Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AquaShrimp on December 14, 2006, 07:07:21 PM
-
"It surprises me that intelligent people at the dawn of the 21st century could claim that if you respond to terrorism with force, you spawn terrorism," he said. "But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."
I agree. Terrorism is a fanatical mindset that takes either death or several generations to overcome.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
"It surprises me that intelligent people at the dawn of the 21st century could claim that if you respond to terrorism with force, you spawn terrorism," he said. "But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."
I agree. Terrorism is a fanatical mindset that takes either death or several generations to overcome.
The only thing I dissagree with is the use of the word "intelligent" in the quote.
-
Hehe.
Well, those terrorists are usually fanatic, and not overly enlightened.
If you have education, a broad mind, not to mention a family who is OK and some comfort, what's going to make you a terrorist?
(of course there are exceptions)
-
Who said that?
-
Originally posted by Dux
Who said that?
Dux did. What do I win? :)
-
I disagree with the notion that there are just two responses to terrorism... force (and I'll assume the author meant military force) or appeasement.
-
Sounds like something Tony Blair would say.
-
sandie.. that would of course depend on the ultimate goal of the people doing the terrorist acts. If for instance they could never be finished until eveyone in the world bowed to their religion then you might not have a lot of options.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I disagree with the notion that there are just two responses to terrorism... force (and I'll assume the author meant military force) or appeasement.
Ok you disagree. What are the other options you feel exist?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I disagree with the notion that there are just two responses to terrorism... force (and I'll assume the author meant military force) or appeasement.
you could always get a piece of paper signed by mr hitler garenteeing "peace in our time".
the quote is by the Ethiopian prime minister in reference to the Somali Islamic council declaring "holy war" on Ethiopia.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
"It surprises me that intelligent people at the dawn of the 21st century could claim that if you respond to terrorism with force, you spawn terrorism," he said. "But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi .
-
History has proven that nukes end fanatism.
Now we just need a president that can pronounce the darn word.
-
Nah, you can't even spell fanaticism.
-
Nah, you can't even spell fanaticism.
-
Another quote:
"If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting."
-
Force and appeasement, instead of force orappeasement.
You use force against the terrorists and appeasement with their support base.
-
Don't you have those two switched around?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
"It surprises me that intelligent people at the dawn of the 21st century could claim that if you respond to terrorism with force, you spawn terrorism," he said. "But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."
I agree. Terrorism is a fanatical mindset that takes either death or several generations to overcome.
"But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."
I have yet to hear or read someone claiming that.
-
Maybe they're not claiming that, just pretending it is so to ease their own minds.
Like the Dutch at Srebrenica.
-
Ah ... so now you know what people are thinking?
There were terrorists in Srebrenica?
-
No, there were Dutch pretending that appeasing terrorists was the way to tame them.
-
How do you figure?
-
Sounds like the third grade version of foreign policy.
-
I probably figure it about the same way ~8000 dead Muslim men and boys figured it.
-
And exactly how is that appeasement?
-
Well, what would you call Dutch United Nations soldiers who failed to prevent the massacre of Srebenica in July 1995 and gave the Serbs a back-slapping welcome, handing over their Dutch uniforms and even actively helped to separate Muslim men from their families if not "appeasers"?
Maybe collusion is a better word for you? Ally? Take your pick.
-
Well ... since the massacre wasn't discovered until years later and the Dutch had no way of knowing what was going to happen I find your argument unreasonable. The UN was a neutral party to that war.
Unless you consider every soldier who surrenders to an overwhelming force to be "appeasing terrorists", in which case your whole argument is laughable.
-
Perhaps you should review the case now in preparation for trial. "Srebenica Widows Sue UN, Dutch Government" reads one July 2006 headline.
Or do you think that "surrendered" soldiers commonly and correctly assist their captors with genocide against a local population?
(http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,444963,00.jpg)
You do highlight one good point though...it really is collusion rather than merely.
-
How did they "assist in genocide"? How could they have stopped it, even if they had known what was going to happen? They were repeatedly denied air support from NATO and had only light weapons while facing a force four times larger and with tanks.
I could post a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, but that would be as irrelevant as your picture. The UN held talks with all the parties to that conflict. The UN was on a humanitarian mission, and not involved in the fighting.
And finally: What has all this got to do with appeasing terrorists?
-
Here's how a Dutch soldier experienced the whole deal:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,364902,00.html
No offence, but I take his word over yours
-
cliped from vikings link.
"Holland's Inter-Church Peace Council came to the conclusion that the genocide could have been prevented if the Dutch government and its military leadership in the city had reached other decisions and had negotiated more courageously."
"negotiated more courageously.".........
:rofl don't send little boys to do a mans work.
-
How bady organized was the Dutch UN force if they, according to the article, "secretly, admired their
(the serbs) tight military organization"
-
Originally posted by john9001
:rofl don't send little boys to do a mans work.
Thank you for making my point so abundantly clear. They weren't there to fight a war.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How bady organized was the Dutch UN force if they, according to the article, "secretly, admired their
(the serbs) tight military organization"
I'm sure you're familiar with the word "accusation". Like the accusations made against Americans using white phosphorus on civilians in Iraq. Both are untrue, or so I choose to believe.
-
The Dutch military behaved shamefully that day. More accurately their officers did. The ordinary soldier has little control over his fate. The man in the article quite properly feels no guilt. I'm quite sure they would have fought if ordered to. But their officers lacked the guts it seems. The fact of them being outnumbered and outgunned is beside the point. The Serbs knew quite well that a direct attack on a UN contingent would have brought down a world of hurt on them. The Serbs bluffed and won. The Dutch commander effectively surrendered without a shot and then stood by and watched a massacre or it seems even colluded in it.
That is quite properly a disgrace.
-
Next time we take a hit like we did on 9/11 we should stop playing ball with those people and eradicate radical islam in its entirety.
-
I once thought as you do Cpxxx, but not anymore. There wasn’t anything Ductbat could have done, and they were under orders to do nothing. The blame of UN inaction in this case lay squarely in New York and Amsterdam.
-
they were there to protect those people, the officer in command should ordered his men to fire on the serbs, and not over their heads.
-
Eventually the truth will come out.
Ten attorneys in Holland and four in Bosnia currently are working on the class action suit. Their criticism of the Dutch Army leadership is based first and foremost upon accounts from such eyewitnesses as Zumra Sehomerovic, 54.
The woman from Srebrenica describes how Dutch soldiers allowed Serb militia leader Ratko Mladic's men to disarm them, without resisting. Some of the Dutch troops even took off their uniforms - and Serbs then slipped them on.
Dutch help
The next day, the Dutch troops lined up with the Serbian Chetniks as if nothing had happened. The UN soldiers had helped to separate the Muslim men from their families. Zumra Sehomerovic saw her husband once more, standing in a ditch on the left side of the road. He was never seen again.
04 July, 2006 SREBRENICA MASSACRE LAWSUIT AGAINST UNITED NATIONS AND DUTCH GOVERNMENT (http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2006_07_10_srebrenica-genocide_archive.html)
-
Yes the truth will come out, and I think it will vindicate Dutchbatt. That eyewitnesses saw UN personnel help the Serbs comes as no surprise. Serbs and Bosnian impostors often used stolen UN uniforms and body armor, and as the UN soldier in the article I posted said many of the Dutch soldiers were forced to hand over their uniforms at gunpoint.
-
Originally posted by john9001
they were there to protect those people, the officer in command should ordered his men to fire on the serbs, and not over their heads.
What would that have accomplished? Nothing more than adding 350 Dutch soldiers to the death toll.
I know you Americans are fond of self sacrifice and all. Your movies are full of examples of glorifying selfless acts of sacrifice, but when all you can hope to achieve is your own death it’s called foolishness.
-
Tell that to the graves of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.
Had the Dutch acted, the rest of the UN troops would have HAD to get involved. But then, not untypically, they have the same attitude towards sacrifice that you apparently hold.
I'd rather be a dead Spartan than a live coward that stood by and watched a massacre of innocent civilians.
-
Yes, an excellent example of glorious self sacrifice you Americans like so much. How brave of you to call them cowards from the comforts of your home. You’re the coward sir.
-
vikings real name is quisling.
-
Hello Benedict :)
-
heh when told by the persian emissary that the persian archers would darken the sky with their arrows king leonaiedes reportedly responded "good we will fight in the shade then" when the emissary said for the spartans to turn over their weapons king leonaiedes responded "come and take them" remarkable stuff. the repository of that type of courage is in the english and american people today, you fluffy euro. :D
-
Well the English are Europeans and so was King Leonaiedes and the Spartans you bloody colonial! ;)
-
The actions of the Dutch soldiers are unforgivable.
They had a sword duty to protect those who were unable to protect themselves.
That doesn't mean abandoning your oaths because of fears for personal safety. That means doing everything up to and including the sacrifice of your own life to protect those you are honor-bound to shield.
Arguments trying to protect or excuse these soldiers' actions bring to mind arugments for pardoning the actions of SS soldiers in WWII vs. unarmed civilians, captured pow's and camp inmates. Testamony by witnesses/victims point towards willing participation by the Dutch "peacekeepers". This would place them as accessories to the crimes.
They abandoned those they were sworn to protect. They dishonored themselves and their uniform. They were faithless in the performance of their duty.
Anyone doubting this is delusional and has never served in any kind of military or police organization where this choice is always a possibility: your safety or the safety of those you are bound to protect. I know I would rather lay down my life in the peformance of my duty rather than assist in the dishonor and cowardess that the Dutch soldiers showed on that day, and live with it for years later. Everyone dies. Few people get to do it for a cause or service they believe in and cherish.
What did that guy say in Serenity? Something about "in an earlier...some would say, more civilized society, one who has failed as completely as you have would be given a sword to fall upon..."
*Edit* ah, here it is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Operative: You know, in certain older civilized cultures, when men failed as entirely as you have, they would throw themselves on their swords.
(http://www.gordon.army.mil/tsc/webgraphics/Creeds/images/Soldiers%20Creed%208x10.jpg)
-
So when the American soldiers surrendered the Philipines to the horrors of Japanese occupation they "abandoned those they were sworn to protect. They dishonored themselves and their uniform. They were faithless in the performance of their duty."?
Clearly you know not what you speak of.
-
ah, you mean the ones on Bataan that fought beside the Phillipino soldiers until they were out of food and ammunition, many of them dead from disease and malnutrition, who were then forced to march to prison camps hundreds of miles away without water or rest. Who were bayonetted by the Japanese if they paused to help a comrade or fell unconscious into the ditch as they trudged along?
Or the ones who returned to free the islands later on, who left thousands upon thousands dead upon the beaches that they battled upon on the road to liberate the Phillipines?
