Please ignore this & focus on Iraq...

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Please ignore this & focus on Iraq...

Bosnian grief, Western regret at Srebrenica
story said:


I love the way even the article pointedly ignores the actual actions of some of the Dutch troops. This whole episode of history, more than anything else, proves how wrong peace-cheepers are in their belief that evil can be fought through bureaucratic consensus and teaching tolerance.

Gee, I wonder why Kofi didn't show up for this?
 
Have we found WMD's yet?

:p

Sorry, couldn't help it.

In all seriousness, when are we going to start to feel regret for the victims of Rwanda's disaster, or Sudan's current mess? To be honest, this is a terrible tragedy, but the numbers quite frankly pale in comparison to the numbers of victims in either of the other two conflicts and yet I rarely hear of either anymore. I hate to play the race card, but it makes me wonder...
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Have we found WMD's yet?

:p

Sorry, couldn't help it.
Well, you're a fine one to talk about tasteless comments... this has nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with abomination.

DrunkCajun said:
In all seriousness, when are we going to start to feel regret for the victims of Rwanda's disaster, or Sudan's current mess? To be honest, this is a terrible tragedy, but the numbers quite frankly pale in comparison to the numbers of victims in either of the other two conflicts and yet I rarely hear of either anymore. I hate to play the race card, but it makes me wonder...
Racism may play a very tiny part, but I suspect the only reason Europe even got involved was that this was on their doorstep - as always, the expectation was that the U.S. should shoulder the burden (as we eventually & ineffectually did).
But the UN hasn't been helping either of those nations in their ethnic cleansing efforts. They did in this case. That is unforgiveable, and a far worse scandal than anything that happened in Abu Graib.
 
jmervyn said:
Well, you're a fine one to talk about tasteless comments... this has nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with abomination.
Whoa, whoa--you're the one who titled the thread "Please ignore this & focus on Iraq". Not me.

Racism may play a very tiny part, but I suspect the only reason Europe even got involved was that this was on their doorstep - as always, the expectation was that the U.S. should shoulder the burden (as we eventually & ineffectually did).
Most likely so, but it doesn't bother me any less. As liberal as Europe seems to be, you don't see them jumping at the opportunity to do something about the mess in Sudan, or having done something about Rwanda when it was going on. In fact, the only thing I see Europe jumping to do with respect to things like this is to criticize the US for not doing what Europe should; get off it's own stuck-up arse and do itself.

But the UN hasn't been helping either of those nations in their ethnic cleansing efforts. They did in this case. That is unforgiveable, and a far worse scandal than anything that happened in Abu Graib.
Agreed.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DrunkCajun said:
Whoa, whoa--you're the one who titled the thread "Please ignore this & focus on Iraq". Not me.
The point being that the U.N. would prefer that this all be swept under the table, and that we all criticize the U.S. instead. I'm not looking at the excuses/rationale for the actions, I'm looking at the actions themselves. It would be as if the U.S. had actively supported the Taliban once they assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud.
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
Finally a topic I MUST know more about then anyone else here in the OTF.....

*Hears own voice echoing through the vast emptiness of the thread*

Hmm..... no interest eh? Yes, let's focus on Iraq!

EDIT:
Jmervyn; we didn't "help" the serbs kill the muslims, we gathered them where we thought they "could" be safe; only to find the Serbs taking away "our" muslims (out of the stadium and other gathering-places) and kill them.

David.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DaviddeJong said:
Finally a topic I MUST know more about then anyone else here in the OTF.....

*Hears own voice echoing through the vast emptiness of the thread*

Hmm..... no interest eh? Yes, let's focus on Iraq!
Yah, a vast, expansive emptiness of interest, huh? You'd think nobody cared about Muslims being butchered or something...

DaviddeJong said:
EDIT:
Jmervyn; we didn't "help" the serbs kill the muslims, we gathered them where we thought they "could" be safe; only to find the Serbs taking away "our" muslims (out of the stadium and other gathering-places) and kill them.

David.
David, sorry, that's not the whole truth. The Peacekeepers not only meekly stood aside and let the Serbs come in and take the Muslims, but they also helped the Serbs load the Muslims on busses in an 'orderly' fashion. If that harkens back disturbingly to trainloads of Jews, you'd be right. Furthermore, different requests intended to prevent or stop the action were turned down.
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
Yah, a vast, expansive emptiness of interest, huh? You'd think nobody cared about Muslims being butchered or something...
Well, not that they don't care, just that other issues get more attention.

Apart from you (who started the thread), noboby else posts in this thread.

