• More U.N. peacekeepers than ever fail to stop African wars
    105 replies, posted
While peacekeeping efforts might not be reducing the level of violence, don't they help with humanitarian projects by providing security and manpower?
[QUOTE=Vipa;43414437]While peacekeeping efforts might not be reducing the level of violence, don't they help with humanitarian projects by providing security and manpower?[/QUOTE] Well that's one part of the work peacekeepers do. It's not meant to be a force you send to Africa for a week and solve all wars in the process. Problem is, most people don't understand the scope of the UN's work, the limits placed on peacekeepers by policy-makers, or what they're actually designed to do. Others have mentioned it already, but the function of peacekeepers is not to suddenly and abruptly end a war, but to provide a safe, third-party mediator to ease a region out of conflict. Now you can dispute the effectiveness of the UN in doing this, but I would argue that its failures are mostly due to the "weak mandates and a shortage of manpower" that were talked about in the article.
i just imagine a dude in a suit in the middle of an african battlefield screaming "DAMMIT YOU GUYS NOOO, STOOPP FIIIIGHTIIING!"
[QUOTE=Megafan;43414491]Well that's one part of the work peacekeepers do. It's not meant to be a force you send to Africa for a week and solve all wars in the process. Problem is, most people don't understand the scope of the UN's work, the limits placed on peacekeepers by policy-makers, or what they're actually designed to do. Others have mentioned it already, but the function of peacekeepers is not to suddenly and abruptly end a war, but to provide a safe, third-party mediator to ease a region out of conflict. Now you can dispute the effectiveness of the UN in doing this, but I would argue that its failures are mostly due to the "weak mandates and a shortage of manpower" that were talked about in the article.[/QUOTE] And the fact that neither side wishes to negotiate. A main aspect of mediation is having the cooperation of both sides of the conflict.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;43414533]i just imagine a dude in a suit in the middle of an african battlefield screaming "DAMMIT YOU GUYS NOOO, STOOPP FIIIIGHTIIING!"[/QUOTE] that is probably because we can lump you into this huge group of morons who don't understand a damn thing.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;43414533]i just imagine a dude in a suit in the middle of an african battlefield screaming "DAMMIT YOU GUYS NOOO, STOOPP FIIIIGHTIIING!"[/QUOTE] They are an active combat force with APCs, tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters, and everything in between. The stereotype of the UN as pacifist bystanders is a fabrication. [img]http://i.imgur.com/fJTcvXk.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;43414533]i just imagine a dude in a suit in the middle of an african battlefield screaming "DAMMIT YOU GUYS NOOO, STOOPP FIIIIGHTIIING!"[/QUOTE] That wasn't funny, not even a little. [editline]4th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;43414624]They are an active combat force with APCs, tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters, and everything in between. The stereotype of the UN as pacifist bystanders is a fabrication.[/QUOTE] Correct, the UN Peacekeepers are about as armed to the teeth and just as qualified as any other combat force, but they can only utilize this as much as the their policy-makers allow.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43414609]And the fact that neither side wishes to negotiate. A main aspect that mediation is having the cooperation of both sides of the conflict.[/QUOTE] You shouldn't generalise about it. Most conflicts in the modern day are complex, with a lot of different factors at work. This article is talking about those currently in Africa, but not all of them are the same. A conflict in DR Congo is not subject to the same issues as one in Nigeria. We in the West especially are never going to understand it if we keep looking at it as "those conflicts over in the poor countries" rather than individual situations. [editline]4th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;43414624]They are an active combat force with APCs, tanks, IFVs, attack helicopters, and everything in between. The stereotype of the UN as pacifist bystanders is a fabrication. [img]http://i.imgur.com/fJTcvXk.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] True, but their rules of engagement are extremely strict, and for good reason.
[QUOTE=Megafan;43414654]You shouldn't generalise about it. Most conflicts in the modern day are complex, with a lot of different factors at work. This article is talking about those currently in Africa, but not all of them are the same. A conflict in DR Congo is not subject to the same issues as one in Nigeria. We in the West especially are never going to understand it if we keep looking at it as "those conflicts over in the poor countries" rather than individual situations. [editline]4th January 2014[/editline] True, but their rules of engagement are extremely strict, and for good reason.[/QUOTE] I also think that we look at this conflict, thinking a little too much within our own viewpoint of the situation. For example, many Americans having this "let them fight" attitude, what about the person suffering? What do they think? It's tough to try to imagine ourselves in their shoes. The fact that every conflict has different variables makes things even more difficult in finding a solution that works.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414681]Why not authorize the UN forces to undertake OFFENSIVE actions.. it seems to me that the whole "shoot only when shot at" isn't working out great for them, let them take a stand and fight mayhaps? Obviously they are doing good, as they still exist, you might as well give them some teeth to fight with.[/QUOTE] lmao UN troops have gone on offensives before. But you wouldn't know that would you huh. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25340024[/url] why are people on facepunch so consistently blisteringly ignorant on certain things, such as the UN.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;43413583]No matter how right you are, your post loses 90% of its momentum as soon as you insult the person you're arguing with. Some people here are very young, some are old, and some just don't know shit, but the way to enlighten them is not through being a dick about it.[/QUOTE] So, wait, you just dismiss his argument for the way its decorated?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414681]Why not authorize the UN forces to undertake OFFENSIVE actions.. it seems to me that the whole "shoot only when shot at" isn't working out great for them, let them take a stand and fight mayhaps? Obviously they are doing good, as they still exist, you might as well give them some teeth to fight with.[/QUOTE] Because it's not their role to go in, decide which side is correct, and shoot at the other. Aside from the uproar among member states, it's supposed to be an [I]impartial mediator.[/I]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414712]No I would, i'm talking about in this particular conflict, but you wouldn't understand concepts like that, since you're just jumping to conclusions.[/QUOTE] So the UN should attack both sides?