If these Dutch soldiers would have fought valiantly, then surrendered when they were out of food and ammo, the story would have been different, don't you think?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The Serbs knew quite well that a direct attack on a UN contingent would have brought down a world of hurt on them. The Serbs bluffed and won.
No, the Serbs knew that the U.N. would not do a thing from previous encounters with the U.N. The Serbs had been using the white vehicles of the U.N. forces as target practice for awhile before Sebrenica.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
ah, you mean the ones on Bataan that fought beside the Phillipino soldiers until they were out of food and ammunition, many of them dead from disease and malnutrition, who were then forced to march to prison camps hundreds of miles away without water or rest. Who were bayonetted by the Japanese if they paused to help a comrade or fell unconscious into the ditch as they trudged along?
Or the ones who returned to free the islands later on, who left thousands upon thousands dead upon the beaches that they battled upon on the road to liberate the Phillipines?
Yes, you seem to think they should all have died rather than retreated off the island. Your glorification of the "last stand" is typical of people who have never faced an enemy on the battlefield. History is filled with countless incidents where soldiers have surrendered civilians to a brutal enemy when the fight was hopeless. The creed of true soldiers is "live to fight another day", not "die gloriously to save no one". You dishonor them all with your simpleton antics.
-
They didn't retreat. They surrendered when they could no longer fight. It wasn't an island. That was Corregidor, which fought on. It was a peninsula. Hence, the phrase "Bataan Peninsula". Hard to do a death march off an island. Well, the first couple of miles could be done I guess.
Prisoners on a burial detail at Camp O'Donnell
?(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Ww2_131.jpg/180px-Ww2_131.jpg)
About 10,000 perished while others were able to escape; approximately 54,000 reached Camp O'Donnell. The problems persisted there. On June 6, 1942 the Filipino soldiers were granted amnesty and released, while the American prisoners were moved to another camp at Cabanatuan. Many of the survivors were later sent to prison camps in Japan, Korea, and Manchuria in prisoner transports known as "Hell Ships." The 500 POWs who still resided at the Cabanatuan Prison Camp were freed in January 1945 in the The Great Raid.
Every year, the captured soldiers are honored on Araw ng Kagitingan ("Day of Valor") (9 April), also known as the "Bataan Day", which is a Philippine national holiday. There is a shrine in Bataan commemorating this event. In Capas, Tarlac there is also the Capas National Shrine built in the grounds surrounding Camp O'Donnell.
You sir, need both history lessons and an in-depth tutorial in humanity and honor. But continue on with your misguided opinions about how US soldiers fighting and dying in the Phillipines compares to Dutch soldiers helping Serbs load up Muslims on buses to be slaughtered.
I'm sure the Muslim survivors have some sort of national holiday celebrating the defense of their civilian friends and family by the Dutch soldiers?
Where are you from, anyways, to have such a shoddy education?
Please read about the battle here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bataan
Then tell me where I can read of the battle to protect the helpless thousands who died in the care of the UN Peacekeepers.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your glorification of the "last stand" is typical of people who have never faced an enemy on the battlefield.
By the way. Not that it's any of your business, but I have the CIB (combat infantryman's badge with some nifty stars over it. Know what that means?), Purple Heart, and an ArCom I received during armed conflict. I was with the 1/508th, C Company, 82nd ABN at Ft. Bragg, NC. I was in combat in Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War.
I am currently receiving 40% disability after being honorably discharged from the US Army. Well over a decade of faithful service to my country and those I was sworn to protect.
If you would like to see my DD 214 I can scan that and send it to you.
Please continue.
-
You sir are a hypocrite. You’d want the Dutch to die in a hopeless battle while you praise those that fled or surrendered in the Philipines. If the Dutch had fought to say 300 dead leaving 50 left to surrender would that have satisfied your twisted and archaic sense of honor?
I am from Norway ... and I fought in Bosnia at the time of the very incident we are discussing and I have killed in the name of peace. I was on the line at Tusla. We held Tusla.
Your accusations against the Dutch soldiers are false and disgraceful. I can no more believe the Dutch would aid in genocide than I can believe the Americans would.
-
Tuzla was quite a battle!
Salt mining town; the miners ended up using explosives they were familiar with handling against the troops that attacked them, if I remember correctly.
Why did you fight in that battle? It wasn't your home, or your people. The people of Tuzla were outnumbered and attacked by a professional army supported by artillery. Seems pretty hopeless to me. Why didn't you and your comrades lay down their arms and let the town be destroyed?
Are you proud that you stood the line and did your duty?
You should be.
Are you confused and angry when others don't?
Again. You should be.
-
Our fight was never hopeless. Alone we had a battalion, and in addition we had support elements from the Swedes, Danes, Jordanians, Pakistanis, Canadians and air support from NATO. Most of our battles were artillery duels, but there were frequent skirmishes. The BiH militia bore the brunt of the fighting. We were supposed to be neutral although it was hard to be under the circumstances. There were times where we considered abandoning Tusla, but it never came to that.
Karremans were supposed to have a battalion too, but UN and Dutch bureaucracy and inaction left him with less than a company in strength with no heavy weapons or armor. They denied him air support and the nearest friendly units were hours away and ordered to stay put. Karremans played for time and won some, but when push came to shove the UN chose to waste his efforts and do nothing. At this point the Dutch were isolated, out of fuel for the few vehicles they had and dangerously low on food and supplies. Karremans and his men were out of options.
Like I said: Once I was angry and disgusted too … out of ignorance. The Dutch did what they could. All they could do more was to die futilely. If you don’t accept that, then so be it. I can say nothing more to convince you.
