 |
| |
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
An excerpt from an interview that Gen. Dallaire (head of the UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda before and during the genocide) gave to Ted Koppel in june of 2002.
quote:
I had one person come in to my headquarters during the genocide asking statistics on how many people were killed last week and how many yesterday and how many do you expect to be killed today and how many weeks of this killing you think is going to go on. And my staff officers brought him to me and I said, "Why these statistics?"
He said, "Oh, you know my country is assessing whether it will come in and the government believes that the people, the public opinion, could handle for every soldier killed or injured an equivalent of 85,000 dead Rwandans." |
He doesn't say which country the guy was from.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
that's crap... if the US went around playing policeman and attacking every nation that killed tons of people, we would all be conscripts in some massive military-industrial nation because we'd have to kick everyone's ass. Why is the US obligated to stop? And the UN is just a collection of ambassadors, it doesn't have people to enlist... those soldiers come from other countries.
|
I love it when you speak totally out of your ass..we, not really. The uS was obligated to acvt just like the US is obligated not to aim on purpose at civlians and kill POW's-becuase we signed conventions and treaties. What was going on was not just reopression-it was GENOCIDE-there is a legal difference, and if you got off your ass and read some of the links provided you might just educate yourself on the god-damned difference.
quote:
It would be nice if we could have our cake and eat it to (pacifying the world without having to become a military nation)... but that isn't realistic. If it's in our power and doesn't cost too much, sure we should intervene. But I don't give a **** about a million Africans dying like that... not to be insensitive, but **** happens. If it directly threatens us, or doesnt' require a massive commitment and mobilization; then fine, let's do it. But I don't want this country to be some uber-world-police force. |
10,000 men from some western military would have been enough to end most of the massacre. 10,000- that is nothing to demand out of the US, UK, France and so forth-yet the west failed to gather that-we failed to help African nations when they offered to intervene.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Donegeal
My confusion on this is why did the UN troops already there not react? I am not sure what it was like there, but from my memory, the rivers ran red with blood and body parts. Most of the killings were done with macheties and done face to face. There was none of the cruel effecientcy of the gas chambers where the killings were done behind closed doors. It was massive public murder. To hell with stupid UN resolutions saying "only in self-defense". It seems to me that these UN soldiers sat there and watched crowds of people with macheties going from house to house hacking up the defenseless people inside. They should have defide orders and done something. It turns my stomach just to think about it. |
Dallaire gives an explanation late in this interview: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/eve...llaire.php#full
quote:
Did I or should I, like you said, have walked up to Kofi Annan or Boutros-Ghali and throw my commission in front of him and say, "To hell with you. Nobody's coming so I'm going"? Should I have commenced opening fire? The first morning it was made very clear to me that if I opened fire I would become the third belligerent because then it's open season.
But with the force I had there was no way that I could open fire and guarantee the security of my force. I didn't have enough ammunition to be able to hold out in a fire fight for more than half an hour. Those are the nations that sent the troops without the ammunition and the bartering between the UN and those nations, who is going to pay the ammunition, and in the middle of the war we had none.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
When are we going to invade the Sudan, Burma, etc.? |
I am not sure about Burma, in terms of what the nature of the regimes actions are:
Before we go on: there is a difference between Genocide and repression- the difference is one of aim. Now, is there a gru which the Burmese Junat ia actively campaining to exterminate? If not, not genocide.
As for the Sudan- much like the Congo, a difficult situation- does the Northern government aim to exterminate the southern Christians, or oppress them? The later unfortunitelly does not fit under Genocide. Again, the war in Sudan has been ongoing for what, 15 years now? It is a long term problem and certainly the UN including the US should intervene.
Rwanda was a clear and obvious case of genocide-more obvious you could not get- you had radio stations calling people out to kill all members of one ethnic group..you can not get more clear cut, obvious example of genocide than this (obvious like the Holocaust is an obvious genocide).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
The problem with the UN is that they send peace keepers, not makers. Basically the presence of the solder is just a confidence thing after the fact. The Belgians didn't fight back becasue they would have been slaughtered. As it was a number were killed and mutilated.
10,000 soldiers to go into the jungles of Central Africa is not enough to MAKE peace. You think Iraq is bad? And we are not bound by and UN restirctions there.
Granted I think we should have done something, but not under the UN (because they have proven they can't make peace) and not in on the limited scale of 10,000. Alot of you are forgeting a key component of successful military operations, mass. If your going to go in, go in. Thats what the French did. They went in, secured all they meant to secure, and kicked ass and raised hell to do. I do give the French credit because they don't screw around when they actually do something in the peace making/keeping world.
And while I know alot of you have a knee jerk emotional reason to go in, the world doesn't work that way. There is a cost in money and lives (which during and after the fact you would citisize the operation for). More to the point, while talking about genocide and high and mighty ideals, few of you would strap on army green and spend two years in the jungle fighting guerilla warfare. But you don't mind sending me and my buddies to do your "moral" acts.
quote:
My confusion on this is why did the UN troops already there not react? |
You critisize them for that, but in most instanaces when soldiers do take maters in their own hands the same people hear open the same threads over how the military went out of control etc. etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pchang
Trust me. If the UN had gone in shooting, there would have been significant casualties on all sides. But only the UN side would care about its own casualties. This would have resulted in a pretty quick pull out and universal condemnation of the attempt. |
The intent was not to go in shooting. They wanted to go in and seize the weapons. Since tehre weren't that many to start with, it might have helped stop the whole thing. It would have been a warning: we know you're there, we know what you're planning.
