Hypocrits!!

[Ranger68]

Remember that we're talking about why the UN failed to intervene. (For the overall genocide itself - the blame falls almost entirely on the genocidaires, the real devils of the piece, and to the French, who shockingly provided training and materiel to them, knowing full well what was being planned).

The US takes the lion's share of the blame for the UN's failure to act because they were the ones who were opposed to UNAMIR I and UNAMIR II. They insisted on changes to the resolutions being passed in the SC as regards to the situation in Rwanda, fatally shrinking the size of the mission and strangling its logistics. D'Allaire is unapologetic in his damning of the US' activities, though he himself claims that he is ultimately responsible for the mission's failure.

There is no excuse for the US' malaise, or apathy, or whatever you want to call it. There is good evidence that their intelligence agencies, along with the British and French, were aware of what was being planned even before it started happening. The British pressed for intervention, the French either stayed silent or were mildly opposed, and the US consistently opposed the UN mission in Rwanda. Probably because they felt that if they came onboard, they'd be asked to provide much of the money and materiel to support it, and they just weren't interested. After the debacle in Sudan, it just didn't make for good press for Americans to die in Africa - after all, wasn't this just a "tribal conflict"? An unnamed American staffer was remembered by D'Allaire as saying that 85000 Africans would have to die to justify every American death.

Kofi Annan must also bear a significant portion of the blame for not bringing events which he was being informed of (as head of the UN peacekeeping division) to the attention of the General Assembly. If there is any single person in the UN to point the finger at, it would be him.

But, there is no excuse for, not the US' failure to act, mind you, but the US' actions to *prevent the UN from becoming involved*. That they did so is a matter of public record.

To the Belgians, there is very little blame to be assigned, except as they are responsible for the whole mess to begin with, as the ex-colonial masters. They propagated and inflated the tribal differences when they were there, then, like most imperial powers, left things a shambles when they left. That they returned with UNAMIR was unwise, but not necessarily badly intended. That they left was ENTIRELY the fault of the politicians at the UN (most notably, the Americans) who shackled them - allowing ten soldiers to be taken captive and permitting no action to rescue them. That they left, after their men were shockingly murdered, was probably short of shameful, but was certainly bitterly disappointing to D'Allaire - who, by the way, the Belgians blame even to this day for the deaths of their soldiers.

 

[onthebottom]

Remember that we're talking about why the UN failed to intervene. (For the overall genocide itself - the blame falls almost entirely on the genocidaires, the real devils of the piece, and to the French, who shockingly provided training and materiel to them, knowing full well what was being planned).

The US takes the lion's share of the blame for the UN's failure to act because they were the ones who were opposed to UNAMIR I and UNAMIR II. They insisted on changes to the resolutions being passed in the SC as regards to the situation in Rwanda, fatally shrinking the size of the mission and strangling its logistics. D'Allaire is unapologetic in his damning of the US' activities, though he himself claims that he is ultimately responsible for the mission's failure.

There is no excuse for the US' malaise, or apathy, or whatever you want to call it. There is good evidence that their intelligence agencies, along with the British and French, were aware of what was being planned even before it started happening. The British pressed for intervention, the French either stayed silent or were mildly opposed, and the US consistently opposed the UN mission in Rwanda. Probably because they felt that if they came onboard, they'd be asked to provide much of the money and materiel to support it, and they just weren't interested. After the debacle in Sudan, it just didn't make for good press for Americans to die in Africa - after all, wasn't this just a "tribal conflict"? An unnamed American staffer was remembered by D'Allaire as saying that 85000 Africans would have to die to justify every American death.

Kofi Annan must also bear a significant portion of the blame for not bringing events which he was being informed of (as head of the UN peacekeeping division) to the attention of the General Assembly. If there is any single person in the UN to point the finger at, it would be him.

But, there is no excuse for, not the US' failure to act, mind you, but the US' actions to *prevent the UN from becoming involved*. That they did so is a matter of public record.

