I'm fed up with the UN - Page 15




 
--
Boots
 
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Considering the challenge they faced, they did a fine job. They got what was essentially a frigate Navy and forced it to do the job of what American Naval Task Forces do.
Plus, the UK did win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougal

You kidding? They got the crap hammerd out of them!!
About troops being transported on passenger airliners. That's common actually with any mass deployment. It's actually normal for militaries to charter civilian airliners to bring troops en masse to secured areas.

And again my point was, in the Falklands, despite the incredible challenges that the UK faced, they still achieved their mission. Sending an ill equipped Navy to the other side of the world (vetically) and fighting at the doorstep of one of South America's strongest countries.

Either way we've digressed. The point is, despite the challenges, the UK did well several times since World War II.

The UN, after Korea has disappointed time and time again.
December 12th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Consider the fortunate luck it required for the Korean War to happen. China's UNSC chair was still held by the KMT, and they abstained from the vote. USSR walked out, which kept them from vetoing outright. That left only NATO affiliated UNSC members and non-permanent members to decide the matter.

What are the chances of that EVER happening again?
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Yeah I did mention that.
But my opinion is that even if the UN voted against it, a coalition to keep the North Koreans out would have been formed anyhow.
Also the UN was new, and there was much enthusiasm for this new organization which promised world peace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Consider the fortunate luck it required for the Korean War to happen. China's UNSC chair was still held by the KMT, and they abstained from the vote. USSR walked out, which kept them from vetoing outright. That left only NATO affiliated UNSC members and non-permanent members to decide the matter.

What are the chances of that EVER happening again?
--
Boots
December 12th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Agreed. It was essentially a test drive for "lets see how this thing works". Unfortunately, that move was successful, so the world of 1950 was left with the impression that the UN would be an effective peacekeeping body.

No doubt that the USA would have gathered a coalition of forces -- wow, does that ever sound familiar? Yeah, not much has changed except that lightning hasn't struck twice -- the UN hasn't approved any major military action since then.
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
Personally, I have much more faith in more meaningful, perhaps even temporary alliances. Good examples include the coalition that went after Iraq during the first gulf war.
A meaningful, more permanent alliance is like NATO.
December 12th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
Considering the challenge they faced, they did a fine job. They got what was essentially a frigate Navy and forced it to do the job of what American Naval Task Forces do.
Plus, the UK did win.
Yeah but the point is that they where not issued the correct stuff , the whole situation they where in should not have happened.
Quote:
About troops being transported on passenger airliners. That's common actually with any mass deployment. It's actually normal for militaries to charter civilian airliners to bring troops en masse to secured areas.
I was meaning cruise liner SHIPS!
There is no airport excet accesion island to land troop on.
Quote:
And again my point was, in the Falklands, despite the incredible challenges that the UK faced, they still achieved their mission. Sending an ill equipped Navy to the other side of the world (vetically) and fighting at the doorstep of one of South America's strongest countries.
Yeah but it was not well organised or equiped, soldiers haveing plastic boots melting on thier feet?
Quote:
Either way we've digressed. The point is, despite the challenges, the UK did well several times since World War II.
They done well against a weaker country will mostly bad tech and bad troops.
The UK in my opinion was luky that we had good troops and good flag deck guys to work around problems.
Quote:
The UN, after Korea has disappointed time and time again.
The UN as i said isnt a military operation group, they are for discussing things, not killing things.
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I think you missed the point.
The point was that, despite all the problems they had with equipment and doctrine going into the Falklands conflict, the UK did do a good job and achieved their mission goals. That is the point. Not that they were poorly equipped for the task. The point is that once the conflict started, they found ways to get things done.
Cruise liners to transport troops. It's been done many times before. For countries that don't send its troops out to sea all the time, this is actually far more economical, and yet just as effective. There's nothing wrong with this. There's no rule that troops must be transported in featureless, gray ships.