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43414688]I also think that we look at this conflict, thinking a little too much within our own viewpoint of the situation. For example, many Americans having this "let them fight" attitude, what about the person suffering? What do they think? It's tough to try to imagine ourselves in their shoes. The fact that every conflict has different variables makes things even more difficult in finding a solution that works.[/QUOTE] That's just the reality of it. Some countries have more resources than others, and it's hard to put ourselves in the shoes of someone in a developing country. However, we as a civilisation constructed this institution in the wake of one great war so that it could be used to facilitate peace. If we give up on that, then we have given up on the whole world.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414734]You have to realize that the American people are war weary as fuck, 13 years of constant conflict has had it's toll on the average citizens psyche in more ways than one. They're tired of hearing "and today in the news, 17 soldiers were killed when a bomb at xyz went off" It's only natural to have a "fuck it" attitude, especially when you've got kids who have never seen peace.[/QUOTE] Kids in america have always seen peace what crack are you smoking literally kids in america are some of the furthest removed from conflict in the entire world
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414746]If they actively pose a threat to the safe zone set up, then yes, the UN should attack both sides, removing supply lines and equipment in order to properly defend the people they've been charged with defending.[/QUOTE] jesus christ the current situation is better than the UN going on the 'offensive' against both sides in this conflict as you suggested. [editline]4th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414746] Tell that to the kids that don't have moms and dad's anymore. Or the parents that have to explain why "daddy aint got legs". Or parents telling their kids "dont point at that man, sure he's got no arms and legs, that's war".[/QUOTE] cool maybe one day they can go visit kids in other countries who don't have siblings anymore or limbs themselves
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414734]You have to realize that the American people are war weary as fuck, 13 years of constant conflict has had it's toll on the average citizens psyche in more ways than one. They're tired of hearing "and today in the news, 17 soldiers were killed when a bomb at xyz went off" It's only natural to have a "fuck it" attitude, especially when you've got kids who have never seen peace.[/QUOTE] The world has less war currently than any previous 'wartime' period in history. People in the 60s and the 70s didn't know peace, people in the 80s and 90s didn't either. Even then, you cannot hope to compare American war weariness to the strife that the people in these wartorn countries are subjected to. If anything, people are desensitised to war because it has become so separated from them. Drone attacks and bombings in far-off places, with the incredibly rare attack on domestic soil (9-11, Boston Bombing, etc.) makes it hard to have a real connection with what war is like.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414746]Tell that to the kids that don't have moms and dad's anymore. Or the parents that have to explain why "daddy aint got legs". Or parents telling their kids "dont point at that man, sure he's got no arms and legs, that's war". It's all over the fucking news, people watch it all the time, it's whats talked about around the kitchen table. While they aren't sitting there ACTIVELY being blown up, they've not had peace either.[/QUOTE] Compared to the draft during the Korean or Vietnam War? Compared to even the Gulf War, or the intervention in Somalia? What we have now is degrees more peaceful than what we had before.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414781]Cool, maybe they can. Saying "OH GOD KIDS AREN'T EXPOSED TO THE VIOLENCE" is ignorant as fuck.[/QUOTE] I just think its funny that of all the countries that can complain about its kids being exposed to war, American doesn't really rank much in the list.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414781]Cool, maybe they can. Saying "OH GOD KIDS AREN'T EXPOSED TO THE VIOLENCE" is ignorant as fuck.[/QUOTE] But they aren't. Compared to nearly every other country in the world (with the relative exception of Europe or Japan), the American public is separated from war.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414746]If they actively pose a threat to the safe zone set up, then yes, the UN should attack both sides, removing supply lines and equipment in order to properly defend the people they've been charged with defending. [editline]4th January 2014[/editline] Tell that to the kids that don't have moms and dad's anymore. Or the parents that have to explain why "daddy aint got legs". Or parents telling their kids "dont point at that man, sure he's got no arms and legs, that's war". It's all over the fucking news, people watch it all the time, it's whats talked about around the kitchen table. While they aren't sitting there ACTIVELY being blown up, they've not had peace either.[/QUOTE] Watching it in the news is nowhere near the same as actually experiencing it yourself, seeing people dying, watching family members die in horrific ways. Kids here in America actually have taken for granted the fact (And should be grateful) that they have never seen war.
