Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on January 30, 2003, 03:25:09 AM
-
Is not so damned smart. Sure, France and Germany might not support the US approach. But:
From CNN:
"Eight European leaders declared their solidarity with the United States in a statement published in newspapers across Europe Thursday. The joint statement is signed by leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Noticeably absent from the declaration are Germany and France. (Full story)
We've (Denmark) sent AWACS personell to help during the Afghanistan bombing, special forces during the outing of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, mine clearers and bomb specialists. I like our new government :).
I hope it won't take Americans too long to realize that our support for this global cause isn't wavering and is *as strong* as just after 9/11.
F@rk France and Germany. Corrupt and dirty politically.
You (yanks) probably should hate us all, but some more than others :D
-
Shut up, you filthy leather-clad Euro trash!
SOB
-
Eight European leaders declared their solidarity with the United States in a statement published in newspapers across Europe Thursday. The joint statement is signed by leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.
Pretty classy.
-
Hey we sended some F16's btw.
So we can show how to shoot down a mig-29.
;)
-
Oh, we did that too. That's about the first thing we send.
Our new centre-right government is much more active in taking on our countrys responsibilities to the rest of the world.
With the socialists in power, they always side with the 'poor opressed proletarian'. We've seen more commitment form Danish side in one year with the new government than we did in 18 years with the old. The old government refused to let our coastal diesel submarines participate in 1991, despite NATO asking. Or was that in teh Balkans? Cannot recall. Anyway, a disgrace as it seems the US lack thee shallow water very stealthy small type subs.
F-16's are good workhorses. We should upgrade to JAS-39 Gripen though - much newer and much more capable, especially in the avionics/electronics department.
-
Kissy-kissy, hug-hug.
At least the French and German governments are reflecting the consensus of public opinion within their own countries - afterall, isn't that what they are elected to do?
With Blair (a socialist, apparently), it's the complete opposite. The majority of the British public are against war without more evidence. Evidence which they say they have, but are unwilling to reveal. If they had this overwhelming evidence and revealed it to the world, war would be supported in most quarters and it would be game over. Instead, they say they must protect their intelligence sources. Although, if they revealed this information, wouldn't the regime be doomed from the ensuing war and nothing would be compromised? The whole thing is a little strange.
But it's good to see France and Germany marginalised for once.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Hey we sended some F16's btw.
So we can show how to shoot down a mig-29.
;)
Just dont send your parachute battalion again, after the mess they caused in Srebrenica I think we'd prefer them to stay at home this time. But thx anyway.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Swoop, they did what they could. The problem was UN command refusing to let air support/reinforcements in.
Those poor Dutchies were left with no options. Even worse for the civilian population they were supposed to protect :/.
Peace keepers are just that - lightly armed in place to keep the peace. They have little chance vs. an enemy army with heavy artillery and armour. I have little doubt that had they resisted, they'd all have been killed.
UN command diddlyed up there, not the grunts on the ground. Their lives are pretty messed up with guilt and so forth because of it.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Is not so damned smart. Sure, France and Germany might not support the US approach. But:
From CNN:
"Eight European leaders declared their solidarity with the United States in a statement published in newspapers across Europe Thursday. The joint statement is signed by leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Noticeably absent from the declaration are Germany and France. (Full story)
We've (Denmark) sent AWACS personell to help during the Afghanistan bombing, special forces during the outing of the Taliban/Al Qaeda, mine clearers and bomb specialists. I like our new government :).
I hope it won't take Americans too long to realize that our support for this global cause isn't wavering and is *as strong* as just after 9/11.
F@rk France and Germany. Corrupt and dirty politically.
You (yanks) probably should hate us all, but some more than others :D
Look's like Hortlund is using your account :D
-
Somehow I think that we shouldn't listen to war advice from the two greatest war losers of the past century... :) In other words I dont give a damn what Germany and France think about war..
-
And they probably don't give a stuff what you think either Grunherz.
Dowding, are you getting a coach down to London on the 15th?
Might see you there!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Kissy-kissy, hug-hug.
At least the French and German governments are reflecting the consensus of public opinion within their own countries - afterall, isn't that what they are elected to do?
With Blair (a socialist, apparently), it's the complete opposite. The majority of the British public are against war without more evidence. Evidence which they say they have, but are unwilling to reveal. If they had this overwhelming evidence and revealed it to the world, war would be supported in most quarters and it would be game over. Instead, they say they must protect their intelligence sources. Although, if they revealed this information, wouldn't the regime be doomed from the ensuing war and nothing would be compromised? The whole thing is a little strange.
But it's good to see France and Germany marginalised for once.
Sounds like our govt. We have ships, SAS, commando's and fighter planes being deployed in the gulf now with the majority of the public against any military action.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Swoop, they did what they could. The problem was UN command refusing to let air support/reinforcements in.
Those poor Dutchies were left with no options. Even worse for the civilian population they were supposed to protect :/.
Peace keepers are just that - lightly armed in place to keep the peace. They have little chance vs. an enemy army with heavy artillery and armour. I have little doubt that had they resisted, they'd all have been killed.
UN command diddlyed up there, not the grunts on the ground. Their lives are pretty messed up with guilt and so forth because of it.
Anyone from Holland please stop reading here.
I said go away.
No, seriously, you will only be pissed at me, and it is much better for your nerves to do something other than reading beyond this point.
ANYWAY
I disagree. The Dutch were armed, they had defensive positions. Heck they had a whole shrecking town to fall back into. They did not "do what they could", they could have chosen to defend that city and those refugees.
The only reason they didnt fight was because they chose not to. They were asking for airsupport but not getting it...sure. They were lacking heavy weapons and the Serbs had tanks...sure. But if they had been involved in a shooting war against the Serbs, you bet the request for airsupport would have come in a different light.
Bottom line is, the Dutch f*cked up, and they know it. That cost thousands of civilians their lives.
Alright alright, I know it is damn easy for me to sit infront of my computer and say stuff like this. And yes, if I had been on the ground in a Dutch uniform back then, I'm not sure how I would have reacted since I have never been in combat etc etc.
BUT
Do you think that these Dutch soldiers regret their desicion today?
Fight and you may die, run away and you will live. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all those days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance to tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they may never take our FREEDOM.
Hrm, sorry about that, but I think you know what Im getting at here.
To sum up this peculiar post, there is a quote from Shakspeare that I'd like to share with you all.
Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods!
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Swoop, they did what they could. The problem was UN command refusing to let air support/reinforcements in.
Those poor Dutchies were left with no options. Even worse for the civilian population they were supposed to protect :/.
Well.......firstly the situation had been going on for weeks, Dutch soldiers who's tour was up were being shipped out and allowed to leave by the Serbs, but the Serbs wouldnt let any replacements in........so the Dutch battalion numbers were slowly dropping and no-one apparently thought this was a problem. Well this seems like a no brainer to me, the Cloggie troops were Para's.......so if ya cant get em in by land then air drop em in, they're supposed to be trained for it.
When the attack started the Muslim fighters being protected asked the Dutch if they could have their weapons back that they had surrendered to them, so they could fight back. The Dutch commander refused. Now I'm not saying the CO should have issued weapons cos there would have been a bloodbath.....but there was a bloodbath anyway.
