I'm fed up with the UN

The UN should just hire PMCs to do the job.
This is the type of stuff they were made for. No government wants to step in because there's more to lose than to gain. No one wants their soldiers getting killed which will hurt them politically.
For a PMC, it's an opportunity. A lot of these guys come from the cutting edge of Special Forces. Peacekeeping is the sort of work these guys were designed to do.
 
Were the kick-backs to Saddam in the oil-for-food program such a dirty big secret? Most countries who have wanted to do business in Iraq have been involved in it.

The Australian Wheat Board was selling wheat at inflated prices to the Iraqis. The wheat could only be transported by a Jordanian trucking Company controlled by Saddam. He was getting his kick back!!! The understanding was that if you wanted the wheat moved then this was the only way.
 
aussiejohn said:
Were the kick-backs to Saddam in the oil-for-food program such a dirty big secret? Most countries who have wanted to do business in Iraq have been involved in it.

The Australian Wheat Board was selling wheat at inflated prices to the Iraqis. The wheat could only be transported by a Jordanian trucking Company controlled by Saddam. He was getting his kick back!!! The understanding was that if you wanted the wheat moved then this was the only way.
Click to expand...
There aren't very many innocent parties in that fiasco, but the damage to the UN's credibility -- especially from the USA's perspective -- is going to take something big to repair. (Yes I do know that some US parties were part of the whole mess). Underlying thing: The sanctions and rules were put in place by the UN and the UN directly involved itself in breaking them for $$$$.
 
I think that 13th might have the right idea with PMC's. Read the book "The Hunter, The Hammer and Heaven.'" by Robert Young Pelton.
The first part deals with Sierra Leone and the use of PMC's in that country. It also gives pretty good insight on the role of the UN and ECOMIL in these conflicts.

The question would be would a company like Executive Outcomes really want to work for the UN.
 
An infantry BN of the UN from Ireland are there for the last year, The ARW of the Irish Army have been there for longer and did great work one story to note, il dig it up out of the news.

[/quote]That was ECOMIL the UN provided transport and logistics.
 
The Primary Peacekeeping forces were Nigerian troops deployed by ECOMIL. The Nigerians secured Monorovia and placed a buffer force between the Goverment forces and the Rebel Forces. Ecomil reopened the port and provided security to the airport so that follow on forces from the UN and a MEU could deploy.


ECOMIL was First on the ground and all other troops were follow on forces.
 
Why wouldn't they want to work for the UN? As long as they're given a pretty lenient ROE, I'd think they'd all be for it. Plus it's up to them to make sure the operation goes well and without controversy because that will affect their liklihood of being hired next and not to mention, their marketability.
I think these guys would work for any organization of good reputation.

03USMC said:
I think that 13th might have the right idea with PMC's. Read the book "The Hunter, The Hammer and Heaven.'" by Robert Young Pelton.
The first part deals with Sierra Leone and the use of PMC's in that country. It also gives pretty good insight on the role of the UN and ECOMIL in these conflicts.

The question would be would a company like Executive Outcomes really want to work for the UN.
Click to expand...
 
Yes and No. The UN likes to keep their ROE's pretty tight.Pretty much you have to die before you fight. I think that PMC's especially companies like Executive Outcomes or Sandline who are heavily Former South African SF with mucho Combat expierance might chafe a bit in that type of situation.
 
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.

Then again because PMCs are more flexible and there's more room for creativity, they might actually be able to pull this off. If they can, then their monetary rewards will be outstanding.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.
Click to expand...
Wasnt like that in korea now was it? Hill 282 we will remember them!

Wasnt like that for a bunch of australian medics , when the enemy fired on a bunch of civilians they went INTO the fire and inbetween the two sides, the australians where armed to the teeth if one shot had gone near them they would have wiped out the enemy.
 
