Three UN Indian peacekeepers dead in South Sudan

[Deccani]

Because the whteman won't risk their citizens' life and it helps India to exercise influence in areas that it otherwise could not have exercised by normal means.

Who knows what other quid pro quo India 'earns' from the whiteman for doing his dirty job!

The UN contingent does not get all the money the UN gives. Much goes to the Indian exchequer.

Here its more about keeping the oil production and supply lines that's why other powers involved which was even violation of International treaty between the Government of South Sudan and Investment by China, India and Malaysia.

 

[Deccani]

As much as I bemoan the loss of the two Indian UN soldiers, it looks like they had to tossed the civilians they were to protect, to the mop, to save their own skins. What is perhaps worse, leaving "heavy equipment" in the hands of the local militia groups in a hotbed of ethnic tension, where it most likely will be used against civilians. What a fiasco
And no,you can not blame this mess on the evil white men.
@Mr. Ray, I'm sorry to see you sink so low that you jump on "the whites are to blame" wagon.

Come on please . These are international politics linked to the oil . South Sudan Agreements let for the development of those oil fields and countries have invested there . Vice President of South Sudan is behind the rebels and those mobs attacks was preplanned one which was to show who is in charge by the rebels .

 

[Ray]

The break up o Sudan has been 'enforced' because of oil!

Estimated 80% of the oil in the nation is secured from South Sudan.

South Sudan has the third-largest oil reserves in Sub-Saharan Africa.

It is a Christian belt and Lord's Resistance Army was in the forefront.

The majority are classified as following traditional beliefs or were Christian while 18% are Muslim

According to the World Christian Encyclopaedia, the Catholic Church is the largest single Christian body in Sudan since 1995, with 2.7 million Catholics mainly concentrated in South Sudan.

The Pew Research Centre states that in 2010, 60.5% of South Sudan's population was Christian, 32.9% were followers of traditional African religion and 6.2% were Muslim.

The Presbyterian Church in Sudan is the third largest denomination in Southern Sudan. It has about 1,000,000 members in 500 congregations.

Therefore, religion influenced by foreign powers could manipulate the war and eventual break up of Sudan.

To believe that international interests are still not at work would be naive!

 

[Deccani]

It is a Christian belt and Lord's Resistance Army was in the forefront.

Therefore, religion influenced by foreign powers could manipulate the war and eventual break up of Sudan.

To believe that international interests are still not at work would be naive!

Do you think that big powers cares about the religion ? They don't but you are right that they do use religion for their interest and betterment of their own nation.

Gadaffi was one of the biggest supporter of LRA and use to fund them and now other countries are funding LRA which is mainly to keep the Oil reserve. It was Gaddafi who was in favor of division of Sudan and Nigeria on the basis of religious line.

 

[SajeevJino]

Come on please . These are international politics linked to the oil . South Sudan Agreements let for the development of those oil fields and countries have invested there . Vice President of South Sudan is behind the rebels and those mobs attacks was preplanned one which was to show who is in charge by the rebels .

You would say that same ...The Americans Want the Sudanese Oil How the Peoples say "Americans declare war on Iraq for Oil "

what about the second Bolded Part ..was the Vice Pr is the American puppet or Something like CIA Agent

 

[SajeevJino]

.

I would Like to say one thing There is nothing About Oil ..They need the seat and Power ..While Rest of them Knows The Country had big Oil Reserves

 

[TrueSpirit1]

As much as I bemoan the loss of the two Indian UN soldiers, it looks like they had to tossed the civilians they were to protect, to the mop, to save their own skins. What is perhaps worse, leaving "heavy equipment" in the hands of the local militia groups in a hotbed of ethnic tension, where it most likely will be used against civilians. What a fiasco
And no,you can not blame this mess on the evil white men.
@Mr. Ray, I'm sorry to see you sink so low that you jump on "the whites are to blame" wagon.