-
Yep. Difference of opinion here, neither will be swayed by the other. Dangerously low on supplies means little to me in this case. Not a round was fired. Not a single soldier offered resistance when the ones he was charged with protecting were killed. They even permitted their uniforms to be taken and used by Serbians so that the civilians could be loaded upon the buses taken to the execution site without fuss.
Unforgivable.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, an excellent example of glorious self sacrifice you Americans like so much. How brave of you to call them cowards from the comforts of your home. You’re the coward sir.
I served, sir. 7 years, voluntary enlistment, joined during the VietNam war.
As to it being an excellent example, it is indeed. It is even allegorical, from my point of view.
The Spartans and the Thespians sacrificed themselves against impossible odds to block the only invasion route the Persians could use.
They delayed the Persian advance long enough for the main body of the Greek army to escape and caused enormous casualties on the Persian side; modern estimates are 20,000 Persian losses.
The self-sacrifice at Thermopylae made the victory at Salamis possible. Salamis is widely considered a turning point in the history of Western Civilization.
So, indeed, it was a glorious sacrifice with results well worth the price.
As has been pointed out above, had the Dutch at Sebrenica had the courage of the Spartans, that too would have been a turning point in the history of Western Civilization and could have finally made the UN a relevant force in the world.
However, their inability to put anything above self...so common, imo, in Euros like yourself... doomed 8000 innocents to genocide. Genocide in which the Dutch assisted in the separation of the victims from the crowd as we have seen.
It also continued the abysmal record of the UN in protecting the innocent and the UN's continued slide into irrelevance.
The Spartan's epitaph was
Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws, we lie
Too bad the Dutch will never earn such an epitaph.
Their shame will live forever, a stark counterpoint to the honor of the Spartans and Thespians.
-
Karremans or his men never witnessed the massacre. They had no idea it would happen. The BSA had guaranteed the civilians safety in a written statement to the UN claiming they were only after the BiH militia that the UN admittedly failed to completely disarm. Karremans were ordered to hand over Srebrenica to the BSA.
This is my final post on this subject.
-
The Dutch soldiers were responsible for protecting the refugees from their racial enemies. Genocide reports were common, hence the need in the first place for soldiers to protect them.
Witnesses say that the soldiers laughed at a Muslim woman begging for protection as she was dragged to a bus. Serbian men grabbed the more attractive women and carried them to a building and locked the doors.
Don't be naive enough to believe that 'nobody knew it was going to happen'. Sheesh.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Karremans or his men never witnessed the massacre. They had no idea it would happen. The BSA had guaranteed the civilians safety in a written statement to the UN claiming they were only after the BiH militia that the UN admittedly failed to completely disarm. Karremans were ordered to hand over Srebrenica to the BSA.
This is my final post on this subject.
We all know how much written agreements are worth.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Not a round was fired. Not a single soldier offered resistance when the ones he was charged with protecting were killed.
Oh I missed this one. Dutchbatt did NOT give up without firing a shot. On several occasions they exchanged fire with the BSA and 11 days before the surrender they fought off a BSA attack on the town in a fire fight. To make matters worse the BiH were also taking pot shots at them killing a Dutch soldier as he was falling back from an advanced OP. When the Dutch surrendered after being encircled for six months and under attack by superior forces for three weeks they were reduced to about 300 men. Several dead and more than 50 captured by the BSA in fighting over the Dutch forward positions for which Karremans had none left.
I think you judge them too harshly sir.
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
Witnesses say that the soldiers laughed at a Muslim woman begging for protection as she was dragged to a bus.
This was likely a BSA soldier in UN uniform.
Originally posted by Warspawn
Don't be naive enough to believe that 'nobody knew it was going to happen'. Sheesh.
I was in Bosnia and I didn’t know of these atrocities until I went home. Information was strictly controlled by the UN.
-
interesting how the fearsome Vikings turned out to be complete panzies.
-
That night, (12 July) a Dutch Bat medical orderly witnessed a rape:
"We saw two Serb soldiers, one of them was standing guard and the other one was lying on the girl, with his pants off. And we saw a girl lying on the ground, on some kind of mattress. There was blood on the mattress, even she was covered with blood. She had bruises on her legs. There was even blood coming down her legs. She was in total shock. She went totally crazy."
On 13 July 1995, the Dutch Bat troops witnessed definite signs that the Serbs were executing some of the Bosniak men who had been separated.
For example, Corporal Vaasen saw two soldiers take a man behind the "White House". He then heard a shot and the two soldiers reappeared alone.
Another Dutch Bat officer saw Serb soldiers execute an unarmed man with a single gunshot to the head. He also heard gunshots 20â€"40 times an hour throughout the afternoon.
When the Dutch Bat soldiers told Colonel Koseph Kingori, a United Nations Military Observer (UNMO) in the Srebrenica area, that men were being taken behind the "White House" and not coming back, Colonel Kingori went to investigate. He heard gunshots as he approached, but was stopped by Serb soldiers before he could find out what was going on .
-
Bye ByeBye.
-
I think you must be my long lost weigian buddy, GSholz
-
Originally posted by Viking
Bye ByeBye.
What do you find amirable in the Vikings? Are you proud of what the Vikings did?
America is the most powerful nation in the history of the world, yet we never stooped to the level of the barbaric Vikings.
American represents all that is good in this world.
-
Storch, you know, for once, you might be right.
-
Originally posted by storch
I think you must be my long lost weigian buddy, GSholz
See? Now you get your Junior Detective badge too!
