In case you've forgotten

[Razor]

This is from a friend of mine that's now a SGM for one of the companies out of Group working in K-town:

Hi,
The following article is about some of my guys. The bad guys are
Kosovar-Albanian rebels and not Serbs. They live in a 3 mile buffer zone
which KFOR and Yugoslav troops can't enter. It's a catch-22 zone. Be assured
that my guys are doing everything proper and having a great time. Have a
Merry Christmas. M-

U.S. Troops Fired Upon in Kosovo

By FISNIK ABRASHI
.c The Associated Press

PRISTINA, Yugoslavia (AP) - Gunmen fired on a joint American-Russian patrol
Sunday as it tried to seal the boundary between Kosovo and part of southern
Serbia where ethnic Albanian rebels have been challenging Yugoslav forces,
the U.S. Army said.

Peacekeepers suffered no casualties in the attack, the first reported against
NATO-led troops since ethnic Albanian rebels escalated cross-border raids in
November. The joint patrol returned fire but it was unclear whether the
attackers, whose identity was unknown, suffered casualties, U.S. Army
spokeswoman Capt. Alayne Cramer said in a statement.

The attack occurred one day after a violent incident in northwestern Kosovo,
in which Serbs angry over the arrest of a motorist set fire to a police
station, stoned vehicles and briefly took seven Belgian soldiers hostage. Two
Serbs died in the melee in the town of Leposavic and one was wounded, raising
tensions in this troubled province.

The U.S. statement said the shooting attack occurred about 1:30 p.m. as the
patrol was trying to seal the boundary near the village of Gornje Karacevo
about 30 miles southeast of Pristina.

Peacekeepers had just detonated a series of explosive charges to destroy a
section of road believed used by the militants when they received small arms
fire, the statement said.

"The Multinational Brigade East was continuing the boundary closure efforts
to prevent the flow of supplies and movement of armed ethnic groups across
the border," the statement added. "No suspects have been detained."

The new democratic government of Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica has
been urging the NATO-led force in Kosovo to crack down on the ethnic Albanian
extremists of the Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja and Bujanovac, known
by its Albanian-language acronym UCPMB.

Last month, the rebels killed four Yugoslav policemen and seized several
positions in the three-mile-wide buffer zone along the Yugoslav side of the
boundary. The zone was established in June 1999 to prevent Belgrade's forces
from threatening the peacekeepers who took over Kosovo after the 78-day NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia, launched to force then-President Slobodan Milosevic to
halt his crackdown against Kosovo Albanians.

Yugoslav forces cannot use heavy weapons in the zone, and so the ethnic
Albanians have been operating in the area with impunity. They are trying to
drive Yugoslav forces from the area, which has an ethnic Albanian majority
but is not part of Kosovo.

[MFFI]

I have a feeling that our 'position' is gonna change in about 3 weeks or so...

We just got a new boss, and I think he has a different view on how these kind of issues should be dealt with...

but hey, I could be wrong

[Sharky]

I just hope that we bring all our guys home where they belong. I hope that will be our new bosses priority. I'd also like to see him tell the UN to shove it up their ass and pull us out of it.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[Snake]

I'll second that....

Snake
25th ID(L)

[Marauder]

So the right to life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness ends at the 49th parallel, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and all points in between?
Don't the kids in the warzone deserve a chance for peace? They will never see it if people from the developed nations don't try to help end all the shit going on. The problem is that the UN is trying to be too delicate, instead of letting the peacekeepers revert back to being soldiers every once in awhile to take out the people disrupting the peace. Until some Western country finds the will, money, and personnel to set up a SF type group who specializes in inserting into wartorn countries and setting up local defense and police goups, diplomatic protocols, infrastructure, schools, and hospitals, then ad-hoc groups of soldiers, LE officers, diplomats, and medical personnel are the best interim solution to these types of problems.
Isn't America supposed to be a champion for peace and freedom for all people? Or is it problematic that peacekeeping involves an extended time investment, as oppossed to jumping into some pissant country and hosing the place down when they don't conform to American policy directives?
This is why I hope I am long dead on the day your future leadership comes to the conclusion that America has exhausted its natural resources, mainly water, and starts looking north with a covetous eye and a clenched fist. I would not be able to stand seeing my country torn apart and subjegated to satisfy the greed and corpulence of your leadership and private sector.

[infantry317]

Marauder, you are right i.m.o. in many ways, as far as not just picking and chosing battles when American dollars are at stake. But there is no need to be a snotty liberal about it. Our current chief has done NOTHING good for the military of the U.S. Have you ever even shot a gun? By the way I've been to Canada several times, there's nothing up there you need to defend.

Lightfighter, out!

[rgr-jc]

Marauder,
Maybe the U.N. seems great to the Canadians. I personally, think they (U.N.)have overstepped their bounds long ago. I am tired of Kofi and the boys sending my country's military to every shit hole every time you turn around. What ever happened to a nation's sovereignty? Let a nation slug it out amongst themselves if that is what they want to do. I understand that the U.N. is the main reason your country has a military anymore. I am sure that most people in the U.S. would have no problem letting you guys pick up our share of the peacekeeping. The U.N. is pure evil and should be dissolved.

jc

[Enfield]

Sharky - the US HAS been telling the UN to shove it for 50 years or so. The UN is hamstrung because of the massive debt owed by the US, and the fact that until very recently they wouldn't touch peacekeeping.

