Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Military Action Overseas  
User currently offlineAa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1031 times:

This is a topic that was brought up in on of my classes recently, and I found it very interesting. Does any one know of some of the US peace keeping missions over seas? I am thinking of stuff similar to the whole bosnia thing, but I can;t think of any that happened before the last few years. If any one could name some from the last few decades I would be interested to read them.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDC-9CAPT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 933 times:

Here is a selected list of US Military Operations Other than Wars:

1980 Desert 1 Rescue Attempt during storm in Iran. The low point of the US military history in the post Vietnam period. (After this, things got a lot better).

1981 Significant US Naval Force in the Med. Qaddafi begins to piss off US. USN shoots down two Libyan MIGs. Tomcats 2 Libya 0.

1982 Ronald Reagan dispatches troops as part of multinational peace force to serve in the Sinai. This lasted until well into the mid-80s. (A sad footnote--unfortunately, 248 peacekeepers from the 101st lost their lives in Dec 1985 when their Arrow Air DC-8 crashed outside of Gander.)

1982 Beirut

1983 Grenada

1985 Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro is taken over by terrorists and US citizen Leon Klinghoffer is killed. Taking appropriate action befitting of our bold Commander in Chief, the US is able to intercept and force the landing of an Egyptair 737 in Sicily which was attempting to carry the ship hijackers to Libya. Reagan's message: "You can run but you can't hide!"

1986 Libyan leader Qadaffi has a break with reality again and threatens the US with his sinister "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Siddra. This is after his terrorists have bombed the Vienna airport. Reagan answers back with a wing of F-111s and several missile strikes (including one on Qadaffi's home). Qadaffi has kept his mouth shut ever since.

1987--1988 Significant US Naval Presence in Persian Gulf

1989 Panama Invasion. Noriega rounded up and sent to the federal Klinker.

1990 Non-combatant evacuation of US embassy in Liberia

1991 In midst of Gulf War, dramatic non-combatant evacuation of US embassy in Somalia takes place--Operation Eastern Exit. This action wasn't given much attention at all.

1991 Evacuation of Zaire

1992 Evacuation of Sierra Leone

1992 Somalia

1994 Haiti


User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 923 times:

Here are some amendments to DC9-CAPT's selected list:

1980 Desert 1 Rescue Attempt during storm in Iran. The low point of the US military history in the post Vietnam period. (After this, things got a lot better).

Things hardly got better after this at all!! Read on!!

1982 Beirut

The MNF which went into Beirut was a half-cocked attempt at restoring some degree of peace in Lebanon, after the Israelis invaded.

If anything, the failure of the MNF only fuelled the fires a little bit more and dragged out the Lebanon-Israel/Israel-Palestinian conflict even longer.

Remember all the foreign nationals who were taken hostage in Lebanon? This is often said it is as a result of the ineffectiveness of the MNF in Beirut (beginning in 1982).

Also, wasn't it Beirut where a number of marines were ambushed and blown up?

1983 Grenada

Is this invasion which occurred because the Americans were afraid of Castro gaining any support in the Caribbean?

1986 Libyan leader Qadaffi has a break with reality again and threatens the US with his sinister "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Siddra. This is after his terrorists have bombed the Vienna airport. Reagan answers back with a wing of F-111s and several missile strikes (including one on Qadaffi's home). Qadaffi has kept his mouth shut ever since.

Qaffadi has hardly shut up since.

Qaffadi punished America for the attacks on Tripoli and Benghazi where it hurt.

Do you remember a flight called Pan Am 103?

1987--1988 Significant US Naval Presence in Persian Gulf

Interesting, you hail the successes, yet you fail to mention here that the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air Airbus A300, killing over 200 people. And to this day, still denies any wrong doing???

1989 Panama Invasion. Noriega rounded up and sent to the federal Klinker.

Even though Noriega may have been a despot, the fact remains that the invasion of Panama for the purpose of overthrowing Noriega was and still is, under international law, illegal.

