US to pull out of Saudi Arabia.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


In the first instance wasn't this intervention a UN thing? This is what I'm talking about, because it was US and Australian forces you consider it a coalition of the willing even though it was done with full UN backing.

In both instances I was referring to the more peaceful, but often just as difficult job, sheparding the countries to democracy, creating institutions, running elections ad general peacekeeping. Cambodia, the UN was there to make sure the transition from monarchy, which followed the Khmer, to democracy went smoothly.

gsmoove, I must admit that I know little about the so-called transition to democracy in Cambodia that you reference. In fact, I was unaware that there is a democracy in Cambodia.

On East Timor, I heard Bill Clinton take credit for that just a few weeks ago when he was explaining why he supported Bush in Iraq.

[Chemical Ollie]

A UN operation doesn't necessarily have to involve soldiers from all UN members to be a UN operation. It just needs support from a majority of the security council and no veto from any of the 5 permanent members. The recent Afghanistan war is a good example, as is the 1991 war against Iraq.

[Ned]

On Cambodia, the communists are in charge and prevent opposition parties from campaigning freely. Here is a link.

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/cambodia/

[Ned]

On East Timor, it appears that Clinton got out in front of the crowd of people complaining about the masssacres in East Timor. But he was the one who forced Indonesia to comply.

http://cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/southeast/9909/12/e.timor.06/

[TCO]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


You must have played even more computer war games than me, as you have 12 times more posts. Look at yourself before you throw personal comments like "dum****" around you. Have you ever been a soldier? Where I live it's compulsory. I have never been in a war zone, which I am very happy for, but one of my closest buddies has made a total of 40 months of UN service in Lebanon, Bosnia and Hebron. He has been under fire by Serb artillery, Lebanese militia AK-47:s, Israeli Air Force and also intifada kids throwing big stones right into his lap through the closed car windows. He has told me all I need to know about what it's like to be under fire.



More on the topic - according to what I read, the unit involved in this weeks shooting was 82nd Airborne. If they don't have plenty of snipers among their ranks, I am Mickey Mouse. Or a Poly Tubby if you like...

No, I've never been a soldier. My infantry training consists of a few weeks of marine training to "see what it is like." I am a senior O-4 in the navy reserves with 9 years active duty and 8 reserves.

A sniper? Snipers work in a team with a big 50 cal rifle. How can you expect every small group of 82nd AB to have a decked out sniper team with them whereever they go? And snipers are into taking really long, important difficult shots. Not responding to scattered fire coming out of a crowd in an emergent situation.

[Chemical Ollie]

Do you really need a .50 cal to do some sniping instead of hosing? All it takes is a scope sight and an accurate assault rifle set on single shot. Most American infantry soldiers have that, haven't they? But more important, you need the guts to stick your head up long enough to find the appropriate target. I think that's the part that's failing. But as I wrote already in the post you bashed, that's very easy for me to say sitting in an armchair.

Good night! (It's almost 3 in the morning here)

[Lonestar]

You gonna knock me for being a sailor instead of a soldier, Olaf?

[TCO]

You're still way out there. Sniper is a specialized skill. These guys could encounter confornations anywhere.

And what good would a scope do, when you don't have an identified target. They didn't know where the shots where coming from. You need a wide field of view, not a narrow one.

What was your MOS?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Do you really need a .50 cal to do some sniping instead of hosing? All it takes is a scope sight and an accurate assault rifle set on single shot. Most American infantry soldiers have that, haven't they? But more important, you need the guts to stick your head up long enough to find the appropriate target. I think that's the part that's failing. But as I wrote already in the post you bashed, that's very easy for me to say sitting in an armchair.

Good night! (It's almost 3 in the morning here)

Well that is a different point from asking for a sniper. Now you just want a normal infantryman. Pick a choice. Normal infantryman with usual weapon? Or a sniper. Pick.

[TCO]

Haha. The new world always wins over the old world, when it comes to staying awake.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GP
Haha. The new world always wins over the old world, when it comes to staying awake.

[TCO]

USA! USA!

[Ted Striker]

Agreed.

[MRT144]

Im gonna be up till 6-7am PST.

[gsmoove23]

Ned, your Cambodia link refers to 1998 and you damn well know that just because Clinton supported doesn't change the fact that it was a UN peacekeeping force that went in. Clinton supported the UN and was the president of a member state, so whats your point. This is exactly what I'm saying, when you want to attack the UN any UN success is suddenly a US success and all UN failures the US supposedly had nothing to do with.

As for your post about MacArthur he was making incredibly inflamatory statements about using nukes in NK and expanding the war to China and Russia. His worries about being able to shell and chase fighters over the border were more to expand the conflict then anything else. I'm a little worried that your idea of the correct prosecution of a war is leaving it in the hands of a maniac with little thought for diplomacy.