U.N. Resolutions - Do They Work?

[Countertrey]

All the criticisms that I read here are the result of a lack of fundamental understanding about the organization and its operations.

Everytime that there are casualties, there will be somebody that in -hindsight- and several thousand miles away is wiser than those on the ground. I am not surprised.

How is expecting the UN "peace keeping" leadership to demonstrate a modicum of military competence a demonstration that I have a "lack of fundamental understanding about the organization and it's operations"?
What YOU fail to understand is that, after all is said and done, these are still MILITARY operations. There are certain fundamental tenets involved in such operations that the UN seems to refuse to understand. One is to begin no such operation without a clear and consise mission. One is to begin no such operation without a well considered response plan if things start to fall apart. The UN regularly fails to do both. The mission, no matter how it is defined, is NOT to sacrifice the soldiers serving in the name of the UN... however, the UN continues to toss them around like old toys.

Yeah, so the UN is all we have. Is that adequate reason not to demand that it's leadership function with some minimal level of competence?

Beyond that, this is a mission of the UN Truce Supervision Organization. Once the truce is broken, their mission is moot. PULL THEM OUT to prevent them from becoming pawns to either of the fighting parties. Yet, Annan continues to refuse to withdraw them, even now.

Regarding hindsight, I have been wondering since last week why the UN observers were still there. Anyone who looked could see this coming. Hindsight had nothing to do with my judgement.

I suggest to you, btw, that MG Lewis understands, and could see this coming, as well.

[Redskin in Canada]

I find it facinating that you suggest that I am a radical... all because I don't trust the UN to run peacekeeping missions.

No, not a radical. Just another well-meaning American influenced by their media and the propaganda of its own government. Nothing new, really.

What I find astonishing is that -after- some of the most monumental military blunders in the history of warfare, some of you are still criticising UN operations for trying to fulfill some of the noblest objectives known to humankind.

I could return your same military advice about several US operations in Iraq -this-year. But that is not my objective. There are no perfect wars. That iswhy it is so imperative to avoid them and exhaust all possible means to resolve international disputes.

[Countertrey]

Just another well-meaning American influenced by their media and the propaganda of its own government.

How's THAT for condescending? I'm a nice enough guy, but I've been brainwashed... I see.

My knowledge regarding UN incompetence in these missions comes not from US news, or the "omnipotent" US government.

These sources only care about US casualties in such operations. They could care less about Phillipine soldiers killed in Haiti, or Pakistani soldiers killed in Somalia. Do you suggest that the deaths in the Congo of the two officers I cited yesterday was "spiced up" for the consumption of gullible American voters?

[Deadskins]

...after all is said and done, these are still MILITARY operations. There are certain fundamental tenets involved in such operations that the UN seems to refuse to understand. One is to begin no such operation without a clear and consise mission. One is to begin no such operation without a well considered response plan if things start to fall apart.

I have to say CT, if you changed one letter in your post (an N to an S), you would have a post that also perfectly describes our situation in Iraq.

[dnpmakkah]

So I take it from the picture that they think of the U.S. and Israel along the same light that we think of them huh? If both sides think the other are terrorist and both think you can't negotiate with terrorist then the world is in for one hell of a fight. The below picture is from Yahoo News.

[Countertrey]

I have to say CT, if you changed one letter in your post (an N to an S), you would have a post that also perfectly describes our situation in Iraq.

Then you miss the point entirely. I have written extensively over the last few pages... are you reading selectively? Maybe it's me... I do seem to be unable to communicate my point, although it looks pretty clear as I read back.

[Deadskins]

I have to say CT, if you changed one letter in your post (an N to an S), you would have a post that also perfectly describes our situation in Iraq.

Then you miss the point entirely. I have written extensively over the last few pages... are you reading selectively? Maybe it's me... I do seem to be unable to communicate my point, although it looks pretty clear as I read back.

No I've read everything you've written, and I happen to agree with most of it. I'm just saying that the US also did not have either "a clear and concise mission," nor "a well considered response plan if things start to fall apart," when we invaded Iraq.

[yupchagee]

Not all problems have diplomatic solutions.

I am glad that Muhammad Anwar Sadat, Golda Meir, Menahem Begin and Jimmy Carter did not know this important axiom of Foreign Policy.

READ! I said NOT ALL PROBLEMS.

[yupchagee]

So, after all is said and done, after so many deaths. after so much destruction and pain, Where does -everybody- turn to resolve even a temporary cease-fire solution to this mess? The UN!

