kombolcha Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa...sp?story=645327 Addis Ababa is in a state of emergency after Ethiopian police killed 22 and arrested 600 anti-government demonstrators in clashes that threaten to destroy one of Africa's most stable countries. Gunfire echoed across the city yesterday when protesters clashed with security forces who had been ordered to disband all protests and demonstrations.After several hours of fighting, schools, churches and offices decided to send their staff home and close their doors. Traders at the Mercato, Africa's biggest market, decided to close during business hours as the city fell apart. Taxi drivers went on strike, sending text messages urging each other to switch off their engines and stay at home. The government tried to organise bus services but with no success. One resident said: "There was a lot of chaos and shots fired earlier in the day but now there's a deathly calm like early Sunday morning. The taxis have stopped running, all shops are closed. We are holding our breath and waiting." Two foreign radio stations, Voice of America and Deutsche Welle, were yesterday taken off the air for broadcasting critical reports - most Ethiopians now have to rely on state-controlled stations for news. ..... in 1994 the current government created a constitution. this year was election year, they lost, and now they're not handing over power to the winning party. the winning party is made up of educated people, mainly professors, huge support for them, now students are protesting and being shot. the winning party leaders are now under house arrest. how many more deaths will it take before someone gets involved *cough*UN*cough* what they are doing is so blatant! even a blind person can see what the govt. is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 9, 2005 If this isn't mediated soon I will have lost all faith in the UN. This is exactly what it is here for. And if America/Britain/France/whoever don't step in I will be pretty dissapointed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pixated Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Thats terrible :(.The UN should do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 9, 2005 The one thing about the UN is they probably don't have enough resources to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted June 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 9, 2005 The one thing about the UN is they probably don't have enough resources to do anything. 586038687[/snapback] Resources? Try cojones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 9, 2005 Resources? Try cojones. 586040981[/snapback] lol, Probably, but what is the actual status of the UN troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted June 9, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 9, 2005 lol, Probably, but what is the actual status of the UN troops? 586040990[/snapback] Couldn't reall tell you to be honest. I do recall seeing somewhere that if you removed the US mitliary contribution, the typically UN force is cut by about 60%. So considering we are strecthed thin already, I don't see us donating the manpower to anythign the UN wants to do (assuming they even care to do anything). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zh3n Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Couldn't reall tell you to be honest. I do recall seeing somewhere that if you removed the US mitliary contribution, the typically UN force is cut by about 60%. So considering we are strecthed thin already, I don't see us donating the manpower to anythign the UN wants to do (assuming they even care to do anything). 586041222[/snapback] Cut by 60% huh? That quite a chop. We are stretched thin and it will be interesting to see what the UN will do in this particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kombolcha Posted June 10, 2005 Author Share Posted June 10, 2005 after they came to power, the president is a "Tigrey" the different groups in the country, he slowly dismantelled the entire army and created his own army of only Tigrey soldiers. now the entire city is empty people have stopped working, and he's taken some 20 - 40 tanks in the city now. as fro the guy who's on house arrest, they have not fed him for over 30 hours. there were reports that Kofi Annan called the president to tell him that he better feed him. they have so many ICRC centers there, why the hell won't they do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 after they came to power, the president is a "Tigrey" the different groups in the country, he slowly dismantelled the entire army and created his own army of only Tigrey soldiers.now the entire city is empty people have stopped working, and he's taken some 20 - 40 tanks in the city now. as fro the guy who's on house arrest, they have not fed him for over 30 hours. there were reports that Kofi Annan called the president to tell him that he better feed him. they have so many ICRC centers there, why the hell won't they do anything? 