I cannot stand the U.N.

They send troops to the Congo and give the troops orders that they cannot fight back unless the U.N. building is attacked. That is a joke. They have shooting all around them and people being killed and they cannot do anything.

This should be stopped.

Gee, why hasn''t the the US ambassador raised a stink about it?

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Gee, why hasn''t the the US ambassador raised a stink about it?

Actually we have. I''m just mad we are giving the troops no power. The United States should be be making a big fuss about this.

They won''t. Despite your lofty and noble ideals, the US is not after liberal democracy all over the world. I bet the US secretly hopes that the French will fail miserably.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

They won''t. Despite your lofty and noble ideals, the US is not after liberal democracy all over the world. I bet the US secretly hopes that the French will fail miserably.

France will fail miserably. They have a horrible track record in Africa.

Well actually the whole EU is sending troops into the Congo. And to think Somalia is not exactly a bright example of US military intervention.

Or Vietnam.

Not Africa, but still a US military intervention after a French failure. That''s probably why we''ll never see a single US boot on the ground in the Congo.

"chrisg" wrote:

Well actually the whole EU is sending troops into the Congo. And to think Somalia is not exactly a bright example of US military intervention.

The problem with Somalia was lack of support. Same problem with the Congo. The troops can do the job if we give them support.

Hating UN means hating all the nations forming the body. This includes US as well. It is not a goddamn country. Its conference room where guys with their own agendas meet.

"Ulairi" wrote:

The problem with Somalia was lack of support.

Or a disinterest in giving the troops a chance to avenge the deaths of 18 of their colleagues. I seem to recall a few Republicans on Capitol Hill asking, ""Why are we even there?"" Maybe they should have asked Bush 41.

"Ulairi" wrote:
"chrisg" wrote:

Well actually the whole EU is sending troops into the Congo. And to think Somalia is not exactly a bright example of US military intervention.

The problem with Somalia was lack of support. Same problem with the Congo. The troops can do the job if we give them support.

So then why do you think Iraq is going well? They''re not getting the support they need either.

Or a disinterest in giving the troops a chance to avenge the deaths of 18 of their colleagues. I seem to recall a few Republicans on Capitol Hill asking, ""Why are we even there?"" Maybe they should have asked Bush 41.

They went in there in 1993. The Republicans were mad at Clinton for pulling them out and not giving them the tatical support they needed. Try again.

Bullsh*t. As soon as the ""Black Hawk Down"" incident occured, Congress started eating people alive. This along with the public backlash made the Administration then pull the troops out without finishing the job. Try cracking a book before you beat us over the head with the standard dogma.

And now some actual facts, courtesy of CNN.

* The troops being deployed to the Congo will NOT, repeat, NOT operate under UN command

* They will be authorized to shoot to kill if necessary, although it is presently unclear if they will be allowed to do that to protect Congoese lives

* France is expected to be joined by troops from Canada, South Africa, Senegal, Nigeria, and Pakistan.

Doesn''t this happen with the UN on a fairly regular basis? It''s a goddamn debate club, not a military organization. Or at least, it sure seems to be functioning that way.

On a side note, anyone read that new book by Michael Durant (helicopter pilot who was captured by Aidid''s militia during the events depicted in Black Hawk Down). I''m curious what kind of perspective it gives on BHD.