Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vudak on October 22, 2004, 11:38:13 PM
-
I have no article, no links, no source, no nothing. I' m pretty much useless. But I did see an article that said Bill Clinton would like to be in charge of UN when Annan's term runs out in 2006.
The article also said he'd enjoy overwhelming support from nearly all members, except, of course, an America run by W.
What do you all think of this? I'd personally like to see him in there and don't really see why Bush should have such a problem with it. It's not like he heeds the UN, anyway.
Rip it to shreds, my less moderate republican party-mates, rip it to shreds :cool:
-
Makes sense to me...
-
I basically like Clinton and I hope it stays that way, so no, I dont want him anywhere near the UN... However if he can get the UN to act agressively like Clinton acted in Bosnia and Kosovo then I might not mind. But I doubt he could pull it off...
-
You know though he is really respected in many parts of the world and he's a much better persuader then Bush will ever be. He might actually be able to get the UN to do what it was envisioned to do after all...
I'd put money on him doing an alright job. I think he showed he could handle it during his presidency.
-
I like the idea.
-
Can you imagine how bad that would be for America?
Clinton as head of the UN would undermine the President by default. Bad idea.
Clinton would be seen as America's voice.... totaly undermining our President.
-
What yer saying Nuke, is that next to Clinton, Bush is like, 2" tall.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What yer saying Nuke, is that next to Clinton, Bush is like, 2" tall.
What I am saying is:
ANY former US President that became UN President would undermine the current US President severely.
Nash, I never mentioned Bush
-
Billary as a seceratary?!?!??!
who'll file the sexual harassment suit????
-
only if health imporves.
-
Weasel In Chief, perfect job for him.
He is very persuasive with women and foreign liberals. They seem to eat up his lies. If he were properly motivated he could be a great help for America.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What I am saying is:
ANY former US President that became UN President would undermine the current US President severely.
But... Why?
Or, better yet, How?
By having a better idea then the president, and having that idea be well taken by Americans and the world is the only way I can think of... And that's not neccesarily a bad thing...
-
As one of Clinton's fellow Arkies I feel free to say that his shreckless, narcicistic, self-aggrandizing, reckless and schmoozing persona would fit the U.N. like a glove.
I think he should go for it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
However if he can get the UN to act agressively like Clinton acted in Bosnia and Kosovo then I might not mind. But I doubt he could pull it off...
Aggressively.. like give mandates to assaults reasoned with lies?
Sounds to me like the very reason which UN was created to prevent.
-
Fishu how can you justify such a statement when all of us know exactly what happrned in Srebrenica where 8,000 refugees were murdered, excaly what happened (on TV often) in Sarajevo, and what we all saw was staring to happend iall over again n Kosovo?
So are you saying the Un was created to prevent efforts to stop genocides?
How on earth can you be aginst NATO mulinational operations that stopped genocides?????
I know yiu hate america, but do you hate it so much that you support genocides that america intervend in and stopped?
-
I always thought Bill was alright, he'd make a good UN secretary general
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I know yiu hate america, but do you hate it so much that you support genocides that america intervend in and stopped?
Yea whatever... why bother even reply to you, when the first card you pull out is "america hater".
I don't either know why you go on about Kosovo, when I didn't say a word about it.
-
Fishu your post certainly reads like you are criticising US intervention in Bosnia & Kosovo.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Fishu your post certainly reads like you are criticising US intervention in Bosnia & Kosovo.
Well, I can say it wasn't about it...
More like the Iraq issue, which seems to have multiplied the whine of UN being too passive.
-
Well I never said anything about Iraq.. Do you just wanna attack me then, is that it?
Anyway, lets clear this up.
Do you support the US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Well I never said anything about Iraq.. Do you just wanna attack me then, is that it?
Anyway, lets clear this up.
Do you support the US intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo?
Yes, there was proofs of severe human right violations and the US intervened with a valid reason.
Along with the UN mandate as far as I remember.
-
Kosovo was not UN approved, and no large genocide had taken place yet but we thought one was starting based on Miloshevich's past record. We acted on account of that and his violations of previous cease fire agreements - all without the UN.
How do yiu feel about that?
-
Still as above.
However US didn't participate much after the 'war' as I recall.
That was the big whine back then I think.. wasn't it?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Still as above.
However US didn't participate much after the 'war' as I recall.
That was the big whine back then I think.. wasn't it?
Which above?
The above where the USA is evil for going without UN?
Or the above where the USA is not evil for going without the UN?
And what does "after" have to do with anything? There are plenty of US troops in Bosnia for almost 10 years now. They are in Kosovo too... Also why even criticze the USA for its levels of peakekeeping, we likely did most of the airstrikes, most of the organazing and of course handled the Bosnia peace talks in Dayton Ohio USA.. Isnt that enough? Maybe the european forces should put in more... Should the USA both fight the most and do the most peacekeeping to clean up that european mess? Is that what you want? Where is europes responsibility?
-
clintoon would fit the job just fine. He has already shown he has no scruples with ethics,or honesty and certainly has shown a disposition for being serviced under the table. As far as I know being a felon does not keep one from being the pres. of the UN.
-
mav... I am starting to really enjoy your posts. not that that matters... just saying...
lazs
-
I doubt the UN membership is going to let an American lead the organziation. Any American.
-
Toad has it.
-
a american puppet as head of the UN? yourup would never stand for it.
-
Well at least then he would have his chance to bang a woman from every country in the world. I mean come on isn't that what Clinton was all about in office...trying to get a woman from every state in the union.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Should the USA both fight the most and do the most peacekeeping to clean up that european mess?
When did the Balkans become part of Europe?
-
Bill Clinton as UN Secretary General
He'll be too busy chasing anything that can pass a Chromosome Count to do any harm....
-
No, bill doesn't have any balls. He would only stick to polls and not do the right things.
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
When did the Balkans become part of Europe?
2000BC? Maybe a bit later, whenever the greek civilztion started and gave birth to european civilization. So perhaps the real question is when the rest of europe became part of the balkans..
:rofl
Heck I thiought Canadian education was better than that.....
-
I'm crying right now GS...
Nice to see that you feel that the UN has no role in stoping genocides and human rights violations. I guess there goes yoiur unwritten unversal law...
Also I find it funny how you state that I am responsible for stopping the serb genocide at qa time when I was a small kid. But hey thats what you UN coward types like the dutch bastards in srebrenica always had in mind, let the little kids and old women deal with the serbs.. Right? Eh?
-
And you GS? Saying that I have no right to be upset about Srebrenbica beacuse I was a little kid at tyhe time and too young to fight or because I was in america? The whole world should be upset about that. That was shameful...
And frankly I think your post full of unwaranted personal attacks was way out of line in this thread.. I only suggested my wish that the UN act more agrssively in situations of genocide because my country suffered from it a great deal, my family members were killed, homes where I grew up were destroyed, my mother nearly decapitated, etc etc etc.. I didnt like that period and I didnt like what happend. So I have every ****ing right to voice my opinion that would like the UN to intervene in other genocides and crimes because I dont want the same to happendf to other innocent victims like my people, all of them the serbs, bosinans, the croats all who suffered in helplesness when the killing squads came to thir homes. And I dont want other kids to be angry like I was...
Now you can say whatever smug arrogant stuff yiou want, you can make fun of my weight, you can makje fun of my age at the time but if you deny my right to ask the world community to do more about genocides then you truly are a ****ing bastard...
-
GS I was supportuive of the UN efforts up to Srebrenica. I was so shocked after I heard and saw reports of what happened there, that I lost all faith.. Thats where all this comes from... To just let the killers take all those innocent people after what was going on the past few years..... Its infuriating...
So no your ambulance analogy doesnt work. A more proper analogy for my anger about srebrnica is to that of an anger at policeman who gives the victim of rape back to rapist murderer so he can finish the job...
I dont want to be angry but I just cant get that image of those buses and those bluehelmets standing idly by as the serbs took the people.
Frankly I still just dont know how to deal with it and it makes me have very negative feelings towards the UN and its effectiveness...
If they arent there to stop the slaughter of 8,000 refugees under their express protection then whats the point? Why even have this charade?
Do you have an answer to any of that GS?
-
Its not as much blame as its anger GS...
As for "blame." The fault for the war lies with our people, with our politicians, our racism and our lunatics and most of all our inabity to forgive for outrages of the past and accept our responsibilty for causaing them to each other over the years. And unfortunately the war just made it worse and they hate each other even more.
As for anger, I just dont know what to make of it when the UN calls srebrnica a safe area, invites 10,000 refugees in and then gives them to the serbs. By 1995 I think it was obvious for everyone what the serbs were doing to bosina.. I dont think any sane person could think that the serbs would treat them well no matter what, genocide or no genocide. So I'm jusat very shocked, and very angry that the UN did not protect those people as they promised...
And just look at what you wrote, the way the UN is setup is what made the srebrenica safe zone meaningless. Yet the promises drew in 10,000 people, all of whoose lives were very meaningful...
So it comes down to my anger and my wish that the UN becomes more meaingful and agressive in the future..
I want to move on and forgive, and maybe if the UN changes, learns from its mistakes, and becomes more agressive in stopping these genodices then it will be easier...
-
Problem for me is GS that those squabling countries are the UN... Add that to the fact that UN agrrement is used as some sort of moral compass and then you get these situations like srebrenica - where things are happy and safe politically and bureocratically and agreeable to the intellectuals obessed with proriety and process but real people are slaughtered...
-
And I said that I supported the UN efforts up to srebrenica.
-
Intresting view. And thanks for saying that srebrenica was a disaster, your posts so far were making me doubt if yiou felt that way.
-
But the UN is the bickering nations...
-
GS to me the srebranica thing comes down to this:
The worlds largest internatrinal organization pledged its peacekeepers to protect srebrenica and invited 10,000 refugees there. The serbs came, the UN protected nothing, 10,000 died. An unmitigated disaster as you said.
It made me very angry and I lost faith in the UN and pretty much anyting it sets out to do.... In the future I wish that the UN does more meaningful things when they make such promises.. I hope they do.
-
So then whats the point?
And what is "cooperation?"
For example even after Bosnia the Russians would have veteod any serious UN moves on Kosovo.
How do you cooperate with nations like that?
I just dont have faith in the real world usefulness of the UN, its just anger now and a good deal of ambivalence - the latter which you seem to share...
-
Is the video up? Ands are download instruction in the thread?
I'm sure the UN can give blankets to old women, but I wish it could be counted on to do more... Apparently it cant because it relies so much on the whims of the members. Thats fine of course, but then UN approval or UN consensus should not be used as some great moral yardstick or prerequsite for action.. As clearly it has nothing to with morals or justice or correctness, just the whims of member states on the parrticular issues at hand...
Good quote, whatever its context, the words are exacvtly what I feel when I think of the UN most times... :(
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The UN's greatest success in Bosnia was creating awareness in the world of what was going on, and force the world to act.
Force the world to act? Now THAT'S funny. Explain to me just once more how the "world" acted in Bosnia? To stop the killing, I mean.
And, while your at it... explain to me how the UN is creating awareness of the slaughter currently ongoing in Sudan and how it will "force the world" to act on that.
-
LOL. Nato? Ask Boroda if that was a "legal" Nato action. I happen to agree with him that it was not.
What happened was the US finally got involved. Like it or not chum, when it comes to shooting bad guys, nothing happens until the US takes the lead.
Nothings going to happen in Sudan. Wanna know why? Because our US military, the one that every President since WW2 assured us could fight two major wars at one time in different theaters, is maxxed out by Afghanistan and Iraq.
In other words, our military is unavailable for Sudan. That is why nothing will be done.
There isn't any other military capable of getting involved in a shooting war where their own soldiers are going to die just to save Sudanese blacks.
Wait.......... the Dutch might be available.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Can you imagine how bad that would be for America?
Clinton as head of the UN would undermine the President by default. Bad idea.
Clinton would be seen as America's voice.... totaly undermining our President.
Amazingly enough, I think this is spot on. Clinton is by far the finest POLITICIAN we've had in the WH for decades. He would do a great job in the UN. He would also be considered the 'voice of America' by many in the World. This may not be a good thing for the USA or the current administration.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Can you imagine how bad that would be for America?
Clinton as head of the UN would undermine the President by default. Bad idea.
Clinton would be seen as America's voice.... totaly undermining our President.
and why is that bad?
Bush is undermining America.:p
-
I'm ignorant, alright.
So show me where it says NATO can militarily intervene in a nation's internal conflict. Because that's what the whole dismemberment of Yugoslavia was.
Article 5 and 6 should figure substantially in your argument.
The North Atlantic Treaty (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)
Further, please review this NATO document and explain how it supports NATO's "first strike" that was used in Bosnia against forces that DID NOT attack any NATO country.