The other point is, if the UN isn't, to a degree, a war fighting or, an organization that dedicates a large part of itself to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), then why is it restricting other organizations from doing that same job even when they do it better than the UN?
Also, if it's not their role, and therefore we are expected to see a rather half arsed or somewhat ineffective result from their operations, why let them even have peacekeeping in their list of operations?

The UN can ask for all kinds of things for support. Transportation assets from multiple countries, troops from here and there... basically ask for little bits of this and little bits of that from their members. So it would be hard for them to be lacking in equipment. Yet they still screw up consistently.
On the other hand, the UK for comparison had really limited equipment to deal with and still managed to win despite all the odds.
December 12th, 2004  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck
I think you missed the point.
The point was that, despite all the problems they had with equipment and doctrine going into the Falklands conflict, the UK did do a good job and achieved their mission goals. That is the point. Not that they were poorly equipped for the task. The point is that once the conflict started, they found ways to get things done.
Cruise liners to transport troops. It's been done many times before. For countries that don't send its troops out to sea all the time, this is actually far more economical, and yet just as effective. There's nothing wrong with this. There's no rule that troops must be transported in featureless, gray ships.
yeah that was the good thing about it.
Quote:
The other point is, if the UN isn't, to a degree, a war fighting or, an organization that dedicates a large part of itself to Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), then why is it restricting other organizations from doing that same job even when they do it better than the UN?
Also, if it's not their role, and therefore we are expected to see a rather half arsed or somewhat ineffective result from their operations, why let them even have peacekeeping in their list of operations?
They are restricting it to stop them getting involved in fights that do not concern them or should not be involved in is one reason.
They are there as peace keepers mainly for show.
Quote:
The UN can ask for all kinds of things for support. Transportation assets from multiple countries, troops from here and there... basically ask for little bits of this and little bits of that from their members. So it would be hard for them to be lacking in equipment. Yet they still screw up consistently.
Yeah i do believe its because they are lead by polititions and due to the lack of clear rules.
Quote:
On the other hand, the UK for comparison had really limited equipment to deal with and still managed to win despite all the odds.
The UK forces had really limited tech yet exsperience in other wars taught the comand to train troops for this situation.
The UN i believe should move away from peacekeeping and should work more as a middle man/woman and only go in if things go to hell and even then go in with guns ready createing a physical barrier between the two oposing sides.
December 12th, 2004  
A Can of Man
 
 
I agree.
The whole idea of having troops there just for show doesn't really work because the enemy also knows it's just for show. All they're good for in the end is that they present an opportunity for the villains to capture or kill peacekeepers and use them as leverage on the bargaining table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devilwasp
The UN i believe should move away from peacekeeping and should work more as a middle man/woman and only go in if things go to h**l and even then go in with guns ready createing a physical barrier between the two oposing sides.
December 14th, 2004  
dougal
 
 
Ireland became a member of the United Nations in 1955. In 1958 fifty Irish officers were appointed as observers with the U.N. Observers Group in the Lebanon. Since 1958 the Defence Forces has had a continuous presence on peacekeeping missions, mainly in the Middle East. On the 28th July 1960 Lt-Col. Murt Buckley led the men of the 32nd Irish Battalion out to the Congo. Twenty-six men died in the Congo, 9 died in one action, the Niemba ambush.

However, in recent years, following the end of the cold war, Irish Defence Forces Personnel have also found themselves in many other parts of the globe as observers and peacekeepers. Personnel have served in the five countries of Central America, Europe, Russia, former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Belgian Congo (Zaire), Namibia, Western Sahara, Somalia South Africa Cyprus Lebanon and East Timor

Military Observer Missions are manned by unarmed military observers. In 1958 the Defence Forces made their first contribution to peacekeeping when some fifty officers were assigned to the United Nations Observer Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL). Since 1958 the Defence Forces has continuously had personnel overseas as observers on peacekeeping missions.

Peacekeeping Force Missions are manned by armed contingents from member states placed under the command of the United Nations. From 1960 to the present day the Irish Defence Forces have continuously provided an armed contingent to the UN, except during the period May 1974 to May 1978. These contingents were normally an infantry battalion of approximately 600 personnel or an infantry group of over 400 personnel.