Yup, that outta do it. France flexes it's muscles.

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Y’know, Europe in WWII was a pretty shitty, dangerous snakepit when the U.S., Canada, and Australia stuck their soldiers into it.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it was but you are being very selective when lisiting countries who “stuck their soldiers in”

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I’m getting pretty sick and tired of all these countries yelling and screaming for peace and for the U.N. to do something, then refusing to pony up when it’s time to pay the price. But this is par for the course, and it’s why the U.N. is worse than useless - it tends to provide cover for tyrants and murderous bastards.
[/QUOTE]
You do like to generalise. In very recent times troubles in Timor recieved army and police troops from Australia, New Zealand and Portugal. If I’m not mistaken Britain (part of Europe??) helped America occupy Iraq. Countries like Spain helped “liberate” Iraq until they realised that occupation was not the same thing as liberation. Since 1948 Close to 130 nations have contributed personnel at various times, and 108 are currently providing peacekeepers. The top three countries contributing to UN missions are Bangladesh,Pakistan and India. Not America? Fancy that.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

This is what is going to happen - the U.N. will do something totally ineffective by sending blue-helmeted troops into the region with no mandate to do sweet fuck all about anything. They’ll mill around and make it look like everything is ‘secure’ and that the peace is being kept - until Hezbollah is ready for round 2. Then the U.N. will quietly bug out, leaving the battlefield open for the next clash. For examples of this, see the last Arab/Israeli war, or Rwanda.
[/QUOTE]

Or they will put peacekeepers on the ground who will probably not be armed, who will work with people on the ground to help rebuild their lives, who will not go in waving flags of their own country but will quietly work with the people who need help and who will actually build good will.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

But next time, Israel will be able to claim that they gave the U.N. a fair shot to fix the problem, and it didn’t happen. By then, they’ll probably have a real hardliner like Netanyah back in power, and the next skirmish will be devastating.
[/QUOTE]

America and Israel have a relationship that is not about to change. Israel needs America. America needs Israel (as in an America friendly place in the Middle East).
devastating?. HOW was this “skirmish” not devastating?

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

The U.N. is doing nothing more than buying Iran time to finish a nuke. Oh goodness, not another resolution condemning Iran! Whatever will they do? Ignore it, of course. And the U.N. will then threaten to issue a resolution demanding that the first resolution be honored, or by God they’ll issue another one. There will be threats of sanctions, but as soon as the sanctions are to be implemented the biggest trading partners will get cold feet and back out. Then it’ll be back to square 1
[/QUOTE]

Or perhaps the UN is happy to back off. Perhaps the UN has realised that forcing a country into a corner only makes it come out spitting. Perhaps the UN has realised that it is hypocritical for the countries WITH nukes to tell other countries they shouldn’t have them? Trade is something that is important, no spin will change that.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

I’ll bet the Iranians sit around the house at night and just kill themselves laughing over how stupid and gullible we are.
[/QUOTE]
I would think that MOST Iranians don’t give Americans a second thought, they are probably too busy cooking dinner, going to work and worrying about how to pay the bills.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

In the end, it will be up to the U.S. and/or Israel to sort this mess out. And if they try to, the U.N. will wail and gnash its collective teeth and scream about U.S. aggression and the need for peace, ignoring the fact that it’s hard to keep the peace with useless, defanged or nonexistent peacekeepers. Ultimately, it will be the U.N.'s failure, but that won’t stop them from pointing fingers and tsk-tsking over the U.S.'s ‘unilateral’ approach.

The reason this dirty work continues to fall into the lap of the U.S. and Israel is because a number of the other major players in the game simply refuse to step up to the plate. They’d rather heckle from the sidelines.
[/QUOTE]

In the end “this mess” will be sorted out by the US because the US is the country that sees this as a threat. Just like a mini cold war. The world hung about waiting to see what the USSR and the USA would do. In the end they did what we all expected. Nobody blew up anyone.

But Iraq has showed the world that plunging in waist deep only leaves everyone covered in shit.

42

[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]

Christ, this is the same military that was so terrified by the Rainbow Warrior that they sank it. What were they afraid Greenpeace was going to do? Begin a campaign of birkenstock and Gorp bobardment?
[/QUOTE]

That military/govt was so mighty that America (nor ANYwhere else) felt like condenming them!

43

[QUOTE=calm kiwi]
That military/govt was so mighty that America (nor ANYwhere else) felt like condenming them!
[/QUOTE]
Not exactly sure what you meant to say: but you can find the following quote on the Rainbow Warrior’s Wikipedia entry. (bolding mine)

Additionally, even though the U.S. didn’t say much about the incident other than to shake our collective heads at the needless absurdity, New Zealand was PISSED.

