Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Iran military in Syria fire '20 MISSILES' at Israel targets in Golan Heights

you brought up Lebanon in post 49
In response to your point on Lebanon
correct but since UNPROFOR has there been a major contribution of British troops to any, let’s say more robust, UN mission?
Which part of ‘war fighting ops’ do you believe I missed?
People criticise the UN for not doing enough yet they partially control the mandate and then don’t provide troops.
I’ve said before I have no problem. The trouble is we’ve been warfighting/COIN pretty much on and off since ‘68 plus various NATO Ops. We’ve been supplying SMEs on U.N. and EuFor ops for years. Just not formed units per se on U.N. ops other than Cyprus.
absolutely

But we do have a naval vessel in the Med on the EU mission, we have/had personnel training locals in Mali and Somalia, we had personnel with ISAF.
I’m not saying you’re not doing anything. It’s in response to the rather pithy comment “...when is the UK going to join the party?”
If we hadn’t have put troops on the ground with UNDOF there was a very high possibility of the mission ceasing, that assists in preventing the conflict spreading (as does UNIFIL).
I’ve no problem with either force. They need strong RoEs as well. They also should be equipped by the U.N. including drones and the ability to conduct counter battery fire.
 
Last edited:
After 32,000 deployments, the penny should have dropped you are doing the square root of bugger all.
From 1978 to 2006 it was a peacekeeping mission which saw a lot of fighting.

Since 2006, there has been only minor incidents why because it became a peace enforcement mission.

Ireland didn’t get a vote on changing the mandate, the UK and others did
 
Ireland didn’t get a vote on changing the mandate, the UK and others did
You may get a seat in 2021. Be careful what you wish for.
 
Which part of ‘war fighting ops’ do you believe I missed?

I’ve said before I have no problem. The trouble is we’ve been warfighting/COIN pretty much on and off since ‘68 plus various NATO Ops. We’ve been supplying SMEs on U.N. and EuFor ops for years. Just not formed units per se on U.N. ops other than Cyprus.

I’m not saying you’re not doing anything. It’s in response to the rather pithy comment “...when is the UK going to join the party?”

I’ve no problem with either force. They need strong RoEs as well. They also should be equipped by the U.N. including drones and the ability to conduct counter battery fire.

Which all stems from the same thing with the exception of China, all the permanent UNSC members decide to deploy a UN force, often give it a weak and unachieveable mandate (which decides the RoE), they set an unrealistic troop levels to achieve the mandate to keep costs down.

They refuse to provide troops. They give out about the troops who do deploy.

They give out about the mandate not being fulfilled.

The UK has contributed to the very stable situation in UNFICYP but not any of the more robust missions since UNPROFOR.

There is a place for individuals it’s formed units that the UN is short of
 
Which all stems from the same thing with the exception of China, all the permanent UNSC members decide to deploy a UN force, often give it a weak and unachieveable mandate (which decides the RoE), they set an unrealistic troop levels to achieve the mandate to keep costs down.

They refuse to provide troops. They give out about the troops who do deploy.

They give out about the mandate not being fulfilled.
Well then.Why dignify it by participating in it?
 
Which all stems from the same thing with the exception of China, all the permanent UNSC members decide to deploy a UN force, often give it a weak and unachieveable mandate (which decides the RoE), they set an unrealistic troop levels to achieve the mandate to keep costs down
China voted to not give you weak RoEs? It’s not just the P5 btw.

They’ve stepped up to the mark and have given troops, albeit there are conflicting reports on their usefulness.

If Ireland had been conducting ‘warfighting/COIN Ops’ for fifty years you might feel differently.

Seems to me you’re complaining about doing peacekeeping ops and don’t think the U.K. are pulling their weight when they have been in other areas, hence your pithy comment.
Not a permanent seat
Whose do you want? Russia’s? China’s? France’s?
We have been trying to get a permanent seat for a long time
Sure. I wouldn’t hold your breath personally. India and other BRICS countries would be before you.
 
China voted to not give you weak RoEs? It’s not just the P5 btw.
absolutely but it’s the p5 that influence other countries votes and have vetos


If Ireland had been conducting ‘warfighting/COIN Ops’ for fifty years you might feel differently.

Seems to me you’re complaining about doing peacekeeping ops and don’t think the U.K. are pulling their weight when they have been in other areas, hence your pithy comment.
i’m not i’m Very much pro peace support ops.

My point is that countries can’t give out about the effectiveness of UN ops when they have an influence over their establishment and fail to provide meaningful troop numbers.

Whose do you want? Russia’s? China’s? France’s?
afaik the campaign is for a P6
 
absolutely but it’s the p5 that influence other countries votes and have vetos
I realise that. It’s why I often talk about unanimous UNSC Resolutions
i’m not i’m Very much pro peace support ops.

My point is that countries can’t give out about the effectiveness of UN ops when they have an influence over their establishment and fail to provide meaningful troop numbers.
I’ve always said the U.N. should have strong RoEs. It’s not just the UK, or the P5 or even the UNSC. It’s what the Charter says and what their lawyers say. Same on U.K. Ops and the ‘legalese’. The only one you always get is ‘the inherent right to self defence’
afaik the campaign is for a P6
I still doubt Ireland would be up there. Europe would be covered by France. Russia, China and US obviously, so they’d add India, a S American, an African and an Australasian permanent member.
 
If you insist on sitting in no mans land when two bigger dogs tear into each other, it shoudnt come as a surprise when you get bit.

Top tip: IDF don't do 'proportional' - they understand that in their situation, the old 'Ultra Violence' is the only way to react. If they think you are either directly, or indirectly helping the other side, you become a very legitimate target in their eyes.

Did you deploy on any UN tours or did you just deploy on war fighting operations ?
 
Given their (IrDF's) track record duting 'the troubles' they wouldn't recognise the border if they fell over it.

We don't recognise the border. It's in the constitution.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
(Yawn, pissed stained old man) I served you know... (Yawn, piss stained old man)
No you didn't, but the piss-stained bit is unsurprising.
 
i’m Very much pro peace support ops.
6


Unfortunately, you have chosen to 'peacekeep' at the sufferance of the biggest regional kid who basically just tolerates you - as long as you don't irritate him be pretending you have any say in his business.
 
I realise that. It’s why I often talk about unanimous UNSC Resolutions

I’ve always said the U.N. should have strong RoEs. It’s not just the UK, or the P5 or even the UNSC. It’s what the Charter says and what their lawyers say. Same on U.K. Ops and the ‘legalese’. The only one you always get is ‘the inherent right to self defence’

I still doubt Ireland would be up there. Europe would be covered by France. Russia, China and US obviously, so they’d add India, a S American, an African and an Australasian permanent member.
Remember the first Gulf War had a UN mandate

I agree the chances of a permanent seat are very very very slim
 
Remember the first Gulf War had a UN mandate
There’s plenty of unanimous UNSC Resolutions. Like the one on IS, like Syria getting rid of CW (2118 ) or the ‘roadmap for peace’ (2254) or 1718 on DPRK. Often it’s compliance with them
I agree the chances of a permanent seat are very very very slim
More exceedingly slim to zero. It should be by continents imo. Nothing would get done (less than now), but it would be fairer
 

Latest Threads

Top