Why wasn't the UN involved in the decision to attack Afghanistan?

[Hangtime]

<S!> Blue..

Yep.. been watching the Indonesia thing with a worried eye. Another powderkeg. And that was a kick-ss job you guys did in East Timor. If that part of the world comes apart while the U.S. is up to its eyeballs draining the mid-east swamp, we're gonna need yer croc hunters to hold the Indonesia situation together....

Sleeping with the largest population of fanatical extremist moslems on the planet in yer proverbial front yard, literally sitting on your trade routes, has got to be sobering in the current world political climate.. to say the least.

Thanks, mates; NZ and Australias support is needed, and appreciated by at least this confused Yank. <S!>

[Swager]

I dont need CNN!  I got it all right here!!

Cool!

 

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:

OK! Many of my messages in this thread are very angry, but Im passionate in my distrust of the weak UN forces and think they should play a minimal role in the actual US war. Maybe after the war the UN can come in and rent-a-cop afghan aid food warehouses.

Ok, so which side should've the UN fought on then?
The Serbs? , or wait maybe the Croats, or the  Bosnians??
 Or perhaps instead of trying to protect people they should've just closed up the border and let them just slaughter each other till the victors were just left.  

The problem with the UN in the Balkans is that you have to be neutral, and when you step in to take actions against injustice...where does that stop? In the end everyone may have started shooting at the blue helmets. The British, Canadians, Germans, Dutch, New Zealanders etc etc have done a brillant job in that region and need not your loathsome opinion. If one person is saved from your Balkans nightmare, then the UN Peacekeeper is more worthy than any insult you may hurl.

Bluey already illustrated a situtation where the UN Peacekeepers took charge and took control, and that was East Timor. Despite the loss of New Zealand, and Australian military lives. There thrives a strong and democratic country.

   

4RAR , ASNCE-EM, UNTAET

   

NZBatt4, UNTAET

 Tronsky

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]

[batdog]

Once again....notice the in the pictures above... no heavy weapons. They are equiped w/personal weps only.

 The UN guys are basicly screwed when you send them into a situation like Bosnia. They are out numbered and out gunned plus they have some clerk setting the "rules of engagement" and such.

 When they send them into a situation like Bosina they should of quite simply armed them to the teeth... then the various miltia's and such would of thought twice about breaking the "safe" zones. I pity any soldier, being an ex-grunt myself, that has to do a job w/out the support needed.

 

 xBAT

[Boroda]

Dowding, one correction: Russian troops were the first to enter Kosovo, not British. Brits were the first NATO troops there.

BTW, NATO did it's best to prevent Russians from joining the KFOR. We don't even have a special zone, Russian troops are spread all over Kosovo.

Hangtime and others: my Uncle was performing his military duty, and he was a SAM officer. My military specialty is an S-200 SAM technical division officer. IMNSHO - SAM crews are always on the right side. They fight for their lifes, and for the lifes of the people they cover. SAMs are ALWAYS a defencive weapon.

I am waiting for someone to justify the bombings of Vietnam. Go tell me that Vietnamese are nothing compared to American airmen, who always protect Freedom and Democracy.

[Hangtime]

SAM crews are always on the right side. They fight for their lifes, and for the lifes of the people they cover. SAMs are ALWAYS a defencive weapon.
 

Really?? Arn't they pulling the parts of that airliner outta the Black sea still?? You know, Commisar Pavlov; the one shot down by the 'defensive' SAM ?

I do hope you manage to make it down to Southern Iraq sometime soon. Those SAM crews are obviously in need of some 'defensive' assistance. Perhaps you could help.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by batdog:
Once again....notice the in the pictures above... no heavy weapons. They are equiped w/personal weps only.

 xBAT

That's inductively biases.  I can't see hvy weapons in 2 pictures, therefore there were no hvy weapons?  Poor logic.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Go tell me that Vietnamese are nothing compared to American airmen, who always protect Freedom and Democracy.

Consider it said! Add to that any commie "advisors" in the area.

I get it - your "uncle" was doing his duty but the American Airmen were not ... if it weren't for the politics of that war the VC and their "advisors" would have been toast. You owe the peaceniks alot, they saved ur uncle's arse...

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Eagler ]

[Boroda]

Hangtime, the Russian Tu-154 was shot down by the SAM complex I was trained for...

The S-200 is a SAM with the longest rage, 250+ km. In USSR the only place S-200 crews were trained with real launches was Priozersk (Sary-Shagan), a test ground in the middle of Kazakh steppes. My Uncle lived there for about 20 years. Every test launch was made with all possible measures to avoid such accidents. And noone could ever think of test-launches in the areas with heavy air traffic like Black Sea.

The whole accident was an incredible combination of stupidity and bad luck. It shows that Ukrainian air defence is, hmm... amateur  

From the point of view of SAM crews in Southern Iraq - they are always under attack. Any hostile plane crossing the targeting range of a SAM has only one mission: to destroy a targeting station. SAMs are ALWAYS the first targets. That guys in Southern Iraq must be really nervous, always expecting a missile attack and not allowed to protect themseves.

[Boroda]

Eagler, american airmen were performing their duty, and I take my hat off in respect for their bravery and professional skills.

But I don't think it's a good idea to use carpet bombings against civilian population.

Or do you think that Vietnamese were happy to be bombed "to stone age"?

If you start a war - don't be surprised that there are always some people who fight back. You bombed Yugoslavia for moderate police actions against Moslim gangsters, I suggest you to bomb Russia for Chechnya. Heh, you'll not? Guess why?

[Boroda]

I get your point too. If there were no Soviet aid to Vietnam - the whole country would have been toast. It's much easier to burn down villages from 30000ft when they can't strike back. I find it quite reasonable.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Boroda:
Dowding, one correction: Russian troops were the first to enter Kosovo, not British. Brits were the first NATO troops there.

BTW, NATO did it's best to prevent Russians from joining the KFOR. We don't even have a special zone, Russian troops are spread all over Kosovo.

Nato had a good point with trying to deny the Russian army a place in KFOR. The russians couldn't guarantee their neutrality, and therefore weren't effective 'peacekeepers'. The Russian's were scoring political points off Nato over the Kosovo, and their sudden rush into the region was only a political stunt because they feared losing face when unable to cast any infuence over Nato. It was a fact that the serbs welcomed Russian soldiers because they considered Russia allies.
Unlike the British, American, German and French troops following.

Tronsky

[Boroda]

Then why did they let Russian and Ukrainian peacekeeping troops into Bosnia?

BTW, looks like NATO troops in Kosovo are really neutral when it comes to slaughtering Serbs and blowing up Orthodox churches that are 800 years old. Even Turks were not so neutral.

It was a good idea to substitute UN decision with NATO, regardless to the fact that bombings of Yugoslavia contradicted with NATO regulations...

[Dowding]

BTW, looks like NATO troops in Kosovo are really neutral when it comes to slaughtering Serbs and blowing up Orthodox churches that are 800 years old. Even Turks were not so neutral.

Post your sources.

Specifically, I want evidence of British involvement in 'slaughtering serbs'. Unless you mean the Serbian paramilitary forces who were busy torturing, raping and cleansing. Frankly, they deserved nothing less.

Notice how they ran away from the spearhead British force, like the 'thugs with guns' they were proved to be. Your average paramilitary has no bottle, you see? Unless he's beating his chest and pushing unarmed women and children around.

NATO was there to show the lessons of the past had being learnt and also set things up to bring the protagonists to the discussion table. Stability was the aim.

The Russians were there for PR reasons alone. I do hope Russia can move on from the Cold War and I don't see how the world would be a worse place for her joining NATO.

Lastly, I've said it before in this thread; a repeat of Bosnia could not be allowed to happen in Kosovo - it would have damaged the reputations of our politicians in the public eye.

[Pongo]

I can see why the russians would want to be in Nato, I cant see why Nato would want them. Why would you introduce a country that still has strong nationalist feelings and a huge chip on thier shoulder into a defensive alliegance?  Im still seeing alot of posts here that indicate a mind set that would not be helpful to Nato.