U.N. Armament

[Vondy]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Sure, after all, I can think of two outright failures (Rwanda, Somalia) and two missions (Lebanon) where UN forces have been useless. That means the other 70-odd successful interventions (like the UN forces still holding the line in Kossovo or southern Sudan, or Cote d'ivoire, or Cyprus, or Tajikstan) have been useless right? Anyway you never hear about those places anymore because the killing has somehow magically stopped, so who cares?

 

I mean all they're doing is saving lives, training police, building hospitals, etc, - you know, totally useless stuff.

 

cheers, Mark

 

In most of the cases you cite the UN didn't actually intervene with its forces and put an end to the fighting, but rather, put them on the ground to maintain whatever agreement was put into place before their arrival. That is good and useful, and they should get the credit for it - and credit for all of the non-military programs you mention - but they hardly brought an end to the killing in most of these places as you somewhat snidely implied they did. You're framing your side of the issue just as badly as those your arguing against.

 

Neither of you are addressing the actual question, which isn't whether the UN has succeeded in fulfilling its role, but what its role should be. If you feel its role should be maintaining peace that has already been made, then they have succeeded in spades in most cases. If you feel its role should be more active and include more direct intervention then their record is questionable at best. You're rolling-eyes icon isn't a valid side-step of a very real, very legitimate topic of discussion and debate.

 

You mentioned Kosovo. That is a sticky wicket at best. The intervention only happened because the Europeans felt threatened by what was going on in their back yard and were willing to commit forces to a direct intervention (via NATO and therefore with the Americans). And Cypress also involved a NATO member. Basically, the UN is effective in terms of forcible intervention when the world's major powers have a stake and can be bothered to act - and even then they generally show up to do clean up and don't play in the main event.

 

When those powers don't have a stake - say you're a fellow a little less pale than the average European considers attractive and make less than European days wage in a year because you live in a geopolitical backwater - then they are happy to send second rate regional troops to maintain the peace after the machete wielding madmen have finished off your family and flood the affected area with relief and support materials - but no, they aren't going to commit meaningful forces and take direct action to stop the problem because the people interested don't have live in London, Berlin, Paris....

 

Don't get me wrong, Americans also seek to use the UN when they feel affected by a world event, but they tend to be less loud-mouthed and pushy about human rights as a moral crusade than Europeans do so they are less vulnerable to direct criticism over forcibly intervening in human rights crises when they were affected because Kosovo and Cypress were issues for them and not lifting a finger when events of the same or greater scale occur elsewhere. American's tend to chirp about global security and economy issues that affect them in the UN more than human rights (Kuwait comes to mind).

 

The UN as an organization is very effective at dealing with aftermath and stabilizing situations where the worst has already passed - and someone has to do that - but its a lousy address for people who really need help right now because unless somebody in Europe or North America feels immediately affected by a situation the boys in the little blue berets aren't going to be showing up to help you because the practical capacity to actually stop the killing can only be mustered when the first tier military powers agree to commit their own forces.

 

If they don't, then you've got a bunch of poorly equipped light infantry with no logistical infrastructure and no rapid deployment capacity. Its simply not reasonable to suggest the UN is effective at forcible intervention - and "stopped the killing" in most of the situations you implied they did because they didn't. The UN almost never goes that route because its not within their normative operating capacity. Instead they generally step into a lull to ensure it doesn't flare back up (which is admirable in of itself). And that's the primary criticism you are facing: that they don't do jack until the worst of the storm has passed.

 

I think there are reasons for that (already noted), but the core of the discussion is really revolving around the question: should the UN take a more aggressive role in areas where the major world powers don't have a direct interest?

 

I don't think its practical for them to do so, nor do I think its necessarily desirable for them to do so despite the utopian tenor of such an idea. I think stabilizing situations during lulls and dumping other types of aid into affected areas is their most effective (and practicable) option. The problem is: if the major powers intervene forcibly in one instance, why not in another that's just as bad?

 

The answer: because they have the influence and capacity to act when it affects them, but little inclination to commit their forces when they aren't directly affected. That opens the UN open to a lot of well-deserved criticism because its peace-keeping philosophy and role is something that vacillates based on the whims of those who have the power and influence to push its buttons - and hijack its mantle when they want to act.

