Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on February 25, 2005, 12:10:10 PM
-
U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/25/congo.ambush/index.html)
to the Bangladesh troopers that died and my condolences to their families.
Now, what will the UN do about this?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, what will the UN do about this?
ask the attackers if they are truly sorry?
-
UN might pull the peacekeepers out.
-
Originally posted by Toad
U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/25/congo.ambush/index.html)
to the Bangladesh troopers that died and my condolences to their families.
Now, what will the UN do about this?
Shoot anything that moves ?
-
Rape more girls?
-
Belgium will take care of it I guess, will they ever learn? I think not.
-
Originally posted by JB73
ask the attackers if they are truly sorry?
Sanctions!!!
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Rape more girls?
Yeah and kill them afterwards like U.S. Army Sgt Frank Ronghi ?
An American soldier has been sentenced to life imprisonment for killing an 11-year old ethnic Albanian girl in Kosovo.
Mighty1; have you ever thought before posting crap ?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sanctions!!!
Question Toad did ask was relevant; what would you do ?
-
Originally posted by Staga
what would you do ?
nuke 'em
that what you wanna hear?
-
Now, what will the UN do about this?
Blame it on US policy, then sit on their hands?
-
Yeah and kill them afterwards like U.S. Army Sgt Frank Ronghi ?
Seems like he got punished... not the same for the UN crooks.
Take it!
-
Originally posted by Staga
Question Toad did ask was relevant; what would you do ?
Completely irrelevant. I wouldn't be in the UN. WTF do most Americans care about the Congo? We have no business there, particularly if it puts troops in jeopardy.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yeah and kill them afterwards like U.S. Army Sgt Frank Ronghi ?
Mighty1; have you ever thought before posting crap ?
I was answering his question but hey feel free to attack me all you want it still won't change the facts.
-
Originally posted by Toad
U.N. troops 'die in Congo ambush' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/02/25/congo.ambush/index.html)
to the Bangladesh troopers that died and my condolences to their families.
Now, what will the UN do about this?
The short answer? Nothing.
The only thing the UN really has to influence with is trade sanctions. Those don't quite apply in this case since it's inter-tribal warfare that doesn't appear to be government sponsored in this attack. Withhold medical relief? Nope. Too inhumane. Withhold food supplies? Nope. Too inhumane. Send more peacekeepers to wander around in a country that statistically has been more dangerous than Iraq, and has be going at it for 6 years? Most likely.
-
First thing would be to take off them dam baby blue helmets. You can't hide or escape and evade when you stick out with them dam baby blue helmets....
:rolleyes:
-
There's a reason why they wear blue barets and helmets.
Oh sorry; You were just playing dumb :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
There's a reason why they wear blue barets and helmets.
Oh sorry; You were just playing dumb :)
I know it's the UN color, but I don't think the obvious detractor (incoming bullets, frags & rpgs) outweighs the benefits (we have blue hats on, we're peaceful & politically motivated... please ignore the fact we're all carrying assault rifles & have squad level auotmatic weapons!)... specially looking from the viewpoint of the poor bastard wearing the blue helmet. Why deploy troops to a place where it's pretty well known they're going to get shot at, and then put helmets on them that boldy delcare "SHOOT SLIGHTLY BELOW THIS! I'M NOT ON YOUR TEAM!" ?
...i'd spraypaint mine with a quickness
-
Maybe because they're not there to fight. They're there to act as a passive means to peace.
UN troops are not combat troops they're armed only for self protection.
Nobody's supposed to shoot at them really. But you're right in that if someone does attack them it should be taken care of with maximum force.
Sadly that would most likely lead into a full scale war which would cause more casualties and suffering.
-
Seems the UN has two choices:
1. Pull out the Peacekeepers
2. Send way more "Peacekeepers" and kick some butt
Option 1 is far and away the most likely. To me, that means the Bangladeshis died in vain. That's sad.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Seems like he got punished... not the same for the UN crooks.
Take it!
We played this game before, he finds "one" us case to point at and ignores the hundreds of un cases.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yeah and kill them afterwards like U.S. Army Sgt Frank Ronghi ?
Mighty1; have you ever thought before posting crap ?
Actually it isnt crap.
I beleive he probably saw the same report as I did where it have become less then uncommon for some of these UN peackeepers to be raping the local women and young girls.
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7745333)
UN's Rape of the innocents (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42877)
-
Originally posted by JB73
ask the attackers if they are truly sorry?
Cant. Gotta pass a resolution calling for that first
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yeah and kill them afterwards like U.S. Army Sgt Frank Ronghi ?
Mighty1; have you ever thought before posting crap ?
The raping going on in the Congo by UN troops is much more then the single instance above. Maybe these 'rebels' just wanted a little pay back for the rapes of their wives, sisters and daughters.
Or maybe they remember Rwanda and what happened after peacekeepers were killed there.
Kill a few maybe they will pull out.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Seems the UN has two choices:
1. Pull out the Peacekeepers
2. Send way more "Peacekeepers" and kick some butt
Option 1 is far and away the most likely. To me, that means the Bangladeshis died in vain. That's sad.
Both cases would be bad; first would be bad for the people living in there and next would be bad to the whole UN; who would accept UN troops on their soils if they would come as occupiers and not as a bumper between opposing forces?
Israel had nice habit to fire UN positions earlier; what if UN troops would had answered the fire with heavy artillery and bombings?
It's possible to arm UN troops with heaviest armament one can find but what's next? Open war between UN and opposing forces? UN leaving the area and letting people get killed/massacred?
Think a bit farther.
-
Well then why send troops at all? Just send some civilians dressed in powder blue jumpsuits that say "Peacekeeper" on the back and give them gum and candy to hand out.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, what will the UN do about this?
Blame Boosh.
-
Maybe because they're not there to fight. They're there to act as a passive means to peace.
UN troops are not combat troops they're armed only for self protection.
I want you to say this part to yourself outloud.
If you don't get it, I'd like for you to voluntarily give up your voting rights.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well then why send troops at all? Just send some civilians dressed in powder blue jumpsuits that say "Peacekeeper" on the back and give them gum and candy to hand out.
I think you know much better. UN troops have build hospitals and have helped local police forces in their tasks.
Never mind; You were just playing dumb too :)
-
Then send civilian construction people and police.
There's no point in sending combat troops that are not allowed to fight. It's stupid. It just gets them killed as we've seen and diminishes what little (if any) prestige and authority the UN has left
-
Best thing the U.S. could do in Africa is to train one of the countries to be a puppet state. Supply them with guns, training, and education, and hope that it spreads to the other countries there.
-
Invade Iran?
Tronsky
-
Donate more Bombs to Israel is better option Tronsky. :D
-
Toad if you mean by prestige and authority that UN is supposed to bully the occupants and become occupyers, you've misunderstood of the whole peacekeeping operation. That's more like the role the US has taken. Probably you think everyone else should act the same way.
The idea behind the UN should be that the combatants would honor and respect the voluntary effort the peacekeepers are putting for thier country. The whole system is based on trust really. The means to achieve the goal is _peaceful_ intervention. The biggest problem is naturally how to act when someone breaks that trust, like it has happened often lately.
It's therefore possible that the principles behind the UN action were unrealistic and naive. Probably a lot stronger actions are necessary to make any real difference in the cases where true criminals are in question. Criminals who do not value human rights or the value of life.
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.
-
uh... if a bunch of foreign guys speaking jiberish and carruing assault rifles and dribving military vehicles come to my town I'm gonna figure they are the enemy no matter how stylish their helmet color.
lazs
-
Ahh, that would be National Guard troops from Washington D.C.
Jiberish is the native language there.
