Operation "Bøllebank" (Hooligan-bashing)

pff sst has a lot to do with reality more than you think
stop people from killing other people by killeng them great achivment

 

sorry dumb comment because of misreading

 

Stop people from killing other people by sending in a patrol force that fires only when fired upon, but still forms an authority in the region? A force which specifically aims at the disabling of an oppressive and murderous regime?

 

@all

I support military operations, like Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom without lovin´war and cruelity. Every one grumble about the USA in europe, but they forget the good aspects of american engagement in the world. What would happen to Taiwan, if the United States wouldn´t protect them against china. The USA don´t need the Oil in Iraq, they could raise up their oil extraction in Nigeria and other nations. Imagine they wouldn´t have attacked the Iraq and weren´t in the persian gulf at all, do you think it would be better and there would be a vacuum of power ?
Oh, america so bad, however nobody accused russia for Chechenya or china for executing more people then the rest of the world. In Bosnia the americans react to stop the murdering of innocent people and, how wonder, there is no oil, but of course america just fight for oil, pff.

And of course panzerman can be proud of the danes engagement for freedom, why not?? And so can the americans and brits be proud of it !

Quote, Donal Duck 1943 The Spirit of ´43

 

Come on Che, you know perfectly well that the intervention in Bosnia was a UN action, not a US one. Of course the UN doesn't fight for oil - the UN fights for peace.

By the way, the cliche "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" is as ancient as it is wrong. Of course you can fight for peace - as long as war results in the reinstallment of political stability.

 

Che
I am a part Norwegian, part American. I have lived all of my life in Europe however.

And I definitely agree with Roel on the cliche of "bombing for peace is like ...".

Such oversimplifications should d-

...

be gotten rid of.

 

lllllllllooooooooooooooooolllllllllllllllll
yeah roel that slogan is great you hit the nail on the head
why didnt i know this

 

Roel wrote:

So what? Korea was a UN action also wasn't it? Who did the majority of fighting and dieing? The US. the UN was accomplishing nothing in Bosnia..the Serbs could waltz right into UN compounds and drive away impounded armor while daring the UN troops to try and prevent them.
The UN doesn't fight for peace. Where has the UN done any fighting for peace. They talk about fighting, they issue empty threats and cajole and plead..as with Saddam.

 

Al amin wrote:

Indeed it is. Stopping the killing of the innocent by killing the murderers ..what could be a better achievement?

 

Oh boy, not another UN debate... :roll:

Anyhow...

Al Amin, total Pacifism is a noble goal. I agree that there should be no war, no aggression, no killing other people for whatever reason.

However (there is always a however), life just ain't that simple. People, whether as individuals, as nations, as ethnic or religious groups, do attack each other. Often for very very poor reasons - like Catholics & Protestants fighting over doctrinal differences, or China invading Tibet because hundreds of years ago it was part of the Chinese Empire, or... well, the list is long. In terms of grievances, people have long memories and they like revenge.

So what can we do, pragmatically?

Are people going to change in their attitudes? Well, maybe eventually, but I see no evidence of this.

So in the meantime, do we allow people to kill each other, do we allow ethnic cleansing to happen out in Africa (sadly, we all too often do - but should we allow it?), do we allow Serbs and Bosnians to kill each other because of their long history?

I say no.

Sure, military force is never an ideal solution. People get killed on both sides, 'innocent' people get hurt/killed, collateral damage to structures annd property happens.

But how else do you stop fighting? Ask everyonr to calm down, have a nice cup of tea and then kiss & make up?

Sometimes the 'good of the many' principle kicks in, and yes, it is best to remove violent elements (by imprisonment or by killing in combat) for the safety of the wider population.


I would like to note that nobody, no country, not the UN, not anybody has a perfect peacekeeping record. Partly because there are just too many things to police all at once, and partly because of self-interest, and a whole host of other reasons. But we do try, here and there, which is a start.

 

Should the world just sit back and do nothing when people are killing each other?
I would say NO!!! that would be a big a crime as the people that kill each other..
The most well known example I can give on this, is Germany duing WW2, most of the german people at that time just sat back and did nothing to help the jews or to stop the war, that was their crime even if they did not took part in any of the killings (and I shall point out that the modern Germany or germans cant be blamed for those crimes)

Now you might say that the world should try peaceful deplomatic ways to stop these crimes/conflicts, but that dont always help and in the mean time you try the peaceful way, the crimes continues..
So sometimes there is only one way to stop these things and that is with military force, like it or not, because that seem to be the only thing some people understand, to get a bomb in their head.

It would be great if peaceful deplomatic ways could stop conflicts every time, but the world is not perfect

 

Not having any innocent in the first place, perhaps...
But at this time, I see that as an impossibility, and thus we must do the best we can, which is stopping the atrocities.

 

:roll:

How typical. I defuse this lame cliché argument, which is constantly being brought up but never being backed up by pacifists, and what do you do? You take over the phrase without realizing that it has just been disproven, and that it no longer has any worth in this debate.

The fact is rather that if no one fights for peace, no war will ever end. The flawed theory behind the cliche is that if everyone would just stop fighting "for peace" no one will be fighting at all; however we have to face the fact that wars are going on right now, and they will never ever stop if no one decides to fight for peace.

 

You did not know this because you have been lucky enough not to be subjected to such retarded dogma.

 

Roel wrote:

Is it that old? The first I remember seeing it was on a poster bathed in black light with the smell of incense on the air and Ravi Shankar playing in the background as I scanned the 4000 different roach clips for sale in a "head shop" around 1971... :smok:
What am I going on about?..I doubt you people have a clue what I'm talking about..you young whippersnappers don't remember the 70's :smok:

 

If this tank had been used in Operation Bøllebank, you wouldnt have had a case AL AMIN! :lol:

 

This young whippersnapper doesn't even remember the eighties! :lol:

It is that ancient for me.

Panzerman: the FT-17 spins in its muddy grave over that picture.

 

When I look at that tank, why do I think of Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes?

"I'm picking up negative vibes here!"