View Full Version : EU Troops Clash With Sudanese
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-04-2008, 23:15
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7276288.stm)
Interesting. On the other hand, why are EU Troops even there if they're not allowed into Darfur?
Tribesman
03-04-2008, 23:29
On the other hand, why are EU Troops even there if they're not allowed into Darfur?
Because they are there to help refugees in Chad and try and keep the sides apart in the civil war in Chad . Sudan is another country entirely .
I had expected the first EU fighting to be after an attack by the rebels in Chad , since they have declared that as France is part of the EU , it is a belligereant in the war and the EU forces are using the French bases in Chad they will see no difference between the EU mandated peacekeepers and the French military deployment .
But hey life is full of surprises , some idiot got lost and drove across the border into the wrong war zone.
Gah. Netherlands want to send troops as well I don't like it.
ICantSpellDawg
03-05-2008, 04:56
Gah. Netherlands want to send troops as well I don't like it.
Why not? People are being killed there for no real reason. We are warriors and must protect the weak, help them make their own way in peace. What else are we here for?
Why not? People are being killed there for no real reason. We are warriors and must protect the weak, help them make their own way in peace. What else are we here for?
:laugh4:
Could you be anymore cliche?
ICantSpellDawg
03-05-2008, 05:22
:laugh4:
Could you be anymore cliche?
Oh yes.
seireikhaan
03-05-2008, 06:16
Why not? People are being killed there for no real reason. We are warriors and must protect the weak, help them make their own way in peace. What else are we here for?
We'll protect them just like the robots (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3DyxaCYlfg).:wink:
Tribesman
03-05-2008, 08:43
Why not? People are being killed there for no real reason. We are warriors and must protect the weak, help them make their own way in peace. What else are we here for?
Rubbish , a peacekeeping deployment by its nature must be completely neutral , a neutral force cannot exist when one party of that force is a belligerant in the conflict .
Gah. Netherlands want to send troops as well I don't like it.
I agree with Frag . The Irish should never have gone in under the EU mandate .
I agree with Frag . The Irish should never have gone in under the EU mandate .
That. In Afghanistan we brought our own toys, we still have a sore spot called sebrenica. Eu mandate, what are they going to do, just watch people being killed the eu has no teeth.
Gah. Netherlands want to send troops as well I don't like it.
Gov should first solve a whole lot of problems in our own country, me thinks.
Gov should first solve a whole lot of problems in our own country, me thinks.
That would mean stepping down they are the problem. That stupid movie is enough to completily paralyse these cowards. They want to send marines, for what this is a prestige-project of euro-ego's, me too thing
That would mean stepping down they are the problem. That stupid movie is enough to completily paralyse these cowards. They want to send marines, for what this is a prestige-project of euro-ego's, me too thing
Definitely. I wouldn't mind putting an end to the Balkenende-era. That man has proven that he isn't a leader too many times already.
It's funny how he has made the film a big thing himselve, fine with me. If nothing happens (which I expect, perhaps a few burned cars and a boycot or two) he will be exposed for the terified scaremonger he is, and if something does happen it was inevitable anyway. A very usefull pressure-boiler our flaming mozart, power to him.
Site is online http://www.fitnathemovie.com/
May all the poisen that lurks in the mud hatch out.
“Eu mandate, what are they going to do, just watch people being killed the eu has no teeth.” Srebrenica was a UN mandate (UNPROFOR, if I remember well). But yes, EU has no teeth…
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-05-2008, 22:11
That would mean stepping down they are the problem.
At risk of forcing this off-topic, which party are you for? The PVV (Party For Freedom)?
At risk of forcing this off-topic, which party are you for? The PVV (Party For Freedom)?
No but he gets my vote anyway. Wilders and his political enemy's are talking about something that doesn't really exist, islam isn't a threat europe is just commtiting cultural suicide. Wilders isn't going to last and he knows it, he's shaking things up and it's needed. Europe is runned by lefties, and history has programmend them with the believe that all change is for the better but I think we are making a capital mistake.
At risk of forcing this off-topic, which party are you for? The PVV (Party For Freedom)?
No, my vote will probably go to the VVD, but there's no party that supports a majority of my ideas.
Vladimir
03-06-2008, 14:36
You all should have voted UFV!
You all should have voted UFV!
The wut?
Seamus Fermanagh
03-06-2008, 15:17
Europe is runned by lefties, and history has programmend them with the believe that all change is for the better but I think we are making a capital mistake.
(emphasis added)
A pun worthy of Gregoshi! :laugh4: :laugh4:
If Europe continues to be run according to "Das Kapital," then soon there will be nothing "left." :cheesy:
@ Tribes:
If Ireland should not have committed troops under the EU aegis, should they:
a) have been committed to a peace-keeping effort under Irish aegis. I think Ireland could clearly claim impartiality in Chad.
b) have stayed home entirely as the whole thing is a bad business. But then would should be done?
Tribesman
03-07-2008, 04:49
Seamus
(a) it cannot be done , either in terms of the constitution or in terms of support , any foriegn deployment (apart from perhaps sending a fishery protection vessel) requires foriegn logistical support .
(b) possibly , since they are already very stretched with other deployments , in fact it is only through the curtailing of other deployments that they are able to undertake this one .
really my only objection is that given Frances role in the conflict it is bloody stupid to have a peacekeeping deployment alligned with France and using French bases in Chad .