-
I would never consider washington dc "my town"
It is a great place to zombie hunt tho so I would probly join the guard in that case.
lazs
-
After U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded the killers be hunted down, Congo said it was investigating jointly with MONUC but that there had been no arrests.
link (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7747429&pageNumber=1)
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
The idea behind the UN should be that the combatants would honor and respect the voluntary effort the peacekeepers are putting for thier country. The whole system is based on trust really. The means to achieve the goal is _peaceful_ intervention.
[/b]
Right. So send civilian construction engineers and beat cops. The can still wear little blue helmets but there's obviously no point in arming them. The helmets can have tiny loudspeakers and battery packs that broadcast "We have come in peace" in the native language every 2 minutes.
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
It's therefore possible that the principles behind the UN action were unrealistic and naive. Probably a lot stronger actions are necessary to make any real difference in the cases where true criminals are in question. Criminals who do not value human rights or the value of life.
NO! Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe! (Perhaps you're getting a glimpse of why so many view the UN as worthless? Nah... hope springs eternal in the human breast.)
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.
NO! Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe! (Perhaps you're getting a glimpse of why so many view the UN as worthless? Nah... hope springs eternal in the human breast.)
(Sorry to repeat myself.)
Like I said, the Bangladeshis died for no purpose. The UN should quit sending soldiers that they won't allow to fight. Perhaps the UN should form a corps of sissies and treehugging politically correct ladies and send THEM instead. Win/win no matter how it turns out.
-
No. I hear they give wonderful garden parties and lovely teas.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Like I said, the Bangladeshis died for no purpose. The UN should quit sending soldiers that they won't allow to fight. Perhaps the UN should form a corps of sissies and treehugging politically correct ladies and send THEM instead. Win/win no matter how it turns out. [/B]
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.
-
Explain the whole Rwandan thing for me then please. Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire sent a fax to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations at UN headquarters in New York informing officials that a genocide was being planned. Dallaire outlined the genocide plans in considerable detail and asked permission to take preventive action.
The same day, he received a reply from the UN telling him that he had no mandate to act.
Why send soldiers? What's the point? Window dressing?
They figure about 800,000 Rwandans died while several thousand UN "Peacekeepers" were there.
Explain the Dutch Batt to me again then. About 7,000 Muslim males were killed in Srebrenica... well, massacred by the Bosnian Serb army. While the "Peacekeepers" stood by.
You send a bunch of soldiers with guns, after they are invited but if the killing goes on these soldiers are expected to.... withdraw?
Is that how it works?
If so, then like I said, quit sending soldiers. There's no point to it.
Or maybe do the same thing but call the troops "UN Powerless Observers of Slaughter". At least it'd be an honest name.
Best of all... don't send troops. Face it, if all you are going to do is oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see then you don't need soldiers. Sissies and treehugging politically correct ladies will serve just as well in that role.
-
I see Toad wasn't interested to answer my question. Oh well.
-
I don't see where you asked a question.
Maybe you can explain Rwanda and Srebrenica to me then? Since G seems to have been left speechless.
If they fight... how did those two things happen?
-
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?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
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.
What happens if one of the opposing sides doesn't want peacekeepers in the country? Do they just observe & report ceasefire violations? What's the ROE when they get shot at? America started in Vietnam as "observers", and that didn't work out too well either.
It's a noble concept, but a bad implementation imho.
-
It isn't trolling. It's an observation of the obvious. You two appear willing to delude yourselves as to the true nature of the "Peacekeepers".
They do not fight. Nor do they keep the peace. The evidence is overwhelming. Rwanda and Srebrenica stand in mute testimony of the UN's ability to fight while "Peacekeeping".
Do they shoot back if shot at? I suppose they do and then they........leave.
As I said, explain Rwanda and Srebrenica to me if you're suggesting that UN Peacekeepers will fight to keep the peace. We all know they won't... can't. Not even when they have the proof it's coming, like Dallaire had.
If you are suggesting that they fight to defend themselves while they oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see, then that is just silly and POINTLESS.
Obviously if they get into a shooting fight while observing a ceasefire then there is no ceasefire. This is undeniable, I'd think.
Any forces that attack the UN "Peacekeepers" know up front that they control the engagement. They can shoot as long as they want and there may/may not be a UN reaction. However, once the attackers ceasefire, the UN will not pursue them, will not eliminate them as a threat to the "peace".
Obviously, in that situation there's no ceasefire. Tactically, it's a boneheaded situation in which to put your soldiers. Since their job is not to win a war or fight a battle or make peace, then they might as well just leave.. or not come at all.
Nope, you boys can't have it both ways.
If they are not there to win a war or fight a battle or make peace then civilian observers will do just as well.
When shot at, they can leave, just like the UN "Peacekeepers" do.
After all, if they're getting shot at, there's no peace anyway. And since they don't keep the peace, the whole thing is pointless.
The UN sends armed soldiers to give an impression of the ability to use force. However, the world figured it out long ago. It's all sizzle and no steak and can be safely ignored.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
They're not supposed to fight. They're there on the invitation of the conflicting parties to act as observers. If peacekeepers suddenly start to act like peacemakers, they will soon find themselves uninvited everywhere.
Ok, so no more peacekeepers ... then what? Do you people think any nation wanted to intervene in these backwater conflicts?
I don't think I'm the one deluding myself.
Obviously not everyone wanted them there. Maybe they just got sick of the criminal behavior.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Soldiers are better trained and equipped to defend themselves and/or UN relief workers should it become necessary. You know this Toad, but for some sick reason you just want to troll a thread like this.
Arent UN troops soldiers from the UN nations militaries?
edit: Doh, I totally misread that.. Sorry. You were answring toad about why didnt send in unarmed observers... Right? :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Or perhaps they were mistaken for Americans. Everyone knows how successful the US PR campaign in Somalia was.
Gotta say, there aren't many US troops raping women in the Congo. The UN has the monopoly on that.
No wonder they want them out.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's because there aren't any US troops in the Congo. Why is that?
So the UN will be free to rape and pillage without interference?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Naw, they're just too busy raping male Iraqi prisoners.
What's that got to do with the Congo? Perhaps the truth just bothers you so much you have to avoid it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm not avoiding anything. Why aren't the US in Congo? (raping and pillaging is optional)
Why should we be in the Congo? What possible interest is it to us?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Why should anyone?
Beats me. I don't know what interest anyone would have there. Perhaps to rape and pillage.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not everybody have your urges Martlet. Some actually want to help when asked to do so.
I've never raped or pillaged anyone in the Congo. Unlike the UN.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
That's probably just because you've never been to the Congo, or have you?
I've never raped or pillaged anyone anywhere. Unlike the UN in the Congo.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't believe you.
Who cares? What's that have to do with the corrupt UN in the Congo?
Maybe you're so touchy about the topic because it brings back old memories.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Hey don't bring me into your perverted fantasies.
Sorry to bring up bad memories for you. Perhaps if you just confess your crimes, you'll feel better and can get help.
Don't feel too bad about it. It's SOP for the UN these days in the Congo.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I say again, don't bring me into your perverted fantasies Martlet.
You can say it as many times as you like. It doesn't change the fact that you should seek atonement for you past. It's the only way you can move on, and stop sticking up for the UN rapists in the Congo.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not "sticking up for the UN rapists in the Congo", and stop stalking me you pervert.
Wow. This is obviously a very touchy subject for you. Do you have flashbacks? The guilt must be killing you for you to lash out like this.
Stalking? Um, you could always stop replying. I imagine that it's pretty tough for you, though. Is this a cry for help?
-
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.
If you're talking about me, you seem to think "thinks it is a powerless organization" with "hates".
I don't hate the UN. I just don't think they do anything. Quite different, I'm sure you'll agree.
The French? Hate 'em? No; without them, my country couldn't have thrown out the British. Think they are inconsequential on the world stage? Yep.
-
No Toad I'm not talking about you (well, alone at least.)
