Falluja - Time for UN to act?
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falluja - Time for UN to act?
I am aware that the Syrian situation is horrendously complex and the default for most countries is keep out of it and hope to hell it will all settle down.
But I keep hearing about the battle to kick ISIS out of Fallujah where around 50,000 long suffering, mostly non combatant residents, are starving, being killed, used as human shields and prevented from leaving the wrecked city where help and shelter is just a few miles away.
The Iraqi army is doing its best but it is a very difficult job as ISIS embed themselves within the residents whilst the yanks bomb anything that moves.
There doesn't seem to be a good outcome for the 50,000 or so poor sods left so is it time for the UN to get to grips with the situation and send in an eclectic army of UN members and get ISIS out. and start the long rebuilding process? I wouldn't think a UN decision would be vetoed as USA and Russia would support it.
Too big a risk?
David
But I keep hearing about the battle to kick ISIS out of Fallujah where around 50,000 long suffering, mostly non combatant residents, are starving, being killed, used as human shields and prevented from leaving the wrecked city where help and shelter is just a few miles away.
The Iraqi army is doing its best but it is a very difficult job as ISIS embed themselves within the residents whilst the yanks bomb anything that moves.
There doesn't seem to be a good outcome for the 50,000 or so poor sods left so is it time for the UN to get to grips with the situation and send in an eclectic army of UN members and get ISIS out. and start the long rebuilding process? I wouldn't think a UN decision would be vetoed as USA and Russia would support it.
Too big a risk?
David
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
UN troops are mostly useless, especially in a so-called peace keeping role where they usually stand by and do absolutely nothing while all hell is breaking loose around them.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
#3
UN troops are mostly useless, especially in a so-called peace keeping role where they usually stand by and do absolutely nothing while all hell is breaking loose around them.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
#4
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
UN troops are mostly useless, especially in a so-called peace keeping role where they usually stand by and do absolutely nothing while all hell is breaking loose around them.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
UN troops are mostly useless, especially in a so-called peace keeping role where they usually stand by and do absolutely nothing while all hell is breaking loose around them.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
Whatever the root causes it's now an Iraq problem to sort out and they will be all the stronger for doing it without outside interferrence.
Would Isis be there at all if we'd stayed at home ?
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK I mostly agree with comments about UN peace keepers but doesn't UN also have a mandate to ask its members to contribute forces and send in troops? UK, France, Germany etc. Tough I know but surely there is a common duty to try and save 50,000 fellow UN members? David
#7
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
1. Fallujah is in Iraq, not Syria.
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Fallujah is in Iraq, not Syria.
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
Stupid me for inputting Syria, my apologies. But who would veto? Russians want ISIS gone and USA already have quite a few troops there as "advisers" although current Obama softly softly approach wouldn't help. Surely Iraq might approve as its their troops now being slaughtered? You are right that Europeans would be extremely reluctant to join in but you never know. David
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Fallujah is in Iraq, not Syria.
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
2. It's highly doubtful any move to sanction force wouldn't be vetoed in the Security Council.
3. Even if it wasn't, it would still need participant countries to volunteer sending their troops there. The UN can ask all it wants, noone has to agree to do it. The US certainly won't want to play, and I doubt others will be queuing up to either.
4. It would also require the invitation of the Iraqi government, unless said UN motion was declaring the place a failed-state, which I suspect might p!ss the Iraqis off a bit.
I could go on, but by the time I'd finished I expect all the fighting in Fallujah would be over already ...
I guess the wider question should be about defeating ISIS. Do we want to beat them or not?
If the answer is yes, then you need to starting thinking about how we could achieve that.
One thing that is pretty clear is that we're not going to do that from 30,000 feet.
Last edited by Martin2005; 01 June 2016 at 06:45 PM.
#10
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
Point 4 makes any UN agreement moot.
I guess the wider question should be about defeating ISIS. Do we want to beat them or not?
If the answer is yes, then you need to starting thinking about how we could achieve that.
One thing that is pretty clear is that we're not going to do that from 30,000 feet.
I guess the wider question should be about defeating ISIS. Do we want to beat them or not?
If the answer is yes, then you need to starting thinking about how we could achieve that.
One thing that is pretty clear is that we're not going to do that from 30,000 feet.
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Iraqi army is midway through their assault on Fallujah right now, whereas anyone not living in a complete fantasy world knows even in a best-case scenario, it would take months for the UN to come to a resolution on sending in troops, and for participating countries to actually deploy those troops on the ground.
I'd like to see a more joined up Western strategy for dealing with these *******s though.
Last edited by Martin2005; 02 June 2016 at 12:00 AM.
#12
18 June 1815 - Waterloo
iTrader: (31)
There are hundreds of UK soldiers in Iraq as part of Short Term Training Teams sanctioned by the UN and invited in by the Iraqi government.
There are over 1000 UK soldiers deployed to or near Kabul as mentor/training staff to the Afghan Military Academy, again sanctioned by the UN.
There are over 1000 UK soldiers deployed to or near Kabul as mentor/training staff to the Afghan Military Academy, again sanctioned by the UN.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ZippyBobby
General Technical
5
29 May 2016 09:30 AM