it's our problem and fault alone right? The rest of the UN can wash its hand and pretend it wasn't there in '48, right? (and I KNOW how many voted, thanks, compared to today's roster).

I love the way the rest of the world runs around wearing their "I wasn't there, you didn't see me and you can't prove a thing"  patch when talk turns to the establishment of Israel as a nation-state.

(Maybe the Finns can force the Israelis to give up the conquered territory? )

So, as I said before, Israel needs to give up the conquered territory. The rest of the world is going to have to somehow assure them it is safe to do so. Going to be very, very hard to do.

[Toad]

Yes, one could see it that way.

However, be realistic.. who really has major warfighting capability these days?

You can use one rather larger military that has trained together, has common equipment and doctrine for the warfighting force or you can make up the same size force from many, many more sources and try to integrate them as you go to fight.

Makes more sense to use the small units as the peacekeepers and the large unified force as the warmaking machine doesn't it?

Afghanistan may herald a new era, however.

[easymo]

There is a point at which you mind is so open your brain falls out.  I would suggest avoiding that.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Toad
Yes, one could see it that way.

However, be realistic.. who really has major warfighting capability these days?

You can use one rather larger military that has trained together, has common equipment and doctrine for the warfighting force or you can make up the same size force from many, many more sources and try to integrate them as you go to fight.

Makes more sense to use the small units as the peacekeepers and the large unified force as the warmaking machine doesn't it?

Afghanistan may herald a new era, however.

Yep.

That's orginally why the US didn't want Canada in a ground role in Afghanistan.  To many headaches with the intergration.  And that's after all the NATO exercise we've kicked your bellybutton in...I mean that weve been in together.

And I agree, if I'm a country that's getting picked on, I would want the US to help me out.

If the there's a need for peace keepers they always ask Canada.  If our friends and allies call, we're there.  I just thought of one expection, and that's Vietnam.