Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

10 paratroopers are going to die.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Bylandt
When the paratroopers descend from the plane unto the Belgian military airfield, some of them take out their knife, ritually cut their blue UN-caps to pieces and vow never to fight under the UN-flag again.
Click to expand...

Understandable, but should they not have instead cut off their Belgian insignia? Was it not the Belgian governement who allowed them to be sent in under such ridiculous circumstances?

Having worked in a very similar organisation to the UN I can assure you that these organisations are only as strong as their constituent parts. More often than not the originating country tries to interfere for internal poliitical reasons to such an extent that it compromises the original mission.

Take the Balkans, from the very start (and before) of the hositilities NATO had been aware of the situation and been drawing up plans to deal with it. Yet for months, even years, politicians around the world could be heard saying "We can not do anything until the military tell us the time is right, or when the plans have been made ready, etc..." And yet still in the media it is NATO's fault for not intervening when it was clearly national political considerations and squeamishness that dictated the agenda.
 
Last edited:
I agree Agent P.. I hope I didn't downplay the Belgian government's mistakes. I focussed more on the UN because the details of the Belgian errors would be less interesting for the international crowd on this board.

The hostility of the soldiers was not targeted more at the UN than at their own governement's handling of things. They are members of an elite batalion with a proud history in Africa, always operating under Belgian flag and wearing red berrets. By cutting up their blue berrets they were making clear they were not prepared to operate again under the same circumstances, restrictions and ROE as they had. For this, their own governement was just as responsible as the UN.

You are also right in pointing out that the US is often held hostage by the nations that participate in the missions. This was also clear in the UNIMAR-mission, where the UN had asked Belgium for 800 men and the penny-pinching politicians had reduced this to less than 500. The Bangladeshi contingent was even more under the required standards, particularly in training and armament.

This, however, just adds to the problematic cararacter of UN peace-missions.
 
During the genocide in Rwanda the media reported alot, ofcourse, but after that swedish media has kept silence about what has happened, and how the UN had been able to carry out their mission.

It was first this spring when I saw a 5 min report on the telly, from Rwanda. Apperantly, a retired swedish state minister, Ingvar Carlsson, have made a final report for the UN, about how the UN was dealing with the problems in Rwanda.

Maybe Bylandt can fill me in what this report said, all the tellynews said was that he was heavy critizising the UN - they didn't say more.
 
Originally posted by Admiral Yi
Troop:

What's it feel like to take fire?
Click to expand...

Crappy, especially when you are by yourself and underarmed. I see why the army fosters a macho man image, because when you are with others you are braver than when you are alone. I was suprised how small I could make myself. :)
 
Me too.

Goes for you other (ex)military men out there as well. (As I mentioned on another thread, my only harrowing military experience was eating an overdone filet mignon in the officer's mess.)
 
We over here also heard of the belgium paratroopers story - many portuguese that were born and raised in Congo (former Zaire) told us about it when they came here. We actually debated the issue, and it was common ground here that the problem with the Belgians was that they were far too good soldiers (i.e. they followed their orders to the end).

Our troops, on the other hand, would have immediately opened fire if threatened (because we don't have much respect for military hierarchy, something which has actually been a problem in the past, especially during the Colonial Wars - it is very hard for our officers to actually control our troops).

I actually have a lot of stories that took place in Africa in the latter half of the XXth century that would amaze you...

I could tell you in detail of a colonist that in 1961 defeated single-handedly over 400 black rebels (killing 73 of them) in order to protect his family...

I can tell you of the story of my fathers' godfather who, as an airman, saw from the air in 1968 a church being attacked by an armed black horde - he dropped his plane until his undercarriage touched the ground (the church was built in a large clearing) and used his airplanes' (a Beaufighter from WWII) machine guns to mow down the attacking blacks, taking off almost immediately afterwards...

And a few more...

