Special relationship

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland

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

[Ned]

Thanks Roland. But even you will admit this forum contains a wide range of very intelligent and well educated people from across the world. I don't know whether it is unique or not, but it is certainly special. I find the discussions fascinating and informative.

On Peacekeeping vs. Peacemaking, the only difference between the two is that in 2) there is a bad guy and in 1) the could be a bad guy depending on who is shooting.

[Chris 62]

Tinkai, your just a giant fool, there is no other way to talk to you, when shown facts, you deny it, and when shown proof you deny.

Sorry, the rest of the world doesn't do jack, and we both know it.

Your only fooling yourself with your childishness.

[SlowwHand]

I've seen a push in some areas to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations, primarily for the current membership of the Human Rights Commission.
While I would certainly hate to see that happen, in many ways I can understand the viewpoint.

[Tingkai]

Leave it til tomorrow Chris.

[Chris 62]

And now the breakdown, of tinki:

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

Your even sillier then I imagined, you would twist the truth to try and prove to people you know something.
Sorry, we already know you don't.

This is what I'm referring to:
First off, The crimes committed by Canadian soldiers occurred in Somalia, not Rwanda. Two different countries. Do you need a geography lesson?

First, as I said, UNFIL always was trouble gaining support for peacekeeping, and further proof of this is here:

http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/isd/files/rwanda.htm

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.

Is that the same UN filled with those nations so willing to send forces to effect change you keep claiming?
Ashur is right, you can't even hold the same side of an argument in one thread.

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.

Your making my argument, YOU claimed the UN had no problem finding and fielding forces.
I'm well aware of his claims, and what Canadians and Belgians did on the ground, you can't sweep it away.

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.

HA HA HA HA HA
You are arguing my side, you silly person.
The UN is USELESS and DOES nothing, and NO nations except Britain and the US are willing to do anything to effect change.

Digusting, truly disgusting.

You truly are, but we make allowences, I'm aware your intellectual capicity is severly limited.

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."

Something you just proved, oh clueless Joe.

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.

Ha Ha Ha Ha, you still don't get it, they are forced and shamed into it, and are TOTALLY unwilling to put in a force capable of doing the job.

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."

Outside of those two, as you proved, man are you silly!

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

It's stunning how many of your quotes fit you.

You claim that the UN tried to "prompt" nations into intervening in Rwanda.

Clearly it was

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.

Proving you wrong once again, but your used to it by now.

In other words, you're saying the US is not willing to take a chance for peace.

You can't seem to be able to distiguish between UN operations and US ones.
The UN operation failed when it could not (as usual) find forces to send, from all those nations you claim are so willing to do something.

Canadians and many other nations have taken that chance, even though it puts our soldiers lives at risk.

Canadians have proven time and again to be the least effective at peacekeepers, but they do seem to be good as raosting black kids over fires.

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.

More bull, the forces are thrown away on hopleless missions that accomplish nothing.

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.

Your talking to one, you imbecile.

What I said is that many nations volunteer their troops for peacekeeping actions.

They never do, it's a scandal that the member nations stonewall troop precurement.

The fact that the UN has problems getting enough troops does not change the fact that many nations are involved in the peacekeeping operations.

You just contridicted yourself AGAIN.
You say they have no problems right above, and change it paragrapgh by paragrapgh!

The fact that some nations may have restrictions on their peacekeeping troops does not change the fact that they volunteer these troops for action.

The whole point (lost on you) is they aern't availible for action.

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

You get sillier by the moment, the phrase means coersion, and that is what is done.
Why do you pretend to know things you have no clue about?

This is completely irrelevant.

Typical of your arguments.

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.

It was done in RWANDA you mallet head.

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

Somalia was a four star f*ck-up, the US was clueless that Bin Laden was controlling matters.

The US pressured the UN to send an armed force to Somalia.

Is that the same UN that you claim happily and willingly send forces hither and dale through out the planet?

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.

How can you agree with me, yet continuily attempt not to?
I have been saying this all along.
You are one of the most muddle-headed people I ever saw.

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.

As it should be, damn disgrace.
In fact, the UN has reluctantly admitted it's foul-up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/africa/568566.stm

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.

You still don't understand.
Read carefully:
UN missions are always this way, insuffienct forces with vague orders.
When will you grasp this?