Where exactly is there a large contingent of US troops operating under UN control? IFOR and KFOR are NATO ops.

Razor's post is defintly relevent - just because CNN stops covering it doesn't mean the shooting's stopped. I second Sharky's thought that all the troops overseas - US, Canadian, and others - come home safely.

Marauder- The US, nor anybody else, should be expected to be a GloboCop. Yes, everyone deserves to have peace, security, and freedom. I don't want to be harsh, and i realize that every situation is different, but Why Can't The Locals Do It Themselves? The West can't be everywhere all the time, and nations have to weigh the interests of humanity and themselves when they act. Yes, I believe in peacekeeping, but i don't believe in throwingtroops to the far corners of the earth while sacrificing war fighting and combat ability. Moderation and necessity must be taken into account - choose your battles!

I have to respect that the US has a huge number of deployments at the moment, and they are contributing to the world just as much as Canada or anybody. They may not have the most altruistic motivations, but that's understandable. Nice thoughts were not going win the Gulf War.

Enfield

[Sharky]

Good thoughts by all but let me say this: I am not a globalist, I am an American. The US cannot be all things to all people. I personally don't give a damn what little voodoo faction is shooting up what other faction in some third-world shithole. Our soldiers are sworn to defend the United States and noone else. The lives of our soldiers are a precious commodity that should not be wasted on some third-world dictator bullshit religious squabble that will NEVER be settled without a war and has nothing whatsoever to do with the security of the United States.

If Canada places the value of the lives of another country's citizens above the lives of her own citizens and soldiers, so be it. I understand that people are dying and human rights violations abound. It's a tough world. It's not fair. I agree with you on that. However, it's not our problem. Leave them alone and let them fight it out amongst themselves. It's the nature of the beast. The strong will survive. People will die as they have for thousands of years and will continue to do so for thousands more.

Take a look back at history and see how many problems peacekeeping forces have ever solved. Not many. There will always be war. There will always be the haves and the have nots. Not fair. Just the way it is. Don't expect me to support a policy that sends my brothers into harms way so they can die fighting an unwinnable war that the US has no interest in.

Take a look at the Middle East. Do you really think that if Israel and Palestine sign a treaty that there will be peace. That's laughable. A piece of paper will not change what is in peoples hearts. That is a conflict of religious beliefs that goes back hundreds of years and neither side will ever be able to appreciate the views of the other. Both are willing to die for their beliefs. A piece of paper will never change that. Before there will ever be peace in the middle east there will be war. One side will have to decimate the other. Peace is achieved through strength and the willingness of the people to fight. Do you really think that the Gulf war was fought to liberate Kuwait? It was about oil. We had a legitimate interest in freeing Kuwait. Our nation depends on that oil. If it weren't for that oil would we have deployed the same forces and done everything the same? No. But it gave everyone back home a warm fuzzy feeling to think that we were helping them out because we cared.

I could ramble on and on but I think you see my point. Let me also say that this is just my personal opinion. You have a more liberal outlook and I have a more conservative outlook. I doubt either of us will change our views no matter what is said. It's just the way of the world.

P.S. If we wanted Canada we would have had it a long time ago.

------------------
F.I.D.O.

[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 01-05-2001).]

[MFFI]

Hey Marauder, maybe you should grab a weapon and walk a few miles in a third world country full of "kids in the war zone" who could give a fuck less if you are there or not... Peace is a free option jackass, it only requires that 2 people/parties/factions simply stop arguing. All the white tanks and blue berets on this planet cant create peace... Dont tell me about the US not caring about peace you uninformed shithead! I watched Canadian RCMP's drink and party instead of working, Phillipino "international policemen" bully the locals, Jordanians who "love ALLAH" chase whores, and Argentinians sit around eating all day. ALL of these lazy pricks collected "UN PAY" and got catered to by the American brass... While MY brothers in arms lived in tin shacks and got stuck patrolling the countryside becasue the other "PEACEKEEPERS" where either tired, hungover or missing.......

So to answer your question WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS OF PEACE AND FREEDOM! We WILL lead the worlds horses to water, but when they dont drink, screw em! If you think there is a universe where ... I believe you said...
"The problem is that the UN is trying to be too delicate, instead of letting the peacekeepers revert back to being soldiers every once in awhile to take out the people disrupting the peace."
.......You have lost your wits. There is no such transition... you are ALWAYS a soldier! Your demeanor and presence demands peace, or you hit someone in the chest with a D-cell maglite until they agree with you.
If you havent noticed, these countries have been helped, prodded and propped up for centuries... they dont want our help or they would try harder. If they do want our help... 'fuckem they dont deserve it or they would at least TRY to show an effort. Look in a dictionary moron... peacekeeping and peacemaking are 2 different things. If they won't MAKE peace, WE cant keep the peace. Your last paragraph is the one that makes me want to vomit the most.......

