Special relationship

[Bereta_Eder]

The plain truth of all this is that the US and the UK follow their interests and other countries' follow their own.

Nobody cares about Iraq except the US and the UK for reasons of national interest (being close to the US is apparently very important to it despite what many english people feel).

The "glory" of the UK "fighting bravely" in the US media is for your and the UK's consumption. The few dollars you leave in the chair of a harlot for a service rendered to you.

The world is occupied with its own matters.

[Jon Miller]

and once it turns out Saddam has the bomb

the world will be occupanied with it

we are just acting before the world is occupanied with it

but do we get any thanks?

Jon Miller

[Bereta_Eder]

You act because you want cheap oil deals.

We already have cheap oil deals from iraq.

The weapons of mass destruction is the "justification" for engaging Iraq and installing a pro-US government.

But even in the remote chance that Saddam would use a nuclear weapon against the US why should I care?
The US certaintly doesn't care about the rule of law in my region (see Cyprus) so why should I care what happens to you?

[Gatekeeper]

Paiktis:

Heh. *Anyone* who has to clear a minefield one explosive at a time deserves a fat paycheck, IMHO.

Who knows? Maybe having to pay mine-clearers a fortune will dissuade governments, rebel groups and whatnot from planting the damn things in the first place, and then losing the maps.

Gatekeeper

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Paiktis:

Heh. *Anyone* who has to clear a minefield one explosive at a time deserves a fat paycheck, IMHO.

Who knows? Maybe having to pay mine-clearers a fortune will dissuade governments, rebel groups and whatnot from planting the damn things in the first place, and then losing the maps.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper, that's not a bad idea! Especially considering that the United States decided NOT to sign a treaty BANNING the production and use of landmines; gave some BS whiny geo-political crap about the demilitarized zone 'tween North and South Korea as its reason.

[Dinner]

But unlike other copuntries the U.S. keeps absolutely comprehensive and impecable records of what mines were placed where. BTW in places like Korea the mines serve a vital role especially in light the the frequent communist infiltrations of the south.

[JCG]

Then they should have signed an agreement anyways with a sort of clause/clarification of their role in Korea, or if that can't be done, find a workable substitute for them.

Not signing it means that U.S. landmines are reaching other countries inmersed in wars/civil wars illegally AND legally, killing children and other civilians indiscriminately.

[Bereta_Eder]

Don't get me wrong. The above mentioned analysis is the simplified, stripped down one. And it does not encompass the whole truth of international relations which, unsuprisingly, are much more complex than that.

Greece being a member of NATO has some minimum guarantees and the US does contribute to the area and helps maintain stability.

Would Greece and Turkey have gone to war if they were not in NATO?

Noone can answer that with certainty because, contrary to popular belief maybe, there are some really wise politicians on both sides who want the people to prosper and not destroy themselves in a bloody war.

In any case and possible outcome the participation in NATO, which means the allowance of the US to intervene in a Greco-Turkish crisis in full swing, is contributing to peace.

There is a game of give and take between countries and things are never as simplified as what the governments and the media on every side might want to present them for their own goals.

But nothing is either solid or eternal in international relationships. And there are no guarantees.

In the end of the day the best outcome would be a friendship between Greece and Turkey. I think that this would mean the end, or at least the radical descrease of the participation of both countries in US wars.

It is only logical that this is not wanted by the US (especially for strategically important Turkey)

[Roland]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The relationship that is special in only one way, the two nations are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change, the rest of the world can't be arsed to do jack without excessive whining.

Indeed. So go, bring freedom and democracy to Iraq, hold hands with Iraqi children, make apple pie, and fly the pink flags.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW the above mentioned practice of the US is called "playing them against eachother" for our own benefits or "divide and conquer".
And when things might get critical try and cool things down.

That is why there is this attitude against the US in both countries. (luckily God has deprived neither of their sences yet).

Unfortunately the actors themselves are too eager to play that game. Turkey more so because it is not a true and unobstracted democracy. In the end it hurts the region and itself. (not that Greece is lacking in nationalism but this is because of the situation).

[Chris 62]

There is no limit to your being wrong, is there?

Originally posted by Tingkai
That's because countries like the US have traditionally refused to take part in peacekeeping missions. As a result, countries like Canada get stretched to the limits serving in more than a dozen peacekeeping missions. Our guys are serving six-months on peacekeeping, back home for six-months and then back out again.