 

The UN has been inconsistent when it comes to forcible intervention and, as a result, their record is checkered at best and pathetic when taken as a whole. A few shining points a winning record does not make. In terms of stabilization after the fact and rebuilding affected areas they do a much better job, but keeping the killing from starting again does not amount to stopping it cold in the first place.

[Inu]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The UN as an organization is very effective at dealing with aftermath and stabilizing situations where the worst has already passed - and someone has to do that - but its a lousy address for people who really need help right now because unless somebody in Europe or North America feels immediately affected by a situation the boys in the little blue berets aren't going to be showing up to help you because the practical capacity to actually stop the killing can only be mustered when the first tier military powers agree to commit their own forces.

 

If they don't, then you've got a bunch of poorly equipped light infantry with no logistical infrastructure and no rapid deployment capacity. Its simply not reasonable to suggest the UN is effective at forcible intervention - and "stopped the killing" in most of the situations you implied they did because they didn't. The UN almost never goes that route because its not within their normative operating capacity. Instead they generally step into a lull to ensure it doesn't flare back up (which is admirable in of itself). And that's the primary criticism you are facing: that they don't do jack until the worst of the storm has passed.

Entirely by design. The UN wasn't formed as an organisation that would have an army. Member states are considered responsible for their own defence and for interventions. The UN simply provides an umbrella under which that can happen. It's meant to promote cooperation and provide legitimacy, not actually provide the forces and C&C. I feel that if it had its own full-scale army that it could use under its own banner... well, for one, who would pay for it? For another... it would fundamentally change the role of the UN. Not that it seems to have been too successful in that role. However, the US can't really blame it for that. That'd be kinda like shivving a guy and then complaining that he's bleeding on you.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

That'd be kinda like shivving a guy and then complaining that he's bleeding on you.

 

I hate when that happens. I mean, if I'm stabbing somebody, I'm already not happy with them, and then they go and compound the problem by bleeding on me? Hell no...

 

I, for one, would like to see the UN with more authority to intervene, especially in crap like Rwanda. I don't see it happening until the third world does some significant cracking down on corruption, though. Western nations aren't going to cede any amount of sovereignty to line the pockets of some Arab or African warlord.

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

In most of the cases you cite the UN didn't actually intervene with its forces and put an end to the fighting' date=' but rather, put them on the ground to maintain whatever agreement was put into place [i']before their arrival[/i]. That is good and useful, and they should get the credit for it - and credit for all of the non-military programs you mention - but they hardly brought an end to the killing in most of these places as you somewhat snidely implied they did. You're framing your side of the issue just as badly as those your arguing against.

 

I'm well aware of that - but the point remains that when peace has been established, if nothing further is done, violence breaks out again (The Dominican republic, Irian Jaya, Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea all being being cases in point). I fully agree that the UN generally does not bring an end to the killing (except occasionally by negotiation): in point of fact, their failures are all cases where they attempted to do that.

 

But by holding the line, they prevent the killing starting again.

 

Neither of you are addressing the actual question' date=' which isn't whether the UN has succeeded in fulfilling its role, [b']but what its role should be[/b]. If you feel its role should be maintaining peace that has already been made, then they have succeeded in spades in most cases.

 

That *is* their current role. That's what the word "peacekeeping" implies, after all. And as you say, they've been very successful at that. Without the blue helmets, an awful lot of people currently living would be dead already - and a lot of tense regions would be war zones. I dunno - that sounds an awful lot like "stopping the killing" to me.

 

If you feel its role should be more active and include more direct intervention then their record is questionable at best. You're rolling-eyes icon isn't a valid side-step of a very real' date=' very legitimate topic of discussion and debate. [/quote']

 

That's not their role - and frankly, it never will be. UN forces have failed - sometimes spectacularly - pretty much every time they have attempted to act as peacemakers instead of peacekeepers. They are, by definition, lightly armed and generally present in tiny numbers. Their rule of engagement specifically require the host country's permission. If the US military can't enforce peace in Iraq, how the hell are a few thousand soldiers with no heavy support going to do it?

 

To make them an armed intervention force would require a complete rewrite of their mandate, a complete reconstruction of their structure, and a vast inpouring of cash and men. And then, when it comes down to it, even if that could be magically assured, what government on earth is going to support the creation of a large, powerful, extra-governmental military? It ain't gonna happen.