To the Belgians, there is very little blame to be assigned, except as they are responsible for the whole mess to begin with, as the ex-colonial masters. They propagated and inflated the tribal differences when they were there, then, like most imperial powers, left things a shambles when they left. That they returned with UNAMIR was unwise, but not necessarily badly intended. That they left was ENTIRELY the fault of the politicians at the UN (most notably, the Americans) who shackled them - allowing ten soldiers to be taken captive and permitting no action to rescue them. That they left, after their men were shockingly murdered, was probably short of shameful, but was certainly bitterly disappointing to D'Allaire - who, by the way, the Belgians blame even to this day for the deaths of their soldiers.

I think you're holding the US to too high a standard. While I agree that there was no excuse for not acting (see Bill Clinton if you're looking for someone to hate on this) there was nothing preventing any rich country from sending troops - even your country. The same arguments that are being used now against the war in Iraq (not a threat to the us, loosing troops in a far away land....) could be used against this action as well. And yes, most of the weight would have fallen on the US to fund this, provide troops for it and then we would have been reading about liberals and conservatives complaining about the US being the world’s policeman.

D'Allaire was angry with the US, I think he has the same issue with the US that you do, you expect us to do too much and then complain when we do. What is really pathetic is he spends very little time complaining about his own country not sending troops, like he has low expectations of Canada.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

I think you're holding the US to too high a standard. While I agree that there was no excuse for not acting (see Bill Clinton if you're looking for someone to hate on this) there was nothing preventing any rich country from sending troops - even your country.

Yes, there was. You see, other countries don't typically just send off troops wherever they please. You'd argue that Britain, say, should have just ignored the UN and sent a few brigades of Royal Marines into Kigali? What makes you think they would have been permitted? What makes you think that kind of activity should even be considered? The issue was before the UN, and the SC was determining what action it should take - it had been invited in by the Rwandans. It's really simple. Had the US not been OPPOSED to UN intervention, a much stronger force would have been sent, and many lives saved. And, yes, it's Bill Clinton who's to blame. You see the problem with pigeon-holing people as lefties or righties or whatever? I don't blame the US for all the ills of the world. But, since we're on the subject, the US is to blame for the UN failure to intervene in Rwanda - which was the original topic.

The same arguments that are being used now against the war in Iraq (not a threat to the us, loosing troops in a far away land....) could be used against this action as well. And yes, most of the weight would have fallen on the US to fund this, provide troops for it and then we would have been reading about liberals and conservatives complaining about the US being the world’s policeman.

No. Millions of people were not being slaughtered and displaced. The situations really couldn't be more different. Had the US been able to convince the UNSC to intervene in Iraq, I'd be ALL FOR IT - as I was for incursion into Afghanistan. That they weren't able to garner *multilateral consent* is an indication that their arguments were very weak, their reasons for going in totally misplaced.

It's all about working through multilateral institutions - the UN, the ICC, Kyoto. These are GOOD things. These are not things to be shunned. Since WWII, the UN, and only the UN has been authorized to conduct the operations that the US has undertaken in Iraq. Without that consent, it's just the wild west all over again.

D'Allaire was angry with the US, I think he has the same issue with the US that you do, you expect us to do too much and then complain when we do. What is really pathetic is he spends very little time complaining about his own country not sending troops, like he has low expectations of Canada.

OTB

You obviously haven't read his book, have you? Admit it - you're just clutching at whatever straws you can find to try and discredit D'Allaire.
Pathetic, is what it is.
And it couldn't be more wrong. D'Allaire argues that the higher powers will always act selfishly, and that it's the middle powers, like Australia and Canada, that must take more of a role in international affairs. To that end, he expects that the Canadian military must be ready to step into situations like Rwanda and the Sudan. He also argues for UN reform to allow this to happen in a multilateral environment.
You could try reading up on him before slagging him.

 

[The Mugger]

"Is there blame to be shared? You bet. In spades. Does the US deserve the lion's portion of it? Yup."

Yeah, I guess the term "lion's share" escapes you. This does not mean "all", this means, "the largest share". Jesus, man, if you can't follow english, perhaps you should stick to other forums.