1992 Somalia

This would have to be one of the worst PR disasters for the American military and the UN, in which a 'simple' aid and relief mission turned into a military nightmare, which culminated in the 1993 attempt to oust Mohammed Farah Aided from his stranglehold, killing a dozen or so people, and wounding dozens more.

Wasn't there also an incident which occurred in Mogadishu, in which a Blackhawk opened fire, mistakenly, on a group of Bluehats from the sub-continent killing a few of them?

1994 Haiti

One of the more successful American and UN missions in recent years.

But in answer to the original question on peacekeeping all of your questions can be answered by visiting:

http://www.un.int/usa/peace_fact.htm


User currently offlineAa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Thanks guys, I find this stuff really interesting, I have a big history paper coming up on any thing I want and I might end up doing something about how America shouldn't be going into overseas wars.

User currently offlinePawBob From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 899 times:

Well I think there's always more than one side to an issue.

"Doing something about how America shouldn't be going into overseas wars."

May I suggest going into the pros and cons of USA international military involvement.

The US has vital interests abroad. Military presence/action/inaction should always be options.  Smokin cool


User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 893 times:

Brissy,

Try getting a copy of the book "Blackhawk Down" regarding the US involvement on Somalia. If anything it shows the US Forces as an inept fighting force that shouldn't have left their backyard.


User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 888 times:

I read Blackhawk down. I thought it portrayed the U.S forces quite well.

I think that anyone'd have to be a damn good soldier to survive what those Rangers, SEALS, and Delta Force troopers had thrown at them. The whole city was up in arms and blasting away at them. What saved the Americans was that our troops were superior soldiers not hopped up on khat who knew how to shoot.

Admittedly, there was some breakdown in the system and some troops got scared and broke down, but the vast majority didn't break and run- if they did there would be hundreds of U.S dead not just 18. Who among us has the bravery to stick to one's comrades when bullets are flying all over and the enemy outnumbers you by orders of magitude? I'd be shitting my pants. But the Rangers held on and kicked ass.

And when you look at it in the greater scheme of things, we won. We got our warlord lieutenants (not Aidid but some of his top people), we only lost 18 people but we killed 300. What ought to have happened is that the Admiral in charge ought to have gone into the market square, lined up all of the prisoners and shot them in the back of the head with a .45. The Somalis warlords only understood violence. They robbed and stole from the people who were trying to do good for them. Only when the Somalis understood that the Americans were the most powerful gang in Somalia would they be cowed.

After the Somalis understood one of the fundamental truths of nation building- that a nation exists to create order and unity for its citizens- then they could have all of the niceties of democracy. But the establishment of peace and order requires strength and ruthlessness.

There will be no warfare without casualties. Unfortunately the media makes it seem like only U.S casualties matter while ignoring the very real truth that the U.S Armed forces make it so that the other guy gets most of the casualties.


User currently offlinePawBob From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 872 times:

I think the Gulf War against Iraq is a good example in US military AND political leadership.

Unfortunatly, Saddam was left in power. So IMHO the military role did not go far enough.


User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 867 times:

Flyboeing,

I'm sorry, I thought that the US went to Somalia on as part of an UN aid and relief mission. Where did the idea that they went to WAR come from?

So you believe that the "Admiral in charge ought to have gone into the market square, lined up all of the prisoners and shot them in the back of the head with a .45"

Have you considered the repercussions of such an action, whatever happened to democracy?



User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 865 times:

Pawbob

This is taken from the jacket of a book called “Brighter than the Baghdad Sun”..

In October 1990, as the world was about to go to war with Iraq, Saddam Hussein ordered his scientists to develop a nuclear bomb to be detonated on the outskirts of Kuwait City before the allies could launch Operation Desert Storm. In spite of the warnings of people who had worked for him in the west, his enemies had no idea how close to came to doing so”…………

They now believe that he was within a month of having his device when Operation Desert Storm was launched, was he mad enough to have used it?