 

I'm not sidestepping the debate on their role - because, really, there is no debate.

 

 

You mentioned Kosovo. That is a sticky wicket at best. The intervention only happened because the Europeans felt threatened by what was going on in their back yard and were willing to commit forces to a direct intervention (via NATO and therefore with the Americans). And Cypress also involved a NATO member. Basically' date=' the UN is effective [i']in terms of forcible intervention[/i] when the world's major powers have a stake and can be bothered to act - and even then they generally show up to do clean up and don't play in the main event.

 

Sure - I've said plenty of times that the European nations should have acted earlier in the Balkans. And certainly Kosovo is a sticky wicket - but there wouldn't be any need for peacekeepers if it wasn't. But again, it's hard to deny that since the UN stepped in, the low-grade ethnic cleaning that followed Nato's occupation has ceased and the KLA ceased its assassination campaign after UN peacekeepers started arresting the ringleaders. In other words, the peacekeepers seem to be doing a reasonable job of ... well, keeping the peace.

 

But the rest of what you say is basically true: UN peacekeepers lack the force, the mandate and the support to tackle even a second rate military like the Serbs - the best will in the world doesn't help when the enemy has superior numbers, armour, heavy artillery and air support and you have side arms.

 

On the other hand, the lack of military might lets the UN tread lightly in areas where a more overt military occupation quickly breeds resentment: Kosovo is a point in case, where the ostensibly "liberated" Kosovans quickly started to turn on NATO forces - who were more than happy to turn things over to the UN.

 

Fighting a war and maintaining the peace are two different things - confusing them only leads to misery.

 

When those powers don't have a stake - say you're a fellow a little less pale than the average European considers attractive and make less than European days wage in a year because you live in a geopolitical backwater - then they are happy to send second rate regional troops to maintain the peace after the machete wielding madmen have finished off your family and flood the affected area with relief and support materials - but no, they aren't going to commit meaningful forces and take direct action to stop the problem because the people interested don't have live in London, Berlin, Paris....

 

Don't get me wrong, Americans also seek to use the UN when they feel affected by a world event, but they tend to be less loud-mouthed and pushy about human rights as a moral crusade than Europeans do so they are less vulnerable to direct criticism over forcibly intervening in human rights crises when they were affected because Kosovo and Cypress were issues for them and not lifting a finger when events of the same or greater scale occur elsewhere. American's tend to chirp about global security and economy issues that affect them in the UN more than human rights (Kuwait comes to mind).

 

The UN as an organization is very effective at dealing with aftermath and stabilizing situations where the worst has already passed - and someone has to do that - but its a lousy address for people who really need help right now because unless somebody in Europe or North America feels immediately affected by a situation the boys in the little blue berets aren't going to be showing up to help you because the practical capacity to actually stop the killing can only be mustered when the first tier military powers agree to commit their own forces.

 

If they don't, then you've got a bunch of poorly equipped light infantry with no logistical infrastructure and no rapid deployment capacity. Its simply not reasonable to suggest the UN is effective at forcible intervention - and "stopped the killing" in most of the situations you implied they did because they didn't. The UN almost never goes that route because its not within their normative operating capacity. Instead they generally step into a lull to ensure it doesn't flare back up (which is admirable in of itself). And that's the primary criticism you are facing: that they don't do jack until the worst of the storm has passed.

 

Stopping the killing is happening *right now*. In Southern Sudan, we went through a dozen "truces" and "ceasefires" - all of which lasted a very short time before the killing flared up again. It wasn't until the peacekeepers deployed that we got a lasting truce - and that's simply because, while incapable of going up against the Sudanese military, they can - and do - prevent the little abuses that without some sort of intervention snowball into larger fighting.

 

The rest of what you have written above is basically true, but it's more of the same. Peacekeeping forces turn up after the fighting to stop it starting up again. That's their job. Blaming them for not deploying warfighting forces they don't have and would never be allowed, is a little like blaming the NYPD for not attacking Afghanistan and arresting Mullah Omar.

 

I think there are reasons for that (already noted), but the core of the discussion is really revolving around the question: should the UN take a more aggressive role in areas where the major world powers don't have a direct interest?