-
mighty poor detective. it's as obvious as dog's balls and yet......:D I rest my case and humbly reject the position sir.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Storch, you know, for once, you might be right.
diablo the only time I was wrong is when I thought I was mistaken. :D
-
Originally posted by ByeBye
interesting how the fearsome Vikings turned out to be complete panzies.
not the viking kitties though, well until silat's mutt killed them.
-
Toad got the Sherlock Holmes ivory pipe for being first.
-
Btw. Toad, I never got an answer to what all this has got to do with appeasing terrorists?
-
Actually, you have gotten the answer. You just don't agree with it. I'll restate it for you though... one last time.
First, I view those actions by the Serbs at Srebenica as terrorist actions. Agree?
The Dutch gave the Serbs what the Serbs wanted from them; no resistance to aggression, much as Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munich.
Chamberlain surrendered the Sudetenland to Hitler. When Eduard Benes, Czechoslovakia's head of state, protested at this decision, Neville Chamberlain told him that Britain would be unwilling to go to war over the issue of the Sudetenland.
The Dutch surrendered the Muslims at Srebenica; they were unwilling to go to war over the issue of genocide.
Appeasement in both cases.
Hope that helps.
-
First of all the “terrorist actions” the BSA committed at Srebrenica was done after the Dutch surrendered, so how can the surrender be an appeasement to terrorist acts that have yet to take place?
Secondly I don’t remember Chamberlin being encircled by Hitler for 6 moths or having a shooting war with Hitler for three weeks before surrendering. To me your argument is a bit silly.
-
To me, your "nothing is worth dying for" attitude is worse than silly.
Indeed, Chamberlain surrendered before a shot was fired or an invasion started as well. But there was no doubt as to the intent.
The Dutch surrendered before a the genocide began but there could be no doubt as to the intent. The Serbs invaded a UN "safe area" , indiscriminately shelled that "safe area" full of refugees, the Serbs refused to withdraw from the "safe area".... all this well before the night of the 11th and the surrender.
You either stand for something or you don't.
The Spartans did, the Dutch didn't. History will long remember both but only one group as honorable heroes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
To me, your "nothing is worth dying for" attitude is worse than silly.
I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth. I never said that, but I guess that how you make your points these days.
Some things are worth dying for. Nothing is not one of them, and that's what the Dutch would have died for if they had fought gloriously to the last man. Nothing.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Some things are worth dying for. Nothing is not one of them, and that's what the Dutch would have died for if they had fought gloriously to the last man. Nothing.
you are assuming that the dutch would have lost the fight.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'd appreciate it if you'd not put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm commenting on your attitude in general as I see it.
The Dutch would have accomplished much if they had won or lost. Even in losing they would have given relevance to the UN and given it the opportunity to finally become an actual influence on world events.
As it was, they merely proved it's impotence.
-
On a side note:
"The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of February 2006 were Bangladesh (10,126), Pakistan (9,797), India (9,290), Nepal (3,510), Jordan, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa."
Unless the US gets directly involved, the UN is a worthless fighting force capable of nothing other than standing around with blue helmets and allowing anyone to walk all over them as if they were not even there.
Why did the Dutch even send troops if they did not intend to fight?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you are assuming that the dutch would have lost the fight.
They had already lost the fight.
-
and that's what the Dutch would have died for if they had fought gloriously to the last man. Nothing.
An organized and determined show of courage/resistance to the serbs may have deterred them from killing 8000 people. By standing by, they perpetuated the reputaion of the UN being toothless.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They had already lost the fight.
With that attitude, they lost the "fight" before they even hit the ground over there. Pretty sad attitude.
-
Gsholtz, if 20 armed guys broke into your house and started rounding up your family for slaughter, would you just give up without a fight and help them round up your family?
After all, if you fought back it would only lead to one more needless death. Might as well live to fight another day.....and hope you can sleep at night afterwards.
No use in dying for nothing, as you say.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They had already lost the fight.
with that attitude i can understand how Germany walked through Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and Norway.
sorry, i prefer Churchill's way," We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm commenting on your attitude in general as I see it.
Please stick to what I write, not what you think I’m thinking.
Originally posted by Toad
The Dutch would have accomplished much if they had won or lost. Even in losing they would have given relevance to the UN and given it the opportunity to finally become an actual influence on world events.
As it was, they merely proved it's impotence.
I’m sorry, but what you’re saying is just nonsense. The UN didn’t let the Dutch fight. The UN continually denied them CAS and even at the beginning of the 6 month siege the Dutch had only received 16% of their allotted ammunition. The UN proved it’s impotence by not giving Dutchbatt the ability to defend themselves, let alone the civilians.
If I need the opinion of an American I’ll take the opinion of USMC Major Peter S. Bowen who actually did a study on the incident. Your opinions of late have only grown in irrelevance. That goes for you too John.
From the events of the incident several factors can be easily identified:
NATO/UN forces were committed to Bosnia without the firepower required to defend themselves or the Bosnian cities they were supposed to safeguard. Dutch troops in Srebrenica in June 1995 had only 16% of their requested ammunition supply and did not possess any artillery or other heavy weapons.
Because UN/NATO forces did not possess the firepower or UN mandate to adequately defend themselves, nations with forces on the ground in Bosnia were extremely sensitive to the use of any tactic—especially air strikes--which might provoke Bosnian-Serbs or Bosnian-Muslims to attack them or take hostages.
The UN/NATO "dual key" process for authorizing air strikes severely undermined UN/NATO credibility and effectiveness. The only air strike approved for Srebrenica took more than six hours to process and execute. Without heavy weapons and with an unreliable and slow CAS process, UN/NATO commanders on the ground had little effective firepower available and little military credibility.
UN Ambassador Akashi unilaterally denied several requests for air strikes by UN/NATO forces because he believed that the strikes would undermine ongoing negotiations. Bosnian-Serb leaders interpreted this as a sign that NATO and the UN would be reluctant to use air power no matter what threat was posed to UN/NATO personnel or Bosnian safe-havens.
The combat principle of unity of command was violated in every respect, severely undermining UN/NATO credibility and effectiveness. Not only did the "dual key" process require agreement by two different organizations, NATO and the UN, but the organizations themselves were internally divided. Consensus was required among all participating UN and NATO nations before action could be taken by either organization. This frequently led to indecisiveness, the denial of air strikes and the deployment of UN/NATO forces in dangerous circumstances without the ability to defend themselves.
Operations conducted by the UN violated the principle combining authority and responsibility. The UN had the authority to deny air strikes requested by forces on the ground, but had no real responsibility to/for the safety of those forces. When the objectives of the UN ambassador (to keep negotiations active no matter what the cost) conflicted with Dutch forces extreme need for defensive air strikes, the Dutch forces were denied.
Dutch friendliness with Bosnian-Serbs and antipathy towards Bosnian-Muslims probably contributed to an increased willingness by the Dutch commander to trust that the Bosnian-Serbs would conduct a "decent" deportation and a potential reluctance to defend the Bosnian-Muslims.
Institutional-Individual
The Dutch Department of Defense report on the Srebrenica incident found that "Dutchbat cannot be blamed for its role during and after the fall of the muslim enclave Srebrenica." Nevertheless, Dutchbat, LTCOL Karremans and the Dutch Department of Defense received serious criticism for their actions and failures during the Srebrenica incident. On institutional and personal levels, the Srebrenica incident raises some very serious questions:
While the UNPROFOR order clearly tells the Dutchbat commander to protect refugees and forbids him to surrender weapons, given the lack of defensive firepower, what kinds of reasonable measures were available to the Dutchbat commander?
To whom is the Dutchbat commander responsible for his failure to carry out the order—to UNPROFOR or to the Dutch government?
Should the Dutchbat commander have defended Srebrenica and the Bosnian-Muslim refugees?
a. Should the Dutchbat commander have defended the Bosnian-Muslims if it meant possible annihilation of Dutchbat?
b. Was it reasonable for the Dutch commander to expect that the Bosnian-Serbs, given the opportunity, would commit atrocities against Bosnian-Muslims?
c. If Dutchbat had fought to defend Srebrenica, would "bloodying the nose" of the Bosnian-Serbs been enough to cause them to stop their attack?
Did the UNPROFOR commander issue the defensive order to Dutchbat in order to play both sides of the game—issuing a noble order for the forces of another nation to protect refugees in an impossible situation while denying them the defensive capability that might cause soldiers of his own nation to be taken hostage?
If the Dutch government holds the Dutchbat commander responsible for failing to carry out an order from a senior commander from a different nation with potentially conflicting interests, who will hold that senior commander responsible?
If the Dutchbat commander was wrong in allowing the Bosnian-Serbs to enter Srebrenica, were their institutional factors in the Dutch military that contributed to this poor decision? What institutional actions might be taken to prevent such an tragedy in the future?
Lessons Learned
A number of clear lessons can be drawn from the Srebrenica incident.
Forces should never be deployed without the ability to both a) adequately defend themselves and b) accomplish the mission assigned. Forces committed to a contingency must have military credibility. While this principle may seem obvious, it can be tempting to violate it in the particular circumstances of a particular contingency.
Forces should not be committed to a contingency unless the objectives of the operation are clear. The objectives are clear if success or failure of the operation can be defined in measurable terms. Lack of quantifiable objectives puts force commanders in the very poor position of not knowing how to translate political goals into military action. Without clear objectives, military leaders lack a measurement against which they can evaluate the success or failure of forces under their command.
Forces should not be committed unless the international, political and military objectives of the operation are consistent. International, national and diplomatic objectives and the ability of forces to defend themselves and achieve their mission must not conflict. Even though the Bosnian crisis was being handled by allied western nations experienced working together, different nations and individuals in both organizations had objectives that conflicted with the ability of Dutch forces to defend themselves and safeguard Bosnian-Muslims.
Forces should not be committed unless there is a unified chain of command that not only possesses the authority to command but also possesses responsibility for the forces under command.
Military personnel must be trained to act rightfully and decisively in extremely complex situations which have significant moral, humanitarian and international implications. Military units as small as companies, platoons and even squads may find themselves in these situations while under media scrutiny. The Srebrenica incident demonstrates that failure to handle these situations can undermine trust, lead to questions of honor and threaten governments.
-
Originally posted by Viking
They had already lost the fight.
I think the probably with several northern european countries is that they legally enforced compulsory military service, instead of the US which stresses the individuality of a person for honorably putting themselves in the place of another who is not as able to defend their person as the service person is. Being legally bound to serve in the military, with no choice for a set amount of time is detrimental to an individual's contribution or acknowledgement of a person's sacrafice by enlisting.
It is obvious that is a serious LACK of common morals and principles that are absent from some soldiers and some countrymen like yourself Viking. I think this display is shameful.