If the book is to be believed, the US Military and political leadership almost brought home more body bags than during the Vietnam war.


User currently offlinePawBob From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 861 times:

Fortunatly, Saddam did not deploy his so-called nuclear device.

Had he been allowed to stay in Kuwait, he would be a lot more powerful than he is now.

Now, what got him into Kuwait initially, and whether he was given tacit approval from the US ambassador at Baghdad; that I'd like to know.  Confused


User currently offlineCstarU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 858 times:

If Saddam ever used one...there would be no Iraq today.

Remember, there was an implied nuclear threat from the U.S. if Iraq ever used chemical weapons against the coalition forces.


User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 857 times:

I'm sorry, I thought that the US went to Somalia on as part of an UN aid and relief mission. Where did the idea that they went to WAR come from?

The U.S forces went in to restore order to the country so that the relief could be distributed. In any police action such as that we ought to find the biggest threats to order- Aidid's Habr Gidr- and then render them incapable of threatening the order.

So you believe that the "Admiral in charge ought to have gone into the market square, lined up all of the prisoners and shot them in the back of the head with a .45"

Have you considered the repercussions of such an action, whatever happened to democracy?


Democracy doesn't exist when government doesn't exist. In the establishment of good order and government, the police ought to make examples of those threatening order. The Somali citizens who thought about supporting Aidid would thusly think twice about who they owe their allegiance to.


User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 849 times:

Pawbob,

I could never understand why Saddam didnt continue down to Riyadh and therefore take all of the Saudi oil fields. His forces were definitely superior to anything that was there to stop him.

Could it be that he did have tacit approval from the US Ambassador and his Arab neighbours?


User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 840 times:

I think that anyone'd have to be a damn good soldier to survive what those Rangers, SEALS, and Delta Force troopers had thrown at them. The whole city was up in arms and blasting away at them. What saved the Americans was that our troops were superior soldiers not hopped up on khat who knew how to shoot.

Damn straight! Except for the fact that it was American forces who fired upon Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani bluehats, killing them. So they know how to shoot....they just didn't know who to shoot. But hey...as long as they aren't American it is a good shot...right?

And when you look at it in the greater scheme of things, we won. We got our warlord lieutenants (not Aidid but some of his top people), we only lost 18 people but we killed 300.

I am finding it hard to take you seriously with comments like these.

NOOO....

In the great scheme of things, the UN was run out of Somalia.

Aided was still "ruling" Somalia until his death a couple of years ago.

There is still no resolution to the Somaliland problem.

Somalia is still having the sames problems as 10 years ago.

I would hardly call this a WIN.

The Somalis warlords only understood violence. They robbed and stole from the people who were trying to do good for them. Only when the Somalis understood that the Americans were the most powerful gang in Somalia would they be cowed

Excuse me...America was NOT the most powerful gang in Somalia. The United Nations was.

But FlyBoeing, you seem to have missed the whole point here.

The UN Somalia mission started out as a aid and relief mission. Yes, the Somali warlords were causing problems, but it was America alone, acting outside of the UN mission in Somalia, that decided that the ousting of Aided was necessary. It was America alone, who turned Somalia into a "war". Remember, the warlords were active before the UN went in, during, and even after the UN pulled out.

I would hardly call this a successful mission for the UN and America!


User currently offlineDeltaRNOmd-80 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 836 times:

I don't know much about this topic but I DO know (and lots of other people do too) that the USA is the leading force in the United Nations. Every operation they are in involves mostly American soldiers.

User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 836 times:

If you'd been reading my post carefully, Brissie, you'd have noticed that I was never talking about how America inevitably enmeshed itself in the Somali affair. I was only talking about the troops' valor when they fought. In the battle for Mogadishu the United States won. In the war against the warlords, the United States and UN lost. I believe that we lost because we failed to display the ruthlessness that the warlords displayed. When America decides to fight it ought to fight with all of its heart and not with CNN looking over their shoulder.