 

I don't think its practical for them to do so, nor do I think its necessarily desirable for them to do so despite the utopian tenor of such an idea. I think stabilizing situations during lulls and dumping other types of aid into affected areas is their most effective (and practicable) option. The problem is: if the major powers intervene forcibly in one instance, why not in another that's just as bad?

 

We both know the answer to this - you answer it below.

 

The answer: because they have the influence and capacity to act when it affects them' date=' but little inclination to commit their forces when they aren't directly affected. That opens the UN open to a lot of well-deserved criticism because its peace-keeping philosophy and role is something that vacillates based on the whims of those who have the power and influence to push its buttons - and hijack its mantle [b']when they want to act[/b].

 

The UN has been inconsistent when it comes to forcible intervention and, as a result, their record is checkered at best and pathetic when taken as a whole. A few shining points a winning record does not make. In terms of stabilization after the fact and rebuilding affected areas they do a much better job, but keeping the killing from starting again does not amount to stopping it cold in the first place.

 

I've already noted above - and now it seems like you agree - that they do a good job of stopping the killing from starting up again - and that a more "fair" and interventionist approach is neither possible, nor probably desirable.

 

It's also true that the UN only intervenes when its member states (and primarily the bigger ones) decide to do so. But what did you expect? They are the people who provide the soldiers and the equipment. The UN has none of its own. Essentially this boils down to a complaint that the world isn't fair and that countries don't always act in a purely altruistic fashion.

 

As noted, the UN's failures have pretty much all been where they attempted to enforce a peace. Failure in such an exercise is almost foreordained, given the way the force is structured. You write that "A few shining points a winning record does not make." I'd reply that a few failures (especially when the effective missions outnumber them roughly 10 to one) does not a pathetic record make. In fact, most countries with a record of overseas military interventions would be pretty happy with "only" winning 90% them.

 

Criticism of the UN peacekeepers comes in fact, mostly from the kind of schizophrenic attitude that many people have towards the UN. They complain that it's trying to be some sort of world government (which it isn't) and then they complain that it doesn't act like a world government (which it can't). People (as here) complain that the peacekeepers lack the military muscle to tackle nation-states - but they'd reject in an instant any proposal to build an independant UN force that could tackle the militaries of nation states.

 

So what's it gonna be? For my part, I see peacekeeping as a dirty, dangerous and difficult job that saves tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives annually. It's a job that no-one actually wants, for all the reasons you outline above. And the bulk of it is done by UN forces, who in return for this, get reviled as "pathetic" or "a joke". Like so many things, the current system is far from perfect. UN troops are, all too often, underarmed, under-trained, too few and poorly led. Equally often, they're all there is.

 

Does anyone have a better suggestion?

 

cheers, Mark

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Actually Markdoc makes a good point along with Von D-Man. The UN forces are just a peacekeeping force and is responsible to those member nations only and that their job isn't to actually engage and pacify dangerous situations it's just to keep the peace once its made.

 

My major disagreement isn't with the UN itself Its with some of its non involved supporters.

 

I come from the US and we tend to be that country that goes out there and, for whatever reason, try to stop bad people from doing bad things. I'm not sure if its just part of the old American cowboy influence or just because we get way to indignant sometimes. What i am sure of though is that we do send our soldiers with the best intentions, we send them to foreign lands to kill and die so that someone can live a bit freer, a bit safer, maybe just so we can say we tried to do something good there. What we get back is usually body bags, tired men, and snide comments from our detractors. People, especially in our own country, keep saying we should be more like the UN or that we should only engage when they say its ok. Others say we shouldn't be fighting wars in foreign lands and should let the UN do that. In truth I'm proud of our soldiers and our sacrifices but when people say maybe the US shouldn't get involved, and that we're just there for profit, I almost want to say your right we shouldn't get involved. Maybe we should just say "hey rest of the world you handle this, were on vacation." If we did that we would stop being The America that fought against Hitler when we could have just fought Japan, we will become the America that didn't help. That thought alone makes me feel a little dead inside. I would just like for once in my life hear someone give us thanks for our dead and our courage. So we as a country and people can know we have worth and know we have fought for something and that out efforts weren't wasted.

