This is how peacekeeping should be done. Netherlands pay attention.

[Каие]

Looks like a Peacekeeping force actually doing it's job for once. The Sudanese government has 'politely' asked the UNAMID force in Darfur to leave so they can proceed to genocide the villages inhabitants. The UNAMID force equally politely refused. Nevertheless the Sudanese are bringing tanks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7864505.stm

Looks like some fighting might happen. Of course, the UN would if given the chance most likely roll over and say ''ok'', like in Rwanda. Good thing the commander on the ground is not of similar stock.

[Kamos]

Any kind of article you could show us?

[Каие]

Any kind of article you could show us?

Lol yeah, just noticed. Fixed.

Who make up these UNAID heroes?

''All African''.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6943435.stm

Do they have anti-tank weapons to counter an armoured thrust?

hell no. That's how thing are done in Africa bro. It's just point, pulla the trigga, and shoot bang bang.

[Heinz Guderian]

Who make up these UNAID heroes? Do they have anti-tank weapons to counter an armoured thrust? Is this thread about armoured thrusts? You did mention tanks. You cant infract me for that.

[Kamos]

Bold move but a respectable one I just hope this doesn't turn out to badly.

[Farnan]

Maybe we should hand some humanitarian aid to this village?

You know due to their hard times....

And good job to the UN Peacekeepers there. Hopefully they stand.

[Каие]

Hopefully they disregard the crappy 3 shot warning in the actual siege.

[MathiasOfAthens]

LOL if all it took to genocide a village was to polity ask the UN force to leave then there be genocides all over the place and the UN wouldnt be worth a damn.

Imagine A UN force is within a village and the government demands the UN force to leave before they attack. UN force leaves because they dont want to face casualties and the government kills those the UN was sent to protect.
________
Dc medical marijuana dispensary

[Каие]

I don't have to imagine it happened 14 years ago in Rwanda. 1 million dead in 3 days, right under the UN's nose, coz the damn French and UN were too cowardly to stand tall.

[jankren]

I don't have to imagine it happened 14 years ago in Rwanda. 1 million dead in 3 days, right under the UN's nose, coz the damn French and UN were too cowardly to stand tall.

Why would Europeans wanna risk their lives for Africans? Lets talk about human nature here. I think its best to send UN troops to conflict zones from countries that are actually located in those zones.

For example if you wanna deploy UN troops to defend Lebanon from Israel, then its wise as the UN did do to include troops from Muslim countries and non-Western countries.

The same thing with Sudan. Deploy mostly African UN troops to defend Darfurians from Sudanese Arab government forces.

[cottontail]

Yes! Thank god! It's about time that the U.N. stopped bending over to these murderous African governments.

Though I can tell that this probably won't end well

Good luck to the U.N. Stop those murderers!

Oh, and Jankren, we have already tried that ( in the Congo I believe, could be wrong there), and it didn't work out to well.

[Thanatos]

Though I can tell that this probably won't end well

That's why violence is the last resort. If they won't stop no matter what, and they'll take you down to get their goals, that's when you kill them.

[jankren]

Oh, and Jankren, we have already tried that ( in the Congo I believe, could be wrong there), and it didn't work out to well.

The Congo is a different planet. Even the Space Marines wouldnt wanna be deployed there.

[Da Skinna]

Why would Europeans wanna risk their lives for Africans? Lets talk about human nature here. I think its best to send UN troops to conflict zones from countries that are actually located in those zones.

For example if you wanna deploy UN troops to defend Lebanon from Israel, then its wise as the UN did do to include troops from Muslim countries and non-Western countries.

The same thing with Sudan. Deploy mostly African UN troops to defend Darfurians from Sudanese Arab government forces.

Credit where credit is due. If there is instability because of European intervention, then in some measure Europeans are responsible.

[Каие]

THe UN mission in Rwanda was under manned and under equipped. Romeo Dallaire BEGGED the UN daily for more troops and they refused. He did everything in his power to interceed, including directly violating orders by NOT leaving Rwanda. I suggest you get your facts straight before you insult a man like Dallaire.

Why did you quote a section where I clearly said;
Looks like some fighting might happen. Of course, the UN would if given the chance most likely roll over and say ''ok'', like in Rwanda. Good thing the commander on the ground is not of similar stock.

Then attribute it to something and someone I did not even mention, or even imply? Why did you do that?

Also I can see you've read his book....

Rome did you just call Romeo Dallaire a pussy?

No. Did you just put words into my mouth? Yes.

And Rwanda saw 1 million dead in 100 days, 3 months, not 3 days like you said earlier.

I stand corrected.

Why would Europeans wanna risk their lives for Africans?

Why would they want to do it for it Iraqis, and Afghans? and the Balkans? Because it's their job to follow orders, that's why. At the end of the day it's a far nobler cause then dying fro some political BS.

Lets talk about human nature here. I think its best to send UN troops to conflict zones from countries that are actually located in those zones. For example if you wanna deploy UN troops to defend Lebanon from Israel, then its wise as the UN did do to include troops from Muslim countries and non-Western countries. The same thing with Sudan. Deploy mostly African UN troops to defend Darfurians from Sudanese Arab government forces.

The whole point is to have neutral and unrelated troops to keep political neutrality.

You don't remember the sbrenciacan muslims raiding, burning and genociding surrounding villages while using sbrenica as a safe heaven??

And that the muslims set up mortars next do a dutchbat guardpost and fired at the serbian lines, so the ones protecting them had to run for there lifes as the erbians fired back...
No wonder 15 ex-soldiers (out of 400?) want to testify for the serbians.

It was a nessecary evil, bit overreacted though...

Did you just justify genocide?

