Rwanda Massacre : Why did UN and retreat and further discuss - Page 8




 
--
 
January 3rd, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
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.
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?
January 3rd, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
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.
January 4th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
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.
--
January 4th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
And it would probably cost less than keeping 20,000 regular troops on the ground.
January 4th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
yup - 20 000 very ineffectively led troops.
January 4th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
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?
January 4th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
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.
January 4th, 2005  
serbianpower
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge_7
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.
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.
January 4th, 2005  
DTop
 
 
Stay on topic: UN/Rowanda
January 4th, 2005  
03USMC
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
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?
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.