It's the general attitude that I referred to. People are are making extremely offensive remarks for reasons that I can only imagine being media induced unbased negativity.
I've noticed that the news media in many countries has degraded to populism. The news are dramatised in order to have better viewer ratings.. Does that happen in the US?
I should come and visit your country for a longer visit some of these days, there are so many things I don't know / understand about your society.
-
They can't do anything. They're impotent.
-
Now you contradict yourself Martlet.
Please make up your mind: Impotent people cannot commit rape.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Now you contradict yourself Martlet.
Please make up your mind: Impotent people cannot commit rape.
Certainly you are intelligent enough to differentiate between individual people, and an organization.
-
Now to UN "Peacekeepers".
I think a large part of the problem is this name. They are certainly not "peacekeepers".
However, they get labeled that way and then armed military men show up at the site of an armed conflict that is supposedly over or under a truce.
Is it unreasonable to expect that the locals (and the rest of the world) view these armed "peacekeepers" as... well... peacekeepers?
And what does the world expect when it hears "peacekeeper"?
one who protects the rights of others by peacefully enforcing the laws and rules we live by
Why would you need guns to "peacefully enforce the laws"? The guns imply a willingness to use force.
It's clear that this is an impossible mission given the way the UN goes about it. They tell the "bad guys" on both sides their ROE and it's an incredible gift to the bad guys.
The UN "Peacekeepers" will not fire unless fired upon. They will not intervene to stop slaughter (Rwanda, Srebrenica). They will leave if you fire at them too often. The greatest punishment they can mete out to the bad guys is a nasty report handed in to the UN to be debated and forgotten.
Under those terms, it's no wonder they can't do anything. The fact that they can't leads to Rwanda.
So again, there's no point in sending soldiers. Soldiers with guns imply that force will be used if necessary but clearly this is not so.
Therefore, just send civilian observers.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I've noticed that the news media in many countries has degraded to populism. The news are dramatised in order to have better viewer ratings.. Does that happen in the US?
Of course it happens in the US. In fact, it ONLY happens in the US. Every other country has a homegrown news source that is the only "fair and balanced" news source in the world.
;)
Anyone that relies solely on near-real time media outlets for their news and views of the world is.......... not worth having a discussion with over anything with more depth than a sporting event.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Toad, you don't think the UN does anything? What do you think they should be doing that they're not doing now?
It does a few things well.
Stopping people from fighting and killing is not one of those. It's not in their charter, I know. So stow that.
However, fighting and killing happen to be the truly big problems IMO.
So what should the UN do? Revise its charter to allow itself to actually keep the peace. It should make value judgements about bad guys and it should kick axe when bad guys get out of line.
Never happen, so they best stick to stuff they do well, like handing out vitamins to kids and condoms to adults.
-
Gulf War 1? That was the US deciding to act with or without the UN and the UN wisely deciding to tag along.
You doubt it?
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait in an attempt to annex it as a "19th Province". On that same day, President George Bush declared that this "naked aggression would not stand".
Bush Sr. wasn't kidding; it wasn't going to stand with or without UN participation.
Bush Jr. told the UN essentially the same thing; we're going, UN or not.
Congo?
Let's see... there's already UN observers there right? I'm sure they can enforce the peace. ;)
Anyway, we're kinda busy kicking axe in two other places right now.
Congo's gotta be way down on our list.
Since we're busy, I'm sure Norway's military should be able to handle it if the UN actually decides to act.
Here, enjoy.
Why the Security Council Failed (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1905&page=1)
The UN was weak and irrelevant long before the divisive US-led war on Iraq made this painfully obvious, International Law scholar Michael Glennon maintains. He explains that Iraq is more a symptom of UN structural problems and changes in its geopolitical environment than a cause.
The UN was created to preside over a multi-polar world and now finds itself dealing with an unrivalled US hegemony. Weaker nations are therefore using the UN as an instrument for curbing American influence. This counterproductively forces the US to ignore international laws to carry out its policies. However, international law and American interests needn’t be in conflict.
Glennon concludes that if future institutions are shaped to protect and foster American hegemony while maintaining global peace and security, international law would prove an asset to the US rather than a hindrance
It's not all one sided. You'll find some stuff to crow about in there.
-
The simple fact is the US is operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to serve its own interests.
The US should look after someone else's interests before they look after their own?
*snicker*
:lol
-
Toad the reason why I brought this up was because i had the opportunity to follow the news reporting from several countries during the bosnian conflict. They had amazing differences even to the point where the dramatization gave a strong bias to the news report.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps if I cared.
The simple fact is the US is operating in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to serve its own interests. Has nothing to do with "kicking bad guys axe" no matter how much you'd like to believe so. To bad for the Congolese they're not a major oil supplier so their civil war has no impact on the US economy.
Yeah, they're so lucky to have the UN there. They can get raped by the blue hats.
-
So you think the Taliban was a good thing for the people of Afghanistan, particularly the women?
You think Hussein was a good thing for the Iraqi people and the region?
Given all the shirty situations around the world, there has to be a prioritization. No one nation or group of nations could address all the axe kicking that needs to be done in one fell swoop.
Seems to make sense to prioritize and address those situations where you can get "two birds with one stone" first. IE: serve your national interest while kicking the bad guys out of power.
Now, again, since we're busy and since Norway has no national interests at all, why don't you start at the other end of the list and work up towards us?
You go solve the places that have no national interest for anyone, ok?
Good.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There you go stalking me again. I stopped replying to you as you suggested, but you just can't help it can you? Seek professional help, I'm not interested in your sick perverted fantasies.
I'm participating in a discussion. You're participating in a discussion. If talking about your past bothers you, get some help with it. Turn yourself in, serve your time, get some help, and move on. The victims deserve that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You would know.
I know I would. I read about the criminal havoc spread by the UN every day. It's sad to see you support it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps if I cared.
Let's see... you care enough about why I and others think the UN is pretty well worthless.
But you don't care enough to read a really good article on how the UN got to such a state.
I see.
Hey, don't educate yourself. You wouldn't want an understanding of the other guy's position to cloud your mind. We're used to you just the way you are.
-
Martlet, don't be too hard on him. 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.
-
not good for the UN, but compared with what happen in Iraq on
a daily basis its not worth the discussion. sorry.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Martlet, don't be too hard on him. 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.
His blind adoration is a little unsettling, though.
-
The report documents 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers from Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal.
Surprisingly the countries that have a bad reputation with womens rights also produced the bad apples in question. Most of them developing countries, too.
-
Compare what the UN is doing anywhere to this in Iraq:
A freely elected National Assembly will soon meet.
This new transitional National Assembly will:
1. Serve as Iraq's national legislature for a transition period.
2. Name a Presidency Council, consisting of a President and two Vice Presidents (the Presidency Council will appoint a Prime Minister) and approve the appointment of the Prime Minister and his/her selection of cabinet ministers.)
3. Draft Iraq's new constitution, which will be presented to the Iraqi people for their approval in a national referendum in October 2005
....... and 25% of the new National Assembly are women... in a region where women have highly restricted rights.
Can you feel the change coming?
How's the UN doing in the Congo again?
-
We all know how good the position of women is under the Shari`ah. :aok
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-06-iraq-shiite_x.htm
-
Well, G, guess you won't be seen in these threads anymore then, will you?
Time to just face it. UN "observation" just doesn't deter the bad guys. They understand ONE thing. If you're not prepared to do that, why bother to go at all?
That in a nutshell is why so many US folks see the UN as pointless. They're not prepared to do what's necessary but they go and do nothing.
Go figure.
-
There's a lot of different interpretation of Islamic law, just like the Bible.
Which interpretations do you think the women in the National Assembly will be likely to favor, the pro-woman or anti-woman?
And the strict Islamicists didn't win a majority as I'm sure you noticed.
Not bad for a first round.
-
Mr Toad.
What do you sugest UN would do? Kill all civilians in the area,bombing them or just tear their houses down?
Tough luck, in war chite happends, soldiers die. But it dosent mean you have to retaliate "nazistyle" against the civilians.
And I doubt you will see Swedish troops in Congo, again.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
No Toad I'm not talking about you (well, alone at least.)
It's the general attitude that I referred to. People are are making extremely offensive remarks for reasons that I can only imagine being media induced unbased negativity.
You really have not read much of this forum over the last 4+ years have you? The hate pouring in from across the pond makes it pretty easy to give back what your dishing out.
Face it, its not a new thing for Euros to hate, hell they pretty much invented it.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Mr Toad.
What do you sugest UN would do? Kill all civilians in the area,bombing them or just tear their houses down?
Tough luck, in war chite happends, soldiers die. But it dosent mean you have to retaliate "nazistyle" against the civilians.
And I doubt you will see Swedish troops in Congo, again.
The UN can't do anything. They're worthless.
-
Crabbo, do you read English?
Quote me the part where I said the UN should make war on civilians.
Scholz.... I'm saying there's no point in what the UN tries to do. They might just as well send civilians, results would be unchanged. I believe that.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
You really have not read much of this forum over the last 4+ years have you? The hate pouring in from across the pond makes it pretty easy to give back what your dishing out.
Face it, its not a new thing for Euros to hate, hell they pretty much invented it.
KRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSHEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes and in less dangerous areas they DO send civilian observers. Soldiers are more capable of defending themselves and relief workers, that's the only reason they are sent. Why can't you get this simple concept through your head?
Defend themselves? If they were asked to be there, why must they defend themselves?
-
The UN should not have sent anyone in without a clear and coherent exit strategy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
From forces not in the control of the conflicting parties. Like protecting relief convoys from bandits. Countries like the Congo are not exactly model societies of law and order ...
Do both conflicting parties have to invite the UN?
If not, or actually in any case then, who is to say the attackers might not be acting on orders from their commanders to harass the UN and encourage them to go out so they can contunie their actions unobserved...
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes and in less dangerous areas they DO send civilian observers. Soldiers are more capable of defending themselves and relief workers, that's the only reason they are sent. Why can't you get this simple concept through your head?
It's so simple you don't get it.
If you have to send soldiers to fight back only if attacked... then it's obviously not safe enough to send the civilians at all.
Especially since you laid out the exact highly restrictive. ROE for the bad guys before your arrival.
In fact, sending civilians and/or soldiers to an area where there really is no peace and sending them under ROE that makes them easy targets for the bad guys is a real simple STUPID concept.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The UN should not have sent anyone in without a clear and coherent exit strategy.
:)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
From forces not in the control of the conflicting parties. Like protecting relief convoys from bandits. Countries like the Congo are not exactly model societies of law and order ... but I don't expect an ignorant like you to understand that.
But of course they cannot attack and root out forces not under the control of the conflicting parties.. like bandits.
They cannot police these societies that are not model societies of law and order. They can only be targets.
-
Under those circumstances, nobody. The ROE are beyond stupid.
Old saying around here "It's always easier and usually cheaper to just do it right the first time."
When they get the ROE right, then maybe the UN will actually do something.
Some "Freedom Fighters of the 4th Tuesday in May" group attacks a UN civil or military operation then UN troops ought to hunt them down and remove them as a problem. Period.
Do that a few times and maybe the UN civilians won't need so much guarding anymore.
The way the invite trouble now is just sad.
-
I don't understand this whole hate thing. I've never hated anything american as far as normal life goes. The only thing that I really hate are the attitudes I face on this UBB.
Are people really so insecure that they think anyone outside US hates thier guts like crazy? As ridiculous as it sounds probably, I carry the american flag on my leather jacket most days and I'm not ashamed of it. If you wonder why, the jacket is an avirex aviation jacket.
I get extremely offended when people here label everyone from Europe as anti-us (me along them) and try to idioticly convince ME of my own opinnions.
If a few european posters have disagreed with your foreign policy or something else, how does that turn into general hate of american people? It's like you can't take any criticism without immediately pulling the hate card and hide behind it.
I constantly have to remind myself that this is only a UBB and you guys really do not represent the average population of america OR europe.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
One, like in Bosnia we could only operate in BiH territory, not BSA.
The second part is irrelevant. The UN will stay as long as they are welcome. If for some reason they find themselves no longer welcome they will leave. If the inviting government cannot control their forces that is likely to happen.
Hmm. Can ypu clear something up. Lets say you have two warring parties.
Party A = Does not want UN there, maybe because they feel they have upper hand or want to hide something or whatever...
Party B = Wants UN there for some reason..
Lets say B invites the UN in and A does not. So party A clearly expresses its preference that it does not want the UN to get involved.
What happends?
If the UN comes and gets into the area of party B and later some units of party A start attacking the UN in areas of party B, what happends?
I ask because in the reply above you seemed only to mention that the UN would leave if attacked by the party who invited it in - in our case party B? But what of attacks by the other side?
Also what if Party A overruns areas once held by Party B that might have UN troops in them, what can the UN do? Or what if Party A had taken areas allready, can the UN legally press to operate within the former re\cognized borders of B or does it just depend on who is in charge at the particular time?
Also another question, what about artilerly? Can party A simply shell UN/NGO areas from within its territory without the UN being able to operate in party A areas and strike back?
-
Politics......is there anything "dirtyer" than that
-
"Would kill millions".
Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe if the UN showed some balls it would SAVE millions?
800,000 Rwandan dead. While the Blue Hats had to stand there with their thumbs up.
There might be a period when the UN didn't get "invited" but I think hungry bellies might eventually win out.
As for hate.. it's not hate at all. You want to know why some of us think the UN is worthless. You got an answer and suddenly we "hate" Euros. Lol. Too funny.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No they can "actively" defend themselves against renegade forces and bandits, however they need the authorization of the local government to do so. Preferably the local forces can deal with the situation and let the UN stay neutral.
So is raping the locals a good defense?
-
Siaf because they are feeble minded fools!
;)
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Siaf because they are feeble minded fools!
;)
That's funny coming from the guy that argued vehemently that there are more democrat veterans than republican in congress, even after proven wrong.
-
Martlet you are mistaken
I argued no such thing. Go back and read that thread. You might notice that I disagreed with Greentail, who I believe started that one. I believe what you are saying has absolutely no relevance. Go do your homework old chap you are putting words into my mouth that I did not say! I do not give a damn whether your Beloved bush served or not.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlet you are mistaken
I argued no such thing. Go back and read that thread. You might notice that I disagreed with Greentail, who I believe started that one. I believe what you are saying has absolutely no relevance. Go do your homework old chap you are putting words into my mouth that I did not say! I do not give a damn whether your Beloved bush served or not.
You certainly cared when you were arguing about it.
-
You didn't read my posts did you?
Don't comment on my opinion if you haven't read any of it go back to that thread and quote me properly if you must.
I think my tounge in cheek remark to Siaf is being proven sadly correct!
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
You didn't read my posts did you?
Don't comment on my opinion if you haven't read any of it go back to that thread and quote me properly if you must.
I think my tounge in cheek remark to Siaf is being proven sadly correct!
:rolleyes:
I can't. It's been deleted. However, in typical zulu fashion you change history to suit your present argument.
-
UN is a joke and a corrupt criminal one at that. I have no idea what their use is but it can't be much.
I want the U.S. to stop wasting money and time with them.
Let em move to some country more fitting to their importance in the world like ... norway or someplace.. Let norway put up with their criminal behavior and immunity and tantrums.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
UN is a joke and a corrupt criminal one at that. I have no idea what their use is but it can't be much.
I want the U.S. to stop wasting money and time with them.
