2
   

UN Ripe for Reform, American style

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:32 am
According to many on here,the UN is the "end all,be all" of world peace and stability.
According to some on here,the UN can do no wrong and is an almost perfect organization.
I just showed they arent,thats all.
Does the truth hurt?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:42 am
In Bosnia, at Srebrenica, the Dutch troops tried their damnested to protect the Muslim men and boys there. They had no armor, they had no artillery, they had no air support. When they asked for those very necessary tools, they were told that they could not have them, because the UN didn't engage in outright warfare without a security council resolution. The indifference of the United States assured that the Russians could weild their veto and prevent any resolution which would act against their "little brothers," the Serbs. In 1993, the Security Council managed a resolution to declare Srebrenica a "safe area." But the the Army of Republika Srpska had at least two brigades in the area, with armor, artillery, self-propelled artillery and heavy weapons units. The Dutch were finally overrun as it became clear to the Bosnian Serbs that no one would interfer. The original Dutch contingent of 600 men dwindled to 400 as their soldiers who went out on passes were kidnapped by the Bosnian Serbs. Originally outnumbered three-to-one, they now faced five times their number, and they hadn't had a resupply from the time they arrived in January until they were finally overrun in July, 1995. It was thereafter that approximately 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were massacred. The Dutch had run out of food, medicine and fuel, and in the end were patrolling on foot as the VRS (the Army of Republika Srpska) drove into the enclave in violation of the UN resolution. The UN, too little and too late, sent in air strikes, but finally halted those as the VRS threatened to murder the Dutch troops whom they now had as prisoners.

When neither the United States nor Russia nor China take an active interest in UN peace-keeping missions, their effectiveness is tenuous at best. The Canadian experience in Rwanda is just about identical to what the Dutch suffered in Bosnia.

But not to worry, our boy Bolton will straighten it all out . . . in a pig's eye . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:46 am
mysteryman wrote:
According to many on here,the UN is the "end all,be all" of world peace and stability.


That's a horseshit statement, can you back that up with citations?

Quote:
According to some on here,the UN can do no wrong and is an almost perfect organization. I just showed they arent,thats all.
Does the truth hurt?


You've shown nothing but a propensity for spewing your hateful propaganda and making straw men you can knock down. I defy you to provide citations which back up your idiotic claim about people here claiming the United Nations is a perfect organization.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:48 am
Setanta wrote:
In Bosnia, at Srebrenica, the Dutch troops tried their damnested to protect the Muslim men and boys there. They had no armor, they had no artillery, they had no air support. When they asked for those very necessary tools, they were told that they could not have them, because the UN didn't engage in outright warfare without a security council resolution. The indifference of the United States assured that the Russians could weild their veto and prevent any resolution which would act against their "little brothers," the Serbs. In 1993, the Security Council managed a resolution to declare Srebrenica a "safe area." But the the Army of Republika Srpska had at least two brigades in the area, with armor, artillery, self-propelled artillery and heavy weapons units. The Dutch were finally overrun as it became clear to the Bosnian Serbs that no one would interfer. The original Dutch contingent of 600 men dwindled to 400 as their soldiers who went out on passes were kidnapped by the Bosnian Serbs. Originally outnumbered three-to-one, they now faced five times their number, and they hadn't had a resupply from the time they arrived in January until they were finally overrun in July, 1995. It was thereafter that approximately 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were massacred. The Dutch had run out of food, medicine and fuel, and in the end were patrolling on foot as the VRS (the Army of Republika Srpska) drove into the enclave in violation of the UN resolution. The UN, too little and too late, sent in air strikes, but finally halted those as the VRS threatened to murder the Dutch troops whom they now had as prisoners.

When neither the United States nor Russia nor China take an active interest in UN peace-keeping missions, their effectiveness is tenuous at best. The Canadian experience in Rwanda is just about identical to what the Dutch suffered in Bosnia.


Good summary. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:51 am
So SET,
By your own admission,the UN troops did NOTHING to try and prevent the massacre.
They allowed the Serb troops to enter the towmn without doing anything to try to stop them.
They surrendered without firing a shot.