It is kind of a forgotten drama don't you think? The only thing that got it on the news again is the fact that it was exactly 10 years ago....

jmervyn said:
David, sorry, that's not the whole truth. The Peacekeepers not only meekly stood aside and let the Serbs come in and take the Muslims, but they also helped the Serbs load the Muslims on busses in an 'orderly' fashion. If that harkens back disturbingly to trainloads of Jews, you'd be right.
Yep, I'm affraid they did...... :( . But what would you do..... (you're the wrong person to ask, I think :D ) if you were there?

I think you tend to ignore your senses telling you something is bound to go terribly wrong for those people.... and all you want to hear is that the Serbs "will only take them some place safe". They neglected their gut-feelings and "pretended" nothing had happened yet and that it might not be as bad as it seemed.

What would the difference have been if the Serbs had to load them into the busses themselves? (Or is that to pragmatic a statement?)

Apart from that they tried to get help into a situation they couldn't possibly handle on their own; the UN just didn't react properly.

jmervyn said:
Furthermore, different requests intended to prevent or stop the action were turned down.
I don't get this. Who, what and why?

David.
 
DaviddeJong said:
Apart from you (who started the thread), noboby else posts in this thread.
*cough*

Some of us don't know what to say. Rather than come out and start jabbing fingers at everyone involved and calling them all genocidal criminals, I'd rather read what others are saying and come up with an opinion of my own on the matter. That does not mean that those of us reserving our judgements and opinions do not care or don't find this to be an important or disturbing matter.
 

myleftfoot

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
The point being that the U.N. would prefer that this all be swept under the table, and that we all criticize the U.S. instead. I'm not looking at the excuses/rationale for the actions, I'm looking at the actions themselves. It would be as if the U.S. had actively supported the Taliban once they assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud.
Isn't the US in the UN? And I think they UN has rightly owned up for this extreme **** up.

"The victims had put their trust in international protection. But we, the international community, let them down," said a message from European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. "This was a colossal, collective and shameful failure."
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DaviddeJong said:
Well, not that they don't care, just that other issues get more attention.
That's exactly (one of my) points. In the ardent desire to blame the U.S. for everything but the kitchen sink, people ignore exactly what happens when things are done the way that the 'peace-cheepers' claim should be the standard.

DaviddeJong said:
Apart from you (who started the thread), noboby else posts in this thread.
Yeah, I don't know who that makes more pitiful - me, beating a dead horse, or everyone else, who just doesn't give a damn about the reality of what happened.

DaviddeJong said:
It is kind of a forgotten drama don't you think? The only thing that got it on the news again is the fact that it was exactly 10 years ago....
The same claim could be made regarding the Holocaust, albiet a different time frame. Does that mean it is okay to disregard it? I think not.

DaviddeJong said:
Yep, I'm affraid they did...... :( . But what would you do..... (you're the wrong person to ask, I think :D ) if you were there?

I think you tend to ignore your senses telling you something is bound to go terribly wrong for those people.... and all you want to hear is that the Serbs "will only take them some place safe". They neglected their gut-feelings and "pretended" nothing had happened yet and that it might not be as bad as it seemed.
Uh, I'd probably have been willing to open fire and bomb the crap out of the filth that were trying to butcher innocent women & children. Why weren't they? Peacekeepers are supposed to protect the peace, so when that equates to allowing genocide without fighting it, something is horribly wrong. Evil, I might say.


DaviddeJong said:
What would the difference have been if the Serbs had to load them into the busses themselves? (Or is that to pragmatic a statement?)

Apart from that they tried to get help into a situation they couldn't possibly handle on their own; the UN just didn't react properly.
Come on, this isn't an issue of logistics. Don't quibble like this; it is like arguing over exactly how many Jews went to the gas chambers. The point is, the Dutch should have never been put in a "you or the Muslims" situation, and that's exactly what the U.N. does on a routine basis.

I'm not saying the U.S. doesn't get into that kind of mealy-mouthed idiocy on occasion (like Mogadishu, where we refused to send armor because it might upset Al Quaeda). But to basically capitulate to Evil (capital 'E') shows in every way why the U.S. should never allow its forces to be under U.N. command, and probably shows exactly why the U.N. should cease to exist and a new international body formed.

DaviddeJong said:
I don't get this. Who, what and why?

David.
I can go digging if you really want, but I can't at work because it takes some time. The U.N. refused airstrikes, refused reinforcements, and most importantly refused permission to defend or counterattack.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
myleftfoot said:
Isn't the US in the UN? And I think they UN has rightly owned up for this extreme **** up.