Brissie, in Somalia the Pakistani and Bangladeshi blue-hats were killed in a seperate engagement, NOT the Aidid attack. Yes, it's a tragedy that those troops got killed. But nobody intended to kill them. This is entirely a different situation from being submerged in a sea of hostiles.

and I'm only talking about the skill of U.S troops here, not about the ineptitude of their political leadership. Tactically, Americans are the best on earth. Strategically, we're led by buffoons. I freely admit that.

Yes, the UN and U.S got run out of Somalia. But they gave it their best try. They tried reasoning with the warlords and that didn't work. They tried killing them and the U.S failed to want to win. So we lost. But the U.S soldier never failed his country.


User currently offlineBrissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 824 times:

DeltaRNO

Well you obviously DON'T know your facts as much as you would like.

From http://www.un.int/usa/fact2.htm

Myth: Too many American soldiers are serving in UN peacekeeping operations. The U.S. provides most of the military men and women involved in UN peacekeeping operations.

Reality: Fewer than 40 American military men and women are currently serving in UN peacekeeping operations. Americans therefore represent less than 1% of the approximate total of 29,000 soldiers serving in UN operations.


Also, saying every operation they are involved in is also FALSE.

There is only 1 American adviser in East Timor at the moment. Does this mean that there are only 0.5 soldiers from all other countries?

I think you would be well advised to go and read

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/home_bottom.htm

as you will soon learn that America is not really the guiding force in the UN.


User currently offlineAa737 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 820 times:

Does any one know of a site that will say around how much bombing was done in some of these battles. For example around how many missiles were launched during Kosovo. I am not sure if the information is classified or what, but I haven't had much luck finding the info on the search engines.

User currently offlinePawBob From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 814 times:

Ambasaid:

I do think that our ambasador looked the other way when Saddam invited her for a one-on-one meeting just before his invasion of Kuwait.
I don't think his neighbours (except the Israelis) fully understood his seriousness in invading Kuwait.

There's always been a debate whether the whole thing was planned as part of a global realignement, and other hidden objectives. But who am I to know.  Confused


User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 805 times:

PawBob,

As detailed in Brighter than the Baghdad sun.

"""""""On the night of the 25th July Ambassador Glaspie met with Saddam.

She was reported to have carefully recited the approved State Department line that the military exercises were just routine and that America hoped that Saddam could sort out his difficulties with Kuwait peacefully, she went on to say “We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your brother disagreement with Kuwait.’ Whatever the Ambassador thought her message conveyed, Saddam was convinced that the Americans had signaled their lack of interest in how he resolved his fight with his neighbours…………""""

As they say the rest is history…………


User currently offlinePawBob From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 802 times:

Now did she say that line knowing full well the troops he had amassed on the Kuwaiti border?

If yes, then it was an open invitation to go ahead into Kuwait.

If no, then she did not have all the information our military and intelligence svcs had.  Confused


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Preparing For Military Action In Pakistan? posted Fri Apr 26 2002 01:54:43 by Ual747
US Military Hearing On Iraq Rape Case Begins posted Sun Aug 6 2006 19:16:46 by Rammstein
US Military On US Borders? posted Fri May 12 2006 19:23:58 by ANCFlyer
U.S. To Beef Up Military Action Against Terror posted Sun Apr 23 2006 18:10:40 by AerospaceFan
US Military Smuggled Vacationers Out Of Superdome posted Thu Sep 8 2005 18:42:37 by Clickhappy
Interesting Interview With A US Military Sniper posted Sat Aug 27 2005 08:13:14 by NWA742
US Military Leaves Uzbekistan, But... posted Fri Aug 26 2005 14:10:35 by Bofredrik
US Military In Paraguay Thru 2006: Why? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 17:38:44 by Derico
US Military "supports" London In These Hard Times posted Tue Jul 12 2005 04:36:11 by PROSA
US Military Loses Contact With Two Jets Over Iraq posted Tue May 3 2005 02:38:46 by KiwiNanday