Special relationship

[Bereta_Eder]

I see.

[Chris 62]

I'm with you pal, I'd like to see UN forces trained and equiped properly, with clear and effective mission orders, but this NEVER happens unfortunately.

[Dauphin]

What happened in the Korean war, wasn't that a UN war or at least a UN sanctioned war?

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't know. But we were there too...

About 50 Greek soldiers were killed in Korea. There was an american movie about this I think.

[Chris 62]

The defense part was, but China (in this case Communist China) was not recognized by the UN, so they didn't feel compelled to answer UN resolutions (which only called for freeing the South, MacAauther exceded his authority when he invaded the north).

[Ned]

SD, Korea was a brand of US lead war effort that was nominally sanctioned by the UN General Assembly! Yes, I said that right, the GA, not the SC. Russia made it clear that it would veto any SC resolution on Korea, so the US went to the GA and got a majority vote to support SK.

I wonder if Bush is thinking the same think today with Russia promising a veto on Iraq.

But regardless, other countries joined that fight because of the United States, not because of the UN. One more example of the UN being effective when the US leads.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Ned
SD, Korea was a brand of US lead war effort that was nominally sanctioned by the UN General Assembly! Yes, I said that right, the GA, not the SC. Russia made it clear that it would veto any SC resolution on Korea, so the US went to the GA and got a majority vote to support SK.

I thought it passed (the SC) because the Soviets were boycotting for some reason or another.

[Chris 62]

Your correct Kyle, the Soviets were boycotting, but they knew of the attack, their pilots flew aircraft in North Korean markings in the intial attack.

[Tingkai]

Re: And now the breakdown, of tinki:

Chris: you do have an amazingly small mind. You seem incapable of understanding very basic concepts. You can't even understand basic language concepts.

Yoru entire argument falls to pieces because you don't understand that Rwanda is a different country than Somalia. Get a geography book and figure it out.

Secondly, you obviously do not understand the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. It's quite simple.

Peacekeeping forces act under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter as a neutral barrier between two groups. These forces are designed to act as an unarmed go-between that can settle local disputes without resorting to fighting. Peacekeeping forces are also used as unarmed observers to ensure that peace agreements are kept.

Peacemaking forces act under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and are armed and given the power to fight. The Korean War was a peacemaking operation.

To put it terms you can understand: Peacemakers fight, Peacekeepers do not.

Originally posted by Chris 62
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

This article deals with the problem of creating an effective peacemaking force, a military organization that could have prevented the Rwanda genocide.

Nothing in the article says "UNFIL always was [sic] trouble gaining support for peacekeeping" as you incorrectly claim.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Is that the same UN filled with those nations so willing to send forces to effect change you keep claiming?

The fact that the UN was incapable, and unwilling, to deal with one crisis does not mean that the UN has been unwilling or incapable of dealing with other crises.

Here's a simple analogy you might be able to understand: if a fire department is faced with a massive fire that swamps its abilities and cannot put it out, this does not mean that the fire department is incapable of putting out other fires.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Your making my argument, YOU claimed the UN had no problem finding and fielding forces.

I made no such claim.

I have stated that many nations willingly, and without coercion, volunteer troops for peacekeeping mission. This does not mean that the UN always has the resources it needs to deal with the every crisis that occurs throughout the world.

Again, here's an analogy you might understand: A company may have many workers, it may be able to complete many projects, but it may not be able to complete all the work it wants done.

I suspect that you will still not be able to understand this simple concept.

In the Rwanda situation, the UN was easily able to provide enough peacekeeping troops to deal with the initial problem, but then the situation exploded. Dallaire repeated called for a peaceMAKING force. The UN was unable and unwilling to organize such a force.

As the article you linked states:
In retrospect, a capable force of 5,000 troops inserted during April 7-21 could have significantly squelched the violence... This force, however, would have required significantly different and enhanced capabilities than Dallaire's original peace-keeping contingent--one with more firepower and mobility.

The fact that the UN was unable to respond to the Rwanda crisis does not mean that the UN has not responded to many other crises.

Originally posted by Chris 62
I'm well aware of his claims, and what Canadians and Belgians did on the ground, you can't sweep it away.

I have no reason to sweep away the actions of the Canadian peacekeepers in Rwanda.

The Belgiums lost 10 men. Those men should be honoured not riduculed, particularly by a low-life like you.

The Belgium commander who withdrew his troops and left 2,000 people unprotected was in an impossible situation. He did not have the supplies to withstand a seige. If he had stayed, the refugees would probably have been killed along with his men. He chose to save his men.

Did he make the best decision? Maybe not. Was his decision understandable? Certainly.

It is easy for you to sit on your fat butt in New York and criticize him, but you were not there. As a former soldier, you should know better than to criticize the field decisions of others, but you don't know better.