Declaration on a transformed North Atlantic Alliance issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council (``The London Declaration'') (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/b900706a.htm)
5. We will remain a defensive alliance and will continue to defend all the territory of all our members. We have no aggressive intentions and we commit ourselves to the peaceful resolution of all disputes. We will never in any circumstance be the first to use force.
6. The member states of the North Atlantic Alliance propose to the member states of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation a joint declaration in which we solemnly state that we are no longer adversaries and reaffirm our intention to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or from acting in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and with the CSCE Final Act. We invite all other CSCE member states to join us in this commitment to non- aggression.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
NATO may very well have exceeded their own charter, but that does not make their actions illegal. Only they can judge their actions by their own rules.
[/b]
No, anyone can judge their actions vis-a-vis their own NATO rules. They CLEARLY violated their own rules.
The UN sanctioned every NATO action in Bosnia. NATO's involvement in Bosnia was legal by international law. Whatever rules NATO has made for itself and whether they broke them is irrelevant to international law.
Your position is that International Law is all that matters. I disagree. That's a fig leaf. They couldn't even be true to their own charter.
The US never took the lead in Bosnia,
YGBSM!
NOTHING got done until the US took military action. We led the military action.
Ignorant or lying? You must type in front of a mirror.
-
To me its pretty simple, nothing significant happened to kill the mass murderers until the Srebrenica incident showed the weakness of the UN position in bosnia.
After that the USA came in bombed the serbs, helped train the croatian army and plan our joint offensives with the bosnians which eneded the war and led to the Dayton talks... Too bad it took 10,000 more or less televised deaths to start this action. Too bad that it took a country from half the world away to act..
-
By NATO's own rules it was illegal. NATO is a defensive alliance.
Dance around it anyway you like; NATO should not have attacked.
Ask yourself this: why didn't other non-NATO UN nations answer the call? Eh? Why?
Because the UN is meaningless and gutless... as it is showing once again in Sudan.
The US is maxxed out in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sudanese blacks are being subjected to genocide. Where are the rest of the blue berets now that there's fighting to be done?
Go ahead... tell me how the UN will save the Sudanese.
-
I can think of no one better for the job as head of a worthless, do-nothing organization like the UN than a worthless, do-nothing person like Bill Clinton. They were made for each other.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/116_1098676641_scholz.jpg)
Who led?
Originally posted by GScholz
That's my point. The UN made the world act by showing what was going on.
Well, the everyone knows what's going on in Sudan right now. So... when will the UN "world" act?
I mean, you don't need the US, right? You guys can act without us like you've been saying, right?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Last time I checked Pakistan, Sweden, Jordan and Ukraine are not NATO members. They were all there, and probably other non-NATO nations I fail to recall.
You are ignorant.
So why was NATO required? Why was it necessary for NATO to violate it's own charter?
Why didn't the Pakis, Swedes, Jordanians and Ukrainians handle it?
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.... or even worse, they won't.
Somebody here is ignorant. It'd be anyone that thinks the UN has any value at all when it's time to actually fight a real war and die for another nation's people.
-
From Lisbon to Dayton: International Mediation and the Bosnia Crisis (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/words/2.pdf)
.....Bosnia made embarrassingly clear that, contrary to the exclamation of Jacques Poos, then-president of the European Community (EC), the “age of Europe”had not yet dawned.
Despite a series of sustained and concerted medi-ation attempts, Europe was unable to provide an external military or political solution to the Bosnia crisis.
UN peacekeeping forces,whose principles of consent and consensus represented the optimism of post–Cold War international military thinking,were exposed as a poor fig leaf for the Western powers’ lack of military and political will to bring about a peace that could be kept.
Only when the United States, backed up by the military muscle of NATO, finally took hold of the intervention did the crisis begin to lift in Bosnia...
....May 25:NATO bombs Serb positions in retaliation for Serb attacks on Sarajevo and other UN safe areas.
May 26: Mladic retaliates by taking 350 UN personnel
hostage, as “human shields” against further NATO attacks.
June 18: UN hostages released.EU begins to debate withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops; United States discovers it would be obligated to assist in withdrawal.
July11:The fall of Srebrenica;an estimated 8,000 Muslims executed by Bosnian Serb forces.
Aug. 5: Croatian “Operation Storm” retakes the Krajina after
one day of fighting.
Aug. 19: Three American envoys killed in accident on
Mt. Igman during shuttle diplomacy.
Aug. 28: Serbs mortar the Sarajevo marketplace, leaving thirty-five dead.