Sheeeesh! I must be a genius. But I am not. As battered and criticised as it is, the UN is ALL we have. All the criticisms that I read here are the result of a lack of fundamental understanding about the organization and its operations. But I am not surprised. The UN does not march at the pace dictated by -any- one government. This will trigger the rage of some members of those governments and their puppet media/propaganda organisations. But take comfort guys, the US is -not- the only country in a position to do that.

Being in the middle of high level international policy disputes is what the UN is all about. It should not be surprising that trying to be impartial places the organization and its the staff in the cross-fire of politicians, media/propaganda and even armies around the world.

EVERYBODY turns to the UN? Not anybody grounded in reality. Israel & the US aren't looking to the UN. Arabs are because, as usual, they're looking for someone to savr them from their own blunders (see 1967 & 1973).

Not a genius? What a reveation! Let me see if I get this: information coming from the US or Israeli govts is propaganda, reports from the UN & all other govts are unbiased facts? That's certainly a balanced position.

Un Impartial? Wake up!

[yupchagee]

So I take it from the picture that they think of the U.S. and Israel along the same light that we think of them huh? If both sides think the other are terrorist and both think you can't negotiate with terrorist then the world is in for one hell of a fight. The below picture is from Yahoo News.

Are you saying that all opinions are equally valid? Or that all opinions except those of the US & Israel are equally valid? I suspect the latter.

[Redskin in Canada]

Shalom and goodbye.

[dnpmakkah]

Are you saying that all opinions are equally valid? Or that all opinions except those of the US & Israel are equally valid? I suspect the latter.

No...I'm just saying that you have 2 sides who think of eachother in the same way. I'll leave it up to you to back one or the other.

It's like 2 kids fighting and each saying we'll he started it. Both are stupid and both are at fault. Thats what we have here.

[DesertSkin]

I have to say CT, if you changed one letter in your post (an N to an S), you would have a post that also perfectly describes our situation in Iraq.

Then you miss the point entirely. I have written extensively over the last few pages... are you reading selectively? Maybe it's me... I do seem to be unable to communicate my point, although it looks pretty clear as I read back.

No I've read everything you've written, and I happen to agree with most of it. I'm just saying that the US also did not have either "a clear and concise mission," nor "a well considered response plan if things start to fall apart," when we invaded Iraq.

Incorrect and completely inaccurate about the clear and concise mission. I've commanded soldiers in Iraq and the Operational mission was/is absolutely clear and concise. The US Strategic failure was not recognizing the shift in the operational environment; like you more or less state in the second part.

[UK Skins Fan]

I wish I had something useful to say here, but I really can't see anything constructive to add.

Perhaps the answer lies in putting aside who is to blame for what, and just find the answer to one question: "how do we stop the killing?" The tragedy of events like those taking place in Lebanon, Iraq, Afganistan, and countless African states (funny how we don't hear much about those) at the moment is that they deflect attention from seeking solutions to problems, and instead lead to the spiral of blame and denial.

Don't ask me how to break the cycle, but I'm darn sure that there's a lot more blood to be be spilt yet.

Unfortunately, joining hands & singing "Kumbaya" doesn't work. History teaches us that wars end when & only when 1 side wins. Wars are won when 1 side destroys the will &/or ability of the other side to continue to fight. This isn't my wild idea, it's from von Clauswitz. Maybe I'm a chauvinist, but I think the world will be a better place if we win.

Don't remember suggesting anybody should join hands and sing kumbaya, but thanks anyway.

[1niksder]

So, after all is said and done, after so many deaths. after so much destruction and pain, Where does -everybody- turn to resolve even a temporary cease-fire solution to this mess? The UN!

The UN has had it's chance and they only got caught in the middle. This will take some other force to resolve this mess. Matbe NATO or a group of troops made up of forces from the region.

Sheeeesh! I must be a genius. But I am not. As battered and criticised as it is, the UN is ALL we have. All the criticisms that I read here are the result of a lack of fundamental understanding about the organization and its operations. But I am not surprised. The UN does not march at the pace dictated by -any- one government. This will trigger the rage of some members of those governments and their puppet media/propaganda organisations. But take comfort guys, the US is -not- the only country in a position to do that.