You missed the whole context. He never blamed anyone (not the whites, in the least). Instead, he alluded towards other forces at work & the inherent aspect of give-n-take in international engagements. Last but not the least, he is not Mr. Ray.

Anyway, you have not been around much, so you can bring in such imbecility with impunity :

@Mr. Ray, I'm sorry to see you sink so low that you jump on "the whites are to blame" wagon.

 

[Deccani]

You would say that same ...The Americans Want the Sudanese Oil How the Peoples say "Americans declare war on Iraq for Oil "

what about the second Bolded Part ..was the Vice Pr is the American puppet or Something like CIA Agent

Its indeed oil politics and in this American and French forces are together . From CAR French troops are coming in South Sudan . Americans doesn't need oil , this oil is needed by French or the French just want to get the clearance for the Rafale as Brazil has rejected it . America is assisting its NATO allies . French reputation is at stake .

 

[Deccani]

.

I would Like to say one thing There is nothing About Oil ..They need the seat and Power ..While Rest of them Knows The Country had big Oil Reserves

its about oil not to harvest of souls for religion , its to keep control of those oil fields .

 

[SajeevJino]

Its indeed oil politics and in this American and French forces are together . From CAR French troops are coming in South Sudan . Americans doesn't need oil , this oil is needed by French or the French just want to get the clearance for the Rafale as Brazil was rejected it . America is assisting its NATO allies .

It's from them ..Started from Mali-->CHAD--->CAR--->now Heading to South Sudan

In Mali Everyone Knows Why was the french deployment even Mali is French's Colony one time since from they Control the Country Keep away from Militants

In this African Game America has not part it They Helped the french forces only in Mali Even many Nato Countries Helped French to eliminate Militants

If The French Doesn't go into Africa we can see Million of Causalities and within a day It become another Somalia

I'm asking one Question Her ..Who fired the Vice Pr from South Sudan ..Is the french or the CIA

 

[SajeevJino]

its about oil not to harvest of souls for religion , its to keep control of those oil fields .

what will happen If french forces are Not help the Govt forces in Africa

We have a dedicated thread in DFI Discussed about Mali

Finally, France is doing something good. Allied with Wahhabis in Syria, against Wahhabis in Mali? This is called protecting national interests, even at the cost of morality. India needs to learn realpolitik!

Pls read them and Please note That one is not only about Rafale also indicates the French Support to mali Govt

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/46470-rafale-hammers-islamist-terrorist-groups-mali.html

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/west-asia-africa/46684-frenchmens-easy-hunting-mali-africa.html


This is about CAR

Two days of violence earlier this month left about 1,000 people dead, according to Amnesty International.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25520701

 

[Deccani]

what will happen If french forces are Not help the Govt forces in Africa

We have a dedicated thread in DFI Discussed about Mali

Mali government forces are being helped just because to check the Pro Gaddafi tribes who are helping the over throwed Government in Libya , In Africa the same divide and rule policy is being applied in which some states are supported by some powers and then rebels are supported by other powers . religion is just cover up to push the blame for the deaths and sufferings for millions. Rwanda is sample .

Pls read them and Please note That one is not only about Rafale also indicates the French Support to mali Govt

There are many issues linked and always remember that Oil and Weapon deals are behind all this ups and downs .

 

[Armand2REP]

why we r there & fight a white mans war...we should stop sending troops under un flag only try colour our soldies should work...does we have any natinal interest there
@debasree Mod: Please do not use SMS language

If you have a problem with Indians getting killed then question your own Army's policy for why it is so heavily involved in UN peacekeeping,. The dark secret is they are cheap and want white countries to subsidize the Indian Army through the UN stabilization fund. Jawans serving in Africa get paid way more than they do at home. Six months in South Sudan brings them 800,000 Rs. Will you pay them this much? IA pockets a hefty retainer as well. You want to take the money but you don't like it when you have losses.