So the Serbs attack the Dutch positions and, get this, actually take 30 Cloggies prisoner and shoot dead another while the rest of em were running away.
The BS about the request for air support being submitted on the wrong form is exactly that, total BS. 1) the damn Cloggie shoulda got the right form and 2) the potato peeler UN CO shoulda ignored the form problem and sent em anyway. However (and it's a big however) there actually was an airstrike but the Serbs issued an ultimatum that if strikes continued then the Dutch prisoners would be executed and there would be further shelling of the civilian concentration. Well, there was shelling of the civvies anyway so that isnt a reason. As for the 30 prisoners, well they're soldiers, it's not like they signed up for a holiday camp. The whole point of being a soldier is that you do the fighting for those that cant fight......and 30,000 civvies is a lotta people.
Now here's the clincher......the Dutch CO elected to hand over 5000 Muslims in exchange for 14 captured Cloggies. 5000:14. And a further 23,000 women and children were shipped out on buses to execution sites, what is even more astounding is that General van der Wind's report states that on the second day (july 13th) "Dutchbat transferred 30,000 litres of fuel to the Serbs in accordance with Mladic's demands", so the Dutch were fueling the very vehicles used to ferry the civilians to the places of execution. About 15,000 Muslim fighters tried to escape overnight and were shelled as they fled through the mountains. Most of these people were never seen again. Extraordinarily, the report from General van der Wind states that "a list of men of fighting age was drawn up on the initiative of the deputy battalion commander (Major Franken). This was done partly on the compound itself". Approximately 60 men refused to give their names, ultimately there were 229 names on the list. At 19:30hrs on July 13th the last refugees left with the exception of these 229 who stayed behind. In fact, these individuals were handed over by Dutchbat to the Serbs and were never seen again.
Then and only then was the Dutch battalion allowed to leave, abandoning supplies and weapons.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
hehe Bounder. Maybe I will, I've got some friends in London I haven't seen in a long while it would be a good excuse.
I don't know of a conflict in modern British history that had such an apparent lack of mandate from the British people. Nope. None. WW1 was enthusiastically supported at the beginning. WW2 was seen as necessary. Korea was seen as necessary. Vietnam was not and war was not given. The Falklands had great support. The Gulf had a majority support. Bosnia and the NATO involvement did. Kosovo did.
Yep, this war will be the first war in a hundred years not to be seen as justified by the British electorate. And that worries me.
I just hope they come up with something to convince me this is the best way to proceed.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I just hope they come up with something to convince me this is the best way to proceed.
Removing Saddam & his weapons from Iraq will make Israel a bit safer.
...there :)
-
No only that theres pictures of the Dutch commander drinking with war criminals, they also added in directing the refugess to the buses.
They didnt just throw their hands up in frustration, they actually added in the evacuation. We all know what happen to the male evacuees.
Blaming the "UN" is ok but like all militaries it the responsibility of their Government to see to it that their soldiers are given necessary tools to complete their mission.
This is the very reason some in the US are not to keen on relying on the UN. Its the resposibility of the politicians to make sure their forces are given the best possibility to succeed. Thats where the buck starts and stops.
Anyway you wanna rationalize it, they fluffied up. The consequences were dreadful and should be a real lesson not only to the UN but to those members who send troops to support UN actions.
-
Removing Saddam & his weapons from Iraq will make Israel a bit safer.
I trust you are joking. :) I couldn't give a rats bellybutton about Israel and Palestine. Both sides seem to be enjoying the next episode of 'Ariel Sharon: The Eternal Circle of Death', so why should I complain? It's just a shame ordinary people have to suffer while the big nobs try to prove who has the biggest dick.
-
At least the French and German governments are reflecting the consensus of public opinion within their own countries - afterall, isn't that what they are elected to do?
No. In geopolitcal matters they are elected to lead.
ra
-
After a little more research I've found an eye witness report stating that while the executions were going on the Cloggie soldiers were having a party in their compound with 2 trucks of cigarettes and beer that the Serbs provided.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa49268.000/hfa49268_0f.htm
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
This letter doesn't mean much, IMO. The European Parliament voted today against the war in Iraq unless the UN approves.
And about these 8 countries... it's all about the balance of power in Europe... one side being Germany and France and the other being UK, Italy, Spain and some other countries it would seem.
It has nothing to do with public opinion in those countries, as Dowding said. 97% of Spaniards are against the war in Iraq.
Daniel
-
And about these 8 countries... it's all about the balance of power in Europe... one side being Germany and France and the other being UK, Italy, Spain and some other countries it would seem.
shut up peasant ;)
just kidding :)
pas taper la tête
C'est une blague
toi pas taper moi (ou alors pas trop fort :D)
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
This letter doesn't mean much, IMO. The European Parliament voted today against the war in Iraq unless the UN approves.
And about these 8 countries... it's all about the balance of power in Europe... one side being Germany and France and the other being UK, Italy, Spain and some other countries it would seem.
You are seriously overstating the importance of the European Parliament. They are completely irrelevant in this question. I mean totally irrelevant, the opinion of some random polish peasant is about as important as the voice of the EU Parliament when it comes to matters like these.
As for the balance of power...well it just tipped.
France and Germany vs UK, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Poland, Czech
...and rest of Europe undecided
-
I guess Hortlund and Swoop where there...
As always it´s very easy to accuse people of what they did and didnt do when the dust settles. Sometimes its the only decent thing to do (as the warcrimes during the second world war), sometimes the only decent thing to do is to try to understand why things turned out the way they did.
Failure to do so only ends up with bloated and rather pointless coments.
Yes, there has been an official investigation, and yes it failed to consider the fact that the members of the comition satt in comfy chairs faaaaar from the actions the investigated when they took place.
In my humble opinion the dutch soldiers did what they could do. Of course the CO could have opted to take a heroic stance, in which case he most surely would have been roughly treated by the dutch opinion, government and probably by the UN. However then he would have been dead, so at least he wouldnt have had to listen to harsh words from people who werent there...
Did 6 months in Bosnia, got shot at and screamed at. Also smiled at and waved at. Sometimes all of the aboth mentioned by the same people the same day, but not necesarily in the order above.
It was a hell of a situation, which could have been much better if UN had had the resources necessary. Which we didnt have, we did what we could do with what we had. So did the Dutch.
Please dont go at them again, I´ve heard so many people who werent there badmouth them that Im getting tired of it.
Sincerely Hiker
PFC
7th COY Swebat
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You are seriously overstating the importance of the European Parliament. They are completely irrelevant in this question. I mean totally irrelevant, the opinion of some random polish peasant is about as important as the voice of the EU Parliament when it comes to matters like these.
Don't you have some swede in EU parlement ?
If so any Swedish opinion is "completely irrelevant in this question" :D
-
Wooooo Hoooooooo!!
Albania is with us too!!!!!!!
:D
-
Hortlund is probably a thick fatt assed guy with thick glasses who probably got disaproved by his countrys army.
Otherwise he would have been one of the bravest soldiers in the world.
I think the commander in sebrenica was a popsicle.
But it was probably more than that.
They should have sended our marines they have a longer history and experience than thos airmobiles that just excisted for a few years.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Hortlund is probably a thick fatt assed guy with thick glasses who probably got disaproved by his countrys army.