"This is why I hope I am long dead on the day your future leadership comes to the conclusion that America has exhausted its natural resources, mainly water, and starts looking north with a covetous eye and a clenched fist. I would not be able to stand seeing my country torn apart and subjegated to satisfy the greed and corpulence of your leadership and private sector."

How can any man wish for death above the HONOR of defending your "beloved" homeland from ...."covetous eyes... clenched fists... greed... corpulence etc"..... Dude you dont deserve to have it as good as you 'got it

I hope you are long dead that day also... because I dont think I could stomach the look of PURE cowardice in your eye as I satisfy my 'greed and corpulence' from your homelands resources.... or the look of helpless heartbreak in your eyes as I tear your country apart and subjugate your countrymen!


To everyone else.... sorry I lost my temper so soon after getting to this board. I apologize for fostering the American spirit.


[This message has been edited by MFFI (edited 01-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by MFFI (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Rapier]

Sharky, I could not have put it in better words myself.

[JY]

Sharky, pure poetry my friend http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/biggrin.gif

MFFI, BRAVO!A tip of the hat to you sir!

Had a tirade all worked up, you two have lowered my blood preasure, thank you both.

Take care...Jim

"I am not a peace keeper, play nice or I'll burn yer friggin hootches."

[wolfhound227]

I think the trick for the U.S. in the future will be figuring out HOW to be the lone superpower.I think we (the US) should conduct ourselves like Don Corlione.The problem is that we've been acting like a cross between Don Quixote and Don Knotts.

MFFI - I'm saving that post.That was great.

[Cole]

I think that peacekeeping is a nice idea that is doomed to failure by too many restrictions in the long run. To play bloody little sandbox war games you have to play by their rules, not some idealistic rules drawn up by bureacrats in Vienna or New York.
However, the isolationism I pick up in the above comments is the start of something I see as dangerous. It reminds of the "boat in the sea" analogy...I know anologies are suspect but I think this is a good one.
The West is in the boat. We have good living conditions and a reletivly peaceful environment. In the water drowning are 90% of the worlds populations that live in shitholes like Rwanda, the Former Yugoslavia, and Somalia. With more and more people fleeing warfare, genocide, economic hardship and a host of other nasties, mass migrations are bound to become more and more common in the future. With more people drowning in the water trying to get on the boat, the chance of the boat being capsized and all of us drowning becomes very real.
Now, I know this is a bit abstract. Sharky, you work the border, I think you can tell stories of the desperation of some of the illegals. I think the U.S.A. has the duty as the Captain of this boat to at least try and help some of the drowning people...this is a matter of national interest to both you and I.
But, peacekeeping to me does not seem to be working. We've had Canadians parked in Cypress for how many years? 25? This is not my idea of an effective use of force. Also, ask the friends and family of the Belgian Paratroopers butchered in Rwanda due to idiotic UN orders. I can see where hostility to the UN comes from. I know if I were in charge and the UN asked for men under my command, who I was responsible for, I would probably say "No Way."
Perhaps next time, the UN should ask the soldiers it will be sticking blue hats on how the problem should be solved...and maybe something will get done. Sorry for the rant...its just I have no one else who will listen to me but you guys <sniff>....

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 01-05-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 01-05-2001).]

[rgr-jc]

Good rule of thumb that applies to most everything:
If Bill and Hillary support it, it must be wrong.

People need to wake up and forget about this "global village" shit the U.N. is trying to feed them. The world resents the U.S. now more than ever, mostly because of the U.N. sanctioned deployments. We cannot be everything to everybody as someone said earlier. I really could go on all day about how warped that the United Nations really is. Damn, I really need a drink now. Here's to America!!

jc

[Marauder]

First of all, I would like to thank you, Sharky, for sharing your opinion in a civil and informative way, unlike others on here.

Don't expect me to support a policy that sends my brothers into harms way so they can die fighting an unwinnable war that the US has no interest in. A lot of people said the same thing about the Vietnam War. Did all the men who died there give less of a sacrifice because it had no direct effect on American security? Yes, supposedly they were there to try and turn back the Communist beachhead there before it infected the rest of SE Asia. But even after the NVA rolled into Saigon, the rest of SE Asia didn't fall under Communist sway. So what did all those men die for? I would hope that it was to try and keep the South Vietnamese free of the North's tyranny. From the way I see it, some of the current brushfires around the world are the same, one group of people is trying to subjagate another group who is not as wealthy/armed/trained/etc. Thing is, this time it isn't nation states doing the subjagating, but instead select groups of people who, if they were younger, would pass as the school yard bully, except that they have rifles and explosives.
I think it should be kept in mind that these kinds of situations breed both chaos and hatred, the seeds of international terrorism. If you let "the locals" go ahead and mobablize their population to fight back, then you are going to produce a lot of hardened, bitter, and capable soldiers, some of whom will lose family in the conflict. There are few things I know of that will better blacken the soul of a man than to lose someone he loves. Now, those who survive Darwin's waiting room are going to become commodities for terrorists. Think about it. You have lost your home, your family, your way of life. What do you have left? Then imagine someone coming to you and asking you why the rich West, where there is peace, food, and the basics of life to spare, did not step in. Surely the people who live a place where some homes shame the castles and palaces of old in both granduer and size had the money and time to step in and help you fight the men who destroyed your home and kill your beloved wife and children. Didn't they? And as easy as that, there is another man willing to kill and terrorize the innocents of another land, showing them the same mercy they showed you and yours. Is it right? No. Are they being mislead? Yeah. Do they give a shit? NO way in hell. By then it has become a security problem for not only American soldiers, but also for Western civilians who could now be targeted in the future.