Originally posted by Chris 62
The UN is USELESS and DOES nothing, and NO nations except Britain and the US are willing to do anything to effect change.

Wrong. Many peacekeeping missions have been successful. UN peacekeepers have been effective in Cyprus and Sinai, to name but two.

Originally posted by Chris 62
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.

I defy you to provide any evidence that counties that routinely participate in peacekeeping operations have been "forced and shamed into it."

You are completely wrong about this. Almost all nations that routinely provide peacekeepers are proud of doing so.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Canadians have proven time and again to be the least effective at peacekeepers, but they do seem to be good as raosting [sic]black kids over fires.

This is a complete lie, but you're good at doing that Chris. Canadians have proven highly effective in peacekeeping duties. I challenge you to provide once ounce of proof to back up your claim that Canadians are the least effective.

Canadian peacekeepers have never put anyone over a fire. You obviously cannot tell the difference between a Belgium peacekeeper and a Canadian peacekeeper. Here's a hint: Belgium is in Europe (that big piece of land east of New York), Canada is in North America.

Originally posted by Chris 62

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.

Again, I challenge you to provide proof to back up your incredibly stupid statement that countries "never volunteer" for peacekeeping duties.

Originally posted by Chris 62
You just contridicted yourself AGAIN.
You say they have no problems right above, and change it paragrapgh by paragrapgh!

Chrisy, you really are quite thick. I'll try to explain this to you again. There is no contradiction in saying that many nations contribute peacekeeping forces and saying that there are not enough peacekeeping forces.

This is a simple math concept.

A volunteer fire department may have many volunteers, but not enough volunteers to deal with a gigantic fire.
A carpenter can have many nails, but not enough nails to build a house.

Spend a day or even a week thinking about this. You might eventually understand this concept, then again knowing you, you probably won't.

Originally posted by Chris 62
the phrase means coersion[sic], and that is what is done.

Again, I challenge to provide proof that Canada is coerced into providing peacekeepers.

Originally posted by Chris 62

Yes, a few peacekeepers have committed crimes, particularly during the Somalia operation which was a disaster

It was done in RWANDA you mallet head.

Chrissy, you don't know what you are talking about. The crimes committed occurred in Somalia
These quotes are from the link YOU provided:

"The photograph depicts two Belgian paladins of the new world order giddily holding a Somali child over an open flame."

"Three members of a now-disbanded elite Canadian paratroop regiment were tried and convicted of criminal charges in the beating death of a 16-year-old Somali boy."

"Italian military officials admitted that Italian soldiers assigned to UN duty in Somalia had also tortured and otherwise abused Somali civilians."

Chrissy, read the stuff you post. Then again, you'll probably try to argue that the Somali victims were vacationing in Rwanda.

Originally posted by Chris 62

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

Your link deals with RWANDA. I was talking about SOMALIA.

Originally posted by Chris 62
A damned disgrace, sent to protect the innocent, instead they tortured and killed them!
Yes, let's get more such "peacekeepers".

In almost 40 years of Canadian peacekeeping/ peacemaking, there has been one terrible incident. Only you would shut down the whole operation because of a couple of bad apples (who were dealt with decisively).

Stop making a fool of yourself, Chris.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62

Leave it til tomorrow Chris.

You leave it,

I think most people would understand why I wrote "leave it til tomorrow." But since you obviously don't get it, I'll explain it to you.

Yesterday was September 11. I was trying to show some respect to the people who died in 9/11, and also trying to respect the fact that you live in New York and obviously the tragedy is closer to you.

I realize now that you do not deserve that consideration.

Originally posted by Chris 62
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.

Really? Seems to me that there is still peace in the Sinai and there was no war in the Sinai in `82.

The peacekeeping mission in the Sinai is doing exactly that: keeping the peace.

It is truly amazing that you have participated in a peacekeeping mission and yet you don't know what you have accomplished.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
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?

This is from the linked article you posted:
"The panel members generally agreed that General Dallaire was right--a force of 5,000 peacekeepers could have interrupted the violence. Moreover, his appreciation of the situation at the time has been substantiated by subsequent scholarship."

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think the UN should send in forces as national forces, rather than as UN forces.

The reason for sending in multinational forces are:
1) Few countries would be willing to be the only nation involved in one conflict;
2) A multinational force can help diffuse accusations of bias; and
3) A single UN command leads to better command, control and communication than having a number of commanders on the ground.

[Chris 62]

You don't understand, your an idiot and everybody knows it.

Leave me be and I'll leave you be, simple as that.

[Tingkai]

Chrissy, you should open your eyes and recognize your mistakes. It's the only way you'll ever learn anything.

[Chris 62]

Read this idiot, it's what people think of you:

Notice, it's not me posting it:

http://www.counterglow.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6759&highlight=lefties