Un dropping ball in congo?

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]But the UN, handcuffed by its own rules and bureaucracy, never sent a chopper. On May 18, 10 days after the first distress call, the United Nations finally flew some armed peacekeepers to Mongbwalu.

Your honor, the prosecution rests it's case.

[Guest]

The UN is the most beaurocratic system imaginable. It does not in any way operate as an efficient military organization. It works best as a political umbrella in cooperation with a real military structure.

The best example for comparison is Bosnia. When the UN troops were under UN command the results were disastrous. The UN ROE forced peace keepers to passively stand and watch genocide being committed in front of their eyes. The drastic change was when IFOR was introduced - a conglomerate of military forces from the world under a joint chain of command. It was still a UN force, but the military business was left to the military. There were astronomic difference in results when the troops there got teeth and an authority to bite. The successful concept was later used in SFOR and in KFOR.

It's a very good combination - no beaurocracy interferes with the practical military issues while the UN still pulls the strategic threads. Very simply said, the UN is a political organization and not a military one.

[PitViper 0]

wow.. a post by denoir I actually agree with for the most part.  

[FallenPaladin 0]

wow.. a post by denoir I actually agree with for the most part.  

Hehe, you`re changing. It`s already begun. And nobody can stop it.

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, while I favor the Bush administration to the past one

At least America actually had friends under Clinton.

[Guest]

First combat in Congo for French troops

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Heres a non propaganda link: French troops open fire on Congo militia -reuters alertnet

Whilst they could have been targetted it appears they might instead have driven into a shelling intended for the Hema militia. Could be indicative of a difficulty in establishing what is going on a lot of the time in this conflict. It also definatly shows that this force will first be peace making rather than keeping. I expect there might be a few incidents like this, but i dont think it too likely the militias will engage in any protracted attacks on the international force.

First outing for the EU... lets hope it goes well.

[killagee 0]

The UN is the most beaurocratic system imaginable. It does not in any way operate as an efficient military organization. It works best as a political umbrella in cooperation with a real military structure.

The best example for comparison is Bosnia. When the UN troops were under UN command the results were disastrous. The UN ROE forced peace keepers to passively stand and watch genocide being committed in front of their eyes. The drastic change was when IFOR was introduced - a conglomerate of military forces from the world under a joint chain of command. It was still a UN force, but the military business was left to the military. There were astronomic difference in results when the troops there got teeth and an authority to bite. The successful concept was later used in SFOR and in KFOR.

It's a very good combination - no beaurocracy interferes with the practical military issues while the UN still pulls the strategic threads. Very simply said, the UN is a political organization and not a military one.

I agree. A UN mission must be given Military Teeth and Tactical Control on the ground.

I really feel for the two MilOb's mentioned in the tragic story above.

Has anyone seen the movie "No Mans Land" set in bosnia during a sieze fire in Bosnia. It portrays UN incompetence very well.

I think the UN is the earths only option as a policing force. Every Member country should put much of its armed forces at the disposal of the UN. Countries that undermine the UN's power ( ie: USA, Russia and others) should be punished.

UN + ICC = Retribrution for Induvidual and State Actions.

[The Frenchman 0]

The book "My War gone By I Miss it So" also showed a little bit of the political atmosphere in Bosnia. It showed how they could not protect relief supplies to civilians because they wern't allowed to open fire at the enemy.

[hellfish6 7]

The problem with the UN is that it's trying to appease nearly 300 member states. Remember, the Congo, who is a UN member (last I heard) has as much of a say in what happens in the General Assembly as France or any other nation does.

The problems with the beauracracy arise when some countries contribute forces, and some of those countries want certain ROEs and some what different ROEs. Then the countries that don't even contribute forces are trying to exert control over the whole operation too. There are just so many interests that these UN missions are almost doomed from the start. The UN must take all of these considerations into account, and because of this the end results - military interventions, peacekeeping, stability - are watered down and weak.

So while I am an American who supports the UN (I'm probably the only one, though I doubt you'd find many Americans who could give you concrete reasons for hating the UN) I do think that the UN needs to pull its head out of everyone's asses and give control over it's military operations to a central, unified command authority who can make responsible decisions on the ground.