Actually I thought you were smarter than this thread has portrayed you. The UN does great work when doing what it is tasked to do, but for you to say the criticisms that you read here are the results of a lack of understanding about UN and its operations, would mean you know what these poster do and do not understand. Again you are using a big brush on a small canvas

Being in the middle of high level international policy disputes is what the UN is all about. It should not be surprising that trying to be impartial places the organization and its the staff in the cross-fire of politicians, media/propaganda and even armies around the world.

Politics and policy making on the international level are fine and well, leaving people in a war zone as peacekeepers makes no sense at all. Why they were left there we don't know, meaning we can't blame the UN until all the facts are out.

You seem to blame the US for all of this, does it have anything to do with the fact that US troops don't wear blue beanies and most DoD contractors prefer their company logos on their vehicles over the the UN lettering or symbol.

Most US/DoD contractors feel the letters UN are nothing more than a target for one side or the other. I've seen nothing to prove them wrong. This bombing actually shows us that a organization made up of most of the countries on earth is really out there all by itself. You can't blame the US for this because the US didn't do anything. NO ONE has done anything

[yupchagee]

Are you saying that all opinions are equally valid? Or that all opinions except those of the US & Israel are equally valid? I suspect the latter.

No...I'm just saying that you have 2 sides who think of eachother in the same way. I'll leave it up to you to back one or the other.

It's like 2 kids fighting and each saying we'll he started it. Both are stupid and both are at fault. Thats what we have here.

So you're saying that both opinions are equally invalid? There is no objective roght or wrong? Easier than getting the facts & thinking. Sir Josh was right.

[Deadskins]

I have to say CT, if you changed one letter in your post (an N to an S), you would have a post that also perfectly describes our situation in Iraq.

Then you miss the point entirely. I have written extensively over the last few pages... are you reading selectively? Maybe it's me... I do seem to be unable to communicate my point, although it looks pretty clear as I read back.

No I've read everything you've written, and I happen to agree with most of it. I'm just saying that the US also did not have either "a clear and concise mission," nor "a well considered response plan if things start to fall apart," when we invaded Iraq.

Incorrect and completely inaccurate about the clear and concise mission. I've commanded soldiers in Iraq and the Operational mission was/is absolutely clear and concise. The US Strategic failure was not recognizing the shift in the operational environment; like you more or less state in the second part.

So please enlighten me as to the clear and concise mission. I'm not doubting you, I just want to know the answer to so many questions. Explain to me how this mission allowed for protection of the oil ministry only. Why was the looting of the other ministry buildings allowed. Why were armories, such as Al Qa'qaa allowed to be plundered for the very weapons now being used against our troops. How is it we didn't send in the proper troop levels? Why are our troops not armored properly? Why were contractors injected into the military chain of command?

[Countertrey]

Shalom and goodbye.

Interesting.


Desertskins:

operational

Thank you... that is the word that I was having trouble accessing in my very old brain file. The operating system ain't what it once was.

Btw... how is Wisconsin? Save me a Brat.

[yupchagee]

Thank you... that is the word that I was having trouble accessing in my very old brain file. The operating system ain't what it once was.

& it's hard to find parts for us older models

[dnpmakkah]

11 April 1996
On 18 April Israel shells a UN base at Qana killing about one hundred of 800 civilians sheltering there. A later UN report implies the attack was intentional, though Israel denies this.

Link Here

Seems to be a bit of history regarding this type of 'accident'.

[yupchagee]

11 April 1996
On 18 April Israel shells a UN base at Qana killing about one hundred of 800 civilians sheltering there. A later UN report implies the attack was intentional, though Israel denies this.

Link Here

Seems to be a bit of history regarding this type of 'accident'.

The BBC has a long history of anti Israel bias. They are about as reliable as Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union.

[dnpmakkah]

The BBC has a long history of anti Israel bias. They are about as reliable as Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union.

Well how about these?

On April 18, 1996, at the height of an Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah, 13 155 mm howitzer shells rained down on Qana, crowded with about 800 Lebanese civilians. Israel later said the attack was a mistake and accused Hezbollah militants of hiding behind civilians. The United Nations said the strike was unacceptable. Lebanon said it was a massacre.
Link Here

On April 18 the Israeli Defense Forces shelled Qana. I quote from the August 1996 issue of a journal I edit, "The Struggle": "The TV showed battle hardened journalists weeping as they walked among the corpses. No TV news in the world could show the most revealing pictures. Rescuers for a long time didn't know how many people were killed. There were heaps of body parts all around."