"The victims had put their trust in international protection. But we, the international community, let them down," said a message from European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. "This was a colossal, collective and shameful failure."
Yeah, they owned up so well that Solana and Kofi didn't even show up for the affair. Sorry, they want it forgotten so that Kofi can accuse Shrub of illegal action and Israel of terrorism without being unpleasantly reminded of what happens when we do things 'the U.N. way'.
 

myleftfoot

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
Yeah, they owned up so well that Solana and Kofi didn't even show up for the affair. Sorry, they want it forgotten so that Kofi can accuse Shrub of illegal action and Israel of terrorism without being unpleasantly reminded of what happens when we do things 'the U.N. way'.
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a message admitting that the "truth is [a] hard one to face, we can't evade our own share of responsibility. The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our UN history for ever."

Here's a message he sent. I suppose it's like when bush heard about the 9/11 he just sat reading stories to children ... or maybe the fact that U.S. army death certs are stamped instead of signed. Oh wait it's not, the UN says they made a mistake.

EDIT: To clarify I'm not comparing what the what the UN did to either of the above situation, just that the fact that Kofi sent a message instead of attending.
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
DC said:
Some of us don't know what to say. Rather than come out and start jabbing fingers at everyone involved and calling them all genocidal criminals, I'd rather read what others are saying and come up with an opinion of my own on the matter. That does not mean that those of us reserving our judgements and opinions do not care or don't find this to be an important or disturbing matter.
Sorry DC...... I forgot to mention you! :)

That's probably it.....
My tactics mostly involve a lot of pointing and a considerable amount of name-calling..... :D

jmervyn said:
The same claim could be made regarding the Holocaust, albiet a different time frame. Does that mean it is okay to disregard it? I think not.
The holocaust is far from forgotten, Srebrenica will be.

jmervyn said:
Uh, I'd probably have been willing to open fire and bomb the crap out of the filth that were trying to butcher innocent women & children. Why weren't they? Peacekeepers are supposed to protect the peace, so when that equates to allowing genocide without fighting it, something is horribly wrong. Evil, I might say.
Apart from the fact that the Dutch had no bombs..... I thought you would! :)

jmervyn said:
Come on, this isn't an issue of logistics. Don't quibble like this; it is like arguing over exactly how many Jews went to the gas chambers. The point is, the Dutch should have never been put in a "you or the Muslims" situation, and that's exactly what the U.N. does on a routine basis.
I wasn't saying that from a logistics-point of view, more on a "what would have happened if the Serbs went threatening the Dutch to give up the Muslims so that they had to transport them themselves?"-kind of standpoint.

I think it would have made no difference at all. They still would have died. Only a lot less Dutch soldiers would have been suffering from the consequences of their time in Bosnia, even now.

jmervyn said:
I can go digging if you really want, but I can't at work because it takes some time. The U.N. refused airstrikes, refused reinforcements, and most importantly refused permission to defend or counterattack.
Oh... that's what you meant. Never mind then; yep, the UN did a lousy job refusing to back the Dutch up!

But I wouldn't go as far a to say that this and other drama's should lead to the unravelling of the UN; without it the world be even more chaotic, IMO.

David.
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
DaviddeJong said:
That's probably it.....
My tactics mostly involve a lot of pointing and a considerable amount of name-calling..... :D
Names should be 'called', if they are deserved. Look, I've nothing remotely against the Dutch and I love Holland - this is about the U.N., its inability to function as a military entity, and its desire to keep its head in the funding trough.

DaviddeJong said:
The holocaust is far from forgotten, Srebrenica will be.
And I have a problem with that, particularly given that the U.S. is constantly being lambasted as anti-Muslim.

DaviddeJong said:
Apart from the fact that the Dutch had no bombs..... I thought you would! :)
The U.N. <supposedly> doesn't just send in a couple of unarmed dweebs to walk around like blue-helmeted targets - yet that's exactly what their modus operandi seems to be.

DaviddeJong said:
I wasn't saying that from a logistics-point of view, more on a "what would have happened if the Serbs went threatening the Dutch to give up the Muslims so that they had to transport them themselves?"-kind of standpoint.

I think it would have made no difference at all. They still would have died. Only a lot less Dutch soldiers would have been suffering from the consequences of their time in Bosnia, even now.
Then why were they sent, if they weren't going to make a difference? What in God's name were they doing there, if they were going to be ineffectual and targeted in equal measures?

DaviddeJong said:
Oh... that's what you meant. Never mind then; yep, the UN did a lousy job refusing to back the Dutch up!

But I wouldn't go as far a to say that this and other drama's should lead to the unravelling of the UN; without it the world be even more chaotic, IMO.

