"South Sudanese Troops Rampage " Topic

…through foriegn compounds. UN and US unresponsive to calls for help.

link

Hah, the UN is going to investigate…

The US embassy was called on for help.

Here is a follow up piece.

link

And this

link

The BBC interviewed one of the aid workers yesterday. Chilling.

Well if the UN Chief wants to stop these types of attacks maybe he should go there and try doing it by himself.

As for the individuals who were attacked well, they should have known that South Sudan is not a very safe place.

This world is far less safe today then it was 100 years ago.

But we still have individuals who think that they can go into these areas and think that they will be totally safe because they are there for a cause.

Well these types of beliefs will only get you beaten, raped and maybe killed.

"This grave violation will not go unreported"

There is a great two part story on the show "Strike Back" with an Blonde doctor in the Sudan who manages to get everyone around her killed.

I don't think the people with,say,Doctors Without Borders,go to dangerous places thinking they will be "totally safe". They go despite the danger.

Look at the ebola epidemic. They went anyway.

Note to world, we are not your policeman, and you aren't paying us to be your rent-a-cop, so…….

Perhaps those more local in the region might consider doing something about it, if they care, and have the inclination.

This world is far less safe today then it was 100 years ago.

I'd say the world in 1916 was actually pretty dangerous…

Well if the UN Chief wants to stop these types of attacks maybe he should go there and try doing it by himself.

if any of you read the article (as if), the point is that a UN military base was less than a mile away and chose not to respond. The people here were also advised that they would be safe.

"Note to world, we are not your policeman, and you aren't paying us to be your rent-a-cop, so……."

We did it for a century or so, no one paid us either.

UN peacekeeping forces are useless.

They are sent abroad so Western countries can feel good about doing something while many countries contribute troops as a condition to recieving foriegn aid money themselves.

The troops are paid high daily per diems (something like USD$30 a day) , which many use to aggravate the prostitution problems (including child prostitution) which grows near UN peacekeeping missions.

UN forces were in Afghanistan in the 1990s to guarantee safety, yet in 1992, they allowed the president Najibullah to be dragged out of the UN compound to be castrated, then executed by the Taliban. He was living in there under guarantees of UN protection yet no one lifted a finger.

If you live in a country which requires UN peacekeeping, good luck.

One does wonder if the UN was capable of intervening. whereas there's 7000 soldiers in country, they're from around two dozen countries and are possibly spread too thin.

From the web-page it seems many are medical staff and engineers doing nation building tasks.

But the mandate does specifically mention protecting women and children from this kind of behaviour.

It'll be interesting to know which ocntingents sat on their hands.

I will agree that a peacekeeping force without a strong mandate and a proper set-up is a sticking plaster at best.

The UN did not have a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan in 1992; they did have a mission which is more like an embassy. Najibullah was killed in 1996.

OK I got the year wrong, but the UN maintained a security compound in which Najibullah lived and was guaranteed safety.

The Taliban did enter the compound, unopposed by armed UN troops, where he was dragged out, castrated and then murdered.

I'm not taking sides, btw, as the Taliban was supported by the US at that time.

UN forces are not meant to fight, they're meant to be sent to somehow "stabilize" a region, yet they have very limited rules of engagement.

Another example: Lebanon. UN forces have been in Lebanon since 1978 to maintain peace along the Lebanese-Isreali border. Yet the Lebanese Militias and Hezbollah have no problems fighting with the Isrealis. Whenever hostilites break out, the UN evacuates.

I could comment on my opinion of the UN (many of you probably already know), and their "security forces' effectiveness, but I prefer not to be doghoused, so I will refrain from that for now.

Many others above have provided the proper context and commentary on their performance.

This seems to be a genuine scandal. The mandate specifically mentions protecting civilians and authorises force. There were three battalions in Juba – Chinese, Ethiopian and Nepalese. None helped despite being within a few hundred mentres of the incident.

The situation was resolved by the intervention of other South Sudanese troops and, the next day, private security personnel.

Frankly shocking on a number of levels.

Probably can't intervene, shoot, unless shot at (and perhaps even actually wounded), so if crimes are happening right in front of them, they may not be able to do anything.

If they intervene, or fire their weapons and kill or injure someone, they can be hauled into court, tried, and jailed. I suspect that's a major disincentive to want to do anything.

From reports I've read in the past, frequently they aren't even given bullets to go in their weapons' magazines, just to be sure incidents don't happen unexpectedly.

"Sergeant, would you be so kind as to fetch and distribute the squad's bullets, since we've come under attack"?

Frankly shocking on a number of levels.

I agree … another tragedy that should have not happened. And seems the UN should done something … why would you have 3 Bns of UN Blue Helmets there ? Above my paygrade … I guess …

if any of you read the article (as if), the point is that a UN military base was less than a mile away and chose not to respond.

Why should they go out and get themselves killed trying to help Americans.

We are the most hated country in the world.

If you live in a country which requires UN peacekeeping, good luck.

So very true.

I'd say the world in 1916 was actually pretty dangerous…

Sure if you were a British Infantryman who was expected to go over the top.

Yes there was a World War (mostly in Europe) but there were still many places you could travel to and feel far safer than today.

It not even safe to walk in certain major American cites these days.

…A hundred years ago, my great grandfather was recovering from multiple gun shot wounds that he received in the opening stages of the Somme and he was Lt. Colonel.

It's to be assumed that much worse things took place in the battalion.

"Frankly shocking on a number of levels."

Sadly it's not shocking at all.

That in itself is very sad but very true … Seems many places in Africa will have no peace. Not anytime soon. No matter how much the West, [Russia or even China] provides or attempts to assist, etc., … I can remember since my childhood[a long, long time ago]. Seeing on the media starving children, medical crises, bloody tribal warfare, etc., … and those same incidents are occurring today … 60 years later …

Mako their mandate specifically gives them the right to intervene to protect women and children.

Mother – it's not all about you. Not all the victims were American. Most were South Sudanese….

Legion… as it happens Africa is booming and more peaceful than it has been since colonial times.

I know that… but too much blood is still being spilled. And by Colonial Times you mean after WWII ? Regardless as I said it has been going on for a 60 year time period, i.e. as long as I have been alive.

If you review, say the Belgium Congo incidents, Mau-Mau uprising, Angola, the Sudan, conflict diamonds, etc., you will have to agree there is a lot of death happening … still …

I don't have data for the pre-WW2 period, but post-war…the world has never been safer:

link

PDF link

But the Colonial era definitely wasn't a safe period. Even a short list of notable high-casualty events (Armenian Genocide, Taiping Rebellion, Russian Civil War) dwarfs most of what we see today….and these were occurring back when the global population was <2 billion. Probability of a violent death is vastly lower today than it was then.

I agree … and yes, hopefully we'll never see anything like those incidents you mentioned. Or even as in WWI or WWII. As tragic as the lose of life is, for example, the USA has suffered in GWII & A'stan … Those figures are small fortunately compared to what happened in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam individually.

But again too many are dying worldwide … not just in Africa …