586043566[/snapback] Horrible situation there. A tleast thank God Kofi called to give a stern talking to, though. That is what they are best at - talking. (N) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pencilmonkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Horrible situation there. A tleast thank God Kofi called to give a stern talking to, though. That is what they are best at - talking. (N) 586044643[/snapback] Or until the US does what they do best and carpet bombs the place... Not that we're making sweeping generalizations here or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaLiVa Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Or until the US does what they do best and carpet bombs the place...Not that we're making sweeping generalizations here or anything. 586044718[/snapback] So if it isn't a generalisation that means the US is very good at carpet bombings? How about UN troops excluding the US? That accounts for 40%, that has to give for something at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pencilmonkey Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 So if it isn't a generalisation that means the US is very good at carpet bombings?How about UN troops excluding the US? That accounts for 40%, that has to give for something at least... 586044757[/snapback] Define 'very good' they're extremely effective providing the goal is wholesale destruction. Besides, I was simply using that statement to highlight the flaws in generalizing. But I'd like to see the backing for the claim that 60% of UN troops are provided by the US. Some numbers follow as such As of June 30, 2001, there were 797 US personnel (1 troop, 756 civilian police, and 40 observers) in worldwide UN peace operations, accounting for 1.8% of total UN peacekeepers. As commander-in-chief, the President of the United States never gives up command authority over US troops. When large numbers of US troops are involved and when the risk of combat is high, operational control of US forces will remain in American hands, or in the hands of a trusted military ally such as a NATO member?though the US Department of State insists that the US must "allow temporary foreign operational control of US troops when it serves US interests."The lack of United States involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has drawn criticism from other member states. The paltry investment of personnel in UN peacekeeping operations is attributed to "the Mogadishu factor"?a deep reluctance by US administrations to incur casualties in military operations which do not serve US strategic interests You cannot count the troops in Iraq as they are not part of a UN operation but ratehr a US led initiative not sanctioned by the world body. From May 2005 off the page http://www.un.int/usa/iofact3.htm At present, U.S. troops and civilian police account for 375 of the 66,547 UN peacekeepers worldwide I edited out the financial numbers (the US accounts for approximately 27% of the UN's budget, part of this is repayment of a debt of apporx 1.75 billion owed to the un by the US in previously defaulted dues) as we are talking troop strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Veteran Posted June 10, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 10, 2005 Define 'very good' they're extremely effective providing the goal is wholesale destruction. Besides, I was simply using that statement to highlight the flaws in generalizing.But I'd like to see the backing for the claim that 60% of UN troops are provided by the US. Some numbers follow as such You cannot count the troops in Iraq as they are not part of a UN operation but ratehr a US led initiative not sanctioned by the world body. From May 2005 off the page http://www.un.int/usa/iofact3.htm I edited out the financial numbers (the US accounts for approximately 27% of the UN's budget, part of this is repayment of a debt of apporx 1.75 billion owed to the un by the US in previously defaulted dues) as we are talking troop strength. 586045053[/snapback] On more research it appears I was quite wrong about those numbers, I suppose I shouldn't quote second hand info like that. This is what I have found: HOW MANY AMERICANS CURRENTLY ARE UN PEACEKEEPERS?While thousands of U.S. soldiers are deployed around the world, few usually serve in United Nations peace operations. As of January 2003, only 690 American troops and civilian police are serving in UN peacekeeping operations ? that accounts for only 1.5% of the 47,108 UN peacekeepers worldwide. (Source: United Nations Department of Peacekeeping) I may have been more thinking about our monetary support which accounts for about 1/4 of the entier operating costs. [quotHOW MUCH DOES THE UNITED STATES SPEND ON UN PEACEKEEPING?b> According to the UN Charter, members of the UN pay their share of peacekeeping costs under a formula that they, including the U.S., have agreed upon. Under the Helms-Biden legislation passed by the U.S. Congress in November 1999, the United States' share of UN peacekeeping costs had to be reduced over three years from 30 percent to 25 percent. In December 2000, it was reduced to approximately 26 percent by 2003. For FY2004, the Bush Administration has asked Congress to appropriate $550 million for UN peacekeeping missions. SOURCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts