EU peacekeepers soon in the DR of Congo

[Pekka]

Besides in my heart I'm a simple man. I'd have to be between two or more hostile groups, and couldn't take sides. It's likely to be super complicated situation, with me patrolling in areas and everyone hating me. That's still ok, but I can only defend myself, and not the ones who are victims. Sure, in theory I could and I must, but I think that's not the case in reality. And to peacekeeper, no one is enemy and no one is right, so it's tough situation to be in and that's why I say it's more like police action than anything else. It's just not for me.

[Main_Brain]

Just went to http://evote.eu2003.gr/evote/start.aspx?poll=12
Anyone checked Question 12?
renamin the EU in United Europe.. now thats an Idea thats suited :=)

[Chemical Ollie]

Back in the Kongo war of the early 60's, the Swedish UN soldiers joined one side of the conflict. They killed plenty of Balubas, but found out that 9 mm sub machine guns sucked big time in ranges above 200 meters. That helped the Swedish government decide to buy 7.62 mm AKs. The Balubas were hiding behind wooden shields like Impis and the 9 mm bullets just bounced off them. That war was the only time the Swedish air force has been used in lethal action.

Pekka, I understand your point. It takes a special kind of people to go on UN missions. My brother were on Cyprus in -79, but I think that got him fed up with soldiering. He only talks bad about it. My buddy has been on 7 missions in Lebanon, Tuzla and Hebron and he is one of a kind. His goal was to go on 10 missions and set some kind of Swedish record. He has been asked to go to Azerbadjan, Cambodia and West Sahara but some of the missions were cancelled and others he refused due to his personal situation at that time. Now he's got a kid and I hardly think he will leave his family for 6 months and risk his life again. He has put his share of casualties in the freezer. At one party, he showed me pictures of a Palestinian guy who had been killed by a hand grenade. There was gore hanging from threes and bushes all over the place. He also told a story of a body bag he carried weighing only 10 kg, as the occupant had been hit by an RPG. He has clearly been another person from his experience, and I don't think all of it is good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

if the situation stabilizes, the usual French-European industries will exploit the gems again, and the local government will be correctly dependant from France.

No blood for gems!

--

It's a nice gesture and all, but 1400 troops is too few. Congo needs much more than that to end this bloody war. Of course the main problem is that just about every country in Central Africa has had it's finger in the pie, so to speak. Now it's calmed down some, but still you have rebel groups backed by Rwanda and so forth. It's complicated situation, and something MORE needs to be done.

And I wouldn't put it past the French to use this as some sort of power play. Saying we can project power as well. Of course, they'd need a Hell of a lot more than what they are sending.

[Spiffor]

Regime Change in Rwada !

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yes, the world would be a much better place if we just allowed rampant genocide. Who are we to interfere?

somehow i think i can guess why our friend Paktis is not comfortable with international interventions based on the prevention of genocide.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
somehow i think i can guess why our friend Paktis is not comfortable with international interventions based on the prevention of genocide.

I think he is above all not comfortable with international interventions based on the promotion of power play.

Besides, to you all who criticize the French intervention in Ivory Coast : it is probably the best thing that has done France in Africa in decades. It effectively prevented genocides there. I guess you are all like Paiktis ?

[Velociryx]

We'll be watching with interest....show us how it's done....

-=Vel=-

[Ecthy]

paiktis hasn't been posting in this thread for (p)ages, if he ever has. stop blaming him ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
paiktis hasn't been posting in this thread for (p)ages, if he ever has. stop blaming him ?

he did post, though i didnt quote him directly.

Sorry if i should have let it rest, though. i just found it his point interesting, given his statements elsewhere.

[Ecthy]

interesting points are one thing, saying "he would probably do this and that right now if he was here, what a ****" is different.

[Velociryx]

And for the record, Hersh...I disagree. The day you can point out to me some other country (and no, the EU doesn't count yet....maybe someday, but certainly not yet) that has anything approaching the economic muscle of the United States, and could project even a third of the total firepower, militarily, that's the day I'll agree that there's not a "unipolar" situation on the world stage.

If it makes you feel better to say that US influence 'round the world is weak (tho in recent times, I can't think of too many things that the US wanted badly when it did not get its way, including, by the way, a war with Iraq), by all means do so, but IMO, it's not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

I realize too, that this is.....decidedly uncomfortable for some.

-=Vel=-

[BeBMan]

BTW, this thread is missing the most important line:

It´s going to be another Vietnam!!!

[Pekka]

But as I am too drunk to read this thread, I might say that this could be the right thing to do, and it just might stabilize the area enough. I don't want to take anything away from peacekeepers, as they have a tough job to do.

[HershOstropoler]

Velociryx:

"The day you can point out to me some other country... that has anything approaching the economic muscle of the United States, and could project even a third of the total firepower, militarily, that's the day I'll agree that there's not a "unipolar" situation on the world stage."

The US is overall the strongest power. That doesn't make the world autimatically unipolar, and it does not make it a hyperpower. In most of the world, US influence is quite indirect, not to mention your imperial overstretch, your weakening economic base and your crumbling alliances. Also, gunboat diplomacy has its limits....

"If it makes you feel better to say that US influence 'round the world is weak (tho in recent times, I can't think of too many things that the US wanted badly when it did not get its way, including, by the way, a war with Iraq), by all means do so, but IMO, it's not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs."

For Iraq: So you managed to go to war against a sanction-starved third world country that you outnumber 12:1 on population, 200:1 on military spending, and 400:1 in terms of GDP.

Now that little ****hole ties down what... 200.000 troops? How many Iraqs can you afford, militarily and politically? 3? 4?

As for economic muscle, why would you exclude the EU? We taught you the hard way in the 80s that the days of your fool's freedom in trade policy are over, which resulted in the WTO. In any trade conflict, we can hurt you as much as the other way round. Or will you start a war to force us to accept unlabelled GM foods? Not bloody likely.

"I realize too, that this is.....decidedly uncomfortable for some. "

?