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.

The unit was disbanned, and nobody talks about, you yourself went on at length how sweet they are.
"Gould described the UN as "a bizarre universe of intrigue and outrage, where diplomats from 185 countries -- stuffed suits simmering with regional, religious, and class-bred hatreds -- try to promote world peace." Such is the character of the institution whose masters crave the power to enforce "world law." "

http://www.getusout.org/un/articles/beasts_in_blue.htm

This sums up the UN perfectly.

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

A damned disgrace, sent to protect the innocent, instead they tortured and killed them!
Yes, let's get more such "peacekeepers".

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.

Your not hanging RWANDA on the USA, that was a UN screwup.

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

Just insert your name, and that would be a true statement.
I truly wonder if you know about anything.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Leave it til tomorrow Chris.

You leave it, I served in a peacekeeping operation, Sinai in 82, and also in US unlateral operations, Grenada in 83.

The UN mission was a total foul up, four of our guys were wounded by sniper fire, and we accomplished zip, thanks to your precious UN.

Grenada, we accomplished the mission, even though their was some confusion, I was allowed to fire back.

Stop trying to argue UN opperations with me, I lived them.

[Ned]

Chris, You make a persuasive case that the UN is ineffective and, indeed, counter-productive in many cases, offering hope where there is none. I can understand why nations are reluctant to commit troops to peacekeeping operations.

I contrast that to the willingness of countries to join the battle in Desert Storm, Kosovo and the war against the Taliban and al Qaida. We were leading the effort and we ourselves were committed to achieving the objective.

All this illustrates is that the US and the UK are the only true forces for peace and human rights in the world. We should pull out of the UN and let simply let it die.

[Dauphin]

We should pull out of the UN and let simply let it die.

The UN is not just about military peacekeeping, there are many other important roles it plays, including WHO, WTO, etc. Do you want to withdraw from all institutions?

[Chris 62]

I would like to see it's humanitarian operations continue, but "Peacekeeping" and "Resolutions" are a waste of time.

Military force is only effective if the threat of it's usage is there, sending guys with Blue helmets into war zones without the ability to act only leads to more and more Rwandas.

Does anybody here (with the obvious exception of course) think that trouble spots are unaware that UN forces won't fight?

Sending men into hopeless situations just invites death, say the UN force was upgraded to 5,000 in Rwanda as the Canadian general wanted, would it really have stopped matters?
5,000 men are a lot to feed, cloth and arm under fire, and their mission orders and operations would include almost zero hostile reply.

So, for example, we see a UN roadblock, and it's challenged, the opposing force goes around it, but does not fire, what do you do?
Your the UN commander, if you fire, you have violated mission rules of engagement, and can be court martialed.
The other side will claim they are simply a relief or humanitarian force (it won't matter this is a blatent lie, if they didn't fire first).
But they are heading for a refugee camp, to slaughter the inhabitents.
What do you do?
Do you open fire?
Let them go?

The clock is ticking......

Hopeless, that what that kind of mission is.

[Dauphin]

I think the UN should send in forces as national forces, rather than as UN forces.

Let the commanders decide what is appropriate for a situation. If the UN doesn't like their methods, then find troops elsewhere.

[Chris 62]

They never agree Dolphin, because the UN doesn't have a military mandate, it relies on the member states to supply forces for specific missions in time frames.

The Balkans tragedy is another perfect example of ineffectual UN operations, part of the peacekeepers were taken hostage!
Armed men, taken hostage, because they couldn't fight back!

The UN doesn't work correctly, only nations willing to act can effect change, which is what I was trying to tell Tinkai, but he's too into trying to prove me wrong all the time, so the obvious escapes him.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think that whenever UN peacekepeers are under fire they should be free to return it to protect themselves.

To fire first it must be clearly laid out in the plan of the mission. (or to fire first when there is clear and eminent danger).

[Bereta_Eder]

I know from a friend that Greek peacekeepers in Kosovo had these orders when on guard if someone was coming close: (but I can't presently verify his accuracy of the info)

Ask one time to ID
Ask second time to ID
Fire in the air
Fire at the target

[Chris 62]

Another problem Paiktis, different orders for different forces.

All a recipe for disaster.