Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss - Page 5




 
--
 
January 1st, 2005  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilwasp
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
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.
January 2nd, 2005  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilwasp
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.
January 2nd, 2005  
devilwasp
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat

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.
--
January 2nd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Kosovo was a NATO operation. Not a stand alone U.S. operation.
January 3rd, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Serbianpower, I'd call 9/11 one HELLUVA "moment".
January 3rd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
January 3rd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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
January 3rd, 2005  
Pete031
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
January 3rd, 2005  
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.