peacekeeping in the spotlight.

[taranaki]

Here's an article about the differing styles of peacekeeping currently being used in Iraq.I have no doubt that the US has the firepower to enforce compliance at gunpoint,but are the troops experienced enough to keep order without fuelling resentment towards the liberating forces?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

[NSX-R-SSJ20K]

they said that about the americans even before the war started and they probably told George W Bush that too.

[taranaki]

Who did?

[Pick]

Originally posted by taranaki
Here's an article about the differing styles of peacekeeping currently being used in Iraq.I have no doubt that the US has the firepower to enforce compliance at gunpoint,but are the troops experienced enough to keep order without fuelling resentment towards the liberating forces?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

That is just a huge load of bullshit written by a left-wing moron that apparently wants to villainize 18-year-old men that have more integrity than the freaking asshole writer of this articel ever will!

[Sean]

Originally posted by Pick


That is just a huge load of bullshit written by a left-wing moron that apparently wants to villainize 18-year-old men that have more integrity than the freaking asshole writer of this articel ever will!

dont tell me that this is bullshit

Cultural background, say military analysts, explains much of the British success in southern Iraq. "Britain and other European nations have imperial traditions," says Stuart Crawford, a retired lieutenant colonel in the 4th Royal Tank Regiment. "As a result, British troops have been inculcated with the ethos and tradition of colonial policing, where small numbers of men would have close contact on a daily basis with local populations. But America is a young country with no colonial past."
In some respects it is a paradox that Britain, which once ruled an empire, should have a more flexible and sensitive army than America.

In some respects it is a paradox that Britain, which once ruled an empire, should have a more flexible and sensitive army than America.

At the end of the 19th century, the howitzer and the Maxim gun were the equivalent of the cruise missile and the tankbuster. To maintain control yet allow and encourage people to live in their traditional ways, they became accustomed to understanding and respecting local culture and customs. It is a lesson that the American army has yet, it seems, to learn.

[Pick]

Originally posted by Sean Quinn
dont tell me that this is bullshit

Why shouldn't I? It is.

[taranaki]

You have as much right to free speech as the rest of us Pick,but instead of simply abusing everything that doesn't fit your extreme prejudices it would be nice if you could at least try to argue a case for your opinions occasionally.All you seem to do is knock the opinions of others without trying to present any evidence to support your own.

[YogsVR4]

Pick - let me take this one.

Taking a moment to go through the last 10 articles by that author, Olga Craig, it is clear that she does not think much of the US capabilities aside from blowing shit up. Her slant is clearly left. She is also quite proud and adamant of the British successes. I have no issue with her writing what she feels is right. However, Picks assessment of her is pretty much on the money. So the "evidence" you asked for is in the articles that she has written.


As a side note, we often read people here call Bush an idiot, moron or worse and fail to see evidence presented for it. Lets be consistent here. Not all opinions need to have be from an extreme prejiduce nor have to have evidence presented.

[Atomis27]

Thank you, Yogs, for being calm and clear.

[YogsVR4]

Originally posted by Atomis27
Thank you, Yogs, for being calm and clear.

Stanger things have happened

[taranaki]

Originally posted by YogsVR4


Stanger things have happened

stange indeed.

[BigJustinZ28]

please tell me "But America is a young country with no colonial past." is a difference in the way we use english. Our entire history is based on colonial expansion. We went from a handfull of colonies to one of the most powerful countries in the world in less than 400 years !!! 400 years is NOTHING as far as history of the world goes. And british troops are not all so nice.

"Are you ready for the automatic-fire polka you little bastard?"

[taranaki]

I'd say we have a difference of emphasis here.Find an old map of the British Empire,you will notice that until relatively recently,the British were controlling the day-to-day government of a large number of countries with hugely varying cultures across the globe.The only way that this could be achieved was by a combination of inproving the lifes of the ordinary citizens,and having the military backup to protect and enforce the desired outcomes for the wider community.It's very much the position that the U.S. finds itself in now in Iraq,but unfortunately,the U.S. lacks the experience in Islamic culture,and appears reluctant to treat the average Iraqi as an equal.This inability or unwillingness to recognise cultural diversity will eventually cost the U.S. any gains that it makes in the Middle East.You cannot simply wander into anouther nation and tell them that their whole way of life is wrong and that they have to copy you like slaves.

[taranaki]

More on the problems of peacekeeping in Iraq...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003May12.html