I am tired of Kofi and the boys sending my country's military to every shit hole every time you turn around. What ever happened to a nation's sovereignty? Is it Kofi Annon who signs the orders that deploy those forces? Is it Annon who decides how many of which unit is going? Is it Annon who pays for the salaries, the food, the gas, the ammo? Take it up with your Executive Branch and the JCS. Is America in jeopardy of losing its soveriegnty any time soon? America doesn't have to do anything. Your tax, industrial, and population base allow you to field the most technologically advanced and best trained army in all of history, even with the cutbacks you bemoan at every turn. You still have nukes pointed every which way. Do you really think you'll have to do anything your Executive Branch doesn't want your country to do? There is no one insane enough to try fighting a conventional war on American soil. They don't want their cities turned into glass parking lots where the lines have been painted in by Marines. No one nation is that suicidal. If anything, everyone should be afraid of America destroying their soveriegnty. I'm not saying you should do it, but you are the only nation who could order around any other nation on the planet through strength of armed force alone(to not even mention economic force). You are doing it in Iraq right now, not that that is neccessarily a bad thing.

If you havent noticed, these countries have been helped, prodded and propped up for centuries... mainly by America, to make sure American industrialists were being kept fat, rich, and happy. Know where the term "banana republic" came from? Know why Castro had plenty of help to throw out Batista? Coulda been prevented by a less overtly greedy and hostile group of American plantation owners.
What did aiding and abetting the Contras gain for Nicaruaga? And as was mentioned, would the US have lifted a hand for Kuwait or Saudi if the gas you put in the tank of your cars, tanks, and planes wasn't at stake? Certainly not, but because American oil companies were going to take a giant hit, you stepped into the ring.
And MuFFIbag, as for my defending my country, if Dubya the Boywonder decided he wanted to level Ottawa becasue he had heard that a Canadian had chuckled at his utter lack of knowledge about anything but coke and booze, then I would be among the first to ask for a rifle. I have no illusions that I wouldn't die soon after. Hell, I might end up like that Russian in the video that DFC???? loves to jerk off to. I know that and understand that. Hell, I even accept that. If I had any say in it, I would die on my feet with a rifle in my hands defending the ones I love. So fuck you ma'am, if you want to think me a coward, well, that's your perogative, but you have no gaddamn clue who I am or what I could/would do.
JY, I know that you hate the UN, but I don't recall seeing why that is. I would honestly and sincerely like to know your thoughts on the matter. All I ask is that you do not attack me for holding the opinion that I have.
And to all, I ask that you pardon my inexcusible crime of holding ALL human life sacred.

[This message has been edited by Marauder (edited 01-05-2001).]

[Sharky]

To borrow your analogy,

1. The boat is full.

2. The boat has it's own problems onboard as it has leaks and people down below, who are already on the boat and members of the crew are drowning also.

3. The people in the water don't want our help. Most are too busy fighting the others in the water and drowning to see that the water is only two feet deep and all they need to do is stand up.

4. If they want to sail with us they need to pull together on their own and start building their own boat. It's a long and painful process but so was ours. Our boat did not build itself. We are not responsible and should not be expected to build this boat for them. We have our hands full maintaining our own boat. They have done nothing but talk of a boat while they continue to fight and drown.

5. Wanna build your own boat? Fine, we'll let you borrow the blueprints and once you show us that you are through fighting, stand up and start building your boat we would be more than happy to help as much as we can. Until that time comes, we should worry about taking care of those who are drowning on OUR boat.

6. It's all well and good to want to help the idiots who are drowning until some bastard throws your son or daughter overboard with no plan except to help somehow. He'll stand there and watch said son or daughter drown then shake his head and go back to the VIP suite of the boat to watch TV with his children and wonder why the plan didn't work.

Thanks for the analogy. It fits rather well.

We posted about the same time Marauder so I'll edit and add to my post here.

First, I was six years old when Saigon fell so I have a very limited knowledge of the Vietnam war. Do I think that the sacrifice of those soldiers was less? Sorry, but that is a stupid question. Every American soldier that died in every war that we have fought made the same sacrifice. Do I think we should have been in Vietnam? No. Absolutely not. Is that the fault of the soldiers who went anyway instead of burning their draft cards and running to Canada like cowards? No. The blame lies within the top levels of our own government for committing our troops to a war with no clear objective and then expecting them to fight with their hands tied. I personally think that the Vietnam war could have been won if the Military would have been allowed to run the war and not some politician in DC. Our soldiers who went to Vietnam deserve nothing less than our deepest respect for the sacrifices that were made there. Our government deserved nothing less than our deepest scorn for wasting the lives of our sons and daughters because their politics were greater than their resolve. I am trying to keep this on a friendly level. I would advise you not to ask questions that will be taken as a personal shot. Questioning my appreciation for those soldiers who gave their lives in Vietnam will definitely put me in the combat mode. Our troops on the ground in RVN did what they were told. They did not make policy, only carried it out like they were supposed to, flawed though it was. They weren't fighting to stop the Communist tide. They were fighting for the guys in their squad and platoon to keep each other alive so they could go home. Just like every grunt in every war has done for hundreds of years. In the interest of keeping this on a friendly level, I'm gonna let that comment slide. This time.
------------------
F.I.D.O.

