 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
Leave it til tomorrow Chris.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
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. 
quote:
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/progr...iles/rwanda.htm
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
Digusting, truly disgusting. |
You truly are, but we make allowences, I'm aware your intellectual capicity is severly limited.
quote:
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. 
quote:
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.
quote:
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!
quote:
You do see the contradiction, don't you? Maybe not. |
It's stunning how many of your quotes fit you.
quote:
You claim that the UN tried to "prompt" nations into intervening in Rwanda. |
Clearly it wasquote:
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.
quote:
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.quote:
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. quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.quote:
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!
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
This is completely irrelevant. |
Typical of your arguments.quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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? quote:
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.
quote:
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
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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".
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
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.
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
quote:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
Chrissy, you should open your eyes and recognize your mistakes. It's the only way you'll ever learn anything.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-09-2002 13:26
|