UK troops 'will not go to Congo'

  peter99co 17:44 01 Nov 2008

David Miliband says British troops will not be sent to join UN troops in the Democratic Republic of Congo "at the moment".

click here

What on earth do we want to be involved in this for. Are we not already up to our necks in conflicts.

For example

An SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan has resigned over what he calls "chronic underinvestment" in troops' equipment

click here

The government doesn't like talking about this issue. They get some faceless MoD bureaucrat to issue a two-line statement, then it's gone and forgotten."

  peter99co 17:46 01 Nov 2008

Sorry for second post. It was not there when I started off.

  sunnystaines 19:06 01 Nov 2008

I agree perhaps they falsely see an easy victory fighting boy soldiers and drug crazed rebels. its another iraq/vietnam saga if we are not careful.

I hope the UN commander that went hope gets done for desertion and the other officers get the training and equipment they need as they seem to be from 3rd rate nations.

  sunnystaines 19:07 01 Nov 2008

should read went "home"

  laurie53 21:34 01 Nov 2008

"What on earth do we want to be involved in this for"

Doesn't matter if we want to or not. If it's a UN operation we are fully paid up members and involved whether we like it or not.

  Forum Editor 09:09 02 Nov 2008

do we want to be involved in this for."

You obviously don't understand the purpose of the United Nations.

  Cymro. 10:27 02 Nov 2008

What David Miliband said was that "British troops WILL NOT be sent to the Congo at the moment". So we have nothing to worry or make a fuzz about, at the moment that is.

I think there are other U.N. member countries that should be considered as candidates for a peace keeping mission to the Congo before us. Belgium was the original colonial power in that part of the world and there are African countries much nearer and with more to concern them than us.

If in what I think is an unlikely event that we do sent troops out there as part of our obligation as UN members then so be it. We can hardly be members of the UN and not play a part in it`s peace keeping responsibilities. But neither is it necessary for us to be at the head of the queue on this occasion.

  peter99co 13:51 02 Nov 2008

I do understand the purpose of the United Nations
and I find it unbelievable that with the pressure we have on our forces we should be expected to be involved.

  peter99co 22:34 04 Nov 2008

click here
only as "a last case contingency provision,"

  john bunyan 12:31 05 Nov 2008

There should be plenty of UN troops from Africa to solve this problem. The trouble is their mandate is too weak, as is the Congolese army who seem as out of control as the rebels. Maybe this is one for Chinese , Indian or Pakastani UN troops if the African countries are unwilling or unable to cope. A friend was there as a UN commander two or three years ago and rerettably found the UN troops then available were not very good.
This seems a bit like Afghanistan where some UN troops will not put themselves in harms way.

  laurie53 15:13 05 Nov 2008

"some UN troops will not put themselves in harms way."

I'm afraid this is human nature. Regardless of what they are told at the time, most people join up to protect their own country, not someone else's.

I must confess that I was never quite as comfortable serving in a dedicated NATO position, under foreign control, as when I was dedicated to home defence, regardless of where I was actually serving at the time.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Huawei MateBook X Pro review

8 digital brands that designed custom typefaces to save millions

How to speed up a slow Mac

Comment résoudre des problèmes d’impressions ?