Have another read - and let the words sink in for a minute or two.
‘Look, if something happens in Rwanda-Burundi, we don't care. Take it off the list. US national interest is not involved and we can't put all these silly humanitarian issues on lists, like important problems like the Middle East, North Korea, and so on. Just make it go away.’
You still haven't answered simple questions what you state to be a simple task.
Give us the rules of engagement you stated peace keepers could be effective under whilst 100% sure every possible other scenario was able to discounted before lethal force was used.
I'm not interested in playing your autistic little game of inventing scenarios where the loss of innocent human life can be passed off as 'acceptable' or 'justified'.
I'm interested in figuring out why the international community abandoned hundreds of thousands of Rwandans to their horrific fate.
America's reasoning appears to be crystal clear.
Like I've said before.....World Police? - what a crock of shit.
Invented senario's?
That was you.
Its about time You post the ROI where the UN forces can do what you claim is possible for them to do.
The ROI where the loss of any human human life is only a last resort yet the peace keepers can still protect themselves and victims was created by you.
The Rwandans weren't abandoned the UN peace keepers were deployed they were just unable to do anything including protect themselves because of the insufficient ROI.
Funny thing is the insucficent ROI are designed to appease dullards like you.
If the had of intervended and prevented the Genocide you would be bleating on about excessive use of force and killing innocents.
Its a no win situation, Damned if they Do Damned if they don't
TDL has been real patient thus far with your obvious trolling.
You have still never explained why Russia never went in there and stopped it.
After all they had no problems Selling Guns to Africa they also supported Ethiopia with Troops as Did Cuba during their war..France, China and Russia opposed involvement in what was seen as an "internal affair".
While selling Guns and Tanks to their opposition in Somalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogaden_War
Ciina was a Major Supplier to Rwanda military as was France.
Russia was involved Directly with Troops and Advisors or though their Proxy Cuba in every conflict in that region but not this one.
It must be because Rwanda a landlocked country with nowhere to build a Naval base to threaten the Suez canal
Not to mention Angolia and Eritrea
Ps France had Troops in Rwanda before and During the GEnocide they also trained the Military supplies Gun and Ammo.The dispatch of 36,000 Cuban soldiers to Angola from November 1975 to April 1976 stunned the world and ushered in a period of large-scale operations, including 16,000 Cuban soldiers in Ethiopia in late 1977; Cuban military missions in Congo Brazzaville, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, and Benin; and, above all, the continuing presence in Angola that peaked in 1988 with 52,000 soldiers.
Yet later France was very active at the UN in the discussions about the reinforcement of the UNAMIR in May 1994. In front of the inertia of the international community, France obtained the backing of the UN to lead Opération Turquoise from June 22 to August 22, 1994. The declared goal was to protect the "threatened populations," both by the genocide and by the military conflict between the FPR and the temporary Rwandan government.
Thats not an aswer thats a troll misdirection
You are the one who suggests that it is possible to defend people with force being used only after every other possible scenario is tried that's not at all what an experienced military leader would ever suggest because his first concern is the safety of his troops.
Its time you put up or shut up and admit you are way out of your depth and far beyond your knowlege base.
Afterall you didn't even know the UN had peacekeeping troops in Rwanda otherwise you wouldn't have suggested if they were there it would have prevented the genocide.
Incorrect number were only a small part of a complex issue The majority of his correspondence to the UN was him begged for ROI that would allow him to do his job. Plus requesting and being refused permission to act on information where arms caches were.
Critters with agenda like to make noise that if only there were more troops it wouldn't have occurred but the fact his his hands were tied because his mandate relegated him to being an observer.
For a start off you mistakenly blamed it on Not having American troops there because you never even knew the UN being deployed there already.
None of this is you answering what the ROI that meet your target of only using force as a last resort other possible methods had been exhausted would have been able to stop the genocide while keeping the peace keeping troops safe.
Remember Belgium withdrew its forces after they were killed as they were unable to defend themselves because of insufficient ROI. they had been demanding a change in the original UN mandate and when the UN refused to change it the withdrew their troops, It wasnt the UN that reduced the Number as you said it waa Belguim who did it as the troops were not able to protect themselves under the mandate and ROI.
Enough of the new diversion You stated that it could have been done now stump up with ROI.
Dallaire as a miltary leader puts the safety of his troops first so explain how you can achieve what you state is possible.
Its especially amusing to hear you going on about Dallaire considering a few days ago you never even knew there was an UN peace keeping mission in Rwanda at the time.
Husa's already pointed it out, but I think it bears repeating:
Look in the Mirror.
You're the reason.
Anytime the West acts, and innocent people inevitable die: people like you complain. You never give them any credit for ANY action, that ended up in an innocent loss of life. Even if it can be demonstrated, that the action resulted in less innocent loss of life than inaction.
From your quote - that you keep referring to, as if it's the be-all and end-all:
What Fiasco are they referring to? That would be the Public Backlash and outrage.given the fiasco of the end of our involvement with Somalia [a few months later], that we probably wouldn't react [to Rwanda].
The whole point of asking you for the Scenario was to demonstrate that you have none.
If (as you are claiming, and I don't believe) you are so upset at their inaction in Rwanda, how about next time they take out a Genocidal Dictator, instead of conjuring conspiracies, calling for Inquiries and calling them Warmongers - you congratulate them.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Serbia to prevent ethnic Cleansing.
Boutros-Ghali wanted 34,000; the Security Council authorized only 7,400..
Funny how Katman claimsfonly 5000 troops were used Rwanda genocide would not have happened.
Notice he still attermpts to blame the US when the UN was running the peacekeeping mission.
Why does he not attack Russia for not sending Troops or China or Belgum for withdrawing their troops.
Easy they are not America.
Like TDL states the winging no good excuestards like Katflam are the reason.
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks