01-05-2003 05:00									#121
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 In the first instance wasn't this intervention a UN thing? This is what I'm talking about, because it was US and Australian forces you consider it a coalition of the willing even though it was done with full UN backing. In both instances I was referring to the more peaceful, but often just as difficult job, sheparding the countries to democracy, creating institutions, running elections ad general peacekeeping. Cambodia, the UN was there to make sure the transition from monarchy, which followed the Khmer, to democracy went smoothly.

gsmoove, I must admit that I know little about the so-called transition to democracy in Cambodia that you reference. In fact, I was unaware that there is a democracy in Cambodia.

On East Timor, I heard Bill Clinton take credit for that just a few weeks ago when he was explaining why he supported Bush in Iraq.

	01-05-2003 05:01									#122
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A UN operation doesn't necessarily have to involve soldiers from all UN members to be a UN operation. It just needs support from a majority of the security council and no veto from any of the 5 permanent members. The recent Afghanistan war is a good example, as is the 1991 war against Iraq.

	01-05-2003 05:12									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

On Cambodia, the communists are in charge and prevent opposition parties from campaigning freely. Here is a link.

http://www.hrw.org/reports98/cambodia/

	01-05-2003 05:19									#124
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

On East Timor, it appears that Clinton got out in front of the crowd of people complaining about the masssacres in East Timor. But he was the one who forced Indonesia to comply.

http://cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/southeas.../12/e.timor.06/

	01-05-2003 05:41									#125
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre You must have played even more computer war games than me, as you have 12 times more posts. Look at yourself before you throw personal comments like "dumshit" around you. Have you ever been a soldier? Where I live it's compulsory. I have never been in a war zone, which I am very happy for, but one of my closest buddies has made a total of 40 months of UN service in Lebanon, Bosnia and Hebron. He has been under fire by Serb artillery, Lebanese militia AK-47:s, Israeli Air Force and also intifada kids throwing big stones right into his lap through the closed car windows. He has told me all I need to know about what it's like to be under fire. More on the topic - according to what I read, the unit involved in this weeks shooting was 82nd Airborne. If they don't have plenty of snipers among their ranks, I am Mickey Mouse. Or a Poly Tubby if you like...

No, I've never been a soldier. My infantry training consists of a few weeks of marine training to "see what it is like." I am a senior O-4 in the navy reserves with 9 years active duty and 8 reserves.

A sniper? Snipers work in a team with a big 50 cal rifle. How can you expect every small group of 82nd AB to have a decked out sniper team with them whereever they go? And snipers are into taking really long, important difficult shots. Not responding to scattered fire coming out of a crowd in an emergent situation.

	01-05-2003 05:55									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Do you really need a .50 cal to do some sniping instead of hosing? All it takes is a scope sight and an accurate assault rifle set on single shot. Most American infantry soldiers have that, haven't they? But more important, you need the guts to stick your head up long enough to find the appropriate target. I think that's the part that's failing. But as I wrote already in the post you bashed, that's very easy for me to say sitting in an armchair.

Good night! (It's almost 3 in the morning here)

	01-05-2003 06:17									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

You gonna knock me for being a sailor instead of a soldier, Olaf?

	01-05-2003 06:41									#128
	Increase the size of your Attachments

You're still way out there. Sniper is a specialized skill. These guys could encounter confornations anywhere.

And what good would a scope do, when you don't have an identified target. They didn't know where the shots where coming from. You need a wide field of view, not a narrow one.

What was your MOS?

	01-05-2003 06:46									#129
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre Do you really need a .50 cal to do some sniping instead of hosing? All it takes is a scope sight and an accurate assault rifle set on single shot. Most American infantry soldiers have that, haven't they? But more important, you need the guts to stick your head up long enough to find the appropriate target. I think that's the part that's failing. But as I wrote already in the post you bashed, that's very easy for me to say sitting in an armchair. Good night! (It's almost 3 in the morning here)

Well that is a different point from asking for a sniper. Now you just want a normal infantryman. Pick a choice. Normal infantryman with usual weapon? Or a sniper. Pick.