[This message has been edited by Sharky (edited 01-05-2001).]

[JSOCMarine]

Sharky,
Very well said! Right on the money. I for one am quite tired of some folks here using rather thinly veiled anti-American sentiment in their posts. To be quite honest most of it seems to emanate from points North and certain snail eating or oil producing countries to the East. I have heard or seen this for years in foreign countries, many of whom we literally saved at some point in history, some more than once. Before someone rushes to point out that others were there too, sure they were. But let's have no doubts about who has always ponied up the bulk of men, materiel and money.

The U.N. is a pathetic and corrupt organization. Many folks, including some here are always harping about the dues we owe the U.N. I have an idea. How about every nation that still owes us money from as far back as WW I pay up (with interest) so we can use the proceeds to pay our dues? You'd be surprised how many countries fall into the debtor category. Then we'll stop pumping huge quantities of money into the many nations we support so we'll be sure not to fall behind on our dues again. Any volunteers to stop receiving billions in American aid each year? The silence is deafening.

Marauder, as an American I will put a different slant on your question "don't the children,etc...in other countries...deserve a chance...etc". I want to know why we should put those kids future above our poor kids in Appalachia or the various inner city ghettos right here in America? My vote says keep the money here and unfuck our own problems. Once we are done we can consider taking care of the rest of the world. Just my opinion.

Sometimes luck is a major factor in life, and I truly thank God that I was born an American. Sounds corny, but I am aware that there are millions of others around the world who wish they were. I dont take it for granted, rather I am extremely grateful, to the point that I devoted 24 years of my life serving my country and defending it.

As far as fighting for oil you are right on the money (no pun intended). America (and your country) depends on oil. It's way of life and standard of living is very dependent on it. There's no way we will ever let the flow of oil stop and thus turn us into a nation similar to some of the shitholes I have visited during my career in the Corps. Truth be known, someday when the price gets too high we will have to go seize that oil and make that area a township of the U.S. Maybe not in our lifetime but it will happen and the majority of the world will support us doing so. Why? Because we'll only be a step ahead of the Chinese and the rest of the world knows that at least we'll share the oil.

See, as someone said in an earlier post, there will always be war. And unlike some countries who get to practice Peacekeeping as their main military competency, the U.S. has to maintain the capability not only to protect itself but also it's "allies", many of whom never waste an opportunity to criticize us. In fact, many nations national defense policies literally include U.S. intervention as a key part of their war plans! Not naming any names mind you.

When I was a Command and Staff College student a Canadian General named Romeo Dallaire came to speak to us. He immediately started chastising the U.S. for not embracing Peacekeeping with the same enthusiasm as his country. When pressed by a British Marine in the class who asked "General, isn't it easy for your country and mine to devote more energy and assets to Peacekeeping knowing we have an ally such as the U.S. who will come to our aid if we are threatened?", the General turned red and did not answer. He literally did not answer. Needless to say, I thought it was a rather classless move on the General's part to come into our country,on our dime and lecture us about how fucked up we were in his opinion. I remember the South Korean Marine LtCol sitting next to me turning beet red with anger. He grabbed my arm and said, " I just want you to know that the majority of my people know in their hearts that we owe America a lot, and we thank you for helping us." I told him "No problem Colonel. Maybe next time you and I will get to finish the job!"

By the way, this General later claimed to be suffering from a nervous breakdown and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of all of the bad stuff he had seen on Peacekeeping duty! Claimed he had seen to many starving children and that the massacres in Rwanda put him over the edge. I could not believe it. It's a true story, check it out you'll see I am correct. It was in the national as well as world press. I wish him well. I really do. Wonder what he's doing now?

Finally, for those who seem to have a problem with the U.S.'s wealth and prosperity, large military forces, status as the only World Super Power,etc., I advise you to ponder a few thoughts. At one time, all of our countries were primitive, poor, underdeveloped,etc. In fact, the majority of nations had a significant head start on the U.S., in some cases hundreds of years. For various reasons the U.S. managed to get it's shit in one bag early on and has continued to grow and develop, to the point where we quickly became a major player on the world scene and are now the major player. Not that the U.S. is without problems, it has many, some very serious. But, it seems to me that the team that was best led and most united has risen to the top of the league.

Not insulting anyone here, but everyone had and still has the opportunity to build a strong nation. It's time for people outside the U.S. to start placing blame where it really should be, in their own backyards, instead of blaming the U.S. for the evils of the world and the shortcomings of their own countries. It gets old after a while.

