Wow, just wow. I think I'll just let the insanity speak for itself here.2046 wrote:Spin? Hardly. As TheDarkling so famously put it, "Am I the only one here who speaks Darkstarese?" or words to that effect. You, like Wilga, misunderstood simple English and are attempting to make a false claim based off of it. You've fantasized about dishonesty on my part and you've been corrected. Deal with it.Cpl Kendall wrote:Darkstar, as usual your so full of $hit that your eyes are brown and your attempting to spin your way out of it.
Even worse:
Did I not see someone claim the hijackers were alive? Did I not see the suggestions that Osama bin Laden was not, in fact, responsible for 9/11?There aren't even any 9/11 conspiracy theories of note in this thread
Oh, but I did. So did you, O He Who Claims Lies of Others. Ergo, we have conspiracy theories being floated. Ergo, we have the intellectual brethren of Holocaust deniers in play.
I'm neither a neo-con nor a liar, and your fantasies to the contrary are irrelevant.as a neo-con we all know you have none
War crimes by US troops
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
If the U.S. troops aren't able to establish security in Iraq because their own presence is reason for most of the terror attacks what results in scared U.S. troops which prefer to err on the side of caution and are shooting on innocent civilians to protect themself, the U.S. troops should maybe leave the Iraq.2046 wrote:However, the first objective must and can only be security. It is from security that everything else can spread.
But then the U.S. government should pay other nations, which are not hated by the Iraquis and the immigrated islamist terrorists so that these can send forces to establish security. These nations get only the money from the U.S. government but are elsewise independent from the U.S. government.
A Peacekeeping mission of the U.N. would be a good solution. Already now, other nations but the U.S. provide the most soldiers for such missions.
That would have several advantages:
- The U.S. government could save much money because the personnel cost for soldiers from other nations are less than these from the U.S. soldiers.
- The U.S. presence which is provoking most of the terrorist attacks, would end.
- No more dead or wounded U.S. soldiers
- The terrorists would have a problem to reconcile further terror attacks on their fellow Islamists with their own belief.
- If the terrorists would attack their fellow Islamists with no american presence as excuse, they would get a propaganda problem in their nations.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
I'd have to say that a UN peacekeeping mission would be a terrible idea. Better to run it under NATO. I've lost track of the number of times under a UN mission that Canadian troops have been under fire and have been refused permission to return fire or had to call back to New York. The usual result was that they disobeyed orders and fired back anyways. And then there's the infamous UN decree for the '92 Bosnia mission in which they said we couldn't bring TOW missiles or mortor rounds besides illumination rounds, both of which we brought anyways. I'm a big fan of doing things within the UN framework but they should never again be allowed to run a peacekeeping mission, everyone they touch devolves into a clusterfrak. There's a reason why NATO has largely taken over the job. You basically need them to have a responsible ROE.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
The question is, how robust the mandat from the U.N. is.
I'm also against a mandat of the U.N. in which the blue helmets aren't allowed to do their job. If they are there to establish security in Iraq, they need self-evident the allowance to use force - ergo a robust mandat.
But if they would get such a mandat, they are able to do their jobs more or less as effectively as the NATO could do it.
But no islamic nations are members of the NATO. And the idea was that islamic nations send their soldiers and not the western nations of the NATO.
I'm also against a mandat of the U.N. in which the blue helmets aren't allowed to do their job. If they are there to establish security in Iraq, they need self-evident the allowance to use force - ergo a robust mandat.
But if they would get such a mandat, they are able to do their jobs more or less as effectively as the NATO could do it.
But no islamic nations are members of the NATO. And the idea was that islamic nations send their soldiers and not the western nations of the NATO.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
The problem is that it is virtually impossible to get a mission with balls from the UN. To the point where most reputable nations will not even submit their troops to a UN run mission. Hence why we've seen the UN relegated to second tier duties like running aid while NATO or the AU runs the military portion of things.Who is like God arbour wrote:The question is, how robust the mandat from the U.N. is.
I'm also against a mandat of the U.N. in which the blue helmets aren't allowed to do their job. If they are there to establish security in Iraq, they need self-evident the allowance to use force - ergo a robust mandat.
But if they would get such a mandat, they are able to do their jobs more or less as effectively as the NATO could do it.
But no islamic nations are members of the NATO. And the idea was that islamic nations send their soldiers and not the western nations of the NATO.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
Turkey is laical and the Turkish military considers itself the guardian of Turkey's secular democracy.
And the Turkey curry favour with western nations.