David.
Howso? Taking the U.N.'s "umbrella" organizations out of the picture, what has the main body managed to do (other than condem Israel for terrorism) that wouldn't have been more effectively managed through coalition forces?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
myleftfoot said:
EDIT: To clarify I'm not comparing what the what the UN did to either of the above situation, just that the fact that Kofi sent a message instead of attending.
And I'm pointing out that the corrupt SOB was a proximate cause of the massacre. Shrub's brain lock upon being attacked, or the callousness of treatment of our fallen soldiers (reaching back far earlier than this administration) are not relevant to this issue. Mogadishu is, and only partially.
 

Stevinator

Diabloii.Net Member
myleftfoot said:
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a message admitting that the "truth is [a] hard one to face, we can't evade our own share of responsibility. The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our UN history for ever."

Here's a message he sent. I suppose it's like when bush heard about the 9/11 he just sat reading stories to children ... or maybe the fact that U.S. army death certs are stamped instead of signed. Oh wait it's not, the UN says they made a mistake.

EDIT: To clarify I'm not comparing what the what the UN did to either of the above situation, just that the fact that Kofi sent a message instead of attending.
Go bush bash somewhere else. It's nothing like that. Kofi stole money from starving Kurds. The Kurds were so hard up several of them have died in the crush of bodies awaiting for the aid packages to fall to the ground. Saddam beat, tortured, starved and even gassed these people. Mr. Annan stole money that was supposed to be used to feed them. He didn't show up because he's a symbol of what's wrong with the UN.

Bush did nothing like this at all. I don't even think he did anything really all that wrong. you have seen air force one too many times. what did you want him to do? fly to NY and run up the stairs carrying old ladies out of the building?

Shame on you for equating these things. I have issues with bush myself, but let's try to be honest with ourselves here. Annan is a criminal and should be arrested. Bush is a mediocre president. shame on you.




anyway back on track. Instead of blaming the USA, or the UN, shouldn't we be blaming those that lead people away in buses? shouldn't we be talking about them? sure this could have been stopped, but why would it be the US's job? Plenty of european nations right next door. how can we point at one country and say it's their fault?
 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
Stevinator said:
anyway back on track. Instead of blaming the USA, or the UN, shouldn't we be blaming those that lead people away in buses? shouldn't we be talking about them? sure this could have been stopped, but why would it be the US's job? Plenty of european nations right next door. how can we point at one country and say it's their fault?
Well, NATO's involvement with U.S. backing is what eventually stopped it. But the fact that Europe generally sat on their rumps and made "tch, tch" sounds was part of what disgusts me. The fact is, the Europeans are condemning our actions on the world stage at every opportunity, but when they had the chance to 'do the right thing', nobody was to be found.

Holland just gets a worse rap because they were holding the wheel at the time; who knows what French or German peacekeepers would have done (worse)? In the interests of not sidetracking, I won't make any nastier comments, but there's plenty of supporting material regards U.N. troop conduct elsewhere.
 

DaviddeJong

Diabloii.Net Member
jmervyn said:
And I have a problem with that, particularly given that the U.S. is constantly being lambasted as anti-Muslim.
Me too. Just not in relation with US-slander about them being anti-muslim. It shouldn't be forgotten because it's an out-rage that these things (still) happen!

jmervyn said:
Then why were they sent, if they weren't going to make a difference? What in God's name were they doing there, if they were going to be ineffectual and targeted in equal measures?
That's the big question. I don't know; the soldiers didn't have a clear-cut objective over there in Srebrenica, they were ill-prepared, under-equiped, out-gunned, out-numbered and totally without UN-support when push came to shove.

They shouldn't have been sent!

jmervyn said:
Howso? Taking the U.N.'s "umbrella" organizations out of the picture, what has the main body managed to do (other than condem Israel for terrorism) that wouldn't have been more effectively managed through coalition forces?
I can't tell you what the difference would have been if another form of coalition would have done the work the UN did the past decades, but they managed to keep a whole bunch of (trade- or border-) disputes from escalating.... I think the strength (and the weakness) of the UN is with their broad base of support. It's a place where virtually any country in the entire world can make their voice heard. (Some voices are louder then others, but still.)

David.
 

myleftfoot

Diabloii.Net Member
Stevinator said:
Shame on you for equating these things. I have issues with bush myself, but let's try to be honest with ourselves here. Annan is a criminal and should be arrested. Bush is a mediocre president. shame on you.
I'm comparing Kofi sending a message & not showing to Bush's administration's stamping of death certs or the scene where he stays in the class. Not the actions that led to these situations.
 
Top