I am an older fella and I remember when Alabama football was so dominant that other coaches started complaining about the asswhippings they were suffering at the hands of Coach Bear Bryant's team. When asked about this on national TV by a sportscaster Coach Bryant got a puzzled look on his face and said in his southern drawl, "Well, I reckon if they don't like losing they should see about getting some better players!" Think about it.

OK, enough of the musings of an old man. Semper Fi.

[Cole]

Marauder, take it easy; I know this is the internet, but your stepping on some big toes. Try and keep it civil bro....
Sharky, some very good points and I agree with many of them. 2 points of reply....

1) If your talking about building our own boat, I believe Canada already has. This isn't strictly a naval vessal, so I am taking other things into account. Next to the US, Canada is one of the oldest existing democracies in the world....
Lets just say that Britain built the boat, and the US has just been waiving the moorage fees. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif

2) True, most of the backbush animals in the water don't deserve to be on our boat, but I guess I could say we should make sure that we don't forget about these guys in the water trying to mess with our boat while we fix it, otherwise if we finish, we might be cruising in some reefs.

JSOCMarine, I do not wish to argue the inadaquecies of the UN, as I find the more I discuss it, the more apparent the uselessness of the organization becomes. (One of my IR professors clearly described me as "clearly of the realist school". ) However my argument with Sharky is that the US, as the de facto superpower, should hold it as a matter of national interest to deal with with (not all though) global problems. I believe all the people talking about the US "oweing" this or that say this because the US readily (due to a communist threat) took on the world superpower role, and no one, even Americans, are quite sure what this role entails in the Post-Cold War political arena.
Well, we could send cannonballs back and forth at each other on this issue, but I won't. I've seen both of your credentials and I believe this gives you the right, more than most others, to disagree with the "sailing conditions" of our boat. Hell, I haven't even lived for 24 years. I have enjoyed the discussion and will now beat a hasty retreat. http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 01-05-2001).]

[billy]

I'm going to step into this mess, against my better judgement.

I agree with all everyone has said against UN peacekeeping/peacemaking missions. I fully concur that they are mis-managed and usually doomed to failure. On the Bosnia side of the house I have to take mauraders' side (except for that last bit of drunken babble). I see the posts and wonder how many of the people posting have ever been to the region.

Yes, Enfield, we do need to choose our battles. This was one we should have chosen and decided to pursue.

Sharky, this place was not a "voodo faction third world shithole", but a first world area. Actually, it was the teachers pet of democracy and America, since Tito broke from the USSR.

What occured in Bosnia is beyond belief. Comparing it to Israel and Palestine is like comparing a dripping faucet to the Niagra river. Rock throwing and the occasional bomb does not compare to the mass murder and horrible atrocities that occured. We, as America, had the ability to stop the carnage, and we chose to ignore it. To me, it is unexcusable.

My analogy is the Central Park Rape scenerio. Say you are walking through central park late one night. You look over and see a young girl getting gang raped. What do you do? Do you walk away? No - you attack and stop the rape. Why? She is not your sister. You don't even know her. She cannot affect your life in any way. You do it because it is the right thing to do.

Yes, Bosnia isn't a security concern for the US. True, we could turn our back and walk away. We shouldn't, because like the gang rape, we are the only country that has the ability to stop the slaughter and it is the right thing to do.

I'm not saying we should step in every where and be the "global policemen", but anyone who knows anything about Bosnia would realize that that was not your everyday "things going to shit now" situation. It deserved American attention, and didn't get it.

[MFFI]

Just to set things straight...
I have spent my share of time working on UN projects; I also know what it is like when members of your unit meet with an untimely end. ALL of my doings with UN related missions have been less than pleasant because we (American soldiers) had to play by the "UN" rules. I have worked with numerous foriegn militaries, but I can count on one hand the armies that also 'followed the rules'. Yet despite the time and effort layed out by American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines there are still people that claim America to be "the fat lazy son-in-law" that nobody likes. I can promise you... the poorest countries in the world are the ones with leaders who prosper through misery.
As far as the "jillions" of dollars everyone is always demanding in repayment by the US... Like I said in my first post, US soldiers do not get UN pay, we work while other contingents are drinking, fishing, and sneaking across the boarders to chase whores. The vehicles that end up getting painted white are OURS. They are driven with reckless abandon, then given back to us to fix, while they grab another one. The aircraft that bring 'beans and bullets' almost ALWAYS say "USAF" on the tail. The civilian contractors that build the camps are paid with US dollars. I could go on forever..... There is a word for all the talk about how all the US does is suck money from the UN and then run out without paying the check... its called PROPAGANDA. Give me some numbers, give me a source, give me a reference... I will go see for myself then gladly come back and apologize.
Marauder, if you feel that way in your heart towards the U.S. by all means... feel free to live your life without us. I am sure there are many others like me who would be glad to leave you alone in this world. I will gladly come to the aid of any American ally, even you if you asked for help, but I am a quick learner; once I am burned, I keep my hand away from the flame.
You are quite correct I dont know you... I dont know anything about you... I only know the persona you offer up to us here on this board and based on that, I dont think we will ever manage to share a cold beer together... or a warm beer, or even a canteen cup full of pine needle tea...