Although there are still mainly islamic citizens in Turkey, I doubt that the Turkish military would be considered the same as forces from "real" islamic nations. They would be considered as western forces.
It could still be better than U.S. troops but forces from "real" islamic nations would be better.
And the Turkey curry favour with western nations.
Although there are still mainly islamic citizens in Turkey, I doubt that the Turkish military would be considered the same as forces from "real" islamic nations. They would be considered as western forces.
It could still be better than U.S. troops but forces from "real" islamic nations would be better.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
That was so in the past. But that doesn't has to mean that it will be so in the future. The U.N. Security Council has the competence to give a robust mandat. That would however need the assent of all permanent members. That's not a legal problem but a political problem.Cpl Kendall wrote:The problem is that it is virtually impossible to get a mission with balls from the UN. To the point where most reputable nations will not even submit their troops to a UN run mission. Hence why we've seen the UN relegated to second tier duties like running aid while NATO or the AU runs the military portion of things.
But I don't see why the permanent members should object such resolution.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
That may be.Cpl Kendall wrote:Forces from islamic nations are almost to a tee, fraking useless. You'd be better off deploying a street gang and you'd probably get less human rights abuses out of them.
But the problem is that every time a western soldier violates human rights or religious traditions, they say: "See the western nations. They preach human rights and religious tolerance but in reality they don't respect and even spurn our values and don't even uphold their own values."
That is the best recruiting program the terrorists can wish for.
But - if that are islamic forces - they can't use this propaganda anymore.
And the Security Council would still has the control and authority for all troops that would be send to Iraq. He can use its possibilies to assure that these forces are bound to certain rules.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
That'd be great if it was the SC that was responsible for drawing up the ROE for the mission.Who is like God arbour wrote: That was so in the past. But that doesn't has to mean that it will be so in the future. The U.N. Security Council has the competence to give a robust mandat. That would however need the assent of all permanent members. That's not a legal problem but a political problem.
But I don't see why the permanent members should object such resolution.
- Who is like God arbour
- Starship Captain
- Posts: 1155
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
- Location: Germany
I don't understand.Cpl Kendall wrote:That'd be great if it was the SC that was responsible for drawing up the ROE for the mission.
The Security Council has the competence to draw up the Rules Of Engagements. He can do it for each peacekeeping mission anew and different than he has done it before.
He can give these forces the competence to use force of arms to establish security and all what is necessary and comparative to do so.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
Your describing US troops not Commonwealth troops, who get extensive training on the culture they are policing. In East Timor an Australian infantry platoon had an armed standoff with an African AU nations troops, who were Islamic I believe over the fact that these AU troops were going to rape a village worth of woman and children. They even had an armed helicopter to back them up. The AU troops had to resort to raping goats because the Western troops wouldn't let them rape the locals. So you see the quality that you want to deal in. This is why the problem in Darfur is not getting any better, because the AU troops deployed are as useless as tits on a bull and refuse to engage the militia. And there are already reports of rapes coming out, being performed by the AU troops.Who is like God arbour wrote:
That may be.
But the problem is that every time a western soldier violates human rights or religious traditions, they say: "See the western nations. They preach human rights and religious tolerance but in reality they don't respect and even spurn our values and don't even uphold their own values."
That is the best recruiting program the terrorists can wish for.
But - if that are islamic forces - they can't use this propaganda anymore.
Yeah good luck with that. Nine times out of ten you can't get the SC to agree on the colour of the sky. You'll never get them to enforce an ROE with balls on a mission, even if that was part of their pervue.And the Security Council would still has the control and authority for all troops that would be send to Iraq. He can use its possibilies to assure that these forces are bound to certain rules.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:30 pm
- Contact:
The SC just approves the general use of force and the approval of the mission. The actual ROE is decided by UN flunkies.Who is like God arbour wrote:
I don't understand.
The Security Council has the competence to draw up the Rules Of Engagements. He can do it for each peacekeeping mission anew and different than he has done it before.
He can give these forces the competence to use force of arms to establish security and all what is necessary to do so.
- Cock_Knocker
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:07 am
Hehehe! My favorite moment of this meltdown is Darkstar accusing Mr. Oragahn of being a tinfoil hatter, by referring to my comparison about the "Secret Warsie Support Group Which Wrote The ICS!" You know, the very conspiracy that he himself created?Cpl Kendall wrote:Wow, just wow. I think I'll just let the insanity speak for itself here.
That's like Jim Jones saying, "Gaa! This punch is fuckin' terrible. Who made this shit?"