	01-05-2003 06:53									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Haha. The new world always wins over the old world, when it comes to staying awake.

	01-05-2003 07:12									#131
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GP Haha. The new world always wins over the old world, when it comes to staying awake.

	01-05-2003 08:17									#132
	Suffering from ads?

USA! USA!

	01-05-2003 08:23									#133
	Inflate your Upload Space

Agreed.

	01-05-2003 08:54									#134
	Support Apolyton

Im gonna be up till 6-7am PST.

	01-05-2003 08:54									#135
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ned, your Cambodia link refers to 1998 and you damn well know that just because Clinton supported doesn't change the fact that it was a UN peacekeeping force that went in. Clinton supported the UN and was the president of a member state, so whats your point. This is exactly what I'm saying, when you want to attack the UN any UN success is suddenly a US success and all UN failures the US supposedly had nothing to do with.

As for your post about MacArthur he was making incredibly inflamatory statements about using nukes in NK and expanding the war to China and Russia. His worries about being able to shell and chase fighters over the border were more to expand the conflict then anything else. I'm a little worried that your idea of the correct prosecution of a war is leaving it in the hands of a maniac with little thought for diplomacy.

	01-05-2003 08:57									#136
	Full PM-box? Change here!

gs, MacArthur actually was proposing a radioactive barrier between China and DPRK. Still a bad idea however.

	01-05-2003 09:05									#137
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by MRT144 Im gonna be up till 6-7am PST.

What (who) are you doing?

	01-05-2003 09:15									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker What (who) are you doing?

(and thats all i have to say on this thread, after reading the whole friggin thing...)

	01-05-2003 10:22									#139
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 Ned, your Cambodia link refers to 1998 and you damn well know that just because Clinton supported doesn't change the fact that it was a UN peacekeeping force that went in. Clinton supported the UN and was the president of a member state, so whats your point. This is exactly what I'm saying, when you want to attack the UN any UN success is suddenly a US success and all UN failures the US supposedly had nothing to do with. As for your post about MacArthur he was making incredibly inflamatory statements about using nukes in NK and expanding the war to China and Russia. His worries about being able to shell and chase fighters over the border were more to expand the conflict then anything else. I'm a little worried that your idea of the correct prosecution of a war is leaving it in the hands of a maniac with little thought for diplomacy.

According to the official record, MacArthur got busted for publicly objecting to not being able to pursue the enemy into China and not being able to attack his bases there - even after the Chinese had invaded!

As to the "inflammatory statements," everything else he said was approved by the Joint Chiefs and by Truman. This is the one thing he said that was not approved.

The only recent link to the upcoming July 2003 elections was a public declaration by one of the Cambodia parties calling for free elections.

Now, why in the world would a polictical party in a "democracy" makes such a plea?

The so-called democracy in Cambodia is a sham. Sihanouk is still king after all these years and he still had a contract with the devil.

	01-05-2003 11:05									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Say what you will, but the UN has been actively involved in trying to foster democratic elections in Cambodia for many years now without the luxury of a massive military occupation. These efforts are being carried out in any number of places where world opinion couldn't give enough of a **** to send two bucks.

As for MacArthur, the official reason for his removal is a sham. Truman was well aware he was a fool and it was dangerous to have him in power. His inflammatory remarks were hardly the only foolish things he said and were hardl isolated incidents. However, the myth surrounding him made him difficult to attack at the time, Truman had already decided to remove him when MacArthur simply gave hime the excuse.

quote: According to the official record, MacArthur got busted for publicly objecting to not being able to pursue the enemy into China and not being able to attack his bases there - even after the Chinese had invaded!

The events that followed chinese entry into the war proved the ridiculousness of MacArthur's complaints. US forces in the area were not able to handle the concerted Chinese response that followed. As it was, the Chinese held back considerably in their prosecution of the war, further provocation would have only brought about greater disaster.