Boy you really are in denial. Lion Share - is not all of the blame, yeah I didn't disagree with that, what I disagreed with is that US should have the Lion's share at all. Maybe that's a concept to hard for you to understand or your argument is so weak this is the only attack you have. I don't disagree that the US has some liability here, I just disagree with the level of responsibility you assign. I await your next paragraph on my lack of reading abilities.

Actually I'm not waiting for next post because it will be more of the same crap you like to post anyways and since this is not the convince Ranger thread, I see no purpose to this thread.

The bottom line Ranger this was not a failure of the US alone, it was a failure of the World community at large. In the end where was China or Russia on this matter, they sat on the security council, and both had the same ability as the US to stop the slaughter.

Rant on if you must Ranger, you are just plain wrong on the issue as a whole.

 

[onthebottom]

Ranger,

I've read the book cover to cover and it's awsome. Anyone could have sent troops, where do you think those African troops came from, they were donated. Canada, UK, France even the mighty Chinese who probably made the farking blades that killed almost a million could have gone.

Any UNSC nation could have brought this to a vote. I noticed you ignored the point about Rwanda being on the UNSC at the time.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

Boy you really are in denial. Lion Share - is not all of the blame, yeah I didn't disagree with that,

"Again since when is "LION SHARE" just part of the blame as you say now."
Yes, you did.

what I disagreed with is that US should have the Lion's share at all. Maybe that's a concept to hard for you to understand or your argument is so weak this is the only attack you have. I don't disagree that the US has some liability here, I just disagree with the level of responsibility you assign. I await your next paragraph on my lack of reading abilities.

You haven't even responded as to WHY the US shouldn't have the lion's share? This would be called, as the french say, defending your position.

Actually I'm not waiting for next post because it will be more of the same crap you like to post anyways and since this is not the convince Ranger thread, I see no purpose to this thread.

You could try convincing ANYONE. Go ahead. Try.

The bottom line Ranger this was not a failure of the US alone, it was a failure of the World community at large. In the end where was China or Russia on this matter, they sat on the security council, and both had the same ability as the US to stop the slaughter.

They were both in favour of the UN sending more troops. The US was not, and insisted on the text of the resolutions being changed to reflect that (with the tacit threat of veto, if it came to that). THAT'S where they were. Again, you ignore that fact.

Rant on if you must Ranger, you are just plain wrong on the issue as a whole.

Not remotely. It's clear who knows the history of the issue, and who doesn't.
I have support for my side, you have none for yours.

Case closed.

 

[Ranger68]

Ranger,

I've read the book cover to cover and it's awsome. Anyone could have sent troops, where do you think those African troops came from, they were donated. Canada, UK, France even the mighty Chinese who probably made the farking blades that killed almost a million could have gone.

Any UNSC nation could have brought this to a vote. I noticed you ignored the point about Rwanda being on the UNSC at the time.

OTB

NO, NOT ANYONE COULD HAVE SENT TROOPS! The size of the mission was clearly defined by the SC. It would have been better if more of the troops had been from western nations, just for the sheer military expertise and logistics, but that's neither here nor there. The point is, the SC limited the size of the mission, then wanted to either minimize it or pull it out entirely - at the behest of the US.
It was NOT the right or obligation of Canada or Britain or Germany to just step up and say "we're sending a brigade". These troops are *loaned to the UN*. They're not acting on behalf of the nations sending them, and they're paid for by the UN.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "any UNSC nation could have brought this to a vote". There were LOTS of votes, LOTS of resolutions. During all of which, the US made its position quite clear. It wasn't interested in having the UN commit troops to Rwanda. Now, had the US said "Okay, UN, let's get some troops over there!", and then had nobody stepped forward - that's an entirely different kettle of fish. Rwanda wanted UN troops there. Many other nations on the SC wanted UN troops there. Many didn't care. The US DIDN'T want UN troops there, and made that quite clear. Since they had a veto, and exercised great control over proceedings at the UN, they got what they wanted - a watered down UNAMIR mission, with ridiculous rules of engagement, then total withdrawal.

Clear now?