Let em move to some country more fitting to their importance in the world like ... norway or someplace.. Let norway put up with their criminal behavior and immunity and tantrums.
lazs
Bingo.
-
"I can't. It's been deleted. However, in typical zulu fashion you change history to suit your present argument"
Then if you can't read it properly don't put words in my mouth mate.
Kind of ironic that its been deleted though.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
"I can't. It's been deleted. However, in typical zulu fashion you change history to suit your present argument"
Then if you can't read it properly don't put words in my mouth mate.
Kind of ironic that its been deleted though.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm repeating your words. If you want to change them now, you may. After all, they're your words.
Originally posted by GScholz
What you seem to not understand is that there has to be peace (in the form of a peace treaty or ceasefire) for the UN to send peacekeepers. Their mission is to keep the parties "honest" by reporting what they observe to both sides.
So, in between raping and pillaging, they police "honesty"?
Obviously, not everyone wants to be policed.
-
Nope Martlet you are completely misquoting me. You suggest I was arguing that that Democrats had a better military record or something like that.
Look me up here>
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
You were just discussuing things with me in here a min a ago!
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Nope Martlet you are completely misquoting me. You suggest I was arguing that that Democrats had a better military record or something like that.
Look me up here>
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/defaultframe.html
You were just discussuing things with me in here a min a ago!
First you bolster your facts with inaccurate claims, now you use dead links.
Did you go to the Moveon school of propaganda?
-
Martlett go read the "who served" thread again pay particular attention to my comments in there, then tell me I'm "the guy that argued vehemently that there are more democrat veterans than republican in congress, even after proven wrong."
see I don't give a damn about that, so can we concentrate on what I do give a damn about now?
Ok Now?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlett go read the "who served" thread again pay particular attention to my comments in there, then tell me I'm "the guy that argued vehemently that there are more democrat veterans than republican in congress, even after proven wrong."
see I don't give a damn about that, so can we concentrate on what I do give a damn about now?
Ok Now?
Sure. I don't blame you for wanting to draw attention from yet another time you've been proven wrong.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
What you really want is a World Police "Ameeeeericaaaaaa - **** yeah!".... You know where I stand on the issue of aggressive militarism like that..
Nah, I want a World Police UN. Not going to happen though. You'll all stand by just like the League of Nations did until finally some dictator finally goes exponentially too far like Hitler did.
What would the world have been like if a united front had confronted and given him an ultimatum to cease and desist when Hitler reintroduced military conscription in 1935? Or in 1936 when he reoccupied the Rhineland? Or in 1938 at the Anschluss? Sudetenland?
I'm of the opinion that's it's easier, cheaper and faster to nip these little dictators in the bud.
But sometimes that takes balls, a willingness to lose lives and money and some aggressive militarism on the part of those who oppose aggressive militarism.
And yeah, we all know where you were standing when the Serbs were cleaning out Srebrenica. How fortunate the Dutch didn't practice a little aggressive militarism then, eh? At least Dallaire tried in Rwanda.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, I want a World Police UN. Not going to happen though. You'll all stand by just like the League of Nations did until finally some dictator finally goes exponentially too far like Hitler did.
What would the world have been like if a united front had confronted and given him an ultimatum to cease and desist when Hitler reintroduced military conscription in 1935? Or in 1936 when he reoccupied the Rhineland? Or in 1938 at the Anschluss? Sudetenland?
I'm of the opinion that's it's easier, cheaper and faster to nip these little dictators in the bud.
But sometimes that takes balls, a willingness to lose lives and money and some aggressive militarism on the part of those who oppose aggressive militarism.
And yeah, we all know where you were standing when the Serbs were cleaning out Srebrenica. How fortunate the Dutch didn't practice a little aggressive militarism then, eh? At least Dallaire tried in Rwanda.
That's the whole problem with the UN. It's corrupt. Many of the member nations ARE the corrupt ones, and are in positions to oppose any action against it's corruption. It's like expecting a government to police itself, with zero accountability.
-
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!".
Beats raping the populace.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You would know.
Yep. I watched it on the news. According to you, though, it doesn't matter unless you were there participating.
I guess you stand alone in that forum.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Sure you did.
I know, I know. You've said it before. You don't believe me.
I guess you just wish I was there with you. Sorry, you carry your guilt alone.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Like I said, keep me out of your perverted fantasies.
Living with that guilt must be rough. You could always turn yourself in. Confessing your crimes is the first step to recovery. The victims deserve it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Aren't there other forums on the web better suited to people of your "persuasion"?
What persuasion would that be? People against militant rapists?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, so now you're in denial? Seek professional help.
Denial of what? I readily admit the UN is a corrupt organization, currently in the Congo raping and pillaging the locals. It's you who seem to have trouble admitting that.
-
Why don't you two go get a room. The love is so thick in the air that you can cut it with a knife.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't have a problem admitting anything. You on the other hand seem to have a pathological fixation on raping people.
I think most people are concerned with a militant organization raping the citizens in the Congo. I think the fact that you aren't speaks volumes.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think the fact that you think that the UN is a "militant organization", and that the "organisation" is "raping the citizens in the Congo" speaks volumes.
Now who's in denial?
The accused include Didier Bourguet, a U.N. senior official from France charged with running an Internet pedophile ring in the Congo. According to ABC News and others, pictures taken from his personal computer contained thousands of photos of him with hundreds of girls.
In one of the photos confiscated from Bourguet, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.
Hundreds of babies, fathered by U.N. personnel, have been born to Congolese girls and women-including the 15-year-old deaf mute daughter of Aimee Tsesi, who told Ross she was turned away at the gates of the U.N. camp when she went for assistance.
Annan's spinners would have us believe that the problem of U.N. sex predators is confined to a tiny band of rogues and locals beyond the control of headquarters. But according to Bourguet's lawyer, there was an entire network of U.N. personnel who had sex with underage girls in Congo and the Central African Republic. Investigators are now digging into claims of U.N. infiltration by organized pedophiles.
The Times of London reports further that two Russian pilots who served in the U.N.'s peacekeeping contingent based in Mbandaka "paid young girls with jars of mayonnaise and jam to have sex with them. They filmed the sessions and sent the tapes to Russia.
In July 2002, Congolese military official Jean Pierre Ondekane said that all the U.N. mission in Congo would be remembered for in the village of Kisangani was "for running after little girls."
Human rights groups say such monstrosities have been tolerated by U.N. brass for years. Joseph Loconte noted in the Weekly Standard last month that the Congo revelations come three years after another U.N. report found "widespread" evidence of sexual abuse of West African refugees. Girls and women in East Timor, Cambodia and Kosovo have reported sex crimes perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers.
In 2001, American whistleblower Kathryn Bolkovac, a Nebraska policewoman who worked for U.N. security in Bosnia, uncovered scores of sex crime allegations and prostitution rings in the Balkans involving her fellow U.N. employees.
Girls were forced to dance in bars for U.N. personnel and beaten or raped, Bolkovac reported. After being fired from her job for "time sheet irregularities," she told a British tribunal that Mike Stiers, the international police task force's deputy commissioner, flippantly dismissed victims of human trafficking as "just prostitutes."
I'm not the least bit surprised your conscience is bothering you.
-
Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal.
Ring a bell?
-
Martlett you are unbelievable. Its pointless discussing anything with you as you don't read whats written, attribute other people's words to me, and basicaly make it all up! Just beggar belief mate.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think that your inability to separate the crimes of individuals to those of the organisation speaks volumes about your ignorance. Show me where in their job descriptions it says "ok to rape and pillage". Show me where in the mandates given to the forces of member nations operating in the Congo the UN authorises "raping and pillaging".
By your logic the US Army and indeed the United States herself is an organisation guilty of sodomizing and murdering Iraqi prisoners. WTG!