Aug. 30: NATO launches operation “Deliberate Force,”massive air attacks on the Bosnian Serb positions near Sarajevo.
U.S. Offers to Send Troops to Assist Bosnian Pull-Out
By Art Pine
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON
President Clinton formally offered Thursday to send up to 20,000 U.S. ground troops to help evacuate the U.N. peacekeeping force in Bosnia-Herzegovina if the allies decide to withdraw in the face of increased harassment and hostage-taking by nationalist Serb forces there.
Pentagon officials said the United States probably would supply between 40 percent and 50 percent of an allied evacuation force of up to 45,000 troops. The U.S. military also is likely to provide the bulk of the air- and sea-lift for the operation....
This story was published on December 9, 1994.
Volume 114, Number 62.
This story appeared on page 2.
Oh, yeah. The UN has landed and the situation is well in hand.
YGBSM.
Your problem is you identify yourself to closely with the UN failure in the Balkans. It wasn't your fault; the UN just suxxors at stopping genocide. Quit blaming yourself.
Your service was honorable; unfortunately, the organization you served was humiliatingly impotent, lacking in the will to win.
In a way, you probably now know how some of our VN vets felt/feel.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Now THAT is rather ironic considering that it was the Pakistani blue-hats that saved your soldiers in Mogadishu while the locals where dragging the maimed remains of your dead through the streets.
Read Blackhawk down? Remember what it took to get the Pakis moving?
That US taskforce asked for heavy armor, in the form of Abrams tanks and Bradley armored vehicles as well as the AC-130 gunship, but the Clinton Administration denied those requests.
Had the taskforce been properly equipped, the Pakis could have stayed at the stadium forever.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
However on the ground things were a bit different.
No, things on the ground were "UN standard". They were getting ready to withdraw.
There was no ground war per se. The was a deliberative air campaign, however, and that is what ended the open genocide.
And, the air campaign was primarily a US operation. Check the number of PGM dropped and what percent of those were dropped by Euro air forces.
-
Like I said, you don't need to be embarassed; it wasn't your fault.
Nitey-nite. Past my bedtime.
-
OK, make the case that the UN ground troops could have ended the genocide without the air campaign. Please.
The air campaign was THE central part of Operation Deliberate Force. All your FAC's, counterbattery fire, tanks, whatever played a supportive and essentially minor role. The Air Forces did the "heavy lifting" and the US air forces did nearly 70% of the missions.
The UN blue-hats are a peacekeeping force, not peace enforcing, it is up to the member nations to pledge green-hats to military operations that requires active intervention.
Yep. And that's why most of the folks here that you argue with view the UN as a waste of time and an ineffective organization. The UN doesn't do shirt except keep the peace where peace is already established. Shooting starts, they bug out. Rwanda? Dutch Bat? June 18: EU begins to debate withdrawal of UNPROFOR troops?
See a trend there?
Take present day Sudan. It's no secret there's genocide going on and that it's been going on for quite some time. The UN hasn't approved any military intervention and it won't. The "peacekeepers" won't go in until the janjaweed are finally tired of slaughtering the Sudanese blacks or they have killed them all.
WTG, UN.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Another ignorant statement. The was no such thing as a "deliberative air campaign" in Bosnia.
STATISTICS AS OF 20 DECEMBER 95:
Number of days since Operation DENY FLIGHT started = 983
"No-Fly" Zone fighter sorties flown over Bosnia-Herzegovina = 23,021
Close Air Support and Air Strike sorties over Bosnia-Herzegovina = 27,077
Sorties by SEAD, NAEW, tanker, reconnaissance and support aircraft = 29,158
Number of training missions flown = 21,164
Grand total = 100,420
Deny Flight wasn't a deliberative air campaign? It ran from 12 April 1993 until December 20, 1995. Man, you have it bad.
ORGANIZATION:
The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)General Wesley K. Clark, USA delegated authority for the implementation of Operation DENY FLIGHT to the Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Southern Europe (CINCSOUTH), Admiral Leighton W. Smith, USN whose headquarters is in Naples, Italy. He delegated control of the operation to the Commander, Allied Air Forces Southern Europe, (COMAIRSOUTH),General Michael C. Short, USAF also headquartered in Naples.
From General Michael C. Short:
There was a NATO command structure in place in Naples, and it had been there for 50 years. It was Commander in Chief of Southern Europe, with a NATO staff. We inserted in the middle of that staff a U.S. - only operation whose commander was a Navy admiral, whose deputy was a Navy admiral. The [J-]3 was a Navy captain and the [J-]2 was a Navy captain. We called it a joint task force, and they were given operational level responsibility for running a NATO war.
Now... who lead this air war? You might want to call up a list of the "significant events" of Deny Flight. You'll find a lot of stuff like this:
On 28 February 94, four NATO fighters shot down four fixed-wing aircraft violating the UN "No-Fly" zone. NATO Airborne Early Warning aircraft (NAEW) detected unknown tracks South of Banja Luka early that morning.
Two NATO aircraft, U.S. Air Force F-16s, were vectored to the area and intercepted six GALEB/JASTREB aircraft. In accordance with the rules of engagement, two "land or exit the No-Fly Zone or be engaged" orders were issued which were ignored. While this was happening the violating aircraft dropped bombs. The NATO fighters engaged the planes, shooting down three of them.
A second pair of NATO fighters, U.S. Air Force F-16s, arrived and shot down a fourth violator. The remaining two violators left the airspace of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
You can dress up in your blue beret and prance around all you like, but it won't change the facts. The US ran the command and control on Deny Flight on the airside, plus flying the overwhelming majority of the combat sorties.
Scholz:
And the air strikes themselves did not stop the genocide. It took operation Oluja and the UN Implementation Force and later Stabilization Force to stop the genocide.
[/b]
[Then, Operation Deliberate Force, began on August 30, 1995, against Bosnian Serb military targets in response to a Bosnian Serb mortar attack on civilians in Sarajevo. With the same US commanders running the show.
DELIBERATE FORCE SORTIE BREAKDOWN FROM 29 AUG 95 - 14 SEP 95
NATION TOTAL PERCENTAGE
SORIES OF TOTAL
FRANCE 84 8.1%
GERMANY 59 1.7%
ITALY 35 1.0%
NETHERLANDS 198 5.6%
SPAIN 12 3.4%
TURKEY 78 2.2%
UNITED KINGDOM 326 9.3%
UNITED STATES 2318 65.9%
NATO (NAEW) 96 2.7%
TOTAL 3515 100.0%
Once again, US command, control and plannning and the vast majority of the sorties flown by the US air component.
Quit kidding yourself.
-
Scholz:
The UN blue-hats usually go where no one else wants to go. You see, the US or NATO or any other country or alliance didn't want to get involved in Bosnia or Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea etc. etc. etc.[/quot]
Yeah, and the explanation is simple. The UN Blue Hats are like cops that show up after the "mob hit" is over. They stand around, take pictures, document the crime and pretend they're doing something.
If the "mob" shows up again.. they leave. Because, AFTER ALL...
Scholz:
The UN blue-hats are a peacekeeping force, not peace enforcing, it is up to the member nations to pledge green-hats to military operations that requires active intervention
So, what's the point of going? NOTHING will be done if fighting breaks out again... because the UN rarely, if ever, will authorize it. The blue-hat peacekeepers either pack up and bug out or... they watch in Dutch-like fascination.
Sudan being the present case in point. Everyone is "tsk-tsking" but there's no authorization to go put a stop to it. Because the janjaweed would have to be killed. And UN troops would die killing them. And it's already clear that there's really only a very few nations willing to send their troops to do that. And the Brits and US are already engaged...so that leaves? ??? ?????
You're clearly ignorant of how that conflict progressed and who were the architects of its resolution.
A three-week campaign--called Deliberate Force--was launched. It included some artillery fire, but it was dominated by airpower, the weight of which hammered the Bosnian Serb heavy weapons, ammunition depots, command-and-control bunkers, and other targets. At the same time, NATO air forces undertook a parallel operation called Dead Eye, which took down the Serbian Soviet-style air defense network.
Within three weeks of the first bomb on target, recalcitrant Serb leaders agreed to enter serious negotiations with their foes in the three-year-old war. Within two months, the Dayton Accords had been signed, effectively bringing the war to a halt.
The operation is regarded as the prime modern example of how judicious use of airpower, coupled with hard-nosed diplomacy, can stop a ground force in its tracks and bring the worst of enemies to the bargaining table.
I'll stand by what I said.
Here you are either confusing the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts, or you have little understanding of what makes a military action legal. Ignorance.
