Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss

[r031Button]

So pray tell what are you refering too?

You said that polititions water down the ROE's but i was saying how most polititions are ex-military and therefore know what the ROE's should be.
Also i am saying how america made a promise to keep the world safe yet you insult it and yourself by calling it useless therefore calling yourself stupid.

I'd say that most politicians being ex military is the exception not the rule. In Britain that's only because they all went through National Service. The UN isn't made up of politicians, it's made up of appointed ambassadors; often these are career beurocrats. They also do not understand that UN missions are not all like the Golan Heights or Cyprus. Troops on UN missions do not simply patrol green lines seperating factionsl; they are often involved in the three block war; just with their hands tied.

The legality of the American invasion of Iraq isn't the point here Ezekial. If your going to ask why the UN pulled out of Rwanda; don't make it about the Iraqi Invasion. The UN troops pulled out because there was nothing they could do. They sat in compounds because the people in charge couldn't accept the idea of soldiers using weapons to dissolve a conflict; and it's crap. UN peace keepers are often under strickter ROE's then municipal police; yet their expected to provide security for the area and enforce stabilty.

 

[redcoat]

Actually most members of parlament are ex military, h**l even the former leader of the liberal dems was ex SBS.

Not true.
Very few of the Members of Parliament in the UK are ex-military.

In fact due to the Vietnam war far more members of the US Government are ex-military than there are in the British Government.


Ps, I know of no Government minister who has seen any service with Britains armed forces.

 

[devilwasp]

Not true.
Very few of the Members of Parliament in the UK are ex-military.

In fact due to the Vietnam war far more members of the US Government are ex-military than there are in the British Government.


Ps, I know of no Government minister who has seen any service with Britains armed forces.

I really need to edit that, what i meant was that most running polititions are ex military.
Yeah that is one daft thing about our government.

 

[serbianpower]

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?

was america under attack in kosovo? do u know where kosovo is? I was there and I talked over radio with some mujahedeens, guys from al quida. and do u know what, us air force was their air suport. they were not terorist then or what? it was just one year before september 9/11. if this is not double standard then what is? in one moment america works with al qaida and moment later they are bad guys. and yeah u are right, us does not have obligation to help anybody, so why does not america mind it`s own buissines for a while.

all I am saying if america had interest to prevent ruanda they would do it. they would avoid UN like they did in my country.

 

[03USMC]

Kosovo was a NATO operation. Not a stand alone U.S. operation.

 

[Charge 7]

Serbianpower, I'd call 9/11 one HELLUVA "moment".

 

[serbianpower]

Kosovo was a NATO operation. Not a stand alone U.S. operation.

come on bro. if US did not want NATO to react it would not happen, be honest. btw by international law NATO did not have right to react because action was not aproved by UN counsil of security. and u did not answer my question about double standards for differents situations. why NATO did not react in Rwanda, they had more reasons to intervene there then in kosovo.

 

[serbianpower]

Serbianpower, I'd call 9/11 one HELLUVA "moment".

que???
about the ideas- all the ideals of this world worth less than one tear from childrens eye- dostoyevski, I like him more than hugo

 

[Pete031]

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.

You telling a Serbian that the UN has never done anything?? hahahaha, Man, you have to educate yourself... What has the UN been doing for the past Decade+ in Yugo, Bosnia, Crotia?? Probably the most successful peacekeeping operation to date.
I'm no big fan of the UN and I have worked under their command before.. But they do deserve some credit and I think with the proper restructuring they could be very effective.

 

[Pete031]

But if you want to know about the U.N. failing in Rwanda, read "Shake Hands With The Devil" By retired General Romeo Daillaire... He was the U.N. Commander in Rwanda and you can se in the book the ghosts that he has to live with.

 

[03USMC]

Kosovo was a NATO operation. Not a stand alone U.S. operation.

come on bro. if US did not want NATO to react it would not happen, be honest. btw by international law NATO did not have right to react because action was not aproved by UN counsil of security. and u did not answer my question about double standards for differents situations. why NATO did not react in Rwanda, they had more reasons to intervene there then in kosovo.

Because its not in NATO's TAOR. And NATO had every right and responsibility to deploy. The UN wasn't going to.

But this is fftopic:

 

[serbianpower]

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.

You telling a Serbian that the UN has never done anything?? hahahaha, Man, you have to educate yourself... What has the UN been doing for the past Decade+ in Yugo, Bosnia, Crotia?? Probably the most successful peacekeeping operation to date.
I'm no big fan of the UN and I have worked under their command before.. But they do deserve some credit and I think with the proper restructuring they could be very effective.

did u read something about outcame of conflict in ex yugoslavia? let`s talk about it since u mentioned it. bosnia- more than milion refugees out of their homes, biggest war crimes are still unpunished, croatia- 450000 refugees our of their homes, bigest war crimes are still unpunished, kosovo more than 300000 refugees out of their homes. most of this refugees are serbs. are u sure that this should be called "most successful peacekeeping operation to date". but nobady in NATO or US talks about this. in this moment serbia(population 8000000 people) has about 1000000 refugees from ex yugo republics, that is more than 10% of population.
btw I considermy self educated person, I gratuaded law. If u wanna I can recomend some books in international law, seems to me u need it before u start talking about this kind of matters.
peace

 

[Pete031]

Also, I have to say....
DevilWasp: The UN dictates ROE's, from the Security council... these are not Soldiers, retired or active, they are civilians... Fortunately UN ROE's have become more robust, unfortunately, it took a lot of soldiers lives to realise that when going into a hostile enviroment, even to keep the peace soldiers sometimes have to be aggressive.
03USMC: You guys do have a big say in the UN but did you know that the American government is the only one that doesn't let their troops be put under UN command? Thats why you guys will never where Blue Berets... I admire that, but remember at the same time, it's sort of a lack of commitment in my eyes, not that it's always a bad thing, I hate being under UN command, but it is interesting....

 

[Pete031]

Serbian Power.... I think you need to read my post again mate.

 

[serbianpower]

Kosovo was a NATO operation. Not a stand alone U.S. operation.

come on bro. if US did not want NATO to react it would not happen, be honest. btw by international law NATO did not have right to react because action was not aproved by UN counsil of security. and u did not answer my question about double standards for differents situations. why NATO did not react in Rwanda, they had more reasons to intervene there then in kosovo.

Because its not in NATO's TAOR. And NATO had every right and responsibility to deploy. The UN wasn't going to.

But this is fftopic:

man all I am asking- if NATO had every right to deploy(I do not agree) in kosovo why they did not do the same thing in rwanda where casualties were more than 20 times bigger? it is all I am asking. and this is not of topic.

 

[03USMC]

03USMC: You guys do have a big say in the UN but did you know that the American government is the only one that doesn't let their troops be put under UN command? Thats why you guys will never where Blue Berets... I admire that, but remember at the same time, it's sort of a lack of commitment in my eyes, not that it's always a bad thing, I hate being under UN command, but it is interesting....

Alot of that has to do with the National Command structure listening to the Military in terms of ROE's. Kinda of a back lash of Marines not being allowed to have loaded weapons while on post in Bierut. They don't want it happening again because of restrictions in the ROE's. And yes I know that was the DOD, NOT THE UN.

As far as Blue Berets while under UN control. The US Forces in the Baltic wore them. One Solider was court martialed for his refusal to do so.

 

[Pete031]

Well I stand corrected 03usmc... I was always told differently...

 

[03USMC]

man all I am asking- if NATO had every right to deploy(I do not agree) in kosovo why they did not do the same thing in rwanda where casualties were more than 20 times bigger? it is all I am asking. and this is not of topic.

NATO is concerned about the stability of Europe. Not the rest of the World. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rwanda does not fall into their area of responsibility.
The Baltics do.

 

[serbianpower]

man all I am asking- if NATO had every right to deploy(I do not agree) in kosovo why they did not do the same thing in rwanda where casualties were more than 20 times bigger? it is all I am asking. and this is not of topic.

NATO is concerned about the stability of Europe. Not the rest of the World. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Rwanda does not fall into their area of responsibility.
The Baltics do.

only about stability of Europe you say? and do u believe in Santa?

 

[03USMC]

only about stability of Europe you say? and do u believe in Santa?[/quote]


Huh no I don't believe in Santa. Anymore than I believe in the effectiveness of the UN.

NATO was formed as a response to further Soviet Encrouchment on Europe. Not as a world peace keeping force. Their TAOR is Europe.