That was over 50 years ago and it wasn't a peace keeping operation. I mean peacekeeping operations.
Then again, the UN did call the all out war in Korea in the 1950's a "police action."
And it became a UN operation because the USSR boycotted the UN... something about being angry that Red China was not the representative of China or something like that.
I can't remember a time after the Korean War where the UN had military operations that was actually well managed.
It was a tough war for everyone. I wouldn't have taken "wiped out the enemy" for granted for anyone.

devilwasp said:
the_13th_redneck said:
UN ROE:
Don't shoot. If the bad guys show up, surrender. The guns you're carrying around is strictly for decoration purposes only.
Click to expand...
Wasnt like that in korea now was it? Hill 282 we will remember them!

Wasnt like that for a bunch of australian medics , when the enemy fired on a bunch of civilians they went INTO the fire and inbetween the two sides, the australians where armed to the teeth if one shot had gone near them they would have wiped out the enemy.
Click to expand...
 
the_13th_redneck said:
That was over 50 years ago and it wasn't a peace keeping operation. I mean peacekeeping operations.
Then again, the UN did call the all out war in Korea in the 1950's a "police action."
And it became a UN operation because the USSR boycotted the UN... something about being angry that Red China was not the representative of China or something like that.
I can't remember a time after the Korean War where the UN had military operations that was actually well managed.
It was a tough war for everyone. I wouldn't have taken "wiped out the enemy" for granted for anyone.
Click to expand...
I cant remeber a time after ww2 where the UK military had a well managed war , but that hasnt stopped them being allies with the USA.
Remember the UN is not for military force, its for negotiations i dont call a tactical air strike negoptiations.
That incident wasnt in korea.
 
The UK military did well in the Falklands, adapting to a situation their military was moving away from. Basically at a time where British sea strategic reach capability was being scrapped (seemingly), the Falklands conflict erupted and the UK's military improvised very well and got the job done. So there.
Also the first Gulf War was well managed and done including the part of the UK military.
Also the UK military had successes in Malaya (now Malaysia) and also especially Borneo (aka Kalimantan) with special operations.
That's three good examples of post World War II British military doing a good job.
Korean War. Make that four.

I think a lot of us are being critical about the UN's role in peacekeeping or stablizing a country or region. And yes, it does try to take over that jurisdiction from other organizations as well. That's the whole reason why the PMCs were pretty much banned by the UN, they were stepping on their turf and doing the job more cheaply, with less people and with far better results.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
The UK military did well in the Falklands, adapting to a situation their military was moving away from.
Click to expand...
The Uk military done the best job with the equipment they had, it was still chaos.
We learned a lot of stuff the hard way and our troops where sent on passanger liners, great military stuff huh.
Basically at a time where British sea strategic reach capability was being scrapped (seemingly), the Falklands conflict erupted and the UK's military improvised very well and got the job done. So there.
Also the first Gulf War was well managed and done including the part of the UK military.
Click to expand...
They lost several ships and i have talked to people from there and i have one of the ex crew members who's ship sunk in my unit. They agreed it was very poorly done.
The first was poorly equiped although not to the same exstent as the second.
[qutoe]
Also the UK military had successes in Malaya (now Malaysia) and also especially Borneo (aka Kalimantan) with special operations.
That's three good examples of post World War II British military doing a good job.
[/qutoe]
In a south african country ( i cant remember names) they perfected their intel the hard way, UK military has always been poorly organised by the MOD, thank you polititions.
Korean War. Make that four.
Click to expand...
They done well i will agree there although i dont know about thier situation there.
I think a lot of us are being critical about the UN's role in peacekeeping or stablizing a country or region. And yes, it does try to take over that jurisdiction from other organizations as well. That's the whole reason why the PMCs were pretty much banned by the UN, they were stepping on their turf and doing the job more cheaply, with less people and with far better results.
Click to expand...
Yeah i have to agree and i dont think they liked how warfare was becomeing comercialised.
 
UN is a biased piece of crap.

Of the 175 United Nations Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians destroyed 58 Jerusalem Synagogues and systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

This anti-Israel stance of the UN is a natural consequence of its membership structure. 21 members of the UN are Arab countries, and 52 members represent Islamic countries. Since the Arab Israeli conflict is represented as a religious conflict (see article) Israel as the only Jewish state has no chance for a fair hearing in the UN.

Related articles
Click to expand...

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/UN.asp

http://www.mideasttruth.com/np5.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top