I'm fed up with the UN - Page 14




 
--
Boots
 
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.

Then again because PMCs are more flexible and there's more room for creativity, they might actually be able to pull this off. If they can, then their monetary rewards will be outstanding.
December 11th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Quote:
Lets just say we respect our difference in opions,
Ok then lets not.
December 11th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.
Wasnt like that in korea now was it? Hill 282 we will remember them!

Wasnt like that for a bunch of australian medics , when the enemy fired on a bunch of civilians they went INTO the fire and inbetween the two sides, the australians where armed to the teeth if one shot had gone near them they would have wiped out the enemy.
--
Boots
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
That was over 50 years ago and it wasn't a peace keeping operation. I mean peacekeeping operations.
Then again, the UN did call the all out war in Korea in the 1950's a "police action."
And it became a UN operation because the USSR boycotted the UN... something about being angry that Red China was not the representative of China or something like that.
I can't remember a time after the Korean War where the UN had military operations that was actually well managed.
It was a tough war for everyone. I wouldn't have taken "wiped out the enemy" for granted for anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devilwasp
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.
Wasnt like that in korea now was it? Hill 282 we will remember them!

Wasnt like that for a bunch of australian medics , when the enemy fired on a bunch of civilians they went INTO the fire and inbetween the two sides, the australians where armed to the teeth if one shot had gone near them they would have wiped out the enemy.
December 11th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
That was over 50 years ago and it wasn't a peace keeping operation. I mean peacekeeping operations.
Then again, the UN did call the all out war in Korea in the 1950's a "police action."
And it became a UN operation because the USSR boycotted the UN... something about being angry that Red China was not the representative of China or something like that.
I can't remember a time after the Korean War where the UN had military operations that was actually well managed.
It was a tough war for everyone. I wouldn't have taken "wiped out the enemy" for granted for anyone.
I cant remeber a time after ww2 where the UK military had a well managed war , but that hasnt stopped them being allies with the USA.
Remember the UN is not for military force, its for negotiations i dont call a tactical air strike negoptiations.
That incident wasnt in korea.
December 11th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
The UK military did well in the Falklands, adapting to a situation their military was moving away from. Basically at a time where British sea strategic reach capability was being scrapped (seemingly), the Falklands conflict erupted and the UK's military improvised very well and got the job done. So there.
Also the first Gulf War was well managed and done including the part of the UK military.
Also the UK military had successes in Malaya (now Malaysia) and also especially Borneo (aka Kalimantan) with special operations.
That's three good examples of post World War II British military doing a good job.
Korean War. Make that four.

I think a lot of us are being critical about the UN's role in peacekeeping or stablizing a country or region. And yes, it does try to take over that jurisdiction from other organizations as well. That's the whole reason why the PMCs were pretty much banned by the UN, they were stepping on their turf and doing the job more cheaply, with less people and with far better results.
December 12th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Quote:
The UK military did well in the Falklands
You kidding? They got the crap hammerd out of them!!
December 12th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
The UK military did well in the Falklands, adapting to a situation their military was moving away from.
The Uk military done the best job with the equipment they had, it was still chaos.
We learned a lot of stuff the hard way and our troops where sent on passanger liners, great military stuff huh.
Quote:
Basically at a time where British sea strategic reach capability was being scrapped (seemingly), the Falklands conflict erupted and the UK's military improvised very well and got the job done. So there.
Also the first Gulf War was well managed and done including the part of the UK military.
They lost several ships and i have talked to people from there and i have one of the ex crew members who's ship sunk in my unit. They agreed it was very poorly done.
The first was poorly equiped although not to the same exstent as the second.
[qutoe]
Also the UK military had successes in Malaya (now Malaysia) and also especially Borneo (aka Kalimantan) with special operations.
That's three good examples of post World War II British military doing a good job.
[/qutoe]
In a south african country ( i cant remember names) they perfected their intel the hard way, UK military has always been poorly organised by the MOD, thank you polititions.
Quote:
Korean War. Make that four.
They done well i will agree there although i dont know about thier situation there.
Quote:
I think a lot of us are being critical about the UN's role in peacekeeping or stablizing a country or region. And yes, it does try to take over that jurisdiction from other organizations as well. That's the whole reason why the PMCs were pretty much banned by the UN, they were stepping on their turf and doing the job more cheaply, with less people and with far better results.
Yeah i have to agree and i dont think they liked how warfare was becomeing comercialised.
December 12th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougal

You kidding? They got the crap hammerd out of them!!
Not strictly true, they managed to attack an argintinian airfield in argentinia with the SAS in totaly secrecy.
December 12th, 2004  
rocco
 
UN is a biased piece of crap.

Quote:
Of the 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians destroyed 58 Jerusalem Synagogues and systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

This anti-Israel stance of the UN is a natural consequence of its membership structure. 21 members of the UN are Arab countries, and 52 members represent Islamic countries. Since the Arab Israeli conflict is represented as a religious conflict (see article) Israel as the only Jewish state has no chance for a fair hearing in the UN.

Related articles
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq...srael_bias.php

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israel...rticles/UN.asp

http://www.mideasttruth.com/np5.html