Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss - Page 6




 
--
 
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
January 3rd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
January 3rd, 2005  
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....
--
January 3rd, 2005  
Pete031
 
 
Serbian Power.... I think you need to read my post again mate.
January 3rd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
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.
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete031
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.
January 3rd, 2005  
Pete031
 
 
Well I stand corrected 03usmc... I was always told differently...
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
January 3rd, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
January 3rd, 2005  
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.