 

I have no real gripe with the UN. My gripe is with those people who never see our valor despite our efforts. The UN peacekeeping forces should be given due respect since they put their lives in danger to protect the weak, bring freedom, and maintain the peace. They are warriors in the truest sense. There is no salute or words I can say that will truly express my thanks to anyone who takes up that burden. All i can say is that i hope that the dead have found their peace in a world hereafter and that those who lived should never doubt the good they have done.

[Roter Baron]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Just as a historical side note: It would have been hard for the U.S.A. to have "just fought Japan" because Germany declared war on the United States.

Wasn't that you had much of a choice there. Doesn't mean that fighting Nazi-Germany wasn't the right thing to do, but implying that the U.S. did it selflessly for "the greater good" just isn't correct with the facts.

 

And if you want a thank you for it (as a nation), here it is: Thanks to the USA, the U.K. the peoples of the former Soviet Union and all their allies my fatherland was freed from it self-inflicted tyranny and the tyranny over its neighbouring countries was ended.

Thank you as nations for all your sacrifices!

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

What i am sure of though is that we do send our soldiers with the best intentions, we send them to foreign lands to kill and die so that someone can live a bit freer, a bit safer, maybe just so we can say we tried to do something good there.

 

I wouldn't be quite so sure, my fellow American. For a look behind the curtain, you should really consider reading this-

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

and for more on the guy who wrote it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

He's right governments and the rich send people to war for greedy and foolish reasons, but they aren't the only ones who send them off. Family and friends send them off to fight and I'm sure they aren't sending them blissfully secure in the knowledge that they will get a bit richer. Usually they send along prayers for their safe return and maybe just a smidgen of hope that what they do will really make things better wherever they go.

 

It isn't a pleasant to think that maybe they're wrong and that their family and friends will do nothing good there. Hope is sometimes an irrational thing, but I like to think that this hope isn't so irrational.

[CorPse]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

When we hire guards (who are usually ex-military) they come with AK's as standard - whether it's Africa Asia or the Middle East and that's what soldiers you see on the street carry too.

 

Well now I'm somewhat intrigued, Mark. May I ask what it is that you do that you need to be hiring guards with this sort of "I'm not kidding around anymore" armament?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Well now I'm somewhat intrigued' date=' Mark. May I ask what it is that you do that you need to be hiring guards with this sort of "I'm not kidding around anymore" armament?[/quote']

 

He's in the drug trade.

[Inu]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

He's in the drug trade.

And I'm not sure if he does this or not, but some of the people he works with cut people for a living.

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

He's in the drug trade.

 

Dude, if I was in the drug trade, I'd hire guards who could afford H&Ks. It's what all the local gangstas aspire to!

 

In answer to the OP, part of my work includes delivering healthcare in developing countries. Many of the places I go, I have a driver (who's often armed, but usually only with a handgun against the occasional robber). Other places require a bit more.

 

Last year, in Uganda we went to an area where we are seeing a lot of Malaria deaths in a region that have never had malaria before. That was right on the border with Rwanda and Congo - and involved an 8 hour trip on foot through the jungle. There we had 3 armed scouts who went out ahead of us, plus 3 with our group: the leader with an AK74, the others with the carbine version of the ol' AK47. The reason is that foreign tourists in that area have either been abducted and held for ransom or simply robbed/raped/killed. It's not as bad as it used to be: the government has killed or driven away the Hutu militia who used to be based there, but the area is still unsettled.

 

Next week I'm going to Kayalitsha - a township in South Africa: there again we'll have several armed guards (and based on past experience they'll be armed with AK's). Again, the reason is simply safety: Kayalitsha is dirt poor and robbery and murder are endemic. 3 or 4 guards with prominently displayed AK's send a "don't hassle us" message.

 

A couple of years back I traveled to the edge of the Ogaden (things were a bit quieter there, back then). The guys who provided our guards actually sent us a "technical" - a pickup truck with twin-pintle mounted .30 cals with boxes of ammo in the back, plus the usual 3 or 4 guys with AKs - which was a bit of overkill, I think. I suspect they did it to boost the price charged.

 

In addition to travel, our projects build clinics and most of them also require armed guards. Not so much for safety (we don't generally build in dangerous areas) as to protect against theft. A sad story about that - two months ago, one of our guards surprised someone breaking into a house attached to one of our clinics. It was at night and when the guard challenged the guy, he saw the guy was holding a long, metal object, so he shot and killed him. It turned out that the robber was a kid (13 years old) was unarmed (the long metal object was a prybar) and worst of all - was one of his cousins, from the same clan. He was ostracised by the clan and killed himself a few weeks after.

 

That sort of thing is sadly common - many developing countries are awash in weapons, and the vast bulk of people who own them have little or no training:meaning they are very dangerous to even be around. The fact that guns are readily available makes everyone a bit jumpy, because you never know when (or what) people are carrying or when gunfire will break out. As they say, "an armed society is an impolite society" and petty arguments ending in violent death are distressingly common. Even in "safe" cities, you often have to go through an airport-style metal detector to get into decent bars and restaurants: I've eaten in plenty of places where you check your AK in at the door and fetch it on the way out.

 

cheers, Mark

[CorPse]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Mark,

 

I guess it's hohum, this is what I do for a living, but I'm very impressed that you do such a decent thing for humanity, and that you put yourself in harms way to do it.

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Mark,

 

I guess it's hohum, this is what I do for a living, but I'm very impressed that you do such a decent thing for humanity, and that you put yourself in harms way to do it.

 

Well it's nice of you to say so, but that actually is my attitude. It's a job. Somebody's got to do it, and I only spend about 3-4 months a year in developing countries. The ones who really make sacrifices are the people who do this (and more) full time. Visiting (say) a Sudanese refugee camp in Gambella and giving recommendations on how to set up disease surveillance or where to site a clinic is one thing: I'm there for 2-4 days tops. I can't imagine living and working there for six months or more (actually I can - I just can't imagine me doing it). I also avoid actual warzones: there are people who work them though: again, that's real sacrifice.

 

The longest I've been in a developing country at one stretch was 2 months (in Ethiopia) and I was desperate to get out, at the end. It's not the risk: which really is not that great, if you are careful. I think in 8 years of doing this, I have feared for my life exactly twice (once in Dakar, from gangsters, once in the Great Rift valley, from a accident that left me with two broken ribs). It's the boredom. I've spent an evening reading a three year old Der Speigel (and my German is crap) because there was no television, no books, no internet, no radio and no beer - and after three days I was tired of drinking coffee and looking at the hills opposite my house. When I can, I often work 16 hours a day while in Africa, partly because there's so much to do, but also simply because once I stop working, there's nothing else to do.

 

It leads to interesting contrasts though: I'm leaving for the airport in about 2 hours, heading for South Africa, where I'll be for two weeks. The first few days are a meeting of the clinical team, the last few days are a big scientific conference on delivering affordable healthcare in developing countries. Those meetings are at the Cullinan - a luxury hotel on the waterfront in Capetown. The hotel was chosen, and all my expenses paid, by Bill Gates, so I'm going to wallow in guilt free luxury for a week. In between, I'm going upcountry where we'll be sleeping in 5 dollar a night hotels and eating what we can find locally. If I have a bedroom with a mosquito screen without holes and a bathroom that doesn't stink of old pee, I'll be happy. If I don't get really sick, I'll be ecstatic.

 

If nothing else, it's an interesting life

 

cheers, Mark

[Mestopheles]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I wouldn't be quite so sure, my fellow American. For a look behind the curtain, you should really consider reading this-

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

 

and for more on the guy who wrote it-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

 

Just because some capitalize on the situation dosen't mean that everyone involved is just looking to get paid. I could easily make six figures doing my current job if I were a civilian, but I do it for about 50k a year because I believe in what I'm doing.

 

I agree many companies, politicians, and even general officers amy line their pockets during war, and it's a well-known economic principle that war can stimulate a flagging economy, but when you're talking about people dying, it's sort of in poor taste to overgeneralize.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Just because some capitalize on the situation dosen't mean that everyone involved is just looking to get paid. I could easily make six figures doing my current job if I were a civilian, but I do it for about 50k a year because I believe in what I'm doing.

 

I agree many companies, politicians, and even general officers amy line their pockets during war, and it's a well-known economic principle that war can stimulate a flagging economy, but when you're talking about people dying, it's sort of in poor taste to overgeneralize.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

I was neither generalizing nor overgeneralizing and I wasn't talking about "people dying", I merely cited the experienced viewpoint of someone more qualified to speak on the subject than anyone here on these message boards could ever be.