I do applaud you for gettting mad and showing a little spunk, even though I think your views on 'global relations' are uninformed at best. There is a vast difference between the drivel that is printed in history books, and what happens in the dust 5000 miles from the printing press.


"Cant we all just get along?"

[Marauder]

Sharky, please understand that I was not taking a shot at you. I agree with you completely. The men who served in Vietnam are men I am in awe in of. Like you said, they went knowing the gov't had hamstrung them, and I can not explain how much I admire the courage they had to go and fight anyway.
The "movtivation" I was speaking of was not the tactical level one, which I will NOT argue with as you have been there and done that. I was speaking of the supposed reason given for the strategic justification that some of the "higher-ups" gave to explain their wasting the lives of a generation of young men. When I asked if the sacrifice of the men who went to Vietnam was any less because they didn't "win" that war, I was being rhetorical. Like I said before, Sharky, I share the exact same view as you. The military should have been allowed to run the war if the pols insisted on going forward with it. That's what operations officers get paid for. I hope this clarifies what I said about that, and would like to thank you for not responding in a profane manner. I do appreciate your intelligent discussion, even if we do have opposing opinions. Same goes for you, JSOCMarine, thanks for keeping it civil and intelligent.
Cole, as for my stepping on toes, I think that if there is one thing people are entitled to, it is their opinion. It should not be bound, strictured, or censored no matter what, even if expressing it brings you harm or death. I feel it is an obligation to speak my mind when I see something I don't agree with, if for no other reason than to try to ensure that people have the chance to consider the other side of their argument. Even if I am pissing into the wind like I apparently am here. We may not agree with each other, but we all have the same idea of trying to show everyone else their ideas on different issues. I hope that I have given people something to think about, as I know others on here have given me some reason to pause and consider their position. They all make sense, I just don't happen to agree with EVERYTHING they say. Having guys like Sharky and JSOC keep it civil and on target make it easier to see things as they do, again not that I totally agree with them. If you think that some guy on here would track me down and do me harm or worse for sharing my opinion in a public forum, well, first of all, props to them for finding me. And to tell the truth, I don't much give a shit if they do. If I disappeared tommorrow, the world would not stop on its axis. So long as the people I love and care for go on, then I would not hesitate to walk into the long night if my time is up. So, to sum up, no I will not shut up so long as I have an opinion to share and feel I can do it in an intelligent and civil manner.
And MFFI,.... I do agree with you on one thing, the history books will never give the true tone and all the facts on what happens in this world, because they are written by the victors, who WILL ALWAYS gloss over or omit things that do not show the world how great and godly and perfect they are. If there had been some horrific and freakish twist in fate and Hitler had won WWII, do think the world would have remembered, or even learned, that the concentration camps existed? The "history" books would have remembered the war as "border skirmishs" and "police actions" instead of the knock-down drag-out instigated by Hitler's arrogance, racism, and megolamania it really was. Don't mistake me for some dipshit 14 year old with stars in his eyes about how great and "cool" everything is just because one other person said it is so. I've lived too long and seen to much for that. Call me uninformed all you want, but my _hope_ is that I might see the community of nations become a somewhat peaceful one while I live. I am not so stupid or naive as to think there will ever be lasting world peace while any two humans live. The vestiges of hate, greed, and jealousy that lay in every human heart preclude that. But I keep that dream with me, just as I keep the knowledge that there will be times when people must step up and fight those who would seek to destroy unity and peace. As for the rest... well, my grandfather taught me to never argue with closed minds, lest people start to wonder if I might not suffer from the same condition.

[Cole]

Marauder, I totally agree what with you say, and on the whole, I have to say I have found I have enjoyed your conversations as they are courteous and have a point. My advice for you was directed at your comments such as "MuFFIbag", "so fuck you ma'am", and " I would be among the first to ask for a rifle," which were somewhat inflammatory and out of the arena of what you described as "intelligent and civil." Remember, we Canucks are guests on the SF board, so lets not try to wear our welcome.
Anyways, I have decided not to make a full retreat yet. This issue was nagging me last night so I pulled out the old IR text. I found an interesting excerpt by Edward Luttwak. I won't bore you with dry theory but basically he said that peacekeeping has caused "the compounding of its (war) evils by disinterested interventions" and that "The United States should dissuade multilateral interventions instead of leading them." He sums up these points by reasoning that "these seemingly perverse measures...(would) let (war) serve its sole useful function: to bring peace."
A nice refreshment to the traditional arguements. Since were playing the analogy game, I'll throw another one in. "The Schoolyard" analogy. The US can play one of two roles. Does it want to be the Vice Principal, patroling the field, breaking up fights between other students, generally annoying everyone, and perhaps getting a punch in the face itself in its efforts to break the fight up. Anyways, the kids will just fight after school when the Vice Principal leaves.
Or should it take on the role of the jock. He doesn't want the other kids messing around and trashing his field (where will he play football?!?) but as long as the kids settle their fights, he's okay with it. He sticks around to make sure that no bullies come around to beat up his fellow classmates, and if someone steps up, he'll fight....
Oh well, I thought I'd offer up another piece of meat to the fire before I go back to my own BB....