[QUOTE=Megafan;43414778]The world has less war currently than any previous 'wartime' period in history. People in the 60s and the 70s didn't know peace, people in the 80s and 90s didn't either. Even then, you cannot hope to compare American war weariness to the strife that the people in these wartorn countries are subjected to. If anything, people are desensitised to war because it has become so separated from them. Drone attacks and bombings in far-off places, with the incredibly rare attack on domestic soil (9-11, Boston Bombing, etc.) makes it hard to have a real connection with what war is like.[/QUOTE] Not to mention the whole psychic numbing of living under constant nuclear threat during the Cold War actually wasn't that healthy for the kids it turned out as well.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414825]No, but you can understand why 13 years of armed conflict with 2 countries that most people have never heard about, and that hasn't REALLY done anything that spectacular, would shy most Americans away from the attitude we had back in 2001, I mean for fucks sake, WE WATCHED A REGIME USE WMD'S against it's own people, and still the vast majority of the US said "fuck it, not our problem".[/QUOTE] 13 years of armed conflict, the majority of which did not have the same intensity of combat as the first few months or years of it. Even after we had pulled the vast majority of combat forces out of Iraq, people with the same mindset as you were insisting that we were still in 'armed conflict' there, which is just misleading. The fact that people hadn't been aware of those countries' existence is more an embarrassment of our education system than anything else, and the 'attitude we had in 2001' was abysmal. At that time, the government went to the UN presenting insubstantial evidence for WMDs, and when they weren't convinced went against the UN charter and attacked Iraq. Article 51 of the charter mandates action for self-defence, so what did we do? We called it 'pre-emptive' self-defence. It isn't a humanitarian attitude you're describing, it's a vengeful one.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414681]Why not authorize the UN forces to undertake OFFENSIVE actions.. it seems to me that the whole "shoot only when shot at" isn't working out great for them, let them take a stand and fight mayhaps? Obviously they are doing good, as they still exist, you might as well give them some teeth to fight with.[/QUOTE] Because they're peacekeepers. It's not their job to go on offensives unless they have a clear, concise, and specific reason for doing so. They're not fighting a war, they're trying to stop one.
Instead of arguing over whose population has been worst off when it comes to war can we just agree that no matter the circumstances it's an awful thing?
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;43414989]Instead of arguing over whose population has been worst off when it comes to war can we just agree that no matter the circumstances it's an awful thing?[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone would debate about that here.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;43414253]When did I say we should abandon that concept? If you bothered to read my first post in this thread, I said that we should reexamine our approach to the conflict, if one method doesn't work, try another, or in conjunction with our current peace keeping efforts. I'm simply asking this "Ok, methods A, B, and C didn't work. Does anyone have another suggestion?"[/QUOTE] You just said "peacekeeping isn't working". You didn't say anything about methods, you literally used the words peacekeeping isn't working we don't need another suggestion, we just need to become better at peacekeeping.
[QUOTE=Vitalogy;43414989]Instead of arguing over whose population has been worst off when it comes to war can we just agree that no matter the circumstances it's an awful thing?[/QUOTE] You ain't going to get anyone on here that thinks war is a good thing Except for maybe that north korea dude, I forget his name
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;43414746] Tell that to the kids that don't have moms and dad's anymore. Or the parents that have to explain why "daddy aint got legs". Or parents telling their kids "dont point at that man, sure he's got no arms and legs, that's war". It's all over the fucking news, people watch it all the time, it's whats talked about around the kitchen table. While they aren't sitting there ACTIVELY being blown up, they've not had peace either.[/QUOTE] Are you serious right now? Go over to Dagestan, Somalia, Palestine, Israel, Serbia, Bosnia, Iraq, Pakistan, even Great Britain and say that to the people that have directly lost their loved ones when the front lines were literally just outside of their own houses, saying that American people have been in touch with their own conflicts. You're grossly exaggerating the fact that the American public has been 'affected by war' while in contrast there have been multiple countries out there that have their populations actually affected by armed conflict. Go explain to the kid in Pakistan why their parents got killed in a drone strike and how American people can sympathize with that or ask any German that has lived as a child through out the strategic bombing raids during the Second World War and say how the Americans could have empathy for them.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;43414798]I just think its funny that of all the countries that can complain about its kids being exposed to war, American doesn't really rank much in the list.[/QUOTE] They're one of the few countries that got out of world war 2 without half of their country being rubble and since then everything else has been in other people's countries. I find the idea of the 'war-weary' american kid pretty outrageous to be honest war weariness is not "this war is costing us lots of money and I see it on the news every day" war weariness is "I have lost my house, my family, my livelihood and wellbeing to fighting and bombs" you could probably use it with vietnam because of the death toll even though there was no harm to the actual country itself, but anything else is just drama
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.