[Mestopheles]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I was neither generalizing nor overgeneralizing...

I wasn't accusing you of overgeneralizing, I was referring to MG (Ret.) Smedley's opinions as excessively broad and simplistic (I view this as overgeneralization).

I and I wasn't talking about "people dying"' date='[/quote']

The reason I mentioned people dying is it's an integral part of war. I understand Smedley's objections, but I think the energy he expends in this paper might be better spent looking to the needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard service members than railing against the unfairness of war profiteering. Both conditions are abhorrent but as a combat leader one has a responsibility to the service members before the taxpayers. (Again, just my opinion)

I know there are businesses, politicians, and others that seek to profit from war. I've seen it firsthand and I was angry as well, but to me having a soldier talk about it casts a pallor over the sacrifices being made by those in the war zone, we don't fight for money and I feel that complaining about money cheapens what service members do.

II merely cited the experienced viewpoint of someone more qualified to speak on the subject than anyone here on these message boards could ever be.

I'm a veteran, I've seen the things MG (ret.) Smedley refers to, and I've also seen people I care about die in combat, as I'm certain he has. I’m not going to say I’m more qualified to comment that him, but I feel it’s presumptuous for you to say he’s more qualified than me. Barring lack of experience, any person has a right to give their opinion and has equal likelihood to strike an issue in a meaningful manner. Maybe you made the “someone more qualified to speak on the subject…” comment defensively, since you seemed to take my criticism as being directed at your comments, not Smedley’s, but nevertheless I don’t presume to know your background and qualifications.

 

Many of the times I lost friends it was due to international policy being unrealistic, a politician who didn't fully appreciate all the factors in the war zone made rules that inadvertently got someone (or many people) killed. That is an outrage, in my mind much worse than someone feathering their nest during war.

 

I know profiteering is wrong, but in my opinion, a combat veteran has a responsibility for the lives of all service members, and if I were a General (Active or retired) I'd feel that my energy was better spent ensuring policy makes sense and doesn’t expose service members to unnecessary risk, not griping about opportunistic jerks looking to turn a buck. (Unless that profiteering was costing lives as well, but that's always the priority in my mind, not money.)

 

Anyhow, I feel like you may have misinterpreted my comment and lashed out because you were offended. If that’s what happened, I’m sorry I offended you. I probably should have made my post more unambiguous to begin with.

[megaplayboy]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

I just found out about this yesterday while watching a documentary:eek:

 

Why is it that stuff like this doesn't get taught in high school history?

 

BTW, that seems like a perfect explanation for a Fascist America setting...

[CorPse]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

I just found out about this yesterday while watching a documentary:eek:

 

Why is it that stuff like this doesn't get taught in high school history?

 

BTW, that seems like a perfect explanation for a Fascist America setting...

 

I saw some of his testimony in a documentary recently--maybe, Why We Fight.

[The Weapon]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

AK47 isn't just cheaper, it's also more reliable. Not that the M16 is unreliable, they just made different design decisions. It's a weapon that basically can't be maintained for too long without training in how to strip and clean it. The AK47 can be used by illiterate, uneducated peasants, with minimal training.

 

The price is also reflective of how many there are, and that the manufacture is much, much cheaper. Fewer tiny parts, much greater tolerances in design, standardised manufacturing process that hasn't changed much in 60 years.

 

One area it does get let down a lot is the ammunition. While the weapon itself is hard to make badly, the ammunition is a crapshoot. Rounds might be too smoky, not powerful enough, even more inaccurate at range than the gun is anyway (not that most people using it are exactly marksmen). Not the only gun that gets that, of course (one of the reasons the M16 was a letdown in Vietnam was because top-quality ammo was used in the trials, but not in the field), but being the third-world weapon of choice, ammo quality control tends to suffer pretty badly.

 

The top-quality ammunition was pretty much residue-free and so made cleaning unneccesary. They did use it in the field but it lasted weeks I think, rather than years. They just hadn't gotten enough of it for wartime use.

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Well modern ammo makes a little less residue, you should still clean your weapon because some firearms becoming finnicky if they aren't cleaned after so many rounds.

 

The ak-47 gets around this by having such loose tolerances that you could probably chamber a sea cucumber in it and still get it to fire. This tends to make it a very inaccurate weapon over long ranges and this compounded with the 7.62x39's horrendous drop rate means its feasible shooting distance is less.