In addition I think you misinterpret the point behind honor and protecting people weaker than you (general you). Americans don't do it for glory or the honor to a namesake, we do these things because they are: our jobs, our principles, and it gives people less fortunate than us(servicemen and women) the chance to see another sunrise.
-
BS. UN/NATO service is voluntary in Europe.
-
Originally posted by Viking
BS. UN/NATO service is voluntary in Europe.
So why did you volunteer?
-
i like europe, it's a cute little country.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Please stick to what I write, not what you think I’m thinking.
I think I'll comment as I like, thanks. Statement stands; that's what I think of you and your ilk.
I'll wager you this if the USMC had been there and ordered to defend the civilians, they would have done so irrespective of wished for air cover or anthing else. In doing so, they would have changed the UN into a much more relevant organization.
It's the difference between Spartans and the Dutch.
-
A US Marine Corps officer disagrees with you. And that as they say ... is that. :)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
What do you think about this quote?...
boring(http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)(http://www.hckosice.sk/forum/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif)(http://www.comicastle.com/foro/images/icons/icon13.gif)(http://forums.qj.net/images/smilies/icon_thumbs_down.gif)(http://www.micechat.com/forums/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif) (http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/thumbsdown.gif)(http://forums.xaprief.com/images/xr_smilies/thumbsdown.gif)(http://www.celestialheavens.com/forums/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif)
-
The UN proved it’s impotence by not giving Dutchbatt the ability to defend themselves, let alone the civilians.
AMEN,
-
Originally posted by Toad
I served, sir. 7 years, voluntary enlistment, joined during the VietNam war.
As to it being an excellent example, it is indeed. It is even allegorical, from my point of view.
The Spartans and the Thespians sacrificed themselves against impossible odds to block the only invasion route the Persians could use.
They delayed the Persian advance long enough for the main body of the Greek army to escape and caused enormous casualties on the Persian side; modern estimates are 20,000 Persian losses.
The self-sacrifice at Thermopylae made the victory at Salamis possible. Salamis is widely considered a turning point in the history of Western Civilization.
So, indeed, it was a glorious sacrifice with results well worth the price.
As has been pointed out above, had the Dutch at Sebrenica had the courage of the Spartans, that too would have been a turning point in the history of Western Civilization and could have finally made the UN a relevant force in the world.
However, their inability to put anything above self...so common, imo, in Euros like yourself... doomed 8000 innocents to genocide. Genocide in which the Dutch assisted in the separation of the victims from the crowd as we have seen.
It also continued the abysmal record of the UN in protecting the innocent and the UN's continued slide into irrelevance.
The Spartan's epitaph was
Too bad the Dutch will never earn such an epitaph.
Their shame will live forever, a stark counterpoint to the honor of the Spartans and Thespians.
If the Dutch knew what was happening then maybe the written attack you are all giving them would be justified. But my understanding is they did not know the truth. And they were under orders by others who had political reasons for their decisions.
-
Originally posted by Viking
BS. UN/NATO service is voluntary in Europe.
I'm talking about individual countries here. Last time I checked the UN was not a single country.
-
In which European country is UN/NATO service not voluntary then?
-
Originally posted by Toad
As has been pointed out above, had the Dutch at Sebrenica had the courage of the Spartans, that too would have been a turning point in the history of Western Civilization and could have finally made the UN a relevant force in the world.
Or not,you're only guessing.
Originally posted by john9001
with that attitude i can understand how Germany walked through Belgium, Holland, Denmark, and Norway.
Fortunatly the civilian where protected by the fierce defense of the US soldier.
Originally posted by VermGhost
I think the probably with several northern european countries is that they legally enforced compulsory military service, instead of the US which stresses the individuality of a person for honorably putting themselves in the place of another who is not as able to defend their person as the service person is. Being legally bound to serve in the military, with no choice for a set amount of time is detrimental to an individual's contribution or acknowledgement of a person's sacrafice by enlisting.
It is obvious that is a serious LACK of common morals and principles that are absent from some soldiers and some countrymen like yourself Viking. I think this display is shameful.
In addition I think you misinterpret the point behind honor and protecting people weaker than you (general you). Americans don't do it for glory or the honor to a namesake, we do these things because they are: our jobs, our principles, and it gives people less fortunate than us(servicemen and women) the chance to see another sunrise.
I had no honor when I was the army ,just because I was a conscript ?
Blech...
-
Get off your high horse Toad. It's not like the Dutch did the slaughtering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
-
Originally posted by Viking
A US Marine Corps officer disagrees with you. And that as they say ... is that. :)
Actually, if you read your own cut'npaste, the US Marine Officer says the Srebenica operation was the typical UN ClusterFox from the very get-go. His analyis clearly shows why the UN is such an incapable and irrelevant organization when it comes to protecting the oppressed.
Nowhere in that clip does the US Marine Officer say that given the exact same circumstances and orders that he would have surrendered without a fight.
I believe, much to the contrary, had that Marine Officer been given the same orders in the same exact situation with the same number of men and amount of ammunition, he'd have said "Aye, aye, sir!" and engaged the Serbs when they tried to take the town.
And that, as they say IS that.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Or not,you're only guessing.
Guessing based on my belief that it is better to oppose genocide than to stand by and watch it happen.
Since it would have been such a huge differerence from previous UN inaction in the face of genocide, I believe it would have been a watershed event in the history of the UN. Thus, a new relevant UN would have had a huge effect on civilization, much like the Spartan's sacrifice enabled the victory at Salamis.
YMMV.
-
Thrawn, I know there are abyssmal stains on the honor of my nation's military. My Lai is one of them. At least that crime was pursued in the courts, more than you can say for some other nation's military excesses.
Overall, I am quite satisfied with my country's record of helping others.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nowhere in that clip does the US Marine Officer say that given the exact same circumstances and orders that he would have surrendered without a fight.
He clearly says it was unreasonable to expect the Dutch to sacrifice themselves under those circumstances. And he is right of course.
I don't claim to know what US Marines would do in their place, but I do know how quickly US Marines surrender in NATO exercises up here when their situation becomes hopeless. Marines do not fight to the death, even simulated death. And they are right of course.
-
Shoot, everyone expected the Dutch to surrender...even the Serbs.
Yah, they surrender in an exercise exactly as they would do in a RL engagement.
This one's for you American Spartans (http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=506007)
-
Strange how the author chooses to start at Iwo Jima rather than Wake Island where the Marines surrendered to the Japanese when their situation became untenable. The Dutch fought longer at Srebrenica and their situation was untenable from the start. In fact there are interesting parallels between those two battles. Both forces were surrounded and cut off from support. Both forces faced a much stronger enemy. Both forces repelled their enemy's first attack. Both surrendered when the situation was hopeless.
Marines surrender.
-
The Dutch really don't have a history of honorable fighting.
-
Why are you wasting time discissing anything with shulz? :rolleyes:
-
A better question would be: Why does he continuously try to discuss with someone who has him on ignore?
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Dutch fought longer at Srebrenica and their situation was untenable from the start.
Marines surrender.
Your analogy falls down right there. To compare Dutch resistance at Srebenica to the Marine resistance at Wake is laughable.
Yes, Marines surrendered. After enduring air attacks, naval gunfire and multiple amphibious assault for three weeks.
The Dutch fought no all-out pitched battle against the Serbs. In fact, there is not even a record of any skirmishes between the Dutch and the Serbs. The only Dutchbat soldier lost was killed by a grenade lobbed from a column of retreating Bosniak soldiers.
Where's your evidence that the Dutch mounted ANY meaningful resistance to the Serb takeover of a UN declared "safe area"? There is none.
OTOH, the Marines at Wake fought a pitched battle, enduring and responding to three days of air strikes. In the final battle, the were under combined assault by sea, air and land forces, vastly outnumbered in all respects.
The initial Japanese invasion force consisted of three light cruisers, six destroyers and two transports.
During the first naval bombardment by the Japanese, the Marines sunk a destroyer, landed 4 hits on the flagship cruiser, hit 3 other destroyers and set a transport afire. Their remaining Four Wildcats strafed another destroyer setting off its depth charges; it eventually sank as well.
They then totally repulsed the first wave of the invasion, earning the distinction of being the only force in the entire war to defeat an amphibious assault.
The next Japanese invasion force took the island after a fierce pitched battle that cost them a significant number of casualties. It should be noted that the Navy commander of the island initiated the surrender.
Now, had the Dutch presented even half the resistance to the Serb takeover of the Srebenica "safe area" as the Marines presented to an overwhelming combined force of Japanese airpower, seapower and assault troops, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Instead, I'd be praising the Dutch.
But they didn't and as a result the UN once again lost an opportunity to become a relevant force in protecting the innocent from genocide.
-
comparing the United States Marines Corps to the dutch huh? the french, hell, all of continental western european society is and has been soft for centuries. in my opinion outside of great britain europe is just a hinderance full of envious effeminates. It saddens me to think of the great sacrifices we Americans have made for close to 100 years to assure your freedom and the ingratitude and often contempt which is often displayed by the members of your countries to ourselves and our leadership. who needs you?
-
Originally posted by storch
comparing the United States Marines Corps to the dutch huh? the french, hell, all of continental western european society is and has been soft for centuries. in my opinion outside of great britain europe is just a hinderance full of envious effeminates. It saddens me to think of the great sacrifices we Americans have made for close to 100 years to assure your freedom and the ingratitude and often contempt which is often displayed by the members of your countries to ourselves and our leadership. who needs you?
Want some EU perfume ? (http://cgi.ebay.fr/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110014926304&ssPageName=MERCOSI_VI_ROSI_PR4_PCN_BIX_Stores&refitem=110001385434&itemcount=4&refwidgetloc=closed_view_item&refwidgettype=osi_widget)
-
Storch, keep it about warfare.. tying in effemination to this sort of affair won't give America much of an advantage over Europe.
There's plenty of ways that the overall virility and masculinity pretty much evens out, all things considered.
-
I don't know about that moot. we here are certainly catching up to our euro cousins in things effeminate but you have a long head start and are simply more genetically predisposed. :D
-
I'm not european. I was born in France but my parents are oceanic and south-american.
I don't think it's genetic so much as certain conditionings - mainly upbringing.
It and social habits of a given culture might seem like chicken and egg, but I'm pretty sure the former is the latter's precursor.
Inability to live with no earthly goods but your brain, guts and balls is a common trend in the US. The lack of grit and truly pragmatic street smarts of most of american youths is in part due to, e.g., not having had to fight for all the comforts america has amassed. What sort of comfort is any comfort when it's all you've ever known, when you've never really had it hard?
Simply going about all pink and plastic, queerl and MTV sexual is not exactly a manly trait.
Lazs has covered that quite a bit, so it's not just me the outsider who's saying it.
And the opposite extreme is no good either, all brawn is no use if no brain guides it.
-
This one has wandered around long enough. Does not appear to be getting any prettier as it meanders either.