And why is that?
As a former US peacekeeper operating under UN control, I KNOW the reason why, your mission orders don't allow for ANY provacative action, including return fire.
The US refuses to put it's forces in postions where they are helpless, look at the Balkans, the peacekeepers were taken hostage.
Just ONCE I wish you would attempt to learn what you are talking about, instead of trying to "correct" me.

There are dozens of countries who routinely send troops out for peacekeeping missions. They do so of their own accord. They are not dragooned into doing it.

Bull****.
Unifil ALWAYS have trouble meeting troop quotas, and several nations place havey rerstrictions on where and how it's personal are used.
2 wrong for you so far.

The Belgiums were there and paid the price with 10 soldiers killed. They then pulled out (not unlike the US in Somalia).

Again, showwing your intense ignorence, Belgium was accused of war crimes, committed by it's forces as well as Canadian and Italian "Peacekeepers"

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

"At one site, at Kigali, survivors told Mr Annan how they had held off armed Hutu killers with rocks and sticks for eight days while waiting in vain for help from UN peace-keepers"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/89285.stm

Oh, those brave Belgens, what would the world do without them?

The Canadian general leading the UN peacekeepers there was calling for more help.

While the Canadian unit tortured civilians, and it's unit was disbanned and the affair swept under the rug.

But the US was lobbying to end the peacekeeping mission.

Gee, I wonder why?
3 you were wrong on, shall I continue?

In a message to the US mission to the UN, the US State Dept. wrote the "department believes that there is insufficient justification to retain a UN peacekeeping presence in Rwanda and that the international community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible," the confidential cable said. The UN Security Council voted April 21, 1994, to pull out the troops.

Always nice when you quote something without source material.

Another great example of how the US and the UK are "the two nations are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change."

Yes, the only two nations NOT accused of brutalizing indigious personel, we leave that for UNIFIL.

This destroys your own argument. Canada willingly provided troops. No arms needed twisting.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

It most certainly does, and more than that, it shows a selective memory.

On your part.
Someday you may get it right, but obviously, that day hasn't yet arrived.

Every example you provided destroys your own argument.

A quote that ALWAYS fits you 100%

[Tingkai]

Re: There is no limit to your being wrong, is there?

Chrissy: your latest posting is not only filled with factual errors, it is also incredibly disgusting. You have insulted brave men who paid the ultimate price for peace.

This is what I'm referring to:

Originally posted by Chris 62

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/UN/peace.html

"At one site, at Kigali, survivors told Mr Annan how they had held off armed Hutu killers with rocks and sticks for eight days while waiting in vain for help from UN peace-keepers"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/89285.stm

Oh, those brave Belgens, what would the world do without them?
While the Canadian unit tortured civilians, and it's unit was disbanned and the affair swept under the rug.

First off, The crimes committed by Canadian soldiers occurred in Somalia, not Rwanda. Two different countries. Do you need a geography lesson?

But that mistake is minor compared to the disgusting why you ridicule what the Belgiums did. Ten of their peacekeepers were slaughtered in Rwanda because the UN would not provide the help needed to ensure their safety.

Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, who commanded the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, had repeated called for additional support as the situation exploded. Those calls were ignored. When the Belgiums were taken and killed, Dallaire had no troops to rescue them.

Chrissy, you should be ashamed of yourself. These men died for peace. They were put in an impossible situation and paid the ultimate price and your response is to make snide comments about them.

Digusting, truly disgusting.

As for the rest of your idiotic comments, let's try to keep you on focus. You initially claimed that the US and UK "are the only two willing to take chances to effect positive change."

Clearly that is wrong. Every nation that sends troops to peacekeeping missions is taking a chance in hope of creating peace. Dozens of countries take this chance so your statement is wrong.

After declaring the US and UK are the only ones willing to take a chance, you then contradict yourself by writing: "There isn't a nation on Earth that wants to send forces to do the right thing."

You do see the contradiction, don't you? Maybe not.

You claim that the UN tried to "prompt" nations into intervening in Rwanda. Clearly this was not the case. The UN security council, which includes the US, voted to withdraw from Rwanda. Dallaire's request for help was ignored by the UN.