And as for being in Africa - I'm totally opposed to it. I honestly believe that Africa is so screwed up that there is no way of helping it anymore - I don't even know if the Africans want help.

Call it a legacy of colonialism, call it racism, call it whatever you like, but Africa is doomed. 40-50% HIV inffection rates, skyrocketing starvation and infant mortality, corrupt governments and rampant violence - a few thousand UN troops won't solve any of that. A few million troops won't even solve any of that. Africa should be left alone. Come back in 50 years and see who is left. Then maybe something can be done with them. Maybe then, when all the maps have been erased and all the tribes are all in their homelands will peace come to Africa.

But as it is right now, reading about peacekeepers being eaten by other human beings, I can't help but wonder how the French are going to make any difference. I honestly hope that Bunia doesn't turn into their Somalia.

[hellfish6 7]

US Soldier, I'd like to know more about you. I have a feeling that (like me) you're a twenty-something white male, who has spent several years in the military (like me), in the infantry (like me), and has probably been deployed all over the world (like me.) Yet our political views are polar opposite of each other.

I see you posting here, claiming (with a straight face) that we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis? Come on. You know that's a load of BS as much as I do. That's like saying we went into Kuwait to free the Kuwaitis. The US government could give a rat's ass about Mustafa or Azim over there.

I'd like to have a fair and open debate with you, right here, if the mods will allow it. There are rules, though:

1. You're not allowed to casually dismiss anything I say as being "Left Wing" or "Liberal" propaganda. Yes, in you're worldview, I am a liberal. I'm pro-human (people before profits), pro-environment (we've only got one world and it ain't getting any better) and I am vehemently anti-isolationist. Same goes for me dismissing your claims.

2. All your claims, as well as mine, should be easily backed up through readily available news sources. No wild, unsupported allegations. I won't ask you to provide immediate citation, but I should be able to find your evidence quickly if I call it into question.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, while I favor the Bush administration to the past one. (You'd have to live here to appreciate the difference as someone sworn to unhold and defend the Constitution watches liberal Democrats use the imperial judiciary and knee-jerk legislation to chip away at basic American civil liberties.)

How did the Clinton administration chip away at basic American civil liberties? Give me concrete examples. I'm less free and more fearful of my government now than I was three years ago. Some concrete examples off the top of my head:

1. Unlawful search and seizure is now lawful. The FBI or local police can now phone tap me, enter my home, or search my car without me even knowing about it, and without me ever finding out about it.

2. The "Patriot Act". The whole damned thing.

3. Unlawful detention is now lawful. There are still thousands of people locked away in jails across the country. Who? We don't know because it's a matter of "national security."

What did Clinton do? Honestly - I want to know. The Brady Gun Control Laws? Please. I can still go out and buy a gun if I want to. You can too.

Quote[/b] ]Umm, the UN General Assembly has been Anti-America/Israel for as long as I can remember. So don't blame it on the Bush Administration.

Not necessarily anti-American, but I can agree that it has been anti-Israeli. Probably because much of the world sees what Israel is doing as wrong. Not that I think the Palestinians are any angels, either. How many UN reslutions has Israel violated? How many did Iraq? Compare the numbers. The fact is that if America ceased supporting all of Israel's actions (look at Bush's announcement today that Hamas should be "dealt with harshly". What about Israel - aren't they just as guilty?) then there MIGHT be peace in the Middle East right now. Right now Israel knows that anything they do is OK, because the US is their ally. Where is the justice in that? It's like saying your kid can beat up my kid because you have a gun and I don't. You see why the Arabs are so angry at the US?

Quote[/b] ]Unlike Denoir, I believe in good and evil. There are evil people in the world who can only be dealt with by armed conflict. You Utopians I swear.

I agree. But other states (in the international context) do not pursue violence as policy. They aren't stupid. Even the Iraqis didn't do that. There was (and is) no evidence that Saddam ever intended to again. I'm not sad to see him go, but I don't think it was worth the lives of so many of our comrades in arms. And it's only going to get worse - Iraqi resistance is growing.