Even outnumbered,they had a duty and an obligation to defend those civilians.
They refused to do that.
That makes them guilty.

I noticed you said nothing about the UN troops in Africa,or the UN troops that allowed an American officer to be kidnapped and killed in Israel.
The UN troops took video of that event.

As far as I'm concerned,we give the UN 2 choices.

They make the reforms we demand,or we pull out of the UN,we stop all of our funding of the UN and its programs,and we throw them out of the US.
That land is a nice parcel of real estate,and it could be put to better use.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:52 am
mysteryman wrote:
Yup,
The UN peace keepers are so good at their jobs that several thousand Moslem men and boys were murdered in Bosnia,and UN peacekeepers allowed it to happen.
And it happened in a town that was under UN control.



mysterman, do you think it is the duty of the US troops to protect the civilians in the countries invaded by the US? Or do you think they're fine if they manage to hold the ground without suffering too many losses?

I'm not aware that anybody made a statement which would amount to praising the UN as infallible. Actually, the stated need for reforms (months before the US admin finally got the idea) point into the opposite direction, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 11:56 am
mysteryman wrote:
Even outnumbered,they had a duty and an obligation to defend those civilians.
They refused to do that.
That makes them guilty.


Like the troops in Iraq when they allow civilians to be murdered by the insurgents?


mysteryman wrote:
As far as I'm concerned,we give the UN 2 choices.

They make the reforms we demand


Listen to the rulers of the world!


mysteryman wrote:
or we pull out of the UN,we stop all of our funding of the UN and its programs,and we throw them out of the US.
That land is a nice parcel of real estate,and it could be put to better use.


The last time when a nation pulled out of the UN (or the Völkerbund, back then) it was Nazi Germany, wasn't it?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:01 pm
Quote:
do you think it is the duty of the US troops to protect the civilians in the countries invaded by the US


Under both the UCMJ,military law,and the Geneva Convention,the answer is YES.

If US troops occupy a town,then those troops are BY LAW,bound to do everything humanly possible to protect those civilians from further attack.
That includes,but is not limited to,refusing entry to enemy soldiers,evacuating the civilians as needed,providing emergency medical care to the civilian wounded (after US wounded are cared for),aznd resisting by force of arms any attempt to murder those civilians under our protection.

By not doing so,the Dutch soldiers violated the GC.
They are just as guilty as the Serb troops that did the killing.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:02 pm
pulling out of the UN is not even remotely a possibility.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:09 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So SET,
By your own admission,the UN troops did NOTHING to try and prevent the massacre. They allowed the Serb troops to enter the towmn without doing anything to try to stop them. They surrendered without firing a shot.


The Dutch did not surrender without firing a shot--they were rounded up because their orders prohibited them from firing on the VRS, who knew that was the case. Precisely how do you propose that an infantry battalion, reduced by one third as its men are kidnapped, with light infantry weapons, stop tanks and self-propelled artillery? The VRS were smart enough not to slaughter the Dutch outright, so they would not bring the UN, or worse yet, NATO, down on their heads. They kept them as hostages to prevent UN intervention. You have erected another straw man.

Quote:
Even outnumbered,they had a duty and an obligation to defend those civilians. They refused to do that. That makes them guilty.


That's a bullshit statement, prove it. Do you propose that the Dutch refused to defend more than 20,000 people despite an obligation to do so? That's crap, their rules of engagement forbad them from firing on VRS forces.

Quote:
I noticed you said nothing about the UN troops in Africa,or the UN troops that allowed an American officer to be kidnapped and killed in Israel. The UN troops took video of that event.


I did mention what the Canadians had to put up with in Rwanda, and i don't intend to go into detail about that incident. Once again, when the US, Russia and China are not involved, and without a Security Council resolution, Peacekeepers can do nothing in these situations. Your hatefulness is amazing.

Quote:
As far as I'm concerned,we give the UN 2 choices.

They make the reforms we demand,or we pull out of the UN,we stop all of our funding of the UN and its programs,and we throw them out of the US.
That land is a nice parcel of real estate,and it could be put to better use.


