Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss - Page 2




 
--
 
December 30th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by r031Button
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Bourne
IT'S THE UN what do you expect. did you think they would actually do anything, it is the UN
Well I think they did a pretty good job of doing something in Korea, the Golan Heights, and in Cyprus. Then again that's just me and the history books.
How about recently. The UN is big on resolutions and yes they in time deploy. Usually too late.
December 30th, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
Rwanda massacre is a massive incident. No matter what kind of reason is stated here. I can never accept that UN retreat the troops like this.

I still wonder why they don't employ bigger troops to protect the civilians from being massacre. I don't believe the Tutsi armies will attack the UN soldier just like that.
December 30th, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
It wasn't a problem of the size of the force deployed. The issue was that the UN wouldn't allow the troops there to do what they needed to do. They could not raid arms caches; and were restricted in the amount of force they could use to stop the massacres. It's very hard to stop a genocide with a wistle and stern words.
--
December 30th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
I fully agree Button. The UN tends to put boots on the ground as a show of force only. They make the ROE's so restrictive that the troops on the ground end up with one hand tied behind their back and the other hand in their pocket.

The UN seems to think that troops alone are enough, yet if these troops actually take action then the UN fears looking like an aggressor. This is not fair to the troops nor the people the UN is there to "protect". And is among my biggest beefs with the UN.
December 31st, 2004  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Bourne
IT'S THE UN what do you expect. did you think they would actually do anything, it is the UN
will you americans everopen your eyes for a minute. it is not important what is un going to do, it is important what is us going to do. wars where un had important and positive role are over. there is no more balance in the world since big evil empire is gone. ruanda happened because america did not have any interest in preventing it, and that`s it. states have different standards for different wars. sitaution in kosovo today is another examploe of this double standards.
December 31st, 2004  
Jason Bourne
 
oh so now i'm a blind American, oh well excuse me mister serbianpower. why don't we all bow down to you and kiss your feet, and you can walk me around and hold my hand, so that i don't walk into a damn pole.

The UN never do anything.

look at Kofi Annan, when that Marine shot that terrorist, Kofi Annan was pretty quick to make a respone and wanted that Marine punished, now look at that funds scandal that his son was involved in, he hasn't said anything about that.
December 31st, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
Kofi Anan is int he position he's in because he's good at what the UN is supposed to do; of course he's going to be angry with America; the US went against the UN. It's just a matter of politics.

No nations is going to go in and single handedly deal with problems that don't have a link to them directly. Do you think France would be in the Cote d'Ivoire if there wasn't a large group of French Nationals there? You need a group like the UN to prompt countries to do things. The problem arrises when the UN gets into political squabbling and fails to realise Peace Keeping operations are rarely like the situation in the Golan Heights or that in Cyprus. Those days are gone; and the UN needs to realise it. That is why NATO has taken over a great deal of Peacekeeping operations. They understand the need for broad ROE's that allow soldiers to do their jobs.
December 31st, 2004  
Ezechiel
 
Bush did not fight the terrorist war for peace, to all the America mates here.

I said this because during the whole Iraq incidents, there happened to a Political conflict in an African country , which at the same time Bush keep talking about he beat Iraq for peace, to against terrorism, and blablablabla.............

The civilians in Africa was also suffering, why don't BUsh do something there but keep on pushing on the Iraq matters? Obviously, Bush is doing this so that they earn something, like oil.
December 31st, 2004  
Big_Z
 
 
Because America wasn't under attack by Africans........... We have no obligation to help every single country that has problems. America isn't here to hold the hand of every country on the planet, thats what the UN is for and they obviously cant handle it. Why didnt Malaysia or Serbia send troops to help?
December 31st, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
I think right now. That any commitment of US Military Forces to the UN for anything other than Relief/Humanitarian Aid Missions. Would recieve a huge backlash towards the administration by the Populace of the US.

Why? Because the Average Citizen of the US is fed up with the constant hue and cry against the US from the UN and Europe. They don't like it when their intelligence over who they choose to elect is questioned. They don't appriecate leaders of the UN or other Nations "suggesting" who they should vote for. They take offense to UN officials "suggesting" that their taxes should be raised.

And yet the UN and Europe seem aghast that we take it personally.