I think groups like the afore mentioned rebels in the Congo (see - I'm keeping this on topic... kind of) MUST be dealt with violently. I think the French should go in there with guns blazing, if they're going in there at all. You can't reason with groups like that. THEY are evil.

Quote[/b] ]Yes the UN does provide some noble services. I'm not talking about the front line UN efforts. When I talk about UN I'm talking about the General Assembly, whos members included criminals and terrorists.

But those criminals and terrorists were in power. That lone gives them a voice in the UN. That alone MUST give them a voice in the UN. If we isolate those countries, we are doing nothing to solve the problem of their existance. I guarantee that if we stopped the embargo on Cuba and North Korea tomorrow, opened embassies and trade missions, we would have NO problem with them in five years. Humans are greedy by nature. Give them the opportunity to make money peacefully and you will keep them from wanting to take it from you by force.

[Guest]

The problem with the UN is that it's trying to appease nearly 300 member states. Remember, the Congo, who is a UN member (last I heard) has as much of a say in what happens in the General Assembly as France or any other nation does.

Well, the UN is supposed to represent the planet Earth with all of its states and nations, not just the 'western' world. There are many political systems that we do not agree with. Our system of choice is democracy - but who says that it's ultimately the 'right' system? Regardless of political systems we still have a lot of in common as human beings. We have issues (such as the environment, war & peace, communications etc) that are indeed global. That's why the UN Charter was introduced. During and after WW2 it became very obvious that our societies have developed to such degrees that the action of one could affect all.

And yes it's hard to reconcile the wishes of 191 different countries. It's supposed to be. The solutions are compromises. On average the member states find the solutions acceptable. That's the foundation of every democratic process. Dismissing the UN because it does not decide what your country thinks is the best course of actions is just as ridiculous as dismissing the legitimity of your own government because on some occasions they don't do exactly what you (an individual) want.

It's very funny - no -  it's very sad to see how many Americans really dislike the UN today. It's ironic since there are two nations in the world who should be endlessly grateful for the existance of the UN. One is Russia and the other one is America. Without the UN you would most likely both be radioactive parking lots today. During a significant part of the cold war, the UN was the only true political communication channel between two heavily armed expansive, agressive and politically diametrically opposed nations.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

It's very funny - no -  it's very sad to see how many Americans really dislike the UN today. It's ironic since there are two nations in the world who should be endlessly grateful for the existance of the UN. One is Russia and the other one is America. Without the UN you would most likely both be radioactive parking lots today. During a significant part of the cold war, the UN was the only true political communication channel between two heavily armed expansive, agressive and politically diametrically opposed nations.

After the Cuban Crisis and the hotline was set up did this change or was it something else?

I'm not nitpicking or anything, I am just curious.

[hellfish6 7]

The problem with the UN is that it's trying to appease nearly 300 member states. Remember, the Congo, who is a UN member (last I heard) has as much of a say in what happens in the General Assembly as France or any other nation does.

Well, the UN is supposed to represent the planet Earth with all of its states and nations, not just the 'western' world. There are many political systems that we do not agree with. Our system of choice is democracy - but who says that it's ultimately the 'right' system? Regardless of political systems we still have a lot of in common as human beings. We have issues (such as the environment, war & peace, communications etc) that are indeed global. That's why the UN Charter was introduced. During and after WW2 it became very obvious that our societies have developed to such degrees that the action of one could affect all.

And yes it's hard to reconcile the wishes of 191 different countries. It's supposed to be. The solutions are compromises. On average the member states find the solutions acceptable. That's the foundation of every democratic process. Dismissing the UN because it does not decide what your country thinks is the best course of actions is just as ridiculous as dismissing the legitimity of your own government because on some occasions they don't do exactly what you (an individual) want.

Oh, yeah I know. I just meant to show that it can be difficult to find consensus among so many varied interests - 191 is a large number any way you look at it. Add that to the fact that each one is not always reflecting the wishes of it's population, or is always trying to take from other members or is trying to be honestly good and just. It's not an enviable task to get a quorum in the UN, let alone a consensus.