Available for viewing is an absolutely horrifying video of the mangled bodies of children.

The Israeli government offered various excuses. They said the IDF was firing at Hizbullah positions and a few shells went long. They explained that their soldiers didn't know the U.N. base was so close, or that it held civilians. They denied they had any aircraft in the area. PM Peres was quoted as saying, "In my opinion, everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way. I am at peace."
Link Here

Unlawful IDF attacks described in this report include an attack on an ambulance carrying civilians, killing six of them; an attack on a house in upper Nabatiyya that killed nine civilians; and the attack on the UN compound at Qana that killed 102 civilians.
Link Here

If these links aren't reliable to you...then maybe you should give me a source you DO trust and I will try to search on it and find some information on the massacre at Qana.

[dnpmakkah]

BEIRUT, Lebanon - A black coat of oil now covers the Lebanese capital's once-beautiful sandy Mediterranean shore, spilled from a power plant that was knocked down by Israeli warplanes two weeks ago.
Link Here

[DesertSkin]

Incorrect and completely inaccurate about the clear and concise mission. I've commanded soldiers in Iraq and the Operational mission was/is absolutely clear and concise. The US Strategic failure was not recognizing the shift in the operational environment; like you more or less state in the second part.

So please enlighten me as to the clear and concise mission. I'm not doubting you, I just want to know the answer to so many questions. Explain to me how this mission allowed for protection of the oil ministry only. Why was the looting of the other ministry buildings allowed. Why were armories, such as Al Qa'qaa allowed to be plundered for the very weapons now being used against our troops. How is it we didn't send in the proper troop levels? Why are our troops not armored properly? Why were contractors injected into the military chain of command?

I would thoroughly answer your questions with my beliefs but that would probably be too far off topic.

My prospective is clearly from the military view and not a "justification" mission that is usually transmitted to the public (ie, weapons of mass destruction). The orginal mission was to destroy the Iraqi armed forces and gain operational control of Iraq. Few will agrue that this was not achieved. The mission changed to become to enable Iraqis to defend their own democratic country.

Most of the questions you raise are vary valid and I would say that those failures are from a lack of planning and understanding the fundamental environment that would result after the armed forces achieved their first mission. In effect, the war planners assumed that the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets everywhere, and well that didn't happen, and now we have a full blow insurgency.

Clear as mud? My point was that the armed forces all had a clear mission, but failed to plan for and identify a change to the mission. Sorry if I didn't articulate my point very well.

[yupchagee]

The BBC has a long history of anti Israel bias. They are about as reliable as Pravda in the days of the Soviet Union.

Well how about these?

On April 18, 1996, at the height of an Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah, 13 155 mm howitzer shells rained down on Qana, crowded with about 800 Lebanese civilians. Israel later said the attack was a mistake and accused Hezbollah militants of hiding behind civilians. The United Nations said the strike was unacceptable. Lebanon said it was a massacre.
Link Here

On April 18 the Israeli Defense Forces shelled Qana. I quote from the August 1996 issue of a journal I edit, "The Struggle": "The TV showed battle hardened journalists weeping as they walked among the corpses. No TV news in the world could show the most revealing pictures. Rescuers for a long time didn't know how many people were killed. There were heaps of body parts all around."

Available for viewing is an absolutely horrifying video of the mangled bodies of children.

The Israeli government offered various excuses. They said the IDF was firing at Hizbullah positions and a few shells went long. They explained that their soldiers didn't know the U.N. base was so close, or that it held civilians. They denied they had any aircraft in the area. PM Peres was quoted as saying, "In my opinion, everything was done according to clear logic and in a responsible way. I am at peace."
Link Here

Unlawful IDF attacks described in this report include an attack on an ambulance carrying civilians, killing six of them; an attack on a house in upper Nabatiyya that killed nine civilians; and the attack on the UN compound at Qana that killed 102 civilians.
Link Here

If these links aren't reliable to you...then maybe you should give me a source you DO trust and I will try to search on it and find some information on the massacre at Qana.

Let's see. CNN- Crescent News Network (although they seem to have improved a little since Ted Turner left). Arab American News- name says it all. Amnesty- Consistant anti Israel bias. Condemn Israel every time they cause civilian casualities, rarely when Israeli civilians are killed & to the best of my recollection have never criticised Arabs for using their civilians as human sheilds. Had Israel actually been guilty as charged, the storm of protest would never have ended. Keep on Not likely to damage anything.