Rwanda?? did it have to happen?

I thought you were going to say it was a shame because you would really like to become a fish...

Seriously though, the problem with the UN is that it is supposed to be an intervention force, emphasis on force, but it is tied down by its obligation to moral correctness because it has to face the whole world's press and public while their enemies get to do as they please. Therefore the only thing that could make the UN really effective would be a fundamental change in Western morals, which would once again (and very reasonably) let war be regarded as a common and accepted phenomenon of human life. People don't have to be all for it, they just have to realize what is the best way to end it and allow their international peace corps do what is necessary.

 

lets face it ..the un cant protect a flock of geese from a pack of beagles...a small cadre of retired euro or east bock officers and noncoms could arm and train the victem peoples in 90 days and lead them against the wolves if nessecary...why not ,it would work ..and it would cost a laughable fraction of the do nothing ,blue hats buget.

 

Ha. and i suppose the US would do a better job?? please... they couldnt even summon the support of their own NATO to aid them in Iraq, who didnt really need any ""help"" in the first place. You forget that if it weren't for the UN, Sloberdan Milosevic would still be gallivanting about Yugoslavia and all of Sudan would likely have starved to death. America, on the other hand, doesnt give a stuff about coming to any country's "aid" unless it is Communist, Muslim or (supposedly) has an WMD.

so lucky we got the UN, ey?

 

Like we already said, giving them guns and training them is likely to transform them into the zillionth faction in the ongoing civil wars of the region.

 

the un bert the serbs?i didnt even now they had fighterbombers...i thoght that was usaf and raf...

 

Uh - all UN troops are drawn from the armed forces of UN member nations, which include the USA & UK.
And, as an amusing historical sidelight, Germany. This was amusing because when they were asked to provide aircraft for duties in the former Yugoslavia somebody pointed out that the last time the Luftwaffe had flown in those skies was during WW2. Thankfully the Serbs did not react as badly as some people feared.

 

roel ..i agree that africans and asians seem to delight in hacking and shooting each other to peices(unlike us civilized white folk....har har)...even so ..i think if we see one people or tribe being overwhelmed an run like sheep before their rapacious and more warlike neighbors....we should try to help them...be the time we send un or us ,brit ,euro forces ...or whatever ,hundreds of thousands will be murdered...as we have sadly witnessed time and again...ur right smeg ..we arent about to do another mogudishu ...or iraq for that matter ..u can count the usa out....to bad for bleeding africa.

 

The largest amount of UN troops are not American anyway, so it should not bother the American public too much to send in troops to help and defend Africans.

 

The UN did nothing to bring down Slobodan Milosovich, that was done mainly by American air power with some help from NATO Allies, and as for how he lost power and got arrested that was done by Serb Voters, not the UN.

As for Sudan funny that you bring Sudan up when it is commiting Genocide against the Africans living in Darfur.

The US is better and more caring then the UN has ever been or ever will be.

It worked against Slobadon Milosovich. Call me old fashioned but methods that are proven effective at saving lives should not be discarded over hurt feelings.

The fact that they will do nothing if deployed, while still granting a genocidal regime legitimacy by it's presence I think bothers everyone, not just Americans, as well it should because of the original topic, Rwanda.

According to Romeo Dallaire the commander of UN forces in Rwanda at the time, had he been granted permission to stop the violence with just the forces he had at his disposal he would have been able to stop the Genocide.

One more thing, being late to the thread I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I think that the Somalia issue greatly helped the cause of the anti-interventionists. Afterall American and UN forces had gone to that country to feed the people, when they got their warlords prevented the goods from getting to their own people, however far from supporting the Americans when they went after the bandits in order to get food to the people the local population rose up against the American forces. That had to have been on President Clinton's mind, what if I get the Security Council to call the event by it's name, intervene, but the Tutsis then try to kill the men and women I send to save them?

 

Do you have anything to say that isn't anti-US or is that your only topic?

 

Not all countries and regions are comparable. Since large parts of Africa are in what can be considered an almost permanent state of anarchy with factions struggling for power everywhere, giving as many people as possible guns is not going to solve matters, methinks. A functioning peace keeping force would, however I agree with you that many UN missions have proven to be less than functioning.

