I'm fed up with the UN

[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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[devilwasp]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[devilwasp]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[dougal]

Central America

ONUCA (UN OBSERVER GROUP IN CENTRAL AMERICA) Irelands commitment to this mission was 57 officers. It began on 03 Dec 89 as a result of the 'Esquipulas II' Agreement and lasted until 27 Jan 92. Irish Observers served in Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Their mission was to verify the termination of aid to irregular forces and insurrection movements and the non-use of territory of one state for attacks on another. Their headquarters was established in Tegucigalpa, Honduras and 33 verification centres spread throughout the region.

ONUSAL (UN OBSERVER MISSION IN EL SALVADOR) On the day that ONUCA was terminated, Observers from that Mission converged on El Salvador to staff the new ONUSAL Mission. ONUSAL's establishment followed the signing of a Peace Accord between the El Salvadoran Government and the FMLN rebels, who had been fighting since 1979.

The key aspects of the accord were a 50 per cent reduction of the El Salvadoran Armed Forces ; the legalising of FMLN as a legitimate political party and the destruction of its weaponry; the establishment of a new judicial system; and the setting up of a new police force to include a percentage of FMLN supporters. Under ONUSAL's supervision, the terms of the Accord were substantially achieved. Irish Observers served with the UN Observer Mission in El Salvador from 21 Jan 92 to 31 May 94. Our commitment to this mission was six Officers.

IHSG (IRISH HONDURAN SUPPORT GROUP) As part of the Irish Government's response to the post Hurricane Mitch relief effort, an Army reconnaissance party was dispatched to Honduras on 01 November 1998.

As a consequence the Irish Honduran Support Group (IHSG) was formed and in January of 1999, the group traveled to Honduras and successfully carried out it's task of building a combination Health Centre - Kindergarten and the first two classrooms of an elementary school in the area of Santa Rosa de Aguan.

Total strength was 27 all ranks which consisted of Engineer, Army Medical Corps personnel a Chaplain and an administrative staff.

 

[03USMC]

An observer mission okay the point is?

 

[dougal]

Central America.

Someone said they dont travell that far.

 

[03USMC]

Never said they didn't travel that far. What was said is that they take no action.

 

[Italian Guy]

And most people dont realise that here or reconise the lifes given by UN soldiers.

Agreed. Perhaps for people who consider this a joke is insulting the multi-national effort to provide order within an unstable, warring countries.

What Countries? They did not step in in Rwanda, The Sudan and now will probably ignore the Congo issue. They purposley did not mention Genocide concerning Rwanda because by charter they would have been bound to act.

In Africa ECOMIL is much more effective at Peacekeeping than UN multi-nationals. Problem is they are too closely tied to the UN and end up relying on them for support.

So much right. I attended a conference (part of a seminarium) yesterday and this professor from Denver University said exactly the same things 03USMC is now saying here: about the term genocide not used, about Rwanda. The UN was in Rwanda in the first place, but they left when the sit worsened. I don't think it's too unfair to say they're overrated as the moral guide of the world.

 

[dougal]

The President, Mrs McAleese, has strongly endorsed the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, and has said the world's problems are best solved by nations working together within the UN framework.

Her comments, made in an address to Irish troops in the Liberian capital, Monrovia, come at a time when Britain and the US continue to face isolation from much of the international community because of their decision to invade Iraq without UN sanction. Mr Annan is currently the victim of a US-led campaign to drive him from office amid allegations of corruption involving the organisation's oil-for-food programme in Iraq.

However, Mrs McAleese took the opportunity of her pre-Christmas address to the Irish troops at Camp Clara to make clear her support for Mr Annan.

"Under the steady guidance of Secretary-General Annan, the UN is itself undergoing a period of critical self-examination destined to make it even stronger, even more effective in its work of care for the world.

"Ireland has actively supported this process for we believe the world's problems are best solved by a thoroughly effective and efficient United Nations backed by the robust support of the nations of the world," she said.

She distributed cards and presents to the Irish soldiers from their families back home. The 430 Irish personnel in Liberia were conducting themselves with "exceptional respect and humanity" and, like no other military deployed in the country, had volunteered to work at a local hospice for HIV/AIDS sufferers.

Mrs McAleese was speaking at the conclusion of a two-day trip to west Africa, which took in Liberia and Senegal.

Yesterday she visited a number of sites in Monrovia amid tight security following the death of 16 people during rioting in the city in October.Dozens of armed Irish troops in military vehicles, backed by soldiers in armoured personnel carriers, escorted the President and Dr Martin McAleese around the city.

 

[devilwasp]

So much right. I attended a conference (part of a seminarium) yesterday and this professor from Denver University said exactly the same things 03USMC is now saying here: about the term genocide not used, about Rwanda. The UN was in Rwanda in the first place, but they left when the sit worsened. I don't think it's too unfair to say they're overrated as the moral guide of the world.

Countries in the UN wont allow thier troops to be hurt because they are selfish and dont value treaties. If countries got thier troops to commit more strongly then it would be effective.

 

[dougal]

Aha

:roll:

 

[Duty Honor Country]

I am not mad at Chavez and Mugabe calling Bush and Blair like Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini, its the cheers from the UN delegates that really :cen: me off.

Mugabe, Chavez slam U.S. at U.N. event

ROME, Italy (AP) -- The leaders of Zimbabwe and Venezuela on Monday denounced President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as "unholy men," and blamed the United States and other developed countries for world hunger, pollution and war.

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez turned their speeches at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization into tirades, with the African leader describing Blair and Bush as "two unholy men of our millennium."

Chavez accused what he called "the North American empire" of threatening "all life on the planet," while Mugabe compared Bush and Blair, for their alliance in the war in Iraq, to Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini, who were World War II allies.

U.S. representatives at the U.N. organization's gathering in Rome said Mugabe and Chavez made "a mockery" of the occasion with their scathing remarks.

The gathering, a day after the United Nations marked World Food Day, commemorated the organization's 60th anniversary.

The verbal attacks by Chavez and Mugabe drew cheers and applause from many of the delegates. The organization has 188 members... :evil:

READ MORE

 

[Padre]

I know for a fact that some agencies of the U.N. do great humanitarian work, that wouldn't happen or would not happen as fast, without the U.N. However that's the workers/volunteers on the ground. I am far from impressed with the UN executives who seem to be or have become fat cats on the ****-tail circuit over-seeing a useless costly bureaucracy.