This is very ironic, when i consider how often conservatives here spew hatred about how nothing was done to stop Mussolini and Hitler. Without the United States, the League of Nations had no credibility, and could do nothing to stop Mussolini in Abyssinia. When Chamberlain backed down in Munich, Hitler knew he had a free hand. Our war in the Pacific started precisely because FDR would not back down after the Japanese invaded Manchuria, and he started an embargo of scrap metal and fuel oil to Japan that lead inevitably to war. So now you propose to scarp an organization started by the United States with the express purpose of defeating Germany and Japan, and preventing such a world war from ever happening again. Just how do you suppose that will promote peace and stability in the world?

The narrow-minded hatefulness of conservatives who rant about the UN is idiotic.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 12:22 pm
In 1950, the United Nations managed to pull off a resolution to go to war in Korea because the Russians rather stupidly stormed out of the Security Council. South Korea, The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Columbia, Belgium, Ethiopia, France, Greece, the Philippines, South Africa and Thailand all provided units of at least battalion strengh or greater, and many other nations provided support personnel and services. When the United States participates, and neither Russia nor China interfer, the United Nations can be very effective.

I strongly suspect that there is an hysteria of lost sovereignty at work in the minds of conservative fanatics who rant about the United Nations. Whatever the cause, i do not intend to continue an idiotic pissing match on the subject.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 02:35 pm
Quote:
I strongly suspect that there is an hysteria of lost sovereignty at work in the minds of conservative fanatics who rant about the United Nations. Whatever the cause, i do not intend to continue an idiotic pissing match on the subject.


Fine.....you will not be missed. You seem to be an expert on "idiotic" language but except for spreading around a few historic snippets, you have not added anything of significance to the discussion.

This is a discussion on reforming the UN.......all you have managed to do is point out that the UN is nothing without the US.

If you're such an expert on the UN, give us your "expert" advice on how to reform the UN to make it relevant.........without the boring history lessons.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 02:41 pm
rayban, if there's anyone who wouldn't be missed on A2K, it's you and McGentrix and Mysteryman. To describe a cogent recitation of the problems that the UN has faced in the past as "boring history" merely demonstrates how shallow you really are. No wonder this country is in such dire straits right now. The reins of power are in the hands of people like you. Who can blame the rest of the world for hating us?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 03:12 pm
Merry Andrew

Instead of pouring more gasoline on the fire maybe you could give us a few "Cogent" words on how to reform the UN. Anyone can parrot worn out cliches......try some original thought for a change.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:38 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
rayban, if there's anyone who wouldn't be missed on A2K, it's you and McGentrix and Mysteryman. To describe a cogent recitation of the problems that the UN has faced in the past as "boring history" merely demonstrates how shallow you really are. No wonder this country is in such dire straits right now. The reins of power are in the hands of people like you. Who can blame the rest of the world for hating us?


Excuse me,where did I ever say that it was a "boring history"?
I NEVER said that,in any of my posts.
And I strongly resent you trying to put words in my mouth.

I know the UN has some serious problems,and I know it needs to be reformed.
The difference is in how it gets done.
IMHO,we tell the UN to make reforms,or we are leaving the organization.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Aug, 2005 04:52 pm
Reading skills a little weak there, MM?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 04:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
Reading skills a little weak there, MM?


Nope,I read just fine.
Merry put words in my mouth,and I never made the statement that Merry claims I made.
If you didnt understand that,then maybe your reading skills are weak.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 04:23 pm
I never said you made that statement, MM. It was rayban I was addressing. Your name and McGentrix's were added just because I'm an equal opportunity supporter, along with being a tax-and-spend bleeding heart you-know-what.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Aug, 2005 04:56 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Nope,I read just fine.


This statement is not apparently true, otherwise you would not make this statement:

Quote:
Merry put words in my mouth,and I never made the statement that Merry claims I made.


Merry did not claim that you had made any statement, therefore . . .

Quote:
If you didnt understand that,then maybe your reading skills are weak.


This remark on your part is just as vacuous as your unfounded accusation against Merry Andrew. You need some remedial reading classes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 08:21:58