[Enfield]

I would state that the majority of the US's peacekeeping missions in the past decade are only superficially UN missions. They may be sanctioned by the UN, but that's about it.

And the peacekeeping done by the US is not usually purely humanitarian. The US, has the world's largest economy, has business and economic concerns in most of the globe. The US has an interest in making sure that various regions remain, or become, stable. Europe for instance; having a civil war or dictator there make for instability, and this effects trade and business. So, Bosnia was stabilized and Serbia put in check.

The US has other interests - east Asia for example, so there are troops in Korea, Japan, and Okinawa. South and Central America have been the subject of US interference/peacekeeping for hundreds of years. Between 1898 and 1933 the US intervened in that region 13 times, and in my lifetime have invaded 3 central american countries. I'm saying not this is good or bad, just showing that the US has a lot of interests that it uses the guise of "peacekeeping" for. I think the argument could be made that peacekeeping is, in many cases, a modern form of gunboat diplomacy.

Can someone please tell where exactly there are US troops operating under a UN command? IFOR/KFOR are NATO missions, the Gulf is a US/UK mission, Korea is US, Somalia, Lebanon, and Rwanda were UN...

Oh yeah, JSOCMarine, Gen. Dallaire is currently defending himself against charges if incompetence in Rwanda. People aren't sure if he's a hero or a fool.

Ok..to address these analogies: one, let them build their own damn boat! We built our own, and it seems to me that western civilization took along time to become the safe and rich place it is today (2,000 years of warfare, savagery, a genocide or two, dictators, etc,).

Re: Rape: Help the girl, but that doesn't mean you have guard her 24/7 afterwards, feed her, clothe her, etc. Personally, I like the recent Brit action in Sierra Leone: in and out, got the job done, and everybody's home as soon as possible.

Human suffering must be addressed, such as Rwanda or Somalia, but we can't save the world. I believe in development, economic assistance, all that, but the west shouldn't be expected to do everything for everybody, especially when they're shooting at you. Then again, the Cubans helped themselves - and the US has blockaded them for 30 years.

[Cole]

Well put Enfield! Sounds like something of the realist school of thought? By the way, are you in the International Relations program at UBC...from reading your posts you seem to be well versed in the subject area.

[This message has been edited by Cole (edited 01-06-2001).]

[Enfield]

Cole - not yet, but hopefully that will be my Major in a year or two.

Enfield

[JSOCMarine]

Enfield Quote,
"Oh yeah, JSOCMarine, Gen. Dallaire is currently defending himself against charges if incompetence in Rwanda. People aren't sure if he's a hero or a fool. "

Enfield, I had no idea this was going on! Is he actually having charges brought against him or is it just criticism in the press,etc? I would be interested in reading more about it. Any chance you could send me a link to newspaper articles if you spot any? Is he still claiming the PTSD and nervous breakdown angles? Thanks for the update! S/F

[Scout]

Did anyone listen to Paul Harvey this afternoon? His commentary was directly relevant to his. Caught it going to lunch and wish i could remember his exact word....maybe someone else here can give a quote? Basically, he said that with somethings you have to lead by example. When the US was formed, the rest of the world followed suit. Today, we need to revitialize ourselves, to find out roots again, then the world will once again follow our footsteps. We can't force, bribe or beg others to accept peace and democaracy. We have to lead by example, and that begins by policing out own AO first of all.

Scout out!

[Scout]

Did anyone listen to Paul Harvey this afternoon? His commentary was directly relevant to his. Caught it going to lunch and wish i could remember his exact word....maybe someone else here can give a quote? Basically, he said that with somethings you have to lead by example. When the US was formed, the rest of the world followed suit. Today, we need to revitialize ourselves, to find out roots again, then the world will once again follow our footsteps. We can't force, bribe or beg others to accept peace and democaracy. We have to lead by example, and that begins by policing out own AO first of all.

Scout out!

[Scout]

Did anyone listen to Paul Harvey this afternoon? His commentary was directly relevant to his. Caught it going to lunch and wish i could remember his exact word....maybe someone else here can give a quote? Basically, he said that with somethings you have to lead by example. When the US was formed, the rest of the world followed suit. Today, we need to revitialize ourselves, to find out roots again, then the world will once again follow our footsteps. We can't force, bribe or beg others to accept peace and democaracy. We have to lead by example, and that begins by policing out own AO first of all.

Scout out!

[Enfield]

JSOCMarine;
Here's some articles I found online. Essentially, as commander of the UN mission to Rwanda some poeple think he could have prevented the genocide. And the Belgian government as named him specficaly as reponsible for the deaths of their paratroopers. And he's a spokesman for PTSD.
www.thecitizen.com/national/000629/4364255.html (http://www.thecitizen.com/national/000629/4364255.html)
http://tanadineen.com/COLUMNIST/Columns/Dallaire.htm
http://cbc.ca/national/magazine/dallaire/

In that last one, he mentions the US and peacekeeping.
http://cdnarmy.ca/war_diary/entries/1848.html

Enfield

[This message has been edited by Enfield (edited 01-07-2001).]