44

[QUOTE=duffer]
The quote is along the lines of what a lot of people think of the UN’s effectiveness in sustaining cease-fires. The UN has often done wonderful things in helping basic living conditions for millions of people. But militarily? The track record isn’t exactly proven.
[/quote]
Dunno man, I think Gulf War I went quite well. If you’re criticising UN peacekeepers (who historically did a fine job in e.g. Lebanon and Nicosia for quite a while), well, the clue’s in the name.

45

[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
Not exactly sure what you meant to say: but you can find the following quote on the Rainbow Warrior’s Wikipedia entry. (bolding mine) Additionally, even though the U.S. didn’t say much about the incident other than to shake our collective heads at the needless absurdity, New Zealand was PISSED.
[/QUOTE]

What I meant to say is that was not decried by any govt…it was NZ against France. Yes Greenpeace was repaid but an act of terrorism sanctioned by one govt toward a friendly country was not condemned by the world.

It was a long time ago, much more recently NZ has sided with the French. Perhaps that is the model. Get over your self!

46

[QUOTE=jjimm]
If you’re criticising UN peacekeepers (who historically did a fine job in e.g. Lebanon and Nicosia for quite a while), well, the clue’s in the name.
[/QUOTE]

UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). 13 May 78 to date Irish commitment: 31,413

That a large number of people even over nearly 30 years. Our standing Army numers about 8,500 people with >10,000 reserves.

http://www.military.ie/menu_overseas.htm

47

Care to address the Ivory Coast, Kiwi? Maybe try to stay on the subject of French “peacekeeping”? It was that fiasco, afterall, that was my central point - not my joke about birkenstock and gorp bombardment.

48

This thing prompted me to do a little research, and I was quite surprised to learn that the current number of US blue helmet peace keeping troops is… wait for it…

8

That´s 50 times less than the amount the French have or will shortly have in Lebanon only; I don´t think that grants any bregging rights, IMO.

49

I don´t think it grants any bragging rights neither…

50

[QUOTE=jjimm]
(who historically did a fine job in e.g. Lebanon and Nicosia for quite a while).
[/QUOTE]

They did a fine job in Lebanon?

Really?

When was that, exactly? Because I must have been asleep that afternoon.

51

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
From what I gathered reading the newspaper, France has two main concerns :

  • It doesn’t want to commit a significant force if there’s only a weak mandate. It doesn’t want its forces to be sitting ducks or a big bunch of passive observers. IOW, not a repeat of Bosnia
    [/quote]
    This part makes sense, insofar that anything the UN does makes sense. Although it might be that the reluctance of countries like France to commit significantly to troop levels contributes to the weakness of the mandate.

This part doesn’t. The French won’t go because some one might shoot at them. Well, duh.

The terrorists who the UN force is expected to keep the peace against are going to attack the peace keepers. That is pretty much a given. I seriously doubt they will be any harder on the French than anyone else. Unless the terrorists think that the French might react differently.

Most certainly.

Regards,
Shodan

52

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Y’know, Europe in WWII was a pretty shitty, dangerous snakepit when the U.S., Canada, and Australia stuck their soldiers into it.

[/QUOTE]

Ineed it was. And why did they stick their troops in? Because they were themselves directly attacked. History’s not my subject, but I don’t recall the Arsenal of Democracy™ doing much beyond selling arms on credit and muttering encouragement until it was, y’know, attacked. Since Hezbollah haven’t yet started shooting Katyushas at Japan, Korea, Canada, Germany or anyone else, it’s not surprising they’ve decided to sit this one out.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

I’m getting pretty sick and tired of all these countries yelling and screaming for peace and for the U.N. to do something, then refusing to pony up when it’s time to pay the price. But this is par for the course, and it’s why the U.N. is worse than useless - it tends to provide cover for tyrants and murderous bastards.

[/QUOTE]

Almost enough to make you wish the worlds most powerful country hadn’t spent the last half-century or making sure the UN stayed a talking shop with no military assets beyond what it could scrape off the collecting plate, isn’t it?

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The reason this dirty work continues to fall into the lap of the U.S. and Israel is because a number of the other major players in the game simply refuse to step up to the plate. They’d rather heckle from the sidelines.
[/QUOTE]

You broke it, you fix it. You seriously expect the French (or anyone else) to put a couple of thousand citizens in harms way to sort out a fuck-up they were against right from the very beginning? Maybe after the USMC deploys into Cote D’Ivoire to keep the Francophones from chopping each other up…

[QUOTE=Alessan]

Really?
When was that, exactly? Because I must have been asleep that afternoon.
[/QUOTE]

UNIFIL has been in Lebanon since 1978, believe it or not. Since there hasn’t been much peace to keep, they haven’t done much except distribute aid, fill in paperwork whenever either side breaks the ceasefires, and get killed (257 fatalities to date). A pattern which will almost certainly continue in future, and makes it unsurprising that few countries are jumping with joy at the chance to participate further in the Great Lebanese Blue-Helmet Skeet Shoot.

53

[QUOTE=A Monkey With a Gun]
Care to address the Ivory Coast, Kiwi? Maybe try to stay on the subject of French “peacekeeping”? It was that fiasco, afterall, that was my central point - not my joke about birkenstock and gorp bombardment.
[/QUOTE]

It is more sucessful then the Iraq?

54

[QUOTE=slaphead]

UNIFIL has been in Lebanon since 1978, believe it or not. Since there hasn’t been much peace to keep, they haven’t done much except distribute aid, fill in paperwork whenever either side breaks the ceasefires, and get killed (257 fatalities to date). A pattern which will almost certainly continue in future, and makes it unsurprising that few countries are jumping with joy at the chance to participate further in the Great Lebanese Blue-Helmet Skeet Shoot.
[/QUOTE]

But from 1978 to about 1990, there was a massive civil war going on in Lebanon. So, why was the UN force just distributing aid, filling in paperwork, and getting killed? Why didn’t they actually try to stop the various sides from killing each other? If groups like Hezbollah were operating, why didn’t UNFIL go in there and arrest/kill them?

55

Ale, it’s pretty clear why US troops aren’t especially suited for UN peacekeeping missions. Ideal peacekeepers are from countries that don’t have a stake in the outcome of the war. US troops would be seen as favoring one side over the other. The US can’t send “peacekeeping” troops to keep Hezballah and Israel from bombing each other, because we’d be on Israel’s side bombing Hezb’allah. We wouldn’t be peacekeeping troops, we’d be warfighting troops. Which is fine if continuing the war is what you want, no so good if you’re trying to stop the war.

56

[QUOTE=calm kiwi]
It is more sucessful then the Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
Are you that dense? The Iraq war was never a “peacekeeping” mission. The U.S. chose a side - its own; with the express purpose of toppling the dictatorship. France was supposed to be on a peacekeeping mission in the Ivory Coast, yet decided to destroy the Ivorian air force after a friendly fire accident killed some French troops.

Apples and oranges and all that.

Why am I debating this guy? He can’t even string a proper sentence together, much less a coherent point.

57

[QUOTE=Shodan]

Most certainly.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Thank you. :wink:

(Editing sometimes is not my friend.)

58

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Ale, it’s pretty clear why US troops aren’t especially suited for UN peacekeeping missions. Ideal peacekeepers are from countries that don’t have a stake in the outcome of the war. US troops would be seen as favoring one side over the other. The US can’t send “peacekeeping” troops to keep Hezballah and Israel from bombing each other, because we’d be on Israel’s side bombing Hezb’allah. We wouldn’t be peacekeeping troops, we’d be warfighting troops. Which is fine if continuing the war is what you want, no so good if you’re trying to stop the war.
[/QUOTE]

And France has pretty deep ties with Lebanon, so they make a good candidate for troops.

I think we wait should a bit and see how this plays out before jumping all over anyone or any country. Putting the UN force together is going to take some time, and troops will most likely be deployed in phases. It’s going to be tricky to make sure that both the Lebanese and Israelis are comfortable with the make-up of that peacekeeping force. I’m just happy to see that the US and France were able to work together on this resolution.

59

[QUOTE=duffer]
It’s been going on for centuries, and will go on for centuries.
[/QUOTE]

I was always under the impression that before 1947 (when they created Israel was created by the western powers that won WWII), it hadn’t been this bad since the Crusades.

60

[QUOTE=Squink]
It looks like we’re going to try to buy us some love: US tries to counter Hizbollah rebuilding efforts
[/QUOTE]
I heard a report on CNN a little while ago that apparently the US aid isn’t being well received. In fact, it’s being outright refused by some based on the reasoning they’ll not accept hypocritical assistance from the same country that supplied Israel with the bombs that put them in this predicament in the first place.

Now as to how widespread this sentiment/ refusal is, the report didn’t say. I don’t know if it’s a indignant few or if it has become a more widespread phenomenon. But, to some degree, it’s more certainly happening.