[/b]
Here you are dancing the fan dance behind the feathers of semantics.
What NATO did violated it's own charter as a "defensive alliance". That is unquestionable.
Here you clearly ignorant of the fact that the US had been involved on the request of the UN since early in the conflict, and the US never "took the lead" and never did anything else than what the UN mandated them to do.
[/b]
And you have ..... forgotten........ that Clinton refused to send US ground troops until AFTER the Dayton Peace Accords. And Deliberate Force, a US led, primarily US executed deliberate air campaign, is given the credit for bringing about the Dayton Accords.
Ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, special US negotiator in the Balkans and primary architect of the Dayton peace accords, told AFA's 1996 National Convention that Deliberate Force was the decisive factor in bringing the Serbs to the peace table. Holbrooke flatly declared that the diplomatic effort wouldn't have succeeded "without the United States Air Force and Navy and the precision bombing." Holbrooke said he believed at the time of Deliberate Force that "more bombing" would lead to better diplomacy. "And it was true," he said.
Of the bombing, he observed, "The precision of it, its immediate and visible effects on the negotiations, made a real difference. Those people who argue about airpower have got to stop arguing only about Vietnam and talk about what can be done in the [Persian] Gulf, what was done in Bosnia."
Scholz:
Here you prove beyond any doubt that you are ignorant as to what constitutes law and legality. The internal rules and regulations of NATO is not law and have nothing to do with the legality of war.
Here you again hide behind semantics. NATO violated its own charter as a defensive alliance. Excuse it all you like but that fact is unquestionable. NATO forces, BY THEIR OWN CHARTER, were prohibited from attacking any of the former bits and pieces of Yugoslavia.
Scholz:
Here you reaffirm your ignorance by actually stating that NATO only violated their own rules ... not law, yet still you claim it was unlawful.[/b]
Well, what would you call it if your national government violated your Constitution's Article 2 if the UN told them it was OK to do so?
Article 2
All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.
What would you call that?
Here you show complete ignorance of the over 20 non-NATO countries that were involved in the conflict.
Yeah, I know who was there. I also know what they were doing. That's how they got those brown, stinky thumbs.
So I must conclude that you indeed are ignorant, and mostly just argue to defend your inflated notions of US national pride.
[/b]
Conclude whatever you like. From what I can see, your conclusions are always wrong and this one is no exception. I have no inflated notions of US pride... but I sure can read the fact and reports and see who did what in Bosnia to bring about the Dayton accords.
Scholz: My somewhat inflated opinion of your knowledge and understanding has finally been corrected. Much to my disappointment.[/b]
Well, I don't expect a guy that relies primarily on ad hominem to have a correct opinion about anyone else's knowledge.
Scholz: Now I have work to do, but I'm confident you'll have another ignorant, factually incorrect and argumentative post waiting for me when I get back.
And I have rather pressing "real life" matters. So I probably won't revisit this thread for a while.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Makes sense to me...
Well, if Nash is for it then I must be agin it:p
-
Like I said... ad hominem is your only move.
THe facts are right in front of you and everyone else that reads this.
I think it's obvious who's head is in the sand.
Ta...off to see the doctor.
-
Careful Toad....if you continue to kick his arse in the argument, he may put you on "ignore". You DON'T want that to happen.....as you would then be unable to correspond with greatness ever again!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Careful Toad....if you continue to kick his arse in the argument, he may put you on "ignore". You DON'T want that to happen.....as you would then be unable to correspond with greatness ever again!
We really feel left out don't we Nuke? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We really feel left out don't we Nuke? ;)
The guy is so open minded that he needs to ignore what doesn't "jive" with the indoctrination he has been subjected to in his UN utopian fantansy land of make believe and suger plumb fairies.
The guy is sensitive and acts like an arse...other than that, I think he's dumb. :lol
-
Ah, guys... ya gotta cut him a little slack. He was wearing that blue beret in 95 in Bosnia/Hercegovina.
I can't imagine the demons he must face.
I'm sure he went there with the belief and intent that UNPROFOR actually was going to protect people from being subjected to genocide.
To actually be in the combat zone on duty with a gun in your hand and unable to act while all six UN "safe areas" fell to the Serbs and then finding out ~8000 people were slaughtered by the Serbs in Srebrenica alone... gotta be tough to think about.
So, give him a break.
-
Hey Toad, the guy is beyond salvation.
Let us pray for his dumb arse.