They had received intelligence that the bad guys had small militia groups of around 40 (for roughly 1700 total) throughout Kigali. But other info they had was the location of the arms cache. And this came from a Hutu informant who knew about the projected killings and decided he wanted no part of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
This is HISTORY. The killing was not being done by Rebels, it was being done by government organized mobs. Mobs armed with machetes, not with Ak 47's and RPG's, mobs who went around killing beause they could, becuase no one with any authority was telling them no. IN any territories were the rebel army came through, the killings stopped, they stopped becuase these gangs were empowred to act csimply due to complete government complicity. Simple steps like taking over the few radio stattions, thus ending the killer's ability to coordinate, would have save lives.
Maybe some of you are missing the simple point- ALL UN members, signatories to the Charter and to the Delcaration of HUman rights are obligated to step in when genocide is taking place-and this was clearly genocide, an example one could not quible with. And finally, after the cold war was over the great obsticle to humanitarian intervention was over. 1994 was a great opportunity. And the fact was that the cost ration of intervening in Rwanda was very low- the only excuse given yet for why the US did not act was given already- weariness after Somalia to get involved in humanitarian interventions, and that was a piss-poor excuse. At least the US was not complicit in some of the killings like the French, but using such a miserable excuse to avoid what were our obligations under the treaties this nation has signed (aka, THE LAW) is pathetic, and morally reprehensible.
In 1994 the world failed to act to end what was obviously genocide- since I am a US citizen, I speak for my state's failure to act, but the whole international community failed. And the arguements being use to explain away our inactions are just simple reminders that in fact when it comes to ending real abuses around the world, we are only marginally better than we were back in 1941, and that the slogan "never again" is a sad, and empty one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
You can brow beat people morally all you want, but we can brow beat you on the mechanics of what you want. You grasp of the military undertaking is not sound. We know what force would be needed in reality NOW because it is hindsight. No one had a clue what the dynamics of the situation was then. |
As was already mentioned, the French were able to send thousands of troops without huge dififuclties to set up thier own safe zone- sadly, they did it too late and generally in order to help the killer get away, but the French action showed that your statements about it being some terrible expense and great difficulty to be faulty.
quote:
Sure they weren't then, but how about after a year of occupation? How about when the Rebels, after taking power decided we were an impediment to their goals. After putting your 10,000 troops and acompanying support personel on the ground and paying for the whole thing do you think the Western tax payers would be Okay with letting the Rebel sit there? Do you understand that leaving is more expensive than going? |
"Year of occupation" WTF did that come from? Hello!!! Again, from start to finish the kiling took 3 months- about 4 months after the government doing the killing fell to the current government. The entire aim of the operation would have been to stop the killings- the seocnd the rebels won and signed pledges not to undertake any reprisals (which the rebels, under no obligations, never took anyway), then the vast bulk of forces would have being able to leave with only small observer forces.
I do urge you to actually read the damned links and educate yourself on the topic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
|
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
Do you have any concept of how long it takes to prepare, move, deploy, entrench, pack up, extract, and return home 40,000 troops? One year maximum. How about how much that costs? And like I said, we are going to pay BILLIONS of dollars to get them there, then pack up and go home with no assurances the chaos is over. your dreaming. three years minimum.
quote:
As was already mentioned, the French were able to send thousands of troops without huge dififuclties to set up thier own safe zone |
Exactly how big was the safe zone? How many roving patrols went out into the unmaped jungle to hunt down the killers BEFORE they attacked. Or are we just reacting to genecide? How were people to get to this safe zone? Basically if you didn't start in it you were screwed.
You have not been talking about safe zones, you have been talking about securing the country and killing the murderes. The French were successful because they had specific, limited goals which the enforced ruthlessly in their zone (very small zone).
Like I said brow beat me all you want on the morality of the undertaking, but I already agree with you. I would have spent the money and sacrificed the lives. But you simply have no idea what your talking about when discussing forces and their support. Nore have you adresses how you plan on making Joe Shmoe American, Frenchmen and Brit give a damn or at least care enough to make them want to carry out your plan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
There is a reason patrolokos that I told you to GO READ THE DAMNED LINKS! With about 10,000 men the French secured about 1/3 of the whole country (maybe you have not looked and seen just how tiny Rwanda is).
40k troops is so beyond what would have been in any way necessary that the fact you are using those ridiculous number invalidates your "arguement".
For god's sake, read the god damned links and educate yourself some before you speak again.
Also, who the hell spoke about killing the murderers? Now you are making stuff up.
Edit: I was wrong about the number of French troops. Not even 10,000 (perhaps half that many).
Last edited by GePap on 28-02-2004 at 01:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
|
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
With about 10,000 men the French secured about 1/3 of the whole country |
Once again, you are talking about the WHOLE country in most of yout posts, so 10,000 times 3 is.... 30,000. Plus the fact that troop enlargment like that is semi exponential so 40,000. Plus the supply and logistics that your civilian mind can not seem to grasp despite bieng told so repeatedly. So probobly more than 40,000 but we will go with that.
The French number also fails to count the sailors off the coast, and since America uses more ships usually what does an amphibious strike group contain as thats how we would get there? Three Amphibs, 1000 each, 2 crusers 300 each, one destroyer 250 each, and one sub 100 each. But we might take a carrier with us so 5,000.
We will round up to 10,000.
So now we are at 45 or 50,000.
There is someone here who needs to do some research. I'd start with Jane's 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-02-2004 17:55
|