Granted, if they are not given the freedom to act they cannot. However, would you not agree that the solution as such is preferrable over arming the population? Like you said, if they are given the freedom to do their job they believe that they can do so.

 

roel...nobody suggested giving as many africans as possible guns.....we just want to arm the specific group that is being murdered and raped.....will they kill some of their attackers?...well we can only hope .... what would happen to the middle aged ss special action squads if they tried to round up the people of israel today?...wouldnt that be fun to watch...

 

Organized and professional soldiers are always superior to armed civilians.

 

Always? That would depend upon your definition of an armed civilian. Certainly superior to untrained civilians but a motivated and well trained reservist military force can without doubt defeat a trained professional military force that is not motivated to fight.

 

ah reminds me of my employer again.

 

Roel

I agree not everything is comparable, however I believe that if the West can save the Darfur Africans through sending weapons, then the rescued populace will do as it is asked, hence no need for chaos.

There is also the practical question of how? The UN Voting blocks favor Sudan, which is why it was able to stay on the HRC untill it ended. It is likely that any orders given to peace keepers worded extremely ambiguously will just be rejected by the mighty Arab Voting Block. You know how the UN voting blocks are, and I don't believe that Kofi Anan has changed anything in that department.

major

Guns are banned to Israelis unless they are either in the Police, or Military, if the SS where around today trying to round up Israeli Civilians outside the protection of the IDF it would be much the same as the 40s.

 

Well, SOMEBODY here needs to stand up for the good men and women of the UN. Besides, there aint no law against it is there

 

I dont know about arming the victims in Africa, that'll just lead to more killing. Sending guns does not solve problems; never has, never will. Sending supplies and armed soldiers however does solve problems. If you see a trained western soldier handing out food, and a couple af tanks you arent going to go shoot your neighbor to steal his bread in broad daylight are you? Sadly, no force on earth has enough resources to monitor the globe. (Nope, not even the US, 2ndLegion). The body with the most military resources to undertake such an operation is the UN. Call me crazy but I can't see anyone else showing interest in peacekeeping in places like Sierra Leone and Ethiopia, there is simply no-one else who would or could deploy peacekeeping operations all across the world. The UN does not fight wars, the UN solves problems, and even when it fails you can be sure it would be a better job than any other international body.

 

You apeak like that is an absoloute, however can I use one word to dispell your cheery imagery

Somalia

Just take a look at Iraq for an answer, unless you think American and British forces are untrained.

That includes the UN, which has caused many problems in some places it was sent to keep peace in, like the Balkans.

No it isn't, and even if it was the UN would not do it.

That whole statement is just your personal opinion, and the only thing that can stop Genocides after they start is war, and if the UN is only willing to send troops to Darfur after the fighting then why send them at all?

 

You're right... It does not work every time, due mainly in Somalia to the fact that the Militia still controlled the city. However it does work (See Kosovo), and I challenge you to find one example in history of your solution succeeding, where arming a mob has provided a peaceful outcome. Perhaps the Americans in Somalia should have handed out Ak's ? :roll:

My point was that incidents of this would be consderably higher if US forces were NOT there. If the US left now, the Iraqi's would murder each other unchallenged. The US are, for all intensive purposes keeping the peace. Do you agree with that?

Precisely!! But they did a good job nonetheless. Far better than leaving Sloberdan to his own devices. There are always problems, though in Kosovo they were not nearly on the scale of the US's involvment in Iraq...

Who is it then? There arent any other international peacekeeping bodies are there? None with 192 members either. And yes they would and yes they do (see Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Rwanda, Cyprus, Palestine etc etc)

To prevent fighting from starting again. You might not know, but the UN cannot predict the future, and they could not predict the Sudanese crisis. At least they took preventative measures to stop it from occuring again and to provide relief for the victims, what more could they have done? Pre-emptive agression is a poor solution (see Iraq) as is arming the mob, and in this case it was impossible to predict that war would even occur. The goal of the UN is peace. Stopping war entirely is next to impossible, so their role is usually in giving relief. So don't go bashing the UN simply because they failed to see the future of Sudan.