Otherwise he would have been one of the bravest soldiers in the world.
I think the commander in sebrenica was a popsicle.
But it was probably more than that.
They should have sended our marines they have a longer history and experience than thos airmobiles that just excisted for a few years.
:rolleyes:
See, didnt I tell you that you shouldnt have read my post. Now you got all nervous and agitated. Better smoke some pot to cool those nerves now...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wooooo Hoooooooo!!
Albania is with us too!!!!!!!
:D
Perhaps the reason that smaller nations support the US intervention into Iraq, particularily the former east bloc, is because the abuse they suffered by tyrannical leaders is still fresh in their minds....Germany and France have been fat and sassy for a long time.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Blaming the "UN" is ok but like all militaries it the responsibility of their Government to see to it that their soldiers are given necessary tools to complete their mission.
It started as a mission to represent the UN as being responsible for a relatively calm safe haven, i.e. just maintaing a presence there. And for that mission the forces there were sufficiently equipped. Nobody in higher UN echelons or in (Dutch) government circles had ever expected the Serbs to actually attack Srebrenica. The mission changed suddenly and therefore the troops weren't properly equipped or supported to face the the new situation.
As for the commander, he was indeed far from a competent leader on some points, I would like to see anyone of his critics in his position though. Bet they wouldn't be so quick to judge thereafter... Armchair warriors
-
To the ommanders defence, his task was first and foremost the safety of his troops. It's a black stain on the UN cloth though, that is sure. However, the Dutch troops were very lightly armed and had no effective defense against tanks and 23mm anti aircraft guns that can be pivoted to hit ground targets. Their commander messed up, but the Dutch troops did their best.
I belive that if there'd been a fight, the Dutch would have been overrun and killed, followed by the civilian population they were trying to protect. The UN leadership dinnae seem too keen on an all out war - and that's not what peacekeepers are for. NATO is better at the stuff, as seen by the attack on Serbia.
It's worth noting in that bombing campaign that NATO was unable to hit particularly many tanks or artillery pieces. Infrastructure was hit, but troops, tanks and artillery was too hard to hit. I gather that's why they like fighting in the desert - easy to find the targets especially at night, using IR. Not so on the Balkans were the terrain is a serious obstacle.
The Dutch were peace keepers, not assault forces. Perhaps we'll learn that peace keepers aren't enough in a war torn country with ethnic cleansing - one needs peace through superior firepower.
Straffo, dinnae mean to disrespect the French people. What I was alluding to (and made a direct reference to) was the economic ties your government has with Iraq and therefore their lack of support for a war.
-
Eight European leaders declared their solidarity with the United States in a statement published in newspapers across Europe Thursday. The joint statement is signed by leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.
Great news. The actual letter is touching. I think there is even more agreement behind the scenes...
-
Originally posted by StSanta
To the ommanders defence, his task was first and foremost the safety of his troops.
[/b]
Not really because in that case they would all have stayed at their home base in Holland.
It's a black stain on the UN cloth though, that is sure.
[/b]
Are you joking? The stain is on the Dutch CO. The UN is no more "stained" by this than they were when the Indonesian UN Peacekeepers in Bosnia were ambushed...i e not at all.
However, the Dutch troops were very lightly armed and had no effective defense against tanks and 23mm anti aircraft guns that can be pivoted to hit ground targets. Their commander messed up, but the Dutch troops did their best.
[/b]
You have a very funny way of seeing things santa. Apparently "the best" they could do was surrender? I would have thought they at least had some more fight in them than the French, but I guess you see things differently.
Anyway, as I said earlier, they had a whole city to fall back into. You know...cities...tanks...comba t...yes, that rings a bell.
I belive that if there'd been a fight, the Dutch would have been overrun and killed, followed by the civilian population they were trying to protect. The UN leadership dinnae seem too keen on an all out war - and that's not what peacekeepers are for. NATO is better at the stuff, as seen by the attack on Serbia.
[/b]
Well, personally I think if there had been a fight, the USAF would have come down on the Serbs like a ton of bricks. But speculation like that is pointless.
It's worth noting in that bombing campaign that NATO was unable to hit particularly many tanks or artillery pieces. Infrastructure was hit, but troops, tanks and artillery was too hard to hit. I gather that's why they like fighting in the desert - easy to find the targets especially at night, using IR. Not so on the Balkans were the terrain is a serious obstacle.
[/b]
Well, generally there is a difference between trying to find and hit tanks, troops and artillery that are engaged in combat, and tanks, troops and artillery that is being hidden inside buildings, in woods etc. The Serbs would have had two choices, call off the attack and hide, or take their chances against the USAF.
The Dutch were peace keepers, not assault forces. Perhaps we'll learn that peace keepers aren't enough in a war torn country with ethnic cleansing - one needs peace through superior firepower.
[/b]
Peace keepers is enough, you just have to make sure their CO's arent French.
-
I don't blame our netherland nebours for screbreniza.
Nobody wanted our soldiers to die whether from the Netherlands, UK, US, Germany, France or or whereever.
That was the real problem.
The UN tries to help in conflicts, no more no less, and they make mistakes. That time it cost 7000 lives but who cares , was 7000 moslem terrorists less to kill in the future anyways.
Will be the same in iraque.
200- 400 crusemissiles in the first hour (hope we get some real time videos on impact, can't stand the fun), masses of our mighthy 10 k B-52 will drop their deadly load on them later, rest of them will be sorted out by US marines + UK special forces, and i give a dead rat bellybutton about some 100 or some 1000 Saddam Hitler supportin civilians who dies with their military personal.
We know he is theatening the whole world.
Last month i weld a 1 inch steel plate on the roof of my VW-van,
hope it's enough to keep Saddams scudroketts of my front seat.
Today i ran to the survival store to get me a second gasmask( i admit almost in panic) in case nr 1 refused to work.
Lots of food just checked in my fridge- will he blockade our food support in the west? No clue.
We'll get him, w'll get them, w'll get them all :D
Regards Blitz
-
Apparently the letter was written by Jose Maria Aznar, the spanish president... go figure.
Most people here think we are on the wrong side of the fence, joined by "I love the USA" Blair and "There's positively no judge I can't buy in Italy" Berlusconi... time will tell.
France and Germany have clearly demonstrated they are the economic powers in Europe, and for good reason.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Rude
Perhaps the reason that smaller nations support the US intervention into Iraq, particularily the former east bloc, is because the abuse they suffered by tyrannical leaders is still fresh in their minds....Germany and France have been fat and sassy for a long time.
one single reason : $
nothing more nothing less
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Straffo, dinnae mean to disrespect the French people. What I was alluding to (and made a direct reference to) was the economic ties your government has with Iraq and therefore their lack of support for a war.
np mate
Btw I don't think we are making a lot of money with Iraq today :)
You should have IMO wrote : ...economic ties your government had with Iraq ...
but I could be wrong as usual
-
I'll give an almost perfect exemple of a Swedish UN failure ...
But as I'm a lazy slacker I won't even translate it :
La Suède a contribuée "involontairement" à l´instauration de la dictature de M. Mobutu par le canal de son action militaire dans le cadre de l´ONU au Katanga.
We can learn interresting things when having a friendly swedish customer former army member ...
Don't you think Hort ?
Now Bug you have something to wave in front of Steve ...
-
Well, if you're not going to translate it, what is the point of posting it?
Sorry to break this to you straffo, but french is not the universal language anymore, English is.
-
Dowding - some basic principles...
The Electorate elects.
The Government governs.
Each party appeals to the electorate to say why they should be the party elected. Once that's done, the election takes place, and the winning party becomes the government, and proceeds to govern.
I really don't hold with this belief that the government should consult the electorate upon every issue that arises. The risk to world security posed by Iraq is best assessed by those in the know - the CIA and MI6, and not by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals with multi coloured hair, a nose stud, and an earring in one ear.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dowding - some basic principles...
those in the know - the CIA and MI6, and not by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals with multi coloured hair, a nose stud, and an earring in one ear.
Dear oh dear Beetle, next you'll tell us your a gun owner next.
The CIA, and MI6 don't have a magic ball, and often can be found wanting in some respects.
IF australians don't want war without a UN mandate (and that majority isn't 51%, or even 55% - but over 70%), then it's up to the government to listen to the people of this country BEFORE they deploy troops...which they haven't.
We're talking war it's not just any issue.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by blitz
We know he is theatening the whole world.
Last month i weld a 1 inch steel plate on the roof of my VW-van,
hope it's enough to keep Saddams scudroketts of my front seat.
Today i ran to the survival store to get me a second gasmask( i admit almost in panic) in case nr 1 refused to work.
Lots of food just checked in my fridge- will he blockade our food support in the west? No clue.
Blitz, I can't tell if thats seriousness or borderline sarcasm?
I don't think Iraq is capable of hitting Germany with any sort of ranged weapon.... atleast I think it's safe to assume that. In the United States, so far away from all the 'action,' I never felt we have to fear any sort of invasion or attack with conventional military weaponry.
This may have gone over my head, but are German citizens seriously fearing for their safety?
-
That's roadkill Beetle. On the issue of war, which is a state of affairs as grave you'll ever get, you can't expect the population to merrily send their sons off into battle without a qualm. Those days are long gone - and a good thing it is too.
This isn't some covert surveillance operation that would warrant discretion, this is a large scale, patently overt endeavour.
Basically, you're saying that the opinion of the public is irrelevant, once a government is elected. If that was the case, why do Blair and Bush even bother with press conferences in which they often speak directly to the public? We might as well just sit in the dark and let them feed us manure. Let's go back to the good old days of flag waving in front of the palace - afterall, the war that followed that particular event went ever so swimmingly, did it not?
Octavious - Blitz is making a little joke. :)
-
74% of spaniards completely oppose war.
13% agree to it with a clear UN mandate.
4% support an unilateral attack by the US and its allies.
(as reported by the extreme pro-aznar El Mundo)
Aznar will not run for Prime Minister again and has been in "lame duck" mode for a full year, and has another one to go. Wonder what amount of BS he can pull out of the hat in that time. This letter is in fact a fine piece of his fine "I know better than the unwashed morons that voted for me" attitude.
-
Hort : http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Katanga+Sweden
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Dowding - some basic principles...
The Electorate elects.
The Government governs.
Each party appeals to the electorate to say why they should be the party elected. Once that's done, the election takes place, and the winning party becomes the government, and proceeds to govern.
I really don't hold with this belief that the government should consult the electorate upon every issue that arises. The risk to world security posed by Iraq is best assessed by those in the know - the CIA and MI6, and not by a bunch of bleeding heart liberals with multi coloured hair, a nose stud, and an earring in one ear.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Hort : http://www.google.com/search?q=UN+Katanga+Sweden
Ahhh CONGO...why didnt you say so?
Anyway, you have your facts completely messed up Straffo. The Swedish army and airforce units that were under UN command had a very very high reputation among the other UN troops.
I would like to say something as to the reasons why there were alleged massacres in Congo. But the combination of these words "africa" "tribal" and "cannibal" makes it impossible to tell that story and remain PC, so MT would come down on me like a ton of bricks and chase me off these boards.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Ahhh CONGO...why didnt you say so?
Anyway, you have your facts completely messed up Straffo. The Swedish army and airforce units that were under UN command had a very very high reputation among the other UN troops.
I would like to say something as to the reasons why there were alleged massacres in Congo. But the combination of these words "africa" "tribal" and "cannibal" makes it impossible to tell that story and remain PC, so MT would come down on me like a ton of bricks and chase me off these boards.
So why was the swede I met so ashamed some 40 year after ?
And I asked some friend from Congo what they though about swedish UN troop ... they put them in the same bag.Helping directly or not Mobutu was not different than the dutch attitude (IMO of course)
-
slurp slurp
-
That picture is so wrong, yet so right. :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by straffo
So why was the swede I met so ashamed some 40 year after ?
And I asked some friend from Congo what they though about swedish UN troop ... they put them in the same bag.Helping directly or not Mobutu was not different than the dutch attitude (IMO of course)
Well see the whole Congo situation back then was really screwed up. There were alot of "mini wars" going on at the same time between various tribes, or ethnical groupings or whatever the PC term might be. Back then, (like now) cannibalism was reported from some of these tribes. I e, if they took prisoners, chances were they would eat said prisoners.
Swedish forces were involved in one situation where one of these tribes know for practicing cannibalism had ambushed a Swedish patrol and taken prisoners. When the CO at the scene got information about that, he decided to go into that village and get his guys out.
So the Swedish unit reached the village, and they saw a heap of hands and feet. I kid you not, this is according to the official Swedish AAR. They saw a heap of hands and feet..apparently cannibals dont eat hands or feet (not much meat I suppose). At the same time, they were met by gunfire from the village. A fight broke out, and the Swedes could not call in for airsupport because they didnt know where the Swedish POWs were. Anyway, they cleared the village, and managed to rescue two of the POWs, the rest were dead and half eaten.
Rumor has it the Swedish units stopped taking prisoners from that particular tribe after that day.
Anyway, that war was hell. Everyone was fighting everyone, and it was on a mideaval level of savagery. It was common for UN patrols to walk into certain villages and find half eaten bodies laying around. That took a heavy toll on the soldiers. Especially if the unit had guys missing in action. Of cource it didnt get any better when certain UN allies did the same thing...
As a sidenote, the suicide rate among Swedish UN Congo veterans is absurd, (unofficial numbers are along the lines of 20% of combat veterans).
Personally I have no doubt that the person you talked to (if he was a combat vet from Congo) might have been involved in one or two of these incidents. When I was in the military one of our officers was an old Congo vet, some of the stories he had were simply unbelievable.
-
Dowding/Tronski
I meant what I said, though maybe I was a bit blunt. Dowding, thanks for not calling me a crass buffoon this time. ;)
What I meant was that when we elect a government, we trust them to govern. Often they will make a pig's ear of things, the way Tony Blair's government has. But I don't see that governments should enter into consultation with the electorate at every crisis. This war we're about to have has been on the cards for years. Did Margaret Thatcher call a referendum on whether we should go to war with Argentina over the Falklands in 1982? No.
When I go to a restaurant, I order my food and entrust its preparation to the chef. I do not follow the waiter into the kitchen to ensure that the order is delivered correctly, or stand over the chef/cook telling him how to do his job, because he does it better then me. If the food turns out to be no good, I'll go somewhere else next time.
Was there a referendum about entering into WW2? Did anyone question the need?
Tronski, hehe, I see you mistook me for a liberal/pacifist because of what has gone before.
Dowding - have you ever seen the film "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, James Fox and Christopher Reeve before his accident? One of the best films I ever saw in my life. Check out the scene in which Spencer asks Stevens (Hopkins) questions about politics, study Stevens' reaction, listen to what Spencer says afterwards, and you will have a measure of what I'm saying in this thread. The film is set in a stately home, with the build up to WW2 as a backdrop.
-
Dowding, thanks for not calling me a crass buffoon this time. ;)
Anytime. :D
WW2 and the Falklands are incomparable to this new war. The former followed the delivery of an ultimatum that was clearly stated, clearly delivered and clearly verifiable. The Falklands was the defence of Crown territory and automatically permitted under international law.
This new Gulf war is neither.
Was there a referendum about entering into WW2? Did anyone question the need?
Exactly. The fact that a great majority of the public is questioning the need speaks volumes.
When I go to a restaurant, I order my food and entrust its preparation to the chef. I do not follow the waiter into the kitchen to ensure that the order is delivered correctly, or stand over the chef/cook telling him how to do his job, because he does it better then me. If the food turns out to be no good, I'll go somewhere else next time.
This implies there should be no critical analysis of a goverment's actions between terms, or in your analogy, between meals. That just cannot be allowed to happen. The checks and balances have to be in place. Most of the time, government can be allowed to get on with things - but in important, geopolitical decisions, public opinion has to be considered.
For that reason, it is the goevernment's responsibility to convince the electorate that a course of action is necessary, even if it is undesirable. They have to make their case with verifiable evidence.
-
Dowding,
I appreciate your point of view, which is not mutually exclusive of my own. As to earlier conflicts being unopposed by the public, well one factor was that people were simply unaware of the horror and atrocity that war can bring. No TV pictures back then.
Of course, I agree that the public should be allowed to express publicly their disagreement with the government of the day. We live in a democracy. We do not wish to live in a totalitarian state like Iraq, where such freedom of expression is forbidden, with transgression punishable by death.
But regarding your view that the government must present verifiable evidence... I cannot agree with that. On other issues yes, but not with war because so much of what is going on has to remain secret. The CIA/MI6 know far more than you or I could imagine. Indeed, Tony Blair made an appeal to MI6 to release certain information so that he could bolster his case, but organisations like that are reluctant to comply with such requests.
I don't want to go back to the days of a powerful but unelected body bringing pressure to bear upon the government in order to control its formulation of policy. You're too young to remember Labour in the 1970s; I am not. Tory PM Ted Heath lost an election whose campaign was fought on the manifesto "Who Governs the Country?". When Labour came to "power" (minority government), no-one in the Cabinet could so much as fart without getting TUC approval. The government was like a lap dog to the Trades Union Congress, and it was an outrage. I didn't vote Labour, but I sure as hell did not vote TUC. But they were a powerful group who could initiate labour strikes and bring the country to a halt, and thus wielded great power. Hehe, *she* put a stop to that, beginning in 1979. :D
So demonstrate as you wish, wave banners, stand outside the House of Commons and yell through loudhailers - all fine by me. Sometimes the government HAS to respond.
But I do not want to see a process in which the government has to submit its case to a panel of pontificating, purple-haired, pacifist pinkos. We had a lot of that crap in the 1970s. Beer and sandwiches at Number 10? :rolleyes: Give me a freaking break.
-
Dowding - have you ever seen the film "The Remains of the Day" with Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, Hugh Grant, James Fox and Christopher Reeve before his accident? One of the best films I ever saw in my life. Check out the scene in which Spencer asks Stevens (Hopkins) questions about politics, study Stevens' reaction, listen to what Spencer says afterwards, and you will have a measure of what I'm saying in this thread. The film is set in a stately home, with the build up to WW2 as a backdrop. - Beet1e
I agree. Outstanding in every way. Hopkins was absolutely superb in this. Very memorable film.
-
Ah, lovely!
As always the discussions turn into a beerbrawl "My country is stronger than yours", "No, my country kicks your country´s ass"...
Booooooooring!
But, why not join in! :D
Why where there any Swedish troops in Congo anyway in the 60´s? Could it have been the result of European imperialism, and even if Congo were ex-Belgian I somehow come to think of French imperialism. But Im sure those islanders are glad U tested your nukes at their place in stead of just north of Paris or in the Alps. And Northern Africa surely reminds your paras with sweet, gentle, loving feelings...
And yes, I´ve met Swedish Congo vets who not were happy about what they had done. Reason: They were killing guys armed with spears and shields, using machineguns and napalm. But as one of them said, they would most certainly have killed you if they got close enough. No point in boasting about killing a crippled and blind choir-boy, even if he really tries to kill you and you have no alternative than to kill him back to stop him, is there? (Although some still are proud of doing such things...)
I dont think any of us can say "My country is without blame", Im not proud of Swedish neutrality during 2nd, however, reading books about the subject has made me understand why Sweden stayed neutral.
But again, its easy to complain when the dust has settled, isnt it?
Sincerely
Hiker
-
They had seen the brutality of war when it came to the Falklands. People had seen what had happened in WW2. Only 10 years before the US was very publically humbled in a god awful war in some far off place. There was plenty of camera footage and accounts of that.
But there was no outcry. No demands for clarity. Everyone could see it had to be done.
There's no point in getting into another 'Britain was very nearly, but not quite taken over by communists in the 1970s' discussion. I think we both know where we stand. :D This is not about the polarisation of the political spectrum - the people who are agnostic about this war come from all walks of life and hold all kinds of political views. Yet they share the same unease. Why is that?
-
What qualifies the general public to make foreign policy decisions?
-
Originally posted by Rude
What qualifies the general public to make foreign policy decisions?
Are you implying that the public shouldn't get involved?
-
I think what hes saying is that the gen public doesnt have and it some instances cant have all the information necessary to make an informed descision. Especially in regards to foreign policy.
In America polititians are elected to lead not lick their finger and stick it into the air and go which ever way the wind is blowing. They should go out and build support for their positions but they shouldnt shackle themselves to doing only whats popular.
Whether they actually do this or not can be debated.
Politicians can then be held accountable at the next election.
Ideally a well informed electorate that is active and involved would be a good thing.
But given the variety of "propaganda" and miss information put out on all sides you cant expect that top happen.
Should an elected politician only "do" what is popular?
Should citizens ultimately influence and "effect" political descisions even when they maybe "uninformed"?
-
Dowding - no TV footage of WW1. Back then, life was considered cheap. A better example of what I'm trying to say came later, c1983 when the US deployed nuclear missiles at USAF Greenham Common. You're maybe a little young to remember that too. I'm talking about how the protesters - the "Peace Wimmin" joined hands and completely encircled that base, and regularly cut through the wire fence to get inside. Imagine the farce of those women being invited to Downing Street to discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament around the oval table in the Cabinet Room. I happen to believe that the issue of nuclear disarmament was simply used as a front by those women to provide a public forum for their vegetarian-lesbian cause. ;)
But seriously, Dowding. On issues of national security, it simply isn't possible or feasible to divulge top secret information to the general public for them to decide. And only with that classified information can a balanced judgement be made. I don't want government by consensus. Can you imagine it? "Do you think Britain should join the US in the war on Iraq? If you think YES, press the red button on your TV handset now". :rolleyes:
-
Ever hear of Norbat? Danish, Swedish, Finish, Norwigian (spelling?) and U.S. Troops that were a part of UNPROFOR in Macedonia. Man, you guys had some good looking medics in Skopja. We used to go over there for every little nick, and bruse (evil Grin!)
-
LOL Frenchy. So wrong though. You should focus on my anti-American posts instead. I'm just mellowing out with age - and this is in fact an anti American post. I am clearly whining about their lack of understanding. They say 'Europe doesn't support us', I show them that we do, as always. They're thick headed cowboys.
Happy now? :D
Hortlund wrote:
Apparently "the best" they could do was surrender? I would have thought they at least had some more fight in them than the French, but I guess you see things differently.
Anyway, as I said earlier, they had a whole city to fall back into. You know...cities...tanks...comba t...yes, that rings a bell.
Given that a T72 has an armor thickness between 80 - 280 mm and a 5.56 NATO round weights 56 grains and a speed of around 3250fps, the T-72 has a distinct fire power advantage with its 44 round 125mm cannon. Where this cannot be brought to bear, a 7.62mm machine gun with 2000 rounds might suffice; alternatively, the 300 round 12.7mm can also be deployed against infantry.
The Dutch of course have handgrenades and the advantage of being able to stay hidden in houses. Until the T-72 or Shilka destroys the house(s).
These T-72s are backed up by war hardened infantry with a wide array of weapons, from AK-74s, heavy machine guns, RPGs and LATWs. These troops are reasonably well stocked with ammunition and food and have a 20-1 advantage in numbers. In addition, they can call in artillery support for those 'hard to get' places.
Allow me to indulge in a little short story.
’diddlying toejam’, private Anton De Vries said in disgust. ’Why are they all coming here now? I bet Bossy will let the sick take our beds again’.
’Shut up’ Arnout Viljner replied. ’It’s not like you need it more than they do’.
’If I’m gonna die in this little toejamhole of a land, at least I want a diddlying bed’, Vries angrily muttered, before exiting the room, ignoring the obvious replies about everlasting sleep.
For several days, the pattern had been the same. At first, it had only been a trickle of humans – concern written over their faces, carrying all their belongings down the patch of dirt road, risking it with the mines to get to safety. They’d been allowed to stay, even though everyone thought they were just a bit paranoid. Srebenica was a safe zone, defined as such by the UN.
It had quickly changed. Instead of a trickle came a flood. Instead of well prepared clean people came a horde women, children and men dirty from their ordeal of escaping the pursuing enemies. Fear was written over those faces that had expressions; the majority had lost all, their eyes staring senselessly into oblivion. Unimaginable agony was spray painted over their features which had buckled under the strain, collapsed and finally found peace in a state of non expression. Several thousand people were crammed into a little island of perceived safety and the peace keepers were doing what they could to alleviate the worst suffering.
And now the Serbs were coming. Already they’d killed a comrade and taken several others hostage. The troops were preparing best they could, well knowing they would not be able to withstand the opposing forces now that air support was ruled out. They were shoring up their positions, placing sand bags and establishing a proper defensive parametre.
’Defense in depth’ Steve ’Bossy’ Hortlund has said. ’Shoot ’n scoot, fall back into the buildings when you have to. Don’t give the bastards a yard without a fight’. He had said a lot about that. And about comraderie, courage and the need to protect the Muslim refugees. He’d said much less about how to deal with the enemy armor. The lightly armed peace keepers did not have a substantial number of weapons that had any chance of killing a tank, so they’d been told to improvise and use the explosives they had in ambushes. There’d been some talk about knocking down buildings to make progress harder for the tanks, but it had quickly been dropped as everyone agreed that the explosives could be better needed elsewhere. Besides, the enemy tanks and artillery were likely to drop some houses themselves, anyway.
Hortlund was frustrated. While he did not think the Serbs would attack a safe area or UN peace keepers, the negotiations had been futile. In the end, the Serbs had given him til mid day to surrender his weapons and the refugees – failure to comply would be, according to the Serb commander, ’very bloody’.
12.01. Five Russian made T-72s rolling slowly towards the base, followed by fifty or so men and an four barreled 23mm ’Shilka’ AAA gun. Hortlund knew that there were more – lots more. Them sending so few is another attempt at intimidation – he’d have to let them know he would not be intimidated by this threat of violence.
’I’m gonna talk to them – they know better than this’ he said to his second in command.
’You sure it’s wise? Those tanks are buttoned up. Don’t think they wanna talk’ came the reply.
’Our men are alert, everyone is in position. They know that. I’ll talk to them.
Having said that, he left and started the walk towards the approaching tanks.
’diddly diddly diddly diddly diddly’ de Vries said from his position, 50 meters from the main entry to the base.
’SHUT UP. Do your Golly-geeNED job and SHUT UP’ Viljner replied, sweat dripping from his face.
’diddly. We ain’t got a chance against that – look at them! They got diddlying TANKS! What do we have? We’ll get slaugthered!’
de Vries groaned as Vilnjes punch impacted on his ribs.
’SHUT UP. I don’t want to hear it, You volunteered. Now SHUT UP’.
All eyes were on Hortlund. In the distance, they could see him standing in front of the tank, yelling at the commander of the front tank. He in return were gesturing to Hortlund and it was plain that he wanted him to get out of the way. The tanks stopped, and the Serb infantry quickly walked up to Hortlund, clearly agitated, their guns drawn. More gesturing. Hortlund shaking his head.
Then, Hortlund stumbled. A tenth of a second later came the sharp characteristic sound of an Ak74. De Vries watched as Hortlund fell to he ground, clutching his stomach. The Serb solider who had shot him was openly smiling and approaching Hortlunds contorted body. Rifle raised, a spasm through Hortlunds body followed closely by the sound of the shot that ended his life.
They didn’t even bother to remove his body. The tanks rolled over it, and de Vries thought he could hear the squishy sound as the broad tracks mangled Hortlunds corpse.
The enemy infantry was fanning out, waiting. The tanks stood still.
’What are they WAITING for?’ Viljen screamed. COME you diddlyers, get it OVER with!’.
’They’ll come’ de Vries said.
Then it became blatantly clear what they were waiting for. They didn’t make sense of the sound until a 155mm grenade exploded behind them near the barracks.
’INCOMING!’ Viljen yelled. de Vries didn’t bother to reply
It was intense for 15 minutes - hastily prepared sand bags were no match for high explosives. The artillery detonated in the air, raining deadly shrapnel on explosed human flesh that desperately were attempting to find shelter. Then there was a more sporadic series of explosion – mortars from the infantry
’How the diddly are we gonna fall back now? We can’t go ANYWHERE out there without being blown to pieces!’
’They’re gonna send in F-16’s. I know they will. They’ll be here within the hour’.
’We’ll be DEAD within 15 minutes!’
That was the last of private de Vries. A 125mm HEAT grenade exploded three feet to his left, tearing his limbs from his body and leaving him nearly decapitated. Viljen met death as the Shilka opened up from a distance of only 150 metres – the guns made fo destroying aircraft finding it easy to destroy his flesh.
And the tanks kept rolling.
I can make your death more heroic if you want to.
War is a dirty business. When you're a peace keeper without the necessary support and with ROE setting the pace, things are hard.
Could the UN have done more? F@rking yes. Is it the Dutch GIs fault what happened? No way.
-
you are my heros StSanta :)
btw when will I see you in a plane again ?
-
Originally posted by Batz
Should citizens ultimately influence and "effect" political descisions even when they maybe "uninformed"?
Should politicians be allowed to decide about laws when they have no experience (other than political) in the field the laws are about?
-
You are one sick diddly posting a story like that santa. Wayyy out of line. Let me know if you want to hear my version of the story of the seven somali immigrants and the knife murder of mr X...fun huh?
As for the rest. It is pretty obvious you dont know the first thing about modern warfare, especially not in built up areas without air support. Just quoting armor thickness or ammo loadout is pretty diddlying irrelevant if I put it that way. You should go down to Grozny and tell the Russians how to defeat lightly armed defenders in built up areas.
Bottom line: those Dutch soldiers had all the reasons in the world to fight, they chose not to, as a direct result thousands died.
-
Tronski, hehe, I see you mistook me for a liberal/pacifist because of what has gone before.
Not at all, most make the same mistake about myself. It just seemed very out of character.
Dowding - no TV footage of WW1. Back then, life was considered cheap.
Hardly, but there was of course no instant communication, and censorship was absolute. It could be argued that the soldiers and public was far more trusting in the leaders of the time, but of course the French army mutiny in 1917 does say volumes that the average soldier was aware of the slaughter and waste being asked of them.
But seriously, Dowding. On issues of national security, it simply isn't possible or feasible to divulge top secret information to the general public for them to decide. And only with that classified information can a balanced judgement be made.
It would seem the trust us, we know best argument just isn't buying public opinion. And if top secret information is the basis for the attack, shouldn't that be divulged anyhow to force the issue with the Iraqi's, and the UN?
You forget, the public are the ones who will suffer the consequences of war, not the government.
Vietnam is an excellent example of how the moral of the homefront directly affected a failing war effort. Also I'm pretty sure most of the Australian diggers that would serve in Iraq aren't sons of the government.
Bottom line: those Dutch soldiers had all the reasons in the world to fight, they chose not to, as a direct result thousands died.
Bottom line: the dutch soldiers were there, and made the decision on that basis.
The dutch commander made an official request for air support on the 7th, 9th, and 10th July 1995, but was refused that support from the UN command over concerns for captured UN peacekeepers.
The serbs entered 11th July 1995.
Your assumption that the 200 dutch soldiers would fight a rear guard action into the town against 8-12,000 Serbs with approx 30 tanks plus artillery - whilst trying to protect the 30,000 muslims who had taken refuge in Srebrenica all for the glory of the UN, and the Netherlands is flawed let alone naive.
The Netherlands Institute of War Documentation's report on Srebrenica noted apart from a series of avoidable errors:
"Dutchbat (The Dutch military contingent) was dispatched:
on a mission with a very unclear mandate; to a zone described as a 'safe area' although there was no clear definition of what that meant; to keep the peace where there was no peace; without obtaining in-depth information from the Canadian predecessors in the enclave; without adequate training for this specific task in those specific circumstances; virtually without military and political intelligence work to gauge the political and military intentions of the warring parties; with misplaced confidence in the readiness to deploy air strikes if problems arose; and without any clear strategy for leaving."
Tronsky
-
Whoa you are operating under alot of assumptions there tronski.
First, you are assuming that the Serbs would have attacked if the Dutch drew a line saying "we will shoot if you cross this line".
Then you are assuming that the Dutch soldiers would not get any airsupport even though they were fighting for their lives on the ground.
Then you are assuming that the Dutch would not have allowed the Moslems in Srebrenica to rearm themselves and participate in the fighting.
Then you are assuming that the serbs had all their troops in place to attack Srebrenica immideately. The Serb forces were spread out all over the area at the time the Dutch surrendered.
Then you are assuming that the Dutch should have taken a stand "for the glory of the UN and the Netherlands".
NO, they should have taken a stand, defending 30 000 refugees, starving women and children.
They should have taken a stand because they KNEW what the Serbs were doing. There were litterary hundreds of reports of massacres in that exact area by those exact serbs.
They should have taken a stand because that was the right thing to do.
Personally I seriously doubt the Serbs would have had the balls to go head to head with the UN over Srebrenica. No way would they dare. No...what they were doing was testing the limits, like Iraq is doing now. But instead of facing a line in the sand, they discovered that the Dutch crumbled.
The UN was reluctant to call in airstrikes on the serbs because they feared the serbs would execute UN hostages. Well, if there were 100-200 UN soldiers on the ground fighting for their lives trying to protect women and children from a bunch of butchering serbs, do you think that the priorities might change?
Have you any idea what the media coverage would be if there had been such a fight? Do you seriously think that the UN would have whimped "no we cant bomb because what happens then"? I dont think so.
No matter how you twist or turn the issue, the answer remains the same. It was a diddlying disgrace to hand those refugees over to the Serbs without a fight. And they knew what they were doing, and they knew what would happen to the civilians, that only makes it worse.
-
The difference, Hortlund, is that they were there. You were at home in the comfort of your home. They were trained to fight a war - you've been through the conscript army at best.
The difference, Hortlund, is that my story is one that is pure fiction. One that never can happen. It is an attempt to get you to understand the situation and the consequences of your Hitleresque 'Defend Stalingrad to the last man.'. So I used your name in a fictious situation you'll never find yourself in - therefore I didn't think it'd be offensive. What other way to make you feel like you were there - I mean, you assume the same with your 'fight to the last man' stance.
YOU tell ME how to destroy 15 tanks using hand grenades and automatic rifles. You tell me how to fight back a force 20 times stronger, better equipped, supported by tanks, artillery and anti aircraft guns.
It seems you are the one lacking an understanding of street fighting. Urban warfare is attrition in action. When adequate support exist, the defenders will lose. They might kill more of the enemy than they lose the them, but if the enemy has twenty times more people, it doesn't matter.
So, you're hiding inside a two story building. A tank goes by. You throw down some explosives, it explodes and the tank loses a track. As you're trying to relocate, three other tanks open up on your house. The house collapses, killing all within that survived the initial blasts.
Now three of your troops are dead. one tank has lost its trakcs but is trainng its main gun at some other peace keepers in buildings. The rest roll on.
If you think they could have resisted the Serb forces, you're wrong. We know enough about urban warfare to know the outcome of a 20-1 fight where the opposition also has tanks and artillery.
The UN would have to mobilize their air forces to get anything done. One or two F-16's would not be enough to stop the onslaught. By the time the Un would have organized a strike, the UN soldiers would have been dead.
And these guys have been fighting a bloody civil war for years. Theyv've faced worse enemies, and they've noticed how incapable the UN is to stop them. They know the UN doesn't want a fight - the UN wants to keep the peace.
And the Dutch were told not to fire unless fired upon. If the tanks rolled into their compound, they could do nothing. They'd have to wait for the tank to fire. The Serbs coullda put 10 soldiers next to each Dutch peace keeper if they wanted.
No, the problem was lack of support for UN HQ.
And you're asking 200 men lose their lives in a futile attemot to protect refugees - many of whom would have been massacred during the attack on the Dutch base.
It's unrealistic to think that 200 lightly equipped peace keepers can keep back 12000 men supported by artillery and tanks. Hence my comment of your attitude being Hiteresuqe - am not suggesting you're like Hitler. Am saying that your stance is identical to the one Hitler adopted duirng latter part of WWII. I.e despite o chance of success; lose your lives to protect something.
-
First, you are assuming that the Serbs would have attacked if the Dutch drew a line saying "we will shoot if you cross this line".
They had already shelled the dutch base, because the knew of then current impotence of airpower. The serbs begun shelling civilian targets 5 days BEFORE Mladic entered Srebrenica.
Then you are assuming that the Dutch soldiers would not get any airsupport even though they were fighting for their lives on the ground.
They had their requests turned down previously immediately before capitulation, one of the major findings afterwards was Dutchbat's misplaced confidence in the availability of airpower.
Then you are assuming that the Dutch would not have allowed the Moslems in Srebrenica to rearm themselves and participate in the fighting.
This is a moot point, for the dutch had already disarmed the Bosnians.
You forget there is absolutely no evidence that the dutch knew of serbian intentions once the Bosnian's fell into captivity. After the 11th, most of the Bosnian soldiers attempted to break out to government lines where fewer than half made it. Most were ambushed and executed en route.
Then you are assuming that the serbs had all their troops in place to attack Srebrenica immideately. The Serb forces were spread out all over the area at the time the Dutch surrendered.
The Serbs had cut off and surrounded Srebrenica 2 years before the end. The final offensive's planning and prep began a month before, the speed of the offensive catching the UN intellgence services off guard. UN intelligence was still confident Mladic wouldn't attempt to take the enclave.
Then you are assuming that the Dutch should have taken a stand "for the glory of the UN and the Netherlands".
This is your assumption. Your ideal situation was their self sacrifice to buy time for the UN cavalry to ride in and save them.
Personally I seriously doubt the Serbs would have had the balls to go head to head with the UN over Srebrenica. No way would they dare. No...what they were doing was testing the limits, like Iraq is doing now. But instead of facing a line in the sand, they discovered that the Dutch crumbled.
The were already locking horns, and winning the test of wills against the UN.
Perhaps if the peacekeepers were Canadian, British or French the situation would have been different - but they weren't there. Those nations were far better equipped than the dutch, with their own airpower component.
The UN was reluctant to call in airstrikes on the serbs because they feared the serbs would execute UN hostages. Well, if there were 100-200 UN soldiers on the ground fighting for their lives trying to protect women and children from a bunch of butchering serbs, do you think that the priorities might change?
Have you any idea what the media coverage would be if there had been such a fight? Do you seriously think that the UN would have whimped "no we cant bomb because what happens then"? I dont think so.
The UN didn't allow airstrikes when the enclave was being shelled including the dutch base.
Your missplaced confidence in airpower is as bad as Dutchbats. Nato's experience in Kosovo showed that airpower cannot alone slow serbian assaults on a civilian populace.
The final outcome of the captured enclave did not come public till long after it fell.
The destruction of Dutchbat would've easily occured before the media could've influenced the UN commanders.
Whats more bad press to a belligerent army like Mladic's?
Nothing
No matter how you twist or turn the issue, the answer remains the same. It was a diddlying disgrace to hand those refugees over to the Serbs without a fight. And they knew what they were doing, and they knew what would happen to the civilians, that only makes it worse.
There is no evidence that the Dutch knew of the impending fate of the enclave, nor is there any evidence that the dutch saw or deliberately assisted in the mass executions.
Tronsky
-
"Eight European leaders declared their solidarity with the United States in a statement published in newspapers across Europe Thursday. The joint statement is signed by leaders of the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Noticeably absent from the declaration are Germany and France. (Full story)
All of my Heros. Following a dumb man, and that is what Bush is, into a dumb and risky war.
This diddlying war will be nothing more then about the Oil and personal toejam between Bush and Saddam.
Bush is a puppy of his Father nothing more.
And this world police thing is getting lame and old.
Have ur war in Iraq i give a toejam if Germany supports u or not.
But all these Talks about if we europeans are ur friends or not is plain dumb.
Do friends agree all the time ??? NO. But it seems that only the country that goes into war with the US is their friend.
Any other country are PROBLEMS ( qoute from the dumb idiot, i fotgot the name he is so unimportend ) , wasnt it Bumsfeld err Rumsfeld.
I bet these guys doesnt even know where europe is.
And btw with what could the German Army help ???
50% of them can barely walk straight and hold a gun.
The rest has the locker full of beer and cant spell their name.
But stop.... dont u need thiose dumb guys ?
Yes wait i gonna write a lteer to our Kanzler and tell em he can waste this human material. And btw why do i complain. I want cheap OIL.
HORAY FOR THE IRAQ WAR. GO US GO
-
^
We know "where" Europe is. It's somewhere to the Left of Russia, ain't it??? BTW, you could could get a much better perspective if you pulled your head out of Schroeder's ass.......
Quote:
" The Falklands was the defence of Crown territory "
Why is "Crown territory" thousands of miles from Great Britain??? Is it because you all "stole it fair and square"??
Cabby
-
Another gem from the cabby camp.
Yeah we stole it. In the same way that the US stole the lands of the native Americans - absolutely no difference whatsoever.
How's the rabies shots coming along? I'm told they sting a little.
-
lol I never had my head in his ugly arse. He is an idiot and i did not vote for him. :(
-
Hi freeze!
Moving away from Bremen is a good idea, but going to Oldenburg probably not. The university is not in the south part but in the north part of the city, which is strongly influenced by Schroeder's party and even worse the greens ;)
-
Dowding it seems that cabby has learned during his respectable education history that the real americans created the country and the eurotrash immigrants just meddled along with that.
They were more of a nuisance which unfortunately had to be dealt with. So there were the real (tm) americans, native americans who originally lived in the reservates, bunch of drunks you know.. and the fortune seeking euros that later on returned to save the homecontinent because the genetic filth that wasn't smart enough to move away were left struggling with Hitler.
:)
-
ROFL ccvi. Ill survive it. But i dont move away from bremen.
I am going to drive the way.
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
lol I never had my head in his ugly arse. He is an idiot and i did not vote for him. :(
Seems like everyone in DUSCHland says the didn't vote for him.;)
-
Maybe the ones that have internet connections, didn't..
Just a thought :)
-
Originally posted by Monk
Seems like everyone in DUSCHland says the didn't vote for him.;)
Thats obviusly not true. We have to handle him now :(
-
I hope he'll wake up when, Hessen stays CDU, and N'Sachsen goes CDU.
-
At least on state level today some things should turn for the better ;)
Hehe, freeze, go online and play, don't spend all day on the BBS :p
-
The current map is even more frustating :(