[Treize]

Did you just justify genocide?

I wouldn't do it myself.
And I don't justify it, BUT if they didn't do it then the Albanians would commit genocide on the christians (they already did, and the USA likes to keep this silence).

Whats a genocide 1000? 10000? 100000?
In sberenica there were like 15000 MEN of them around 4000 were militants (and some of the others had a kalashnikov under there bed as well I bet) leaves 11000 inncocents killed.
How many christians were killed by albanians??
Offcourse no sources because that would make the US intervention look bad, like Iraq nowadays.

Also I have read on this forum somewere that there were lots of albanian fighters camping nearby that did nothing to save there people.
(can't prove this though).

Also why do you expect 400 soldiers to fight a battle they would have lost anyway when the locals you try to protect try to kill you (and harras)???

Not making this up, they really fired mortars next to borderposts, so that the dutchbat men had to find shelter against serbian mortars.

Still I don't justify the killing, but I don't believe the Albanians are the poor and defenceless people they want you to believe.

But i'm sure there are people on this forum that can give a better explaination.

[dogukan]

I wouldn't do it myself.
And I don't justify it, BUT if they didn't do it then the Albanians would commit genocide on the christians (they already did, and the USA likes to keep this silence).

Whats a genocide 1000? 10000? 100000?
In sberenica there were like 15000 MEN of them around 4000 were militants (and some of the others had a kalashnikov under there bed as well I bet) leaves 11000 inncocents killed.
How many christians were killed by albanians??
Offcourse no sources because that would make the US intervention look bad, like Iraq nowadays.

Also I have read on this forum somewere that there were lots of albanian fighters camping nearby that did nothing to save there people.
(can't prove this though).

Also why do you expect 400 soldiers to fight a battle they would have lost anyway when the locals you try to protect try to kill you (and harras)???

Not making this up, they really fired mortars next to borderposts, so that the dutchbat men had to find shelter against serbian mortars.

Still I don't justify the killing, but I don't believe the Albanians are the poor and defenceless people they want you to believe.

But i'm sure there are people on this forum that can give a better explaination.

A genocide is trying to make a race extinct on purpsoe a government policy.................considering why the war started and how they systematically butchered them I'd say it was pretty much a genocide.
Muslims would be doing the same....does that justify not defending unarmed thousands? This is war, people are going to hate each other. That is why we human should not like war..........what kind of a justification is that?
Heck in the Armenian conflict there was also a war going on and Armenians also did kill 500 000 Turks/Kurds....but that is not a genocide. This a lil hypocrite ain't it?
It seems to me like every western person would justify what Christians did anyways....the colonization era, wars in all over the world and these....

[Dr. Croccer]

[quote=ЯoMe kb8;4389166]

Nope, the Dutch confiscated them. [/quote ]Because the last thing they wanted was a bloodbath. The Serbs and militants were both aggressive and would kill eachother, with the civilians and Dutch right in the middle of it. The Dutchbat soldiers didn't know much about the Serbians and hoped that the airsupport could take them out. When it was clear that it couldn't, it was already to late to do anything.

Leading from above...This is my main beef with that situation. If the Dutch did not want to fight to defend, and the Bosnians did want to fight, give them their weapons, they will hold off the Serbians long enough for the Dutch to retreat to safety.

Are you serious? This would cause a bloodbath without any survivors or eye witnesses to tell the tale and it would only demonize the Dutchbat soldiers.

Instead the Dutch disarmed them, perhaps justified, but on the obvious Serbian advance, hand them back and run away if that's what you want.

They didn't want to run away nor could. But they couldn't fight to the death and risk a bloodbath either. What they did wasn't the best thing but the least worst one. It's a lose-lose situation. If they ran away, there would be a controversy and a massacre, probably worse than what really happened. If they stood and fought to the death, they wouldn't have achieved anything and only encourage the Serbs to be more aggressive. If they and the Bosnians fought to the death, well....

No they didn't. The Serbians quickly captured some outposts and took the Dutch soldiers hostage demanding the others surrender. They retreated immediately, the only dead Dutch man was from a Bosnian who through a grenade at a armoured vehicle as it retreated.

Same thing, different wording.

[DisgruntledGoat]

I guess you've seen the documentary "Shake Hands with the Devil"?

No, I've never read the book or seen the documentary. I am Canadian and have been familiar with Romeo Dallaire's role in Rwanda from the beginning.

Why did you quote a section where I clearly said;
Looks like some fighting might happen. Of course, the UN would if given the chance most likely roll over and say ''ok'', like in Rwanda. Good thing the commander on the ground is not of similar stock.

Then attribute it to something and someone I did not even mention, or even imply? Why did you do that?

Also I can see you've read his book....

I haven't read the book. I happen to know the history of a Canadian general since we come from the same country and his problems were, I don't know, BIG NEWS here for years. I do enjoy that you are trying to insult my intelligence by suggesting that I wouldn't have known about these things without reading a popular book.

No. Did you just put words into my mouth? Yes.

You put the words in your mouth. The way you worded it was confusing and appeared to be saying that the Commander on the ground in Sudan wasn't of similar stock to the one in Rwanda. When more than one person makes the mistake its hard to claim that we are putting words in your mouth.

[Da Skinna]

Good thing the commander on the ground is not of similar stock.

No. Did you just put words into my mouth? Yes.

The way that sounds comes as tantamount, at least in my mind, as calling Dallaire a pussy. It was just worded funny.

Personally I'm glad the UN is doing this, we need real substance this century.

I stand corrected.

Obviously a clerical error... 3 days is a lot of killing. 3 months is 6 children, men and women every minute butchered... so 3 days!