 

[onthebottom]

Calm down Ranger, I'm not disputing your account of Clinton's policy I'm making the point that Canada (or anyone else) could have sent 5,000 troops and saved 100's of thousands of people - they only would have had to pay their won way. Bill didn't want to pay the price or send the troops.

Rwanda did not want a large mission. It was the killing side that was sitting on the UNSC.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

First, the Rwandans would have to have invited them.
Likely? I really don't know .....
Or, are you proposing an invasion?

What I DO know is that they invited the UN, and were willing to have the SC send whatever force it deemed necessary to "keep the peace". The door was open, and the US didn't want anyone going through. That's the reality.

Again, it's hypocritical for the US to point to Rwanda and say "look how useless they are". Totally and utterly.

 

[rogerstaubach]

well, there you go again. ranger, in the post quoted, is not blaming the US for all the worlds troubles - he seems to be only taking exception to the fact that some in the US blame Rwanda on the failure of the UN, but do not recognize that they played a role in that failure.

well there you go again, red. You have a disturbing habit of taking a very small tidbit of information from a whole database and somehow attempt to extrapolate an agrument from it.

Ranger's extensive library of posts reads like a "prosecution of America". Objectivity is not his strong suit.

 

[onthebottom]

First, the Rwandans would have to have invited them.
Likely? I really don't know .....
Or, are you proposing an invasion?

Ah, OK, so next time a corrupt government with a broken peace process starts killing a million of their own people we'll be sure to wait for the embossed invitation from the dictator before acting.....

What I DO know is that they invited the UN, and were willing to have the SC send whatever force it deemed necessary to "keep the peace". The door was open, and the US didn't want anyone going through. That's the reality.

Again, it's hypocritical for the US to point to Rwanda and say "look how useless they are". Totally and utterly.

There you go, totally and utterly..... if you read the book you know what a complete waste the UN bureaucracy was, how foolish their planning, rules of engagement and processes were.

OTB

 

[rogerstaubach]

There you go, totally and utterly..... if you read the book you know what a complete waste the UN bureaucracy was, how foolish their planning, rules of engagement and processes were.

OTB

That information cannot be processed because it would conflict with his general theory of life on planet earth: "Blame America for all that ails".

 

[Ranger68]

Ah, OK, so next time a corrupt government with a broken peace process starts killing a million of their own people we'll be sure to wait for the embossed invitation from the dictator before acting.....

We have up until now. You proposing we do something different? I'm not opposed to that, but it's only VERY recently that nations have discussed options for multilaterally deciding to intervene in other nations' "internal affairs". That's a fact. The UN was NOT established to do it, and no nation on earth has stepped up to this point in our history. Frankly, I'd think it would be MUCH better to have nations get together to decide what to do, than to rely on individual administrations to decide to act. The means and strength to prevent these atrocities should be laid out in the UN framework. To do otherwise is to invite apathy and chaos.

There you go, totally and utterly..... if you read the book you know what a complete waste the UN bureaucracy was, how foolish their planning, rules of engagement and processes were.

OTB

Say what you want about the "UN bureaucracy", they HAD decided to send troops. Do you deny this? No nation had independently decided to intervene. Do you deny this? The US was opposed to UN intervention. Do you deny this? The SC set the rules of engagement, and in this, they were guided forcefully by the US.

Then, tell me, who's to blame - "the UN", or the US representation at the UN?

 

[onthebottom]

Say what you want about the "UN bureaucracy", they HAD decided to send troops. Do you deny this?

No, but they gave them foolish rules of engagement, equipment that didn't work and wasted money on nice digs for the pols.

No nation had independently decided to intervene. Do you deny this?

No, that was my point son, and shame on all of us.

The US was opposed to UN intervention. Do you deny this?

No, I've said that many times, and it was wrong.

The SC set the rules of engagement, and in this, they were guided forcefully by the US.

There are five permanent members on the UNSC, all with equal weight, but yes the US did not want to get involved. If seemed to me, but it's been a while since I've read the book, that the bureaucracy made many of the tactical decisions.