Hmmm. You must have missed the "senior UN officials", or "the cover up", or the "fired whistle-blower".
Keep defending them, though. You're only proving my point.
Originally posted by Zulu7
Martlett you are unbelievable. Its pointless discussing anything with you as you don't read whats written, attribute other people's words to me, and basicaly make it all up! Just beggar belief mate.
What did I make up?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Which senior UN official, and please show me where in his/hers job description is says "ok to rape and pillage, cover up etc.". You're still confusing the crimes of individuals to those of the largest international organisation on the planet.
Keep condoning it. I understand, you don't want to admit your guilt.
"show me where it says it's allowed"
HAHAHA!
That's my point. The organization is so corrupt, they just look the other way. Or, as in one of the cases I cited, they fire the whistle-blower.
Keep sticking up for them, though. It speeks volumes of your character......and further proves my point.
-
Why do you keep arguing with a person who has been blinded by his hate?
It will lead nowhere.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Why do you keep arguing with a person who has been blinded by his hate?
It will lead nowhere.
Keep ignoring the facts. I don't blame you for sliding out of the discussion, though. The facts just aren't on your side.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Speaks volumes of your ignorance, and further proves your lack of cognative abilities you mean. Sure does.
Keep dancing. I understand that you can't acknowledge the facts I posted. It would overtly acknowledge your guilt as well.
The first step towards repentance is admission, though.
Take that first step.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The facts are fine, it is your understanding of them that is lacking. Like blaming an organisation for the crimes committed by individuals who abuse their positions. It is moronical.
Not when the corruption starts on the bottom and goes straight to the top.
Your defense of them is moronical.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
blah blah drivel drivel troll troll whine whine
Martlet, I beg of you... please stop quoting him.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Whatever.
Shhhhh. Ignore it. People will think it never happened.
-
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.
-
No, I think you might as well leave the soldiers at home.
Have you read that before in this thread?
-
Given those (debatable) examples, Gscholz, it looks like the last 10 years have left the UN a useless, corrupt organision.
-
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.
-
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?:rofl
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Is that the same Bosnia where the UN set up prostitution rings and beat the prostitutes?
-
!!!
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
See? We do agree!
-
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
----------------------------------
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.
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."
-
Forgot the initial campaign already Staga?
Yeah... our troops just aren't too good. :rofl
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Explain the whole Rwandan thing for me then please. Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire sent a fax to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations at UN headquarters in New York informing officials that a genocide was being planned. Dallaire outlined the genocide plans in considerable detail and asked permission to take preventive action.
The same day, he received a reply from the UN telling him that he had no mandate to act.
Why send soldiers? What's the point? Window dressing?
They figure about 800,000 Rwandans died while several thousand UN "Peacekeepers" were there.
Explain the Dutch Batt to me again then. About 7,000 Muslim males were killed in Srebrenica... well, massacred by the Bosnian Serb army. While the "Peacekeepers" stood by.
You send a bunch of soldiers with guns, after they are invited but if the killing goes on these soldiers are expected to.... withdraw?
Is that how it works?
If so, then like I said, quit sending soldiers. There's no point to it.
Or maybe do the same thing but call the troops "UN Powerless Observers of Slaughter". At least it'd be an honest name.
Best of all... don't send troops. Face it, if all you are going to do is oversee a ceasefire or peace treaty as a neutral third party and report to both sides on what they see then you don't need soldiers. Sissies and treehugging politically correct ladies will serve just as well in that role.
The UN is the most political , corrupt organization that I have ever seen. I work as a IT business consultant and have worked at the UN head quarters in New York City and at the HQ in Belgium. The purpose of the UN is not to stop war or save life. What I have come to realize is that the only purpose of the UN is to redistribute wealth.
I make that informed opinion based on my business experience gathered over the last 30 years and partly on my military experience from the late 1960’s, I was a member of the US Army’s 5th Special Forces and received training and practical experience on counter insurgency, Jungle war fare and terrorist tactics used to influence the local population.
As a business analyst I have reviewed the systems employed by the United Nations to both employee it’s people and pay it’s vendors. As different world events have been responded to by the UN with either military police actions, or relief in the form of food or healthcare and most of the time involving all three. This is accomplished by hiring local vendors to assist and provide services, services such as hotel rooms or other lodging , transportation for health care works or food stocks brought in by the UN. Of course there is always the need to secure storage space. The UN buys these services from the local vendors, and as the audits which have come to light in the last few years show, sometimes the owners of the vendor services companies are the relatives of the UN workers that make the selections of the vendor services. Or more likely just corrupt government officials lining their pockets by taking kickbacks and bribes.
The Original purpose of the UN has been lost along the way. I am 57 years old and in my life time I know of no war that the UN has ever prevented, I know of no world hunger that the UN has cured. I know of no world health problem that the UN has resolved. I know that collectively billions of dollars are redistributed through their business systems on an annual basis. And I have little faith that the UN can get the aid to where it is needed.
The UN should be abolished.
-
Originally posted by Traveler
The Original purpose of the UN has been lost along the way. I am 57 years old and in my life time I know of no war that the UN has ever prevented.
Sure,is Iraq UN's fault as well?
Oh i'm sorry it was Bush's idea.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. I'll give you three examples:
War: http://www.usip.org/peacewatch/2004/6/macedonia.html
Hunger: http://www.wfp.org/aboutwfp/introduction/emergencies.asp
Health: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/738071.stm
So what you meant to say was:
Your second set of quotes are not accurate, you altered my statement, but published it as if it was a quote, in other words, you lied. But then maybe truth doesn matter to you?
The UN press office in each case released the information which you beleive shows what an execelent job the UN is doing.
What I would ask you to do is provide three examples that are not directly related to the UN.
I actually worked at the UN and I know how the PR operation works. Also if you do look at the press releases and you take the time to investage where the UN rented the trucks from to move the food or health supplies or what ever, you will see that the vendor that provided the service was directly releated to someone at the UN.
Can you produce any independent not produced by the UN directly. At this point the UN has been arouond a long time, there must be at least one independent news story, if not hundres or thousands that document how the UN resolved the problem. A news account that was not part of a press release from the UN. What they call in the business Hard News.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
DynCorp is not a UN member. It an American merc company.
No I'm not going to be your pimp Martlet.
Oh, I'm sorry. They weren't UN members, they were hired by the UN to assist the pimping. Did they help you, or did you freelance?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If I remember correctly there's a board member here that works for DynCorp in Iraq. I'm sure he'll appreciate you calling him a pimp.
Trying to share your guilt? Must be really eating at you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
LOL no, I think I must be really eating at you since you're so obsessively stalking me. :lol
I'm after justice. You're running from it. It has to be your conscience.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Am I annoying you Martlet? :lol
Nope. How could you annoy me? It's unfortunate that your conscience doesn't ignore you, though. I guess that's convenient. You could support or participate in corrupt and criminal behavior if it did.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Very well then. I guess we'll continue the GScholz/Martlet show tomorrow. Good night.
Good night.
-
staga... are we comparing body counts? I believe we are doing pretty well and as toad says... we are going after the bad guys... we have a reason to be armed.
lazs
-
Nope.
You typed "they go around carrying guns like they were real soldiers and mean bussines. they ran into a real fight and got creamed".
I pointed out that when troops get ambushed there usually are quite many casualties; just like in case with Bangladesh's bluebarets.
btw how do You know those weren't "real soldiers"? What were they then?
-
"Peacekeepers".
Big difference.
The difference between nothing getting done in the Balkans and something getting done in the Balkans.
How long did the UN "Peacekeepers" get shot at there before NATO soldiers finally convinced the Serbs to knock it off?
-
staga... when have they not gotten creamed? Real soldiers may get ambushed but they put up a good fight and ocassion.... even win one.
lazs
-
So these guys didn't put up a "good fight"?
