3 ms·
Which international peacekeepers? They have to come from somewhere. How would they be armed? Would they have artillery and air support or small arms only? What
by nradov 7mo ago
Which international peacekeepers? They have to come from somewhere. How would they be armed? Would they have artillery and air support or small arms only? What would the rules of engagement be?
- LightBug1 7mo agoWhat do you think international peacekeepers means? Where do you think they've come from before? How do you think they've been armed before? What have the rules of engagement in previous peacekeeping missions been? I notice you skipped the piece about pressuring the key players, which is much closer to a solution than what you chose to focus on. Any more questions? Because that seems to be all you have. Pop over to Claude or GPT. I heard it might have some answers.
- nradov 7mo agoWhat a silly, low-effort comment. It's always sad to see that level of arrogant ignorance on HN. There haven't been many examples of international peacekeepers imposing peace by force. In the few cases where peacekeeping missions sort of worked usually the warring parties already had some sort of truce or at least the major fighting had stopped. Where there was no peace to keep, the international peacekeepers have been ineffective. Sometimes they even ended up becoming victims themselves due to restrictive RoE and lack of firepower. The reality is that only the USA and maybe France has the expeditionary military capability including tactical air power necessary to execute a mission like this. No other country is in a position to even try. And I wouldn't want to see American lives wasted trying to impose peace in Sudan.
- LightBug1 7mo agoWelcome to the elite club. You fit right in. Note, you STILL couldn't bring yourself to the real meat of the argument. Even your military argument was pathetic. Enjoy festering.