Then, tell me, who's to blame - "the UN", or the US representation at the UN?

All of the above, it's only your "lions share" scoring that is disputed, it's unbalanced, unless you think we do run the world, which if that's the case why do we participate in the UN at all?

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

No, but they gave them foolish rules of engagement, equipment that didn't work and wasted money on nice digs for the pols.

To be accurate, the SC did. And they did so at the prompting of the US.

There are five permanent members on the UNSC, all with equal weight,

And if you buy that, I've got some prime land in southern Mississipi for ya.
In any case, any one of these nations is free to impose their will on the rest by tacitly threatening veto. That's why the SC must negotiate solutions, rather than just one nation putting a proposal together and having a vote. If any one of the five perms wants changes, they'll get them. And that's what happened.

but yes the US did not want to get involved. If seemed to me, but it's been a while since I've read the book, that the bureaucracy made many of the tactical decisions.

No, the SC did.

All of the above, it's only your "lions share" scoring that is disputed, it's unbalanced, unless you think we do run the world, which if that's the case why do we participate in the UN at all?

OTB

The US, for all practical purposes, has RUN the UN since its inception. However, I appreciate that this is debatable.
In any case, as I've said, the US drove the bus in the SC on the Rwanda issue, and therein lay the problem.

 

[The Mugger]

"Again since when is "LION SHARE" just part of the blame as you say now."



Not remotely. It's clear who knows the history of the issue, and who doesn't.
I have support for my side, you have none for yours.

Case closed.

Well clearly you like to go on about reading and understanding, I defy you to show where I said the US was all the blame or claimed you did. What I disagreed with was the level of responsibility you assigned. As for support very few people believe that the US had the proportional responsibility you assign it.

Lets face it though, when you say LIONS SHARE you really mean that the US could have stopped this on their own and that ONLY the US lack of action caused this tragedy. Don't give me this crap that you think it was shared because clearly your post indicates, maybe not say directly, that those with minor positions of responsibility where trumped by US action.

Further more, about reading skills, the sub title to the book "Shake hands with the Devil", I believe is "A Failure of Humanity" - if you notice it's not a failure of the US.

As for China and Russia's action on the Security Council, my thought was that they abstained however I couldn't find a link to support that or your view. However, it was within their power to pressure the US with the threat of doing something outside the Security Council and they obviously choose not to.

The only person not understanding post is you. My main objection to your post was always the level of responsibility you assigned to the US. Your subsequent posts indicate that any other nation's responsibility is so minor as not to be effect on this disaster. While you clearly split blame, I find that position of yours disingenuous at best and I suspect you only split blame because the facts will not support blaming the US entirely.

In the end, while your posts claim differently, it is clear who you really blame for this tragedy. Now maybe you should learn some reading/comprehension skills and stop being an arrogant fuck. CASE CLOSED - my ass

We get it you hate the US and it's people

Now it's case closed

 

[Ranger68]

Well clearly you like to go on about reading and understanding, I defy you to show where I said the US was all the blame or claimed you did.

I just quoted where you accused me of saying that since "lion's share" meant *all* the blame, I was accusing the US of the whole thing. I then explained to you what "lion's share" meant.

What I disagreed with was the level of responsibility you assigned. As for support very few people believe that the US had the proportional responsibility you assign it.

Romeo D'Allaire does. And he was there. Who supports *your* point of view?

Lets face it though, when you say LIONS SHARE you really mean that the US could have stopped this on their own and that ONLY the US lack of action caused this tragedy. Don't give me this crap that you think it was shared because clearly your post indicates, maybe not say directly, that those with minor positions of responsibility where trumped by US action.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what the term "lion's share" means.
Anyway, as I've said MANY TIMES NOW, it was the US intervention at the SC meetings which prevented the UN from acting decisively.

Further more, about reading skills, the sub title to the book "Shake hands with the Devil", I believe is "A Failure of Humanity" - if you notice it's not a failure of the US.

Have you even read the book? No? ... Next.

As for China and Russia's action on the Security Council, my thought was that they abstained however I couldn't find a link to support that or your view. However, it was within their power to pressure the US with the threat of doing something outside the Security Council and they obviously choose not to.

Not my fault that you can't find evidence to support your arguments. China and Russia weren't interested in Rwanda. Not only was the US not interested, but they took it a step further - they didn't want ANYONE ELSE interested.

The only person not understanding post is you. My main objection to your post was always the level of responsibility you assigned to the US. Your subsequent posts indicate that any other nation's responsibility is so minor as not to be effect on this disaster. While you clearly split blame, I find that position of yours disingenuous at best and I suspect you only split blame because the facts will not support blaming the US entirely.

I've made my position quite clear. Sorry you can't follow it.

In the end, while your posts claim differently, it is clear who you really blame for this tragedy. Now maybe you should learn some reading/comprehension skills and stop being an arrogant fuck. CASE CLOSED - my ass

I've laid out who's to blame for this. Sorry you can't follow it.

We get it you hate the US and it's people

Now it's case closed

Nope. I don't hate the US. If you could read english, you'd know that. I hate ignorant fucks like you who are nothing more than US apologists. Anyone who says anything bad about the US is a loony who hates America.

Case closed. Consider the floor mopped, once again.

Say something intelligent to make me not put you on Ignore.

 

[The Mugger]

I Nope. I don't hate the US. If you could read English, you'd know that. I hate ignorant fucks like you who are nothing more than US apologists. Anyone who says anything bad about the US is a loony who hates America.

Case closed. Consider the floor mopped, once again.

Say something intelligent to make me not put you on Ignore.

My god do you think something of yourself. In my experience guys like you with a narrow world view generally have nothing constructive to offer.

Um apologist - actually no, what I hate are people like you who find that all that is at fault in the world is somehow the sole responsibility of the US. There are so many legitimate things to get after them about why overkill this one. I think you'll find I have said my share against them.

Mop the floor - Generally when I find people who lose it like you did in your last post hardly won their point, in fact it's an indication that you lost it. Your trump point this time is that your tired of US apologists like me. Gee I didn't think I was apologizing for anything.

Actually maybe your temper tantrum in the last post may have confirmed something, when you said Russia and China didn't care about Rwanda. Oh I know that resolution that the US brought forward on behalf of the Belgium - but don't you think they should share blame too at the SC. After all they could have put their political power to force the US's hand in this matter. Again you choose to ignore this reality and lay blame on the US.

Since we are on the matter of what bothers us. I am no apologist for the US and I suspect that's just the death cry of a faulty argument, but while were on the subject, what really bothers me about people like you is your very narrow point of view. All world events are skewed by you hatred for all things US and what really bothers me about your argument is that the Rwandan tragedy is a global failure, something no country in the world should ever allow to happen again. However people like you tilt the blame to the US, allowing other people and countries to somehow wash their hands of this tragedy.

Put me on ignore if you must, but somehow I think some others on the board and myself will take that as your resignation that you can't compete.

In future try a more balanced view and I might support an anti-American position of yours, but I doubt your type can do that.

Now it's case closed, well on my part, I suspect you'll have another tantrum or another stab at a faulty argument or put me on ignore *what a baby*

 

[Ranger68]

I don't hate the US. You keep coming back to that.
I guess that indicates you have nothing left to argue about substantial to the topic at hand.
I'll give you another chance in a few weeks.
Until then,
IGNORE.

Enjoy your day.

 

[The Mugger]

I don't hate the US. You keep coming back to that.
I guess that indicates you have nothing left to argue about substantial to the topic at hand.
I'll give you another chance in a few weeks.
Until then,
IGNORE.

Enjoy your day.

LOL See he didn't even bother about the other SC members and their role or inaction in this matter.

I repeat what a baby and I will now add - WHAT A LOSER

I really love the plea of not hating Americans - is this somehow his pitiful attempt at being not bias????

What a funny guy - actually it really is sad.

Let me know when you'll grace me with your Highness's attention again.

As for enjoy my day, the comedy you brought to me today is just priceless.


*what a sad and pathetic little fool Ranger is*