 

The m16 reverses all of these qualities but sacrifices some reliability especially in dirty environments due to its close tolerances. The design of the 5.56 round makes it a very accurate bullet but it again sacrifices power for accuracy.

 

Amazingly alot of nations keep older weapons for emergancy distribution. They still occasionally hand them out to normal soldiers. We do the same in the US, believe it or not we still have m14's, m1 garands, thompson submachine guns, springfields, and 191a1's still in arsenals. I remember hearing that some of the artillery men in desert storm got grease guns issued to them. A good sight to go to is http://world.guns.ru If it will load. this site has listings for guns used in various countries.

[Inu]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Well modern ammo makes a little less residue, you should still clean your weapon because some firearms becoming finnicky if they aren't cleaned after so many rounds.

 

The ak-47 gets around this by having such loose tolerances that you could probably chamber a sea cucumber in it and still get it to fire. This tends to make it a very inaccurate weapon over long ranges and this compounded with the 7.62x39's horrendous drop rate means its feasible shooting distance is less.

Which is what makes it so great for third world militias. without training, you can't hit anything at long range anyway, so the long-range accuracy issues with the weapon are moot! Especially so in urban environments.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The reason I mentioned people dying is it's an integral part of war. I understand Smedley's objections' date=' but I think the energy he expends in this paper might be better spent looking to the needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coast guard service members than railing against the unfairness of war profiteering. Both conditions are abhorrent but as a combat leader one has a responsibility to the service members before the taxpayers. (Again, just my opinion)[/quote']

Well, lucky for the rest of us there are people in the world, whether civilian or soldier, who have the guts to speak their mind. Believe it or not, there are soldiers out there who think their sense of responsibility goes to more than just that of the military.

 

I know there are businesses, politicians, and others that seek to profit from war. I've seen it firsthand and I was angry as well, but to me having a soldier talk about it casts a pallor over the sacrifices being made by those in the war zone, we don't fight for money and I feel that complaining about money cheapens what service members do.

 

You have completely missed the point. Butler wasn't speaking out against soldiers (since, y'know, he was one), he was speaking out against the people who run the military (like, oh I don't know, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) who thrust those soldiers into a conflict solely for the benefit of turning a profit.

 

I’m not going to say I’m more qualified to comment that him, but I feel it’s presumptuous for you to say he’s more qualified than me.

No, it is not presumptuous of me, sir. Smedley Butler was a decorated war hero with more than 30 years experience in at least five US military excursions, wrote a book seventy years ago that is still in print, had a Marine base named in his honor, and topical discussions about the man taking place 67 years after his death.

 

And you are...?

 

Anyhow, I feel like you may have misinterpreted my comment and lashed out because you were offended.If that’s what happened, I’m sorry I offended you. I probably should have made my post more unambiguous to begin with.

 

Nice try. No, I wasn't "offended" and, no, I didn't "lash out" at you. I made a simple statement of fact, nothing more nor less. This time, however, you were completely offensive on a number of levels. You can consider my utter disgust this time as "lashing out", if you like.

 

Oh, and apology accepted.

[Yansuf]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

AK47 isn't just cheaper, it's also more reliable. Not that the M16 is unreliable, they just made different design decisions. It's a weapon that basically can't be maintained for too long without training in how to strip and clean it. The AK47 can be used by illiterate, uneducated peasants, with minimal training.

 

Also the larger diameter bore has less fouling. The AK74 is less reliable than the AK47.

[Yansuf]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

I just found out about this yesterday while watching a documentary:eek:

 

Why is it that stuff like this doesn't get taught in high school history?

 

BTW, that seems like a perfect explanation for a Fascist America setting...

 

I must admit to finding that hard to believe.

It is hard to stage a military coup without the support of the military. Anyone who has real experience in US forces knows the US military are not about to support a military coup. Robert Heinlein (who was a professional Naval Officer in the early 30's, before he got sick and was medically retired) also ageed with that, so it was apparently true in the time period under discussion by Butler.

Plus, in the 1930's I believe the National Guard far outnumbered the regular military. And America is an armed society. So I find it highly unlikely that a coup could have worked.

Of course, the "backers" may not have realized that.