If you send your troops under tri-colour like France does, then you do not get UN money to pay for them. This is why IA does not do it because they would lose out on $500 million a year.

 

[SPIEZ]

Peacekeeping operations are very dangerous, if UN Peacekeepers are allowed to use full strength then rebels will be blown to pieces, but UN Authority does not allow it. Indian Army should have opened firing at rebels. In 1987 6 Indian troopers were killed by LTTE brutally and 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in Somalia brutally in 1993.

UN Peacekeepers should be allowed to use full strength or India should not send soldiers to keep peace because Rebels use full strength. India or any other nation should never send Military force for peacekeepning when one hand is tied in back.

RIP to dead soldiers.

Modern Weapons have arrived to scene. It is up to the management to decide if they want to use weapons such as these.

Active Denial System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Deccani]

If you have a problem with Indians getting killed then question your own Army's policy for why it is so heavily involved in UN peacekeeping,. The dark secret is they are cheap and want white countries to subsidize the Indian Army through the UN stabilization fund. Jawans serving in Africa get paid way more than they do at home. Six months in South Sudan brings them 800,000 Rs. Will you pay them this much? IA pockets a hefty retainer as well. You want to take the money but you don't like it when you have losses.

If you send your troops under tri-colour like France does, then you do not get UN money to pay for them. This is why IA does not do it because they would lose out on $500 million a year.

Indian army goes to UN operation being part of the United nations security forces which is under mandate and these Soldiers are bounded by all the international convention and can be even tried for any violations of International laws unlike the other countries which doesn't let the international laws be applied on their armed forces in any conflict which is beyond their borders . And Indian soldiers do work under the Flag of the country .

 

[Armand2REP]

Indian army goes to UN operation being part of the United nations security forces which is under mandate and these Soldiers are bounded by all the international convention and can be even tried for any violations of International laws unlike the other countries which doesn't let the international laws be applied on their armed forces in any conflict which is beyond their borders . And Indian soldiers do work under the Flag of the country .

Yes, they are UN peacekeepers from India. They are paid by the UN and have no autonomy. They take orders from UN mission command. How else do you think 40 jawan peacekeepers got surrounded by 2000 rebels? UN command incompetence... Conducting your own missions under the tri-colour like France gets you an autonomous Mali mission where you are victorious and command Africans to enforce stablisation. The difference is, you must pay for autonomy.

 

[Deccani]

Yes, they are UN peacekeepers from India. They are paid by the UN and have no autonomy. They take orders from UN mission command. How else do you think 40 jawan peacekeepers got surrounded by 2000 rebels? UN command incompetence... Conducting your own missions under the tri-colour like France gets you an autonomous Mali mission where you are victorious and command Africans to enforce stablisation. The difference is, you must pay for autonomy.

India do provide troops under UN Mandate but i am not aware does India give money for UN peace keeping or not but India give money for UNICEF, Children , women welfare schemes and natural Disasters etc . And India is being giving aid to many countries in Africa, MIddle east, Latin America and even Asia .

It would be waste for India to give money for peace keeping operations or even to soldiers by own without having more powers in UN decision making body . Its the UNSC members to lift the status of India in that decision making body then for sure India will even give money for UN peace keeping force .

 

[Armand2REP]

India do provide troops under UN Mandate but i am not aware does India give money for UN peace keeping or not but India give money for UNICEF, Children , women welfare schemes and natural Disasters etc . And India is being giving aid to many countries in Africa, MIddle east, Latin America and even Asia .

It would be waste for India to give money for peace keeping operations or even to soldiers by own without having more powers in UN decision making body . Its the UNSC members to lift the status of India in that decision making body then for sure India will even give money for UN peace keeping force .

Every nation provides money to the UN stablisation fund, but India's contribution of $53 million is hardly a fraction of the $500 million its jawans earn from it. US pays 29% and EU pays 40%, including Australia and Canada, the "white nations" pay over three quarters of the fund. Include Russia and it is over 80%. The fund itself is usually around $8 billion.