Caerfanan
03-10-2008, 15:13
(b) possibly , since they are already very stretched with other deployments , in fact it is only through the curtailing of other deployments that they are able to undertake this one .
really my only objection is that given Frances role in the conflict it is bloody stupid to have a peacekeeping deployment alligned with France and using French bases in Chad .
The peace keeping was about Darfour. And the problem is that a rebellion broke in Chad, triggering a traty between France and Chad, precisely when the EU force should have deployed. How handy for Sudan...
Tribesman
03-10-2008, 22:45
The peace keeping was about Darfour. And the problem is that a rebellion broke in Chad, triggering a traty between France and Chad, precisely when the EU force should have deployed. How handy for Sudan...
No the peace keeping was about wars in 3 countries , the rebellion didn't break in Chad triggering a treaty with France since the French were already there and have been there for most of chads independance , the rebellion hasn't stopped , the treaty that was supposed to end that rebellion against the French backed dictator was not effective in bringing the peace that the deployment is meant to keep since not all he rebel groups signed up to it , and over the past years some of those that did sign up have either pulled out of the treaty or splintered into pro/anti treaty factions .
Caerfanan
03-11-2008, 15:11
No the peace keeping was about wars in 3 countries , the rebellion didn't break in Chad triggering a treaty with France since the French were already there and have been there for most of chads independance , the rebellion hasn't stopped , the treaty that was supposed to end that rebellion against the French backed dictator was not effective in bringing the peace that the deployment is meant to keep since not all he rebel groups signed up to it , and over the past years some of those that did sign up have either pulled out of the treaty or splintered into pro/anti treaty factions .
I will repeat it once. There has been French troops in Chad for a long time, and that's about a treaty between Chad and France, in this you are correct. Then again it's a defence treaty, and it's about intel and logistics. e.g. french planes did fly along the Sudanese border during the rebellion in Chad because Chad was suspecting sudanese troops or sudan-supported troops to use the border and wanted to know. In addition to this, you have a slaughter of black african people taking place in Darfour, and the opposite in another place. In order to protect the refugees from Darfour who went into Chad, a peacekeeping force was sent by the EU. Which has now problem with the sudanese army... (and that should bring questions actually about the recent evolution of this decades long ongoing rebellion in Chad and Sudan's role)
Then, if your point is to say that those two things sould've benn handled separately, it make sense, but this would have demanded way more infrastructure and all... which costs a lot, and would've lead to no action at all...
Tribesman
03-11-2008, 16:35
In order to protect the refugees from Darfour who went into Chad, a peacekeeping force was sent by the EU.
No , their role in Chad is to protect the refugees from sudan , protect the refugees from the CAR and protect the internal refugees from the civil war plus help to impliment the faltering (or some might say completely broken) peace process .
The same can be said of their role in the dual CAR deployment , if you change the internal refugees to CAR and the external ones to Chadian .
Then, if your point is to say that those two things sould've benn handled separately, it make sense, but this would have demanded way more infrastructure and all... which costs a lot, and would've lead to no action at all...
Do you mean the three things ?
It was complicated enough to just get consensus and approval for the dual deployment , there is very little hope of them bringing a sudanese deployment together as well .
Which does raise the issue of whether the dual deployment is any good at all , since all three conflicts are linked and participated in by all three nations(plus others) .
None of which even remotely addresses the issues I raised over EU participation with France when France is itself a party in the conflict .
Caerfanan
03-12-2008, 16:01
Err, okay, I might be numb, but isn't Darfour a part of Sudan?
And are you trying to say something like "we're helping bad guys to back up a dictator in Africa"? Because I sort of hope that the EU heads of state aren't completely out of their mind and have a motive to do so. Maybe a motive that gamers on the internet can't grab on a single view?
I mean even those who followed the USA where-you-know 5 years ago were convinced that weapons of massive destruction were existing there (at least officially) and that destroying Sadam power would be good for where-you-know.
Err, okay, I might be numb, but isn't Darfour a part of Sudan?
Yes, the link provided in the first post shows this too.
And are you trying to say something like "we're helping bad guys to back up a dictator in Africa"? Because I sort of hope that the EU heads of state aren't completely out of their mind and have a motive to do so.Maybe a motive that gamers on the internet can't grab on a single view?
I don't know why... but I am reminded of Vietnam when the US was in there with our small group of allies when you typed that:inquisitive:.
I mean even those who followed the USA where-you-know 5 years ago were convinced that weapons of massive destruction were existing there (at least officially) and that destroying Sadam power would be good for where-you-know.
I think just about where-you-know everyone else was saying, "where the **** are you finding these weapons? We ain't found ****." But it's like Jr. didn't care, his daddy was threatened and he decided to show 'em who's "boss."
Caerfanan
03-13-2008, 14:38
I don't know why... but I am reminded of Vietnam when the US was in there with our small group of allies when you typed that:inquisitive:.
Well if I sort of understand why some people would follow "blindly" the USA in the seventies in a "war against communism", or nowadays in a "war against terrorism", the USA being a really big power and commercial partner and all, I really think that some big countries in the EU wouldn't follow "blindly" France in some stupid "dictator backing up". I don't think that France has such an influence...
I think just about where-you-know everyone else was saying, "where the **** are you finding these weapons? We ain't found ****." But it's like Jr. didn't care, his daddy was threatened and he decided to show 'em who's "boss."
Well...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.