About Frances' eventual envolvment in the process: the French have been trying in the past years to regain a strong foothold in Africa and do not hesitate to de-stabilize countries in order to do it - take the example of Guinea-Bissau in 1999: during a coup d'etat where brigadier Ansumane Mané tried to oust the president Bernardo 'Nino' Vieira, we sent a warship to the area to see if we could do something to defuse the situation (or help the portuguese there).

In the meanwhile, the president Vieira had asked for Senegal for help, and the senegalese army promptly invaded. When our frigate arrived in guinean national waters we were greeted by... two french destroyers that threatened our ship if we tried to help any of the factions!
(this was heavily reported in the media here - live interviews with the ships' commander on the spot - and it annoyed many people here).

So, I guess it is probable that the french might have played a part in Rwanda, although I think the situation quickly got out of control...

Regards,
Keoland
 
Effective Peacekeeping

I strongly question the idea that effective peacekeeping involves less than occupation. Overkill on force deployment seems a safer method than deploying minimal force. Memories of "peacekeeping" forces in Bosnia standing idle in Bosnia as battles continued to rage just bring a sense of futility. If the parties don't want to stop fighting, why would the presence of a few blue berets matter?

I wonder what an old-school Imperialist of the 19th Century would say today if he were alive to react to news of the last couple of decades of "peacekeeping" efforts.

Perhaps we need a resurection of Ghengis Kahn as a leader of the modern peacekeeping effort. If anyone shot back at his Mongol troopers, their city or region would become a smoldering pile of skulls...
 
Originally posted by Keoland
About Frances' eventual envolvment in the process: the French have been trying in the past years to regain a strong foothold in Africa and do not hesitate to de-stabilize countries in order to do it - take the example of Guinea-Bissau in 1999: during a coup d'etat where brigadier Ansumane Mané tried to oust the president Bernardo 'Nino' Vieira, we sent a warship to the area to see if we could do something to defuse the situation (or help the portuguese there).

In the meanwhile, the president Vieira had asked for Senegal for help, and the senegalese army promptly invaded. When our frigate arrived in guinean national waters we were greeted by... two french destroyers that threatened our ship if we tried to help any of the factions!
(this was heavily reported in the media here - live interviews with the ships' commander on the spot - and it annoyed many people here).

So, I guess it is probable that the french might have played a part in Rwanda, although I think the situation quickly got out of control...
Click to expand...

I think so too. The french were backing Habyarimana. For the simple reason that it was their ally. And they distrusted the Tutsi FPR, which they assumed to have connections with the Anglo-saxon competitors in Africa (probably not an unjustified fear). But I don' think they knew it would get so much out of hand.
 
Politicans and military

Politicans should keep out of military thing and vice versa. If the UN wants a military peace mission the should just say it and let the military deal with mandate and deployment of troops and weapons.
 
Re: Politicans and military

Originally posted by Mammut
Politicans should keep out of military thing and vice versa. If the UN wants a military peace mission the should just say it and let the military deal with mandate and deployment of troops and weapons.
Click to expand...

I wish it was so easy:(

Unbelievable, this thread is going on so long and there hasn't been any mention of Sbrenica. If you think this thing in Rwanda was a shameful thing hear about Sbrenica(Bosnia) A 'safe' haven:mad: for the Bosnian Muslims defended by Dutch UN soldiers, who also had no mandate to shoot back at the attacking Serbs. When the Serbs attacked the village the soldiers had to surrender. It was well known what the fate would be of the Muslims. Still the colonel who was in command went to the tent of Mladic, drank:mad: :mad: champagne with him and congratulated him on a good military operation:mad: :eek: This is all on film.
The only thing the Dutch media and politicians were concerned for was the safety of the Dutch soldiers.:eek:
The soldiers had even proof of the commited atrocities, but this only proof was destroyed when the development in the dark room went wrong. The name of the one who did this is known but will not be published.:eek:

None of the Muslim males in Sbrenica have survived:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back