	01-05-2003 13:14									#141
	Got spare money?

It was not China that held back.

	01-05-2003 20:53									#142
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 Say what you will, but the UN has been actively involved in trying to foster democratic elections in Cambodia for many years now without the luxury of a massive military occupation. These efforts are being carried out in any number of places where world opinion couldn't give enough of a **** to send two bucks. As for MacArthur, the official reason for his removal is a sham. Truman was well aware he was a fool and it was dangerous to have him in power. His inflammatory remarks were hardly the only foolish things he said and were hardl isolated incidents. However, the myth surrounding him made him difficult to attack at the time, Truman had already decided to remove him when MacArthur simply gave hime the excuse. The events that followed chinese entry into the war proved the ridiculousness of MacArthur's complaints. US forces in the area were not able to handle the concerted Chinese response that followed. As it was, the Chinese held back considerably in their prosecution of the war, further provocation would have only brought about greater disaster.

Was Inchon foolish?

	01-05-2003 22:52									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Militarially speaking the Inchon landing was a spectacular success which resulted in nearly the entire North Korean Army being cut off and eventually killed or captured. After that the UN forces rushed all the way to Manchuria... which is when the communist Chinese invaded.

	01-05-2003 23:06									#144
	Tired of ads?

Inchon was a brilliant move, but the following advance was not tempered by reason(partly the fault of Truman). One brilliant move doesn't change the fact that the man was a raving lunatic and imagined winning a global war against Russia and China. China made it quite clear what it would do if US forces overstepped their bounds and they did. No one should have been surprised, what was surprising is they held back as much as they did and the Russians didn't get involved.

	01-05-2003 23:19									#145
	Suffering from ads?

MacAurthor didn't make one brilliant move his carreer from WW1 through the Korean War is one brilliant move after another. BTW the Soviets had quite a falling out with Mao and they made it very clear, in privite, that if they picked a fight a fight in Korea then they were on their own. In 1950 the Soviets were in no position to wage another world war and they sure as hell weren't going to let the Chinese drag them into one.

	01-05-2003 23:26									#146
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The Soviets made it clear that in the present situation they wouldn't be dragged into war, if it was escalated thats another story. It couldn't have sat by if China was attacked.

	02-05-2003 00:09									#147
	Support Apolyton

Oh yes they could have.

	02-05-2003 03:05									#148
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by gsmoove23 China made it quite clear what it would do if US forces overstepped their bounds and they did. No one should have been surprised, what was surprising is they held back as much as they did and the Russians didn't get involved.

According to history, we had reports of the Chinese warning concerning UN for forces, but not ROK forces, going North of the line -- but only through the Indian embasy. The reports could not be confirmed and were thought to be unreliable.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochure...ter/chinter.htm

"In retrospect the events on the battlefield in late October and early November 1950 were harbingers of disaster ahead. They had been foreshadowed by ominous "signals" from China, signals relayed to the United States through Indian diplomatic channels. The Chinese, it was reported, would not tolerate a U.S. presence so close to their borders and would send troops to Korea if any UN forces other than ROK elements crossed the 38th Parallel. With the United States seeking to isolate Communist China diplomatically, there were very few ways to verify these warnings. While aware of some of the dangers, U.S. diplomats and intelligence personnel, especially General MacArthur, discounted the risks. The best time for intervention was past, they said, and even if the Chinese decided to intervene, allied air power and firepower would cripple their ability to move or resupply their forces. The opinion of many military observers, some of whom had helped train the Chinese to fight against the Japanese in World War II, was that the huge infantry forces that could be put in the field would be poorly equipped, poorly led, and abysmally supplied. These "experts" failed to give full due to the revolutionary zeal and military experience of many of the Chinese soldiers that had been redeployed to the Korean border area. Many of the soldiers were confident veterans of the successful civil war against the Nationalist Chinese forces. Although these forces were indeed poorly supplied, they were highly motivated, battle hardened, and led by officers who were veterans, in some cases, of twenty years of nearly constant war."