With "Hinds" & all ?
okay; guess You were there and know better than me.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You mean like when your "real" soldiers had to be rescued by UN forces in Somalia?
Yeah. That time. When the US had to force the UN out of the compound at gunpoint.
-
The whole problem in the "Blackhawk Down" Somalia affair can be traced to the refusal to properly equip the force.
The Task Force 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.
Simple fact.
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned two months after Somalia, having acknowledged that his decision on the armor had been an error. A 1994 Senate Armed Services Committee investigation reached the same conclusion. But perhaps the most poignant statement came from retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Joyce, father of Sergeant Casey Joyce, a Ranger killed in Mogadishu: "Had there been armor ... I contend that my son would probably be alive today ..."
And don't forget the one HUGE difference between Somalia and a UN operation like the Congo.
The US forces were going after the "bad guys" to remove them.
Not so in the Congo.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The phrase you're looking for is "the US had to beg on its knees".
Actually, the phrases I was looking for was "refused to leave the compound", "had to be ordered not to retreat", and "fled to allow the mutilation of American soldiers".
Not only corruption in the UN, but cowardice.
-
Just from the news: at yesterday UN troops in Kongo killed 50-60 enemies and used also armor and combat helos..
Of course they were just UN troops and not real soldiers like Lazs said.
-
Yeah I thought so.
-
hmm... so they are not really peacekeepers but armed soldiers? I certainly don't want them to ever come to my country.
lazs
-
Now lets' see. The UN "Peacekeepers" just took agressive action against the militias?
The head of the UN peacekeepers in Congo, General Jean-François Collot d'Escury, accused the militia groups of terrorising the local population and said an aggressive operation was under way to dismantle their camps.
So now they must be "uninvited", right Scholz?
Originally posted by GScholz
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.
I'm not sure the UN troops' leadership understands that G. You had better get an E-mail to the chop-chop!
General Collot d'Escury vowed to dismantle all the militia camps in the area, saying his message to the gunmen was straightforward: the UN peacekeepers know how to fight.
Originally posted by GScholz
They're not supposed to fight. They're there on the invitation of the conflicting parties to act as observers. If peacekeepers suddenly start to act like peacemakers, they will soon find themselves uninvited everywhere.
Whoooo... if you're right you maybe better call Eliane at the UN too and give her the word.
"This group continues to loot, kill and rape these people, making life miserable," said UN spokeswoman Eliane Nabaa.
"It's time to put an end to this militia."
Originally posted by GScholz
No they can "actively" defend themselves against renegade forces and bandits, however they need the authorization of the local government to do so. Preferably the local forces can deal with the situation and let the UN stay neutral.
Looks like your view of UN Peacekeeping ops is becoming passe, Scholz. Perhaps they finally will become what they should be.
....After years being derided as "tourists in a war zone", the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sent out a new message - that it will get tough on ethnic militias.....
...Gen Collot d'Escury said Monuc was determined to dismantle camps used by the fighters, even if it meant using force.
The new tough talking follows a year in which Monuc's failure to prevent rebel forces taking control of the key eastern town of Bukavu prompted criticism and anti-UN riots.
Originally posted by GScholz
What you propose will halt the shipment of aid to what? 90% of the third world? With a more aggressive ROE the UN simply won't get invited. The UN aid programs and all the private charities depend on UN peacekeepers to protect their convoys.
What you propose would kill millions.
No, what I propose would make the UN a meaningful organization. It would seem that there are far more than I that view it that way. Perhaps you are the one marching out of step?
...UN spokesman Kemal Saiki told the BBC News website the offensive showed that extra troops in Ituri were starting to make an impact, even though the full deployment has not yet been reached....
....And he warned the militia could expect many more such operations if they continued to resist the peacekeepers' efforts to disarm them....
....The BBC's Arnaud Zajtman in Kinshasa says most people in DR Congo welcome Monuc's offensive against the Ituri militia as long overdue.
"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.
For my part, I salute the new UN attitude. It's long overdue and it seems they've finally realized that.
You know, if the death of those Pakistanis finally results in the UN blue helmets becoming what they should have been... and aggressive peacekeeping force, then they did not die in vain. They should be hailed around the world for the sacrifice they made to get the UN's collective head out of it's anal vent with respect to going after the bad guys.
-
I didn't knew those casualties were from Pakistan.
Oh well; papa Toad knows better :)
-
btw Toad; You really like to b1tch don't you?
Well if it brings some pleasure then go for it :)
-
Here, re-read this from "UN spokesman" Kemal Saiki:
"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.
"IMPOSING the peace" is a far, far cry from your
GScholz: 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.
They're not observing now, they're IMPOSING THE PEACE. You can see the difference, can you not?
Clearly, this is NOT how the "UN has been operating all along". If it were, there would not have been aggressive NATO attacks against the Serbs. Nor would the slaughter of 800,000 in Rwanda have happened while Dallaire was forced to sit idly by and watch.
If you think this is how the "UN has been operating all along" you're delusional.
Again, from the BBC:
....After years being derided as "tourists in a war zone", the United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has sent out a new message - that it will get tough on ethnic militias.....
No, this is a sea-change for the UN. The comments from the UN spokespersons highlight just how out of touch you are (now) with respect to the duties of the peacekeepers as you stated them in this thread.
GScholz:
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.
It's clear they are no longer overseeing a ceasefire as a neutral third party. The UN forces have clearly taken sides and are actively attempting to disarm one side.
This is the chance, the golden opportunity. The UN can shed the "Scholz view" of peacekeeping and embrace an active role against the bad guys. I hope they seize the moment.
-
wait a minute... they are after "bandits"? so now they are cops from.... from where?
lazs
-
UN downplays deadly confrontation in Congo (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/dailyUpdate.html)
But residents say 'tough' UN response against militias ignores civilian suffering.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
The United Nation's history in the Congo can be described as a "troubled" one. That may be why the UN reacted quickly to defend the actions of UN peacekeeping troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), who killed 60 militiamen in a fierce gunbattle Wednesday.
The Associated Press reports that 242 Pakistani peacekeepers from the UN Mission in the Congo, known as MONUC, were on a mission to dismantle a militia headquarters "in lawless Ituri province in eastern Congo" when they came under fire. The troops returned the fire and were assisted by Indian helicopter gunships.
'The UN has traditionally kept peace. It hasn't done war fighting, but when you're confronted with people who are fighting you, you have to exercise self-defense and take them out, basically,' Britain's UN Ambassador Emyr Jones-Parry said.
Ituri province is the same area where nine UN troops from Bangledesh were killed last Friday. The AllAfrica.com reports that the nine men were not killed in battle, but were kept alive and then executed by militiamen.
The International Online of South Africa reports that the area is "awash" in guns, fueled by the gold and diamond trade. The Washington Post reports that a peace agreement has been in place in the region since 2002, but "at least seven militias vie for control of the area's diamonds and gold."
None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal. With no representatives in Congo's transitional government, they have little interest in national elections planned for this year, analysts said. 'If the UN looks for militia, they are going to find them,' said Jim Terrie, an expert on the Ituri region at the Nairobi chapter of the International Crisis Group. Even if the UN forces are 'acting more robustly' in pursuing those who killed the Bangladeshis, he said, 'they need to take a different path to achieve peace and not just justice for a small group.'
The BBC reports that the militia members killed in Tuesday's gunbattle, belonged to the ethnic Lendu Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI), the same group that is believed to have killed the Bangladeshi peacekeepers. AllAfrica.com reported Wednesday that government justice officials arrested several FNI militia leaders Tuesday.
The Daily Telegraph, however, reports that criticism of the UN operation in Congo is mounting after it emerged that up to one-third of those killed were civilians used by the militia as human shields. Congelese officials in the area say that 20 women and children died, including several after the helicopter gunships set their huts on fire.
