Article

2003-06-09 East/Subsaharan Africa

French troops take first steps in war-torn Congo

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-06-09 09:41 am|| || Front Page|| [13 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "If civilians are being massacred, we have to stop it. But if there are just a few civilians killed in fighting between armed groups, that's not our job."

My, how......UN!

Posted by tu3031 2003-06-09 10:05:20|| 2003-06-09 10:05:20|| Front Page Top

#2 tu3031

Yes, and very UNwise.

Posted by Katz 2003-06-09 10:07:33|| 2003-06-09 10:07:33|| Front Page Top

#3 I'm a bit torn on this story. While I completely agree with all comments above, I do think there is some worth in having troops ready and available to prevent mass genocide, no matter how big the basket case.

It takes time and organization to waste several thousand innocent people. It's probably a useless gesture in the long run, and I don't want our troops to risk their lives on such a half-baked effort. But if these troops are able to nip-in-the-bud the organization and logistics required to carry out a mass murder, then more power to them.

Posted by Becky 2003-06-09 10:43:14|| 2003-06-09 10:43:14|| Front Page Top

#4 The key is whether these French troops, and the other "peacekeepers", actually take sides. If they don't, if they follow the UN logic that everybody is wrong, this will be a quagmire (love it when that applies to the French). Pick a side, guys, and wipe out the enemy.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-06-09 18:24:52|| 2003-06-09 18:24:52|| Front Page Top

#5 Meanwhile, "The French intervention on behalf of the UN in Congo will be short-lived and localised and will have a negligible impact on tribal conflict, according to a French military briefing paper obtained by the Guardian"

In otherwords...small, short and pointless. A typical French military action.

Posted by Watcher 2003-06-10 02:21:38|| 2003-06-10 02:21:38|| Front Page Top

#6 "If civilians are being massacred, we have to stop it. But if there are just a few civilians killed in fighting between armed groups, that's not our job."

Anybody have any idea what the Frogs consider a massacre?

What is the break-point that would cause the posturing Frogs to do something(10,20,100 people)?
lets see,20 people/dayx365=7300people.
Wonder if that qualifies?

Is there any doubt in anybody's mind the uselessness of the UN?

Posted by raptor 2003-06-10 08:06:51|| 2003-06-10 08:06:51|| Front Page Top

09:33 raptor
09:01 raptor
08:06 raptor
03:24 Watcher
03:01 R. McLeod
02:21 Watcher
02:00 Watcher
01:54 Watcher
00:41 Anonymous Troll
00:34 Anonymous Troll
00:23 Anonymous Troll
00:08 Scott
23:28 Scott
23:19 Scott
22:49 Phil B
22:41 tu3031
22:15 Ptah
21:35 Mark IV
21:35 Chuck
21:27 Chuck
21:24 Chuck
21:22 lkl
21:20 11A5S
20:55 Old Patriot