Originally posted by Hortlund
Congo? Toad, get an education on the subject instead of talking the way you do, insulting alot of people.
I have an education, thanks.
As I said, the UN first went into the Congo in 1960. 43 Years later, they're thinking of going back for the umpteenth time.
Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag.
Oh and Toad, DO list what exactly the US did in
Zimbabwe
Ivory Coast
Kashmir
Nepal
Burundi
Nigeria
North Korea
Chechnya
South Africa
Congo
Rwanda
Sudan
Well, we've been to some of those places and others we've not. But the ones we went to, we went under a blue flag.
And what got done? Essentially NOTHING. Should tell you something, eh? If it doesn't, reflect on Kosovo. When did the slaughter finally stop? Hint, it wasn't stopped under a blue UN flag. (Theme?)
Some of those places we didn't go to, we still managed to achieve something but it was outside of the UN. Some say the US business boycott of South Africa made a big difference, for example. But that wasn't a UN flagged operation either.
All I'm saying is that in some cases sooner or later you have to take the gloves off and beat the sh t out of somebody before they get the message.
The UN, clearly..... in anyone's view... hasn't done anything like that since Russia failed to show at a UN SC meeting and UN troops went into Korea. And for those of you who will jump up and shout that Korea was a stalemate, check the casualty figures. The NK's and the Chinese got their a es handed to them. It was see-saw for a while but when the war was winding down, the Communist forces were getting pushed back. UN forces were 20 miles above the parallel when the Chinese called for truce talks in October '51.
General Van Fleet was ordered not to start any offensives except local attacks no larger than batallion size. The Chinese used the talks as an opportunity to bolster their defenses. From then on, thousands of men on both sides would die taking or defending a hill that essentially changed nothing. These men would died to give one side or the other a bargaining chip at the conference table.
Sounds a lot like VietNam, eh? The politicians took over the war plan and grunts died to no purpose. Had Van Fleet been allowed to continue, he claimed he could have driven the Chinese from Korea,but he just wasn't alowed to do so. Many top commanders agreed with him.
Numbers? The U.S. sent 1,319,000 men to the war and in three years 33,629 of them were killed in battle, and another 105,000 were wounded. Almost half of these casualties happened after the first "peace" talks were started. South Korea lost 415,000 men killed,and the British Commonwealth lost 1,263 while the rest of the U.N. forces lost a combined total of 1,800 men. It's estimated that China and North Korea lost over a million and a half men.
That's the LAST time the UN took the gloves off. And it's pretty clear which side got their headlights punched out.
I'd support a UN that was willing to take the gloves off and do what's right.
But this pointless politically correct visiting of "neutral" forces hasn't changed a d mn thing in the vast majority of those coutries listed.
If anyone is insulted, they're insulted by the truth. The UN hasn't done squat to end the slaughter in those coutries listed because the UN is afraid to do what will have to be done. Spill blood.
Yeah, they're good at health operations sometimes and other non-violent stuff.
But when the time comes to disarm the slaughtering psychos, the UN is sadly lacking in balls. As we've just seen.