'What we are sure of is that the militiamen were using civilians as human shields,' said Eliane Nabaa, a UN spokesman in Ituri's main town of Bunia. 'We think the majority of those killed, maybe all, were militiamen but we are investigating to see if there were civilians among the dead.'
Reuters reports that "ordinary Congalese" are outraged at the UN's actions because the body's new "get tough" policies on militias in the country take no account of civilian suffering. Many in the town of Bunia, near Ituri province, say the UN's actions were "misplaced revenge" for last week's ambush killings, and show that UN lives count more than civilian lives. Almost 3 million people have died in fighting in the Congo.
'Nine people die and it triggers a huge bombardment, but how many thousands of people died here?' said Christophe, a businessman sitting astride his parked motorbike on a rutted pavement in this ramshackle mining town ... 'There are those who bleed milk and those who bleed blood,' he said, using a proverb to signal the incident showed African lives were worth less to the United Nations than those of foreigners.
The Post reports that the UN mission in the Congo, one of the "largest and most expensive" of the organization's peacekeeping operations, has been heavily criticized in the past for standing aside when violence flared in past incicents in Ituri province. In May of 2003, a UN contingent from Uruguay watched as militias killed 500 people in Bunia, including several shot as they were trying to make their way into the UN compound for protection.
Last year, a breakaway faction of the Congolese army attacked Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province, while UN troops watched and made no effort to stop them. A few days later, thousands of people in the capital of Kinshasa demonstrated and burned UN vehicles in protest.
Allegations of sex crimes
Voice of America reports on the other dark moment for the UN in the country: the allegation that UN peacekeeping troops used food and money to buy sexual favors from woman and girls, some as young as 12. The US Congress held hearings Monday on the reports, which Congressmen called "shameful."
An editorial in the Kenyan newspaper, The Nation, notes that the head UN envoy in DRC, former US Ambassador William Lacy Swing, will likely announce his regignation soon because of his failure to deal with the soldiers and sex issue. The paper said the UN needs to "re-examine its criteria for recruiting soldiers to its peacekeeping missions in the first place, the training these soldiers get, and their all-round suitability as peacekeepers."
The greatest criticism that the world body faces today is the immoral opulence displayed by its staff in a sea of strife and poverty. Some of the staff have doubtful qualification and scant knowledge of local culture. In the same breath, the world body should be applauded for exposing the rot within its system, for self-criticism is the first step towards self-improvement.
Although many UN soldiers serving in the DRC accused of these crimes have been sent back to their countries, The Scotsman reports that most go completely unpunished for their actions. But Jordan’s UN Ambassador Prince Zeid al Hussein, who is writing a report on the situation, is apparently going to recomment that "foreign soldiers accused of wrongdoing be court-martialed in the country where the claims were made."
Finally, a report released Monday by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies said deployments of peacekeepers (and civilian contractors) in the Balkans had "only boosted demand for trafficked women and put money in the pockets of organized crime.'
The report, released yesterday, accused the UN, the US Defense Department and NATO of failing to adhere to their "zero-tolerance" policies of soldiers having sex with local women.
Okay, somebody explain this to me..
"None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal."
If the UN peacekeepers are there, imposing a peace deal on groups that obviously don't want it... doesn't that make them the equivelent of mercenaries for the Congo government? Heading out into the bush to "dismantle" a headquarters in lawless territory doesn't seem very neutral to me. I dunno though, that's just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by indy007
UN downplays deadly confrontation in Congo (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/dailyUpdate.html)
Okay, somebody explain this to me..
"None of Ituri's militias is part of the peace deal."
If the UN peacekeepers are there, imposing a peace deal on groups that obviously don't want it... doesn't that make them the equivelent of mercenaries for the Congo government? Heading out into the bush to "dismantle" a headquarters in lawless territory doesn't seem very neutral to me. I dunno though, that's just my opinion.
Shhhh. They're nation building.
-
I'm happy that the UN soldiers are killing the bad guys in such a nice way.
One thing I gotta say about this UN thing though, it's intersting to see Pakistani troops being given air support by Indian helicopers... Nice job.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
They're not imposing a peace deal on the Ituris. The Ituris are not part of the peace deal with the government. The UN forces will however defend themselves, aggressively if necessary, as their UN mandate allow. This UN action was a response to the killing of 9 peacekeepers.
Okay, understandable..
The high death count and fierce fighting defied the notion that U.N. peacekeepers stick to defense rather than joining the fight. But the Congo mission was given a stronger mandate last year to round up guns and defend the populace.
Aggressive defense = going into a hot zone to dismantle the opposition's local headquarters? Sounds like they're making war, not peace to me! I can't pretend to know exactly what's going on over there. I'm just commenting on the perception of it... but, doesn't the mission they ran, (which was not retaliation according to the UN) seem like it would be one for the Congo's standing army? If they fought a 6 country war that ended 3 years ago, they should still have multiple divisions (even reservists) on standbye for this type of operation. Supplying observers, equipment, training.. okay.. but sending troops to take care of it for them?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
They are observing the disarmament and absorption of the militias into the government army.
[/b]
You conveniently ignore the fact that these militias were part of the truce. They're just one "side" of the conflict that the truce addressed.
"Renegades" is about the only fig leaf you have left to hide behind now that you're theory of how the "Peacekeepers" are supposed to act was blown out of the water by the UN talking about "IMPOSING the peace".
Face it, the UN "IMPOSING the peace" just totally negates all your former arguments in this thread.
There is absolutely no way you can portray the UN as a "neutral third party" in the Congo right now. They are clearlyl going after one of the former "sides".
-
Originally posted by GScholz
[BThis is a part of their UN mandate that was authorized in February 2000 ... before 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq and the American populist anti-UN "campaign". Some "sea-change" you've got there Toad. [/B]
LOL!
The "sea change" is that they are actually getting their thumbs out and DOING something.
Here, let me refresh your memory with the way any intelligent viewer saw the situation:
"The real scandal for Monuc for the people was the fact that the UN wasn't imposing the peace that it was supposed to impose, so it wasn't really fulfilling its task," he says.
See, the change is they are actually doing something rather than spouting a lot of rhetoric without any action to back it up.
-
Looks like some blue baret has fcked Toad's wife and mom and most likely at the same time; he's so frigging bitter to them.
Oh well; what ever makes You happy :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yeah, you'd think the Pakistani would have more casualties . ;)
Exactly..
-
Originally posted by Staga
Looks like some blue baret has fcked Toad's wife and mom and most likely at the same time; he's so frigging bitter to them.
Oh well; what ever makes You happy :)
Wow. That was pretty uncalled for.
-
It's clear that what ever UN does it's not good enough for Toad.
-
Originally posted by Staga
It's clear that what ever UN does it's not good enough for Toad.
So? That doesn't make your comment appropriate.
-
Whine as much as You like but please don't be surprised if people begun to call you a *****.
-
Originally posted by Staga
Whine as much as You like but please don't be surprised if people begun to call you a *****.
You just locked up that title.
-
Wow aren't You smart one :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Wow aren't You smart one :)
Unfortunately, you haven't locked that up.
-
On the road, I'll be back Monday and discuss it in detail.
Lost your reading comprehension I see, Staga. Read the posts again, maybe you'll figure it out. (It sure couldn't have been a Finnish Blue Beret... I heard they're all eunuchs; impolite ones at that.)
Scholz, Monday we can delve into who is doing what to whom.
A UN military source said the dead fighters were members of the Nationalist and Integrationist Front (FNI) militia.
The FNI is an ethnic Lendu-dominated militia which has been battling rival Hema factions in a conflict that has killed more than 50,000 people in north-eastern Congo since 1999.
Didn't the UN troops arrive about Aug-Sep 2000? Didn't the RCD train and use a lot of the Lendu?