Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Politicians of Gaia
Darfur Goto Page: [|«] [<] 1 2

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Drewser
Captain

PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:18 pm


dartalian
Drewser
Lupin The Great
Drewser
Lupin The Great
I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U.

NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run.



I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that.
Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan.

Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig

Again I agree with you for the most part especially in that whatever action the US will be crucified. However, the only thing I am saying we could do, is not send troops, but air support and start blowing up groups who plan to commit the genocide. Let the AU handle the manpower on the ground.
Of course we will get ******** in this plan too, but it is about the only thing that we can do.

That's like what we tried to do with korea, you simply cannot, you need boots on the ground, because when one country is working on a problem, it is a lot easier and alot faster to get things done, then if we have 5 or 6 trying to pick out a target that ends up being a school. Which in turn they get off scott free while our piolet gets court martialed. Less country's less hands in the fish bowl, easier to get things done because we dont' have to be diplomatically nice.
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 8:43 pm


Drewser

That's like what we tried to do with korea, you simply cannot, you need boots on the ground, because when one country is working on a problem, it is a lot easier and alot faster to get things done, then if we have 5 or 6 trying to pick out a target that ends up being a school. Which in turn they get off scott free while our piolet gets court martialed. Less country's less hands in the fish bowl, easier to get things done because we dont' have to be diplomatically nice.

No, What happened in Korea was we fought with men and air, had horrible coordination in our own chain of command, our planes took shitloads of bombs to try and wipe out a single target because we didn’t have any targeting system beyond sight and praying it hit the target. Many people were there, but you are right in the fact that both navy and other fighters were not stationed in the country. We had several problems in that war, as my grandfather once explained to me we sometimes had carriers without planes, and some with planes but not enough pilots. Korea was a nightmare in logistics, and the only reason we succedded in assisting the South were our bases in Japan, the injinuity of those on the ground, and the quick mobility of the S. Korean military to turn from pre civil war to a then modern military force.
And I am not saying it would be a good idea, I said it would suck for us either way, but if we were going to do anything it would be strikes out of country. And they would likely not be against hard targets, but mobile soft targets. More like what happened in Kosovo.

dartalian


Lupin The Great

PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:31 pm


dartalian
Lupin The Great
Drewser
Lupin The Great
Drewser
Lupin The Great
I have to go with caddius, the U.S is to held up in Iraq and else where. And the U.N peacekeepers have proven their uselessness in situation like this. My answer to Darfur is to use NATO and the A.U.

NATO has proven that it can handle peacekeeping and military operations in third world enviroments (Bosnia and Kosovo). And the A.U is of course that well-needed African element that can be beneficial to establishing peace talks between North African Arabs and Black Sudanese Christians in the long run.



I don't think we should let NATO do it either, why you ask? Because they are a majority of US troops, and hell we don't need to send them to a place like that.
Last thing we need is a "Operation Restore Hope" situation in sudan.

Exactly, by the was I'm liking the sig
Thanks, I don't even remember the person who said no to it. sweatdrop

I wonder if the person who doesn’t think that it is a radical threat to global security knows what radical Islam really is. And if he/she supports it.
I don’t see how it could be a threat to global security.
Well look for yourself, there is a conflict on nearly every continent involving Muslims attacking or fighting their non-muslim neighbor or in some cases each other. This situation is dangerous to nearly all nations of the world.
Reply
The Politicians of Gaia

Goto Page: [|«] [<] 1 2
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
//
//

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//