Another "never forget"

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang


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

Give me a break, now you are just grasping at ridiculous straws. Once australian forces came on board the mobs attakcing people in East Timor faded way- and the same would have happened here.

You have no real counterarguement for this other than really baseless conjecture. Have anythign other than a BAM?

[Patroklos]

Common GePap, while we all argee in theory that human life is equally valuable everywhere, we know in practice that most people value the lives of their own over the lives of some remote population they have no contact with.

10,000 troops would be inviting a slaugher. Why people seem to think that all the lessons of undermaned military expeditions failing miserably for the past 50 years means nothing I do not know. Now if you mean 10,000 fighting troops, well then you are correct and I can see that working. But that means about 40,000 troops total, plus another 10 thousand sailors in the ships offshore that would be providing the logistics and support. And if this is an international effort add 10,000 more for dupication of logistic and supply functons. And remember that those are just in threatre assests. You are talking about tieing up untold thousands in the host countries managing the thing. Again I have no problem saving 1 million lives in Rawanda, but lets be honest about what it would require. And lets be honest and conclude that no western power was going to mobilize and pay for the above operation when they had no vital interest threatened. That is in fact exactly what happened.

Some people here are thinking soley with their heart. Some just with their head. What we need is a mix of both.

[pchang]

How many people were saved from starvation in Somalia? How many US soldiers were killed there? How rag tag were the warlords and their lackeys?
What was the commitment level of the warlords?

The answer to the last question will tell you how dangerous the place really is for "peacekeepers" *** "peace makers".

[Patroklos]

East Timor

Not nearly the same.

1) you missing a few million inhabitants.

2) you are missing a few thousand square miles of terrain.

3) those thousand of sqare miles are tractless jungle unknown to any force going there.

4) East Timor has ample sea and air access.

5) East Timor had no neighboring countries along most of its borders that were also in turmoil and providing havens for rebels.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap
and as far as 'trusting you", what the hell do you know?

Maybe some day, a long time from now over a couple of beers

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang
How many people were saved from starvation in Somalia? How many US soldiers were killed there? How rag tag were the warlords and their lackeys?
What was the commitment level of the warlords?

How many soldier dies trying to deliver food aide? 0. how many died when the Us decided to do regime change? that is when service men died. As for how well armed, the somali militias were far better armed than the hutu killing gangs (last time I failed to see how many US soldiers were hacked to death- I think none).

The answer to the last question will tell you how dangerous the place really is for "peacekeepers" *** "peace makers".

WHO SAID PEACEKEEPERS! Where do people come up with this crap!

They would not have bene there to "keep peace", they would have been there to keep civlians safe-and kill anyone going around trying to commit genocide. It would have not been their aim to change the regime, or intervene and stop the rebels from overthrowing the government,which is what finally ended the killing (that and they ran out bodies to kill)

[Patroklos]

The UN doesn't have anything but "peace-keepers." If you want "peace-makers" you need an internatioal coalition of willing members.

And if you are going in GO IN. Are we just goint to sit there and kill anyone looking hostile (that will endear us to the population) without actually solving the problem. How are you going to convice a Westen population to send it their boys to absorb the hostilities of people they don't know for the sake of people they don't know indefinetly?

You are making some broad assumptions about the rebels. From a military standpoint you have to go in assuming the Rebels to be compotent armed and motivated combatants and have the means available to deal with that. Because if you go in half ass and end up bieng wrong then your in trouble. And once again everyone would be posting "Why were we not prepared" threads.

[GePap]

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.

[Patroklos]

I am not trying to explain it away, I am explaining the realpoliik reason WHY nothing was done. You need to learn to think that way (and I think you do but are just disgusted this is the way things work) if you want to discuss real world situations.

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.

Mobs armed with machetes, not with Ak 47's and RPG's,

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?

[GePap]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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).

[GePap]

A link with all the information most people here will ever need about what the international community did- actually very apologetic towards what the world did, but as detailed as things come. the last 10 pages or so are endnotes.

http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/rwanda97.pdf

[Patroklos]

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

[Patroklos]

we would probobly need two or three strike groups btw.