Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss

03USMC said:
only about stability of Europe you say? and do u believe in Santa?
Click to expand...


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.[/quote]

did you ask yourself why UN is not effective?
 
03USMC said:
serbianpower said:
did you ask yourself why UN is not effective?
Click to expand...

I believe thats been covered. Referance the restrictive ROE's.
Click to expand...


but surely that isn't a good reason why the whole UN is no good? they need to get a clear structure together on what circumstances they'll act and let the military decide on ROE. also let the commander on the ground have more say. ie; i see a masacre....i will go stop it.

i figure with the EU almost getting itself together that they (and NATO) would be the first port of call for peacekeeping troops. if the Yanks want to pull out. let them
 
The UN does well with Relief and AID missions. Their downfall is peacekeeping. The career ticket punchers do need to let military commanders command.
 
I will give credit where it is due to the UN. But it's not due in the peacekeeping arena.
 
Serbianpower, you stated...

"in one moment america works with al qaida and moment later they are bad guys."

9/11 was hardly a "moment".

Also regarding Hugo. Evidently your English isn't enough to know that "idea" and "ideal" are not the same word.
 
serbianpower said:
Jason Bourne said:
IT'S THE UN what do you expect. did you think they would actually do anything, it is the UN
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I have to set the record straight here. The US had very little to dow ith the decision not to go into Rwanda. The UN blocked Executive Outcomes when it offered to go in and stop the Genocide. EO managed to stop similar situations in other parts of the world, and they are exceptionally professional. Most of the EO operatives were trained in Africa - they understand the different cultures and the tactics of the guerillas. If I'm not mistaken a large part of EO's staff is made up from the remmants of the South African 32nd Batallion (SF) - one of the few mixed batallaions during the Apartheid years. These guys know their stuff and would have had the situation under control in record time.
But back tot he story - the UN blocked the move. The US could have moved in on it's own - but I'm pretty sure you can understand the reluctance to send troops into any African country. Not only did Somalia turn into a disaster for the DoD, but the PR campaign would be a nightmare -just one soldier that acts "too agressively" and the entire US would be labelled as Racists.We have all seen what propaganda can do if it is used correctly - look at the training thaqt most of today's leaders in Africa got - all from Soviets or China! The masters of propaganda in their day.
 
The UN turned down EO's offer because they didn't want to be mixed up or associated with "Merc's".

Despite the fact that EO secured Freetown in Seirra Leon back in the 90's and made it possible for the UN to operate freely.
 
Charge_7 said:
Serbianpower, you stated...

"in one moment america works with al qaida and moment later they are bad guys."

9/11 was hardly a "moment".

Also regarding Hugo. Evidently your English isn't enough to know that "idea" and "ideal" are not the same word.
Click to expand...

:) I used the word moment as a figure, 9/11 happened year after situation I mentioned previously.
sorry lapsus linguae, I wanted to say idea.
 
03USMC said:
The UN turned down EO's offer because they didn't want to be mixed up or associated with "Merc's".

Despite the fact that EO secured Freetown in Seirra Leon back in the 90's and made it possible for the UN to operate freely.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Sometimes you need to be associated with people you don't like to get the job done. If only the UN could swallow its pride and holier than thou attitude, many people's lives would have been saved, right?
 
I agree EO took what was meant to be a 30 day operation and completed it in I believe 12 days. They had a force of I think 60 former Buffalo's and Parabat troops along with Kajoors from Sierra Leone.

If the UN would just loosen up and start contracting these PMC's with knowledge of the area their stock would go up 10 FOLD.
 
So true. Thing is, the troops in the UN are usually just regular soldiers with very little counter insurgency training. The PMC's are VERY well equipped, exceptionally motivated, experienced and trained. It would actually cost the UN less to hire PMC's than to jump in and "keep the peace" for 10 years.
 
what about the african union troops? they seem to be doing some good work lately (darfor region) if the same rwanda situation was happening today...would they be any help?
 
I wasn't refering to the use of "moment" as a time frame, Serbianpower, but as your trivialization of a horendous act that would change any nation's attitude to a group of people.

The "idea" that Hugo was talking about was liberty. That is worth tears in all the eyes of little girls everywhere.
 
Charge_7 said:
I wasn't refering to the use of "moment" as a time frame, Serbianpower, but as your trivialization of a horendous act that would change any nation's attitude to a group of people.

The "idea" that Hugo was talking about was liberty. That is worth tears in all the eyes of little girls everywhere.
Click to expand...

I know what Hugo was talkin about. try not to be a soldier for a MOMENT. I give up if u can not understand this.
 
chewie_nz said:
what about the african union troops? they seem to be doing some good work lately (darfor region) if the same rwanda situation was happening today...would they be any help?
Click to expand...

African Union Troops have had good preliminary results in operations. Such as Liberia a couple of years ago, especially the Nigerian troops. Their problem seems to be logistics in terms of transport and provisioning. They have to rely on the UN.

As a peace keeping force the African Union Troops tend to have problems. Commanders black marketing rations and weapons and drug trafficing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top