Originally posted by Chris 62
As a former US peacekeeper operating under UN control, I KNOW the reason why, your mission orders don't allow for ANY provacative action, including return fire.
The US refuses to put it's forces in postions where they are helpless, look at the Balkans, the peacekeepers were taken hostage.

In other words, you're saying the US is not willing to take a chance for peace. Canadians and many other nations have taken that chance, even though it puts our soldiers lives at risk. Yes, many of our peacekeepers have been killed. That's the price we pay for peace, a price that our troops are willing to pay.

The courage of these men and women is incredible. They willingly go into a combat situation where they have very little means of defending themselves.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Bull****.
Unifil ALWAYS have trouble meeting troop quotas, and several nations place havey rerstrictions on where and how it's personal are used.

What I said is that many nations volunteer their troops for peacekeeping actions. The fact that the UN has problems getting enough troops does not change the fact that many nations are involved in the peacekeeping operations. The fact that some nations may have restrictions on their peacekeeping troops does not change the fact that they volunteer these troops for action.

Your claim the UN "dragoons" countries into sending out peacekeeping troops is simply ridiculous. The UN has no power to "dragoon" troops.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Belgium was accused of war crimes, committed by it's forces as well as Canadian and Italian "Peacekeepers"

This is completely irrelevant. Yes, a few peacekeepers have committed crimes, particularly during the Somalia operation which was a disaster, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Somalia was a "peacemaking" operation that was completely different from traditional peacekeeping operations.

The US pressured the UN to send an armed force to Somalia. The peacemaking troops had vague orders that allowed them to shoot back, but the orders were not completely clear and the whole thing was a mess from beginning to end.

Yes, some Canadian paratroopers tortured and killed two Somalians. The soldiers were punished. The operation exposed major problems in our Airborne unit and the unit was disbanded.

Belgium and Italian troops also committed crimes during the Somalia operation, but what's your point. Are you trying to suggest that because of one failed operation, we should cancel all peacekeeping operations. That's a bit stupid, eh.

Originally posted by Chris 62
While the Canadian unit tortured civilians, and it's unit was disbanned and the affair swept under the rug.

This is a complete lie. What you wrote proves that it is wrong. If the unit was disbanded, then the affair was obviously NOT swept under the rug.


Again, the criminals were jailed, a public inquiry into the crimes was held, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.


And back to the Rwanda disaster.
Here's a link to an AFP article about how the US not only refused to help stop the genocide, the US also pressured the UN to pull out.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda/2001/0822us.htm

From the article:
"Even as images of mutilated bodies began appearing on television screens, US officials were loath to classify the killings as genocide for fear it would compel the United States to intervene, the documents indicated. The Pentagon also shot down a proposal to use US electronic jamming planes to silence Hutu hate radio broadcasts inciting further killings."

Give it up Chrissy. Everytime you post something, you just prove that you don't know what you are talking about.

And by the way, you lost your bet about how Chretien's response to Bush's war plans.

"Prime Minister Jean Chretien gave U.S. President George W. Bush a history lesson on Canadian support for the United Nations yesterday, and told him that Canada would not support unilateral U.S. action against Saddam Hussein."

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?current_row=5&tf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.html&cf=tgam/search/tgam/SearchFullStory.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam/config&encoded_keywords=bush&option=&start_row=5&start_row_offset1=&num_rows=1&search_results_start=1&query=bush

[Tingkai]

Re: There is no limit to your being wrong, is there?

DP

[Ned]

Tingkai and Chris, I have read enough here on Apolyton to recognize that UN Peacekeeping missions are tactically unsound they way they are conducted. I can understand why the US does not want to put its own troops under UN command.

However, I don't know what the right answer is except to eliminate the bad guys. But in order to do that, as we found out ourselves in Somalia, one has to have enough firepower to get the job done.

If the UN were ever called to place a force into the West Bank or Gaza, it would be a disaster if it were conducted like Bosnia, for example.

[Roland]

Ned you're confusing peacekeeping and peacemaking. There was no peace in Bosnia to keep, and the UN operation there was utterly idiotic.

As for peacekeeping, pray tell, what is wrong with the Golan and Cyprus missions ? I know a bit about them so I'm really curious.

And for heaven's **** don't form an opinion based on poly!