Another "never forget"

[Richelieu]

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.

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]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I agree. Doesn't make us responsible for the genocide, though.

Who the **** said we were responsible!!??

On a very rare event, I agree with Ned, which is that we are responsible for doing nothing, when according to every HR convetion we signed and words we said about genocide we were supposed to act- we failed. We were not alone in our utter failure to act, but the failure of others, and the complicity of others does not absolve us of our responsibilities.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So you are against the invasion of Iraq? Good.

Was I not clear in my post? Or do you merely like repeating me?

[GePap]

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.

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.

[Donegeal]

Don't let him get to you GePap. Just quote him.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
it was GENOCIDE-there is a legal difference,

When are we going to invade the Sudan, Burma, etc.?

[Richelieu]

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/even...laire.php#full

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.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap


I guess you failed to follow the links provided, in which the commander of the UN forces in the ground openyl stated that with 5000 men he could have made a significant impact on stopping the genocide, specially since the Genocidal Hutu Power government was also at the point having to contend with the rebel Tutsi army.

And the UN Commander later said they could not last in a firefight for more than an hour or so due to lack of supplies... Hmmmm......

[GePap]

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]

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.

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.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang


And the UN Commander later said they could not last in a firefight for more than an hour or so due to lack of supplies... Hmmmm......

So if the UNSC had gotten together and sent them some ammo, which would not have been a hardship at all to any major power, something could have been done.

As for "making peace" and such- the killers were lightly armed (most lacked firearms) and the actual Hutu Power army was contending with a Tutsi rebel army moving against them- a small (10,000 men is little) force would have made all the difference. It was so little to spend to save so many-that is the most perverse part of all.

[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.

[Richelieu]

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]

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.

SIGNIFICANT CASUALTIES!!!

What the hell do you call 1 million slaugthtered in 3 months?

A tutsi rebel army of no more than 20,000, with far inferior weaponry to any an international force would have had won the war in about 4 months, and as far as 'trusting you", what the hell do you know? I serious doubt machete wielding mobs would have inflicted any casualties on even lightly armed soldiers (automatic weapons vs machetes..), and in general, would have kept their distance.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap


SIGNIFICANT CASUALTIES!!!

What the hell do you call 1 million slaugthtered in 3 months?

A tutsi rebel army of no more than 20,000, with far inferior weaponry to any an international force would have had won the war in about 4 months, and as far as 'trusting you", what the hell do you know? I serious doubt machete wielding mobs would have inflicted any casualties on even lightly armed soldiers (automatic weapons vs machetes..), and in general, would have kept their distance.

Only the Japanese engage in Banzai! tactics. Everyone else waits until you are looking the other way and stabs you in the back.