And, yes, I know there are only about 200 member states, not the 300 I posted. Typo. My bad.

[hellfish6 7]

It's very funny - no -  it's very sad to see how many Americans really dislike the UN today. It's ironic since there are two nations in the world who should be endlessly grateful for the existance of the UN. One is Russia and the other one is America. Without the UN you would most likely both be radioactive parking lots today. During a significant part of the cold war, the UN was the only true political communication channel between two heavily armed expansive, agressive and politically diametrically opposed nations.

After the Cuban Crisis and the hotline was set up did this change or was it something else?

I'm not nitpicking or anything, I am just curious.

The hotline was, as I recall, an emergency contact only. I don't think it was used for courtesy calls or anything like that. Usually when it rang, it was a very urgent matter. The UN was the forum for a lot of the day-to-day contact and sparring the two countries did.

[ralphwiggum 6]

US Soldier, I'd like to know more about you. I have a feeling that (like me) you're a twenty-something white male, who has spent several years in the military (like me), in the infantry (like me), and has probably been deployed all over the world (like me.) Yet our political views are polar opposite of each other.

You don't want to know....he is in Army.

now, please, let's talk about Congo.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ] see you posting here, claiming (with a straight face) that we went into Iraq to free the Iraqis? Come on.

I never said that. I said that we were in Iraq purely out of American self-interest, however, the nations against the U.S. invasion of Iraq do not care about the Iraqi people either, their reasons for opposition are purely political as well. This is getting off topic, but I appreciate that you actually challenge my honesty instead of blathering cookie cutter rhetoric. My views are my views, and most of them are based on my own analysis of situations, just because you do not agree with them doesn't mean they are "wild, unsupported allegations," you want good examples of the attack on civil liberties by the left? Look at what the liberal courts have done with affirmative action and hate speech. I can now be arrested for exercizing my 1st amendment rights.

Janet Reno: "If the Contitution bleeds, we can kill it."

Tipper Gore's censorship campaign

The Brady Bill (try actually reading it)

The right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Such gun control legislation does exactly that. They make frivilous legislation so I can't have flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, and 30 round magazines just so they can feel like they are doing something about it. Hello? Since when to criminals abide by the law? Such legislation only hampers the rights of good citizens. I can see we do agree on some things, like that sometimes violence is necessary, rather than sitting on our qausi-utopian asses pretending like world peace is actually possible and sending everyone fruit baskets while they are sending us anthrax.

If you find my remarks crude and anger provoking, good, that's the idea, I relish pissing off liberals. Sometimes I will say extreme things that I don't even actually agree with just to see them cream their panties.

[hellfish6 7]

Replied via PM. Hey Mods, can we possibly get a politics thread? I mean, isn't politics the root cause of all wars?

[Guest]

Oh, yeah I know. I just meant to show that it can be difficult to find consensus among so many varied interests - 191 is a large number any way you look at it. Add that to the fact that each one is not always reflecting the wishes of it's population, or is always trying to take from other members or is trying to be honestly good and just. It's not an enviable task to get a quorum in the UN, let alone a consensus.

Yepp, I agree. My post wasn't directed personally at you - it was more of a general rant

[theavonlady 2]

now, please, let's talk about Congo.

Times have changed.

[FallenPaladin 0]

Hmmm... I was expecting something serious...

[hellfish6 7]

Hmmm... I was expecting something serious...  

From Avon??

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Just something to cheer everyone up:Congolese children starving

Yeah like children starving to death in africa is news

[Die Alive 0]

Bastards are shooting at our transport planes

Don't they know that Canada can't afford any new ones, they should take more shots at the french than the Canadians.

-=Die Alive=-

[hellfish6 7]

The French only brought two Pumas with them? And two attack helos? Is it me or does that seem like a pretty insignificant aviation force if something bad happens? Maybe this is my American mentality screaming that they need to have lots more stuff and lots more expensive stuff to do a job that is accomplished just fine by the four helos. I mean, I'd probably send an aviation battalion if I was in charge.