If you want India to have more say, you could pay more money than less than 1%. However, the reason France has so much say isn't because we pay 8%. It is because we conduct autonomous operations in nations requiring UN stabilization so they are subordinate to us because we have the military might to back up the authorization. If you want say, you need to show you are willing to use muscle to maintain peace.

 

[Deccani]

Every nation provides money to the UN stablisation fund, but India's contribution of $53 million is hardly a fraction of the $500 million its jawans earn from it. US pays 29% and EU pays 40%, including Australia and Canada, the "white nations" pay over three quarters of the fund. Include Russia and it is over 80%. The fund itself is usually around $8 billion.

If you want India to have more say, you could pay more money than less than 1%. However, the reason France has so much say isn't because we pay 8%. It is because we conduct autonomous operations in nations requiring UN stabilization so they are subordinate to us because we have the military might to back up the authorization. If you want say, you need to show you are willing to use muscle to maintain peace.

India will pay that only when its given more rights in UN decision body and it doesn't make any sense that India should give money for the misadventures of other countries who make those countries to fight for their own benefit and Countries like India works to maintain peace in those countries under UN mandate . Western countries pay and even create problem not only for those countries but even in the whole region . And when Asylum Seekers and refugees run for their lives and go to their countries then again mental torture for those people . Power means even responsibility and third world countries are getting squeezed because of the policies of western countries .

Why is Africa and Middle east are suffering even when they are under the direct influence of the Western powers ?

India give more aid in humanitarian issues.

India is the second largest contributor to the UNDEF, having contributed $29.71 million to it so far.
India contributes over $4 million to UN fund - Times Of India

India's pledges of contributions for operational activities of development for the year 2014 include $4.5 million for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), $1.9 million for the World Food Programme and $1 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).


India pledges over $11 million to United Nations bodies for 2014 - Economic Times

http://www.un.int/india/india & un/peacekeeping.pdf

 

[Armand2REP]

India will pay that only when its given more rights in UN decision body and it doesn't make any sense that India should give money for the misadventures of other countries who make those countries to fight for their own benefit and Countries like India works to maintain peace in those countries under UN mandate . Western countries pay and even create problem not only for those countries but even in the whole region . And when Asylum Seekers and refugees run for their lives and go to their countries then again mental torture for those people . Power means even responsibility and third world countries are getting squeezed because of the policies of western countries .

Why should you get more say before you pay? Doesn't the saying go, you have to pay to play? You work to maintain peace yet you are paid by the rich "white countries" to do it. It is a volunteer job, yet Indians come in droves to do it because they earn way more than they do on domestic duty and send a nice remittance back to their families so they can live a comfortable life. You could say developed countries are getting squeezed by the third world on the peacekeeping budget. We pay 90% of it yet only collect 15.

Why is Africa and Middle east are suffering even when they are under the direct influence of the Western powers ?

Because they are full of Muslims causing ethnic strife. You can't blame the West for Muslim intolerance except maybe Osama Bin Laden. But I would never bunch you with him.

India give more aid in humanitarian issues.

I can respect that, but we are talking about more control over security issues.

India is the second largest contributor to the UNDEF, having contributed $29.71 million to it so far.
India contributes over $4 million to UN fund - Times Of India

India's pledges of contributions for operational activities of development for the year 2014 include $4.5 million for the UN Development Programme (UNDP), $1.9 million for the World Food Programme and $1 million to the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).


India pledges over $11 million to United Nations bodies for 2014 - Economic Times

http://www.un.int/india/india & un/peacekeeping.pdf

You are cherry picking UN payments when India doesn't pay 10% of what France does in the general budget. India pledges $11 million when its requirement is set at $17 million. The general budget is chicken scratch compared to the costs of the peacekeeping budget and the real power brokers of the UN are the security leaders, not the humanitarians.