Quote:
Originally Posted by michelemichele
A guess? Detailed? Bleh. Say you divide the corps you have on hand & assign each one to those places where the largest number of civilians were gathering. Then you wait, because if such a command/permission been given, with it would have been at least some the troops the UN had originally promised Dallaire. Odds are, with that kind of support behind you, you won't wait long: when the French went in (after the genocide, & to protect the Hutus), they mobilized fast.
The point of killing the Flemish soldiers had been scaring off the UN... Had they underestimated UN's commitment to its ideological principles, seeing more troops come in would've given them pause. (< understatement)
You must understand, there's an element of momentum critical to this type of situation, and they were not up to fighting both the UN & Kagami's troops.
|
Hindsight is always 20/20... There may have been a momentum there, but UN did not understand... And that's the main point. They didn't know local politics enough to make informed decisions, and the odds of outsiders having expert opinion and making correct decisions on the fly has been rather low historically. How do you get the info about combat readiness of the militia units? (Aside from reading books and reports that were written after the events
) If you are a militia, are you willing to share that information willingly? If not, should UN rely on spy networks that would gather needed info on timely basis? To cover conflicts around the world, how big will this network have to be? Do you want UN going through your garbage? (only if they take it out
)
Quote:
|
RE Nationalized industries et al - It probably depends on the region (& industry). Remember how many of those dictators funneled $ for themselves, and still do, so it's not working out so well. OTOH, foreign owned corporations would probably also suck. Who sucks less? Don't know yet, it's an enormous subject & I've some way to go before I might know what I'm talking about.
|
Well, local dictators are local problem. That's what revolutions are for... it's their problem to solve, not ours. Western firepower can tilt the battlefield unfairly however, hence my distaste for weapons sales.
Quote:
The black market supplies some weapons, others are from shadow nations who supply them 'secretly' (sometimes, it isn't that big a secret). As far as I know, if the US has culpability now, it's far less active than a couple of others, not necessarily for the right reasons.....
...Before the European scramble is just... no comparison. Sure it did relatively well, colonial expansion was limited to the technology of the time. Africa's topography & climate made much of it a most inhospitable place to visit, much less explore & conquer...
(later) OK, maybe I see why you're not getting me at all. Before I started reading about these countries, I didn't understand how and why these strong-men kept getting control of those countries over & over again, and I didn't get how Europe's artificial borders aggravated tribal conflicts & warlords. Do you feel as if I'm coming from a school of thought that perpetuates dilhemmas like these by fostering helplessness (or something like that)? -- Because I can't make sense of this part otherwise, they don't call this planet a global village for nothing. You mean: we've already tried it all & nothing's worked so far?
|
Lol... i guess you could say that. How should i put it? In my experience, there are two types of "foreign aid"... One is done by people who really mean well, but have no clue what's going on and thus their impact is marginally beneficial at best, and often has negative unintended consequences. And another is done by people who actually took time to study and put together a business plan, but they do it to benefit themselves first and foremost, wreaking havoc purposefully in the process. People who mean well AND can put together a half decent plan are exceedingly rare in the business.
Quote:
I must be very tired or something
Iraq: yup. Don't know much about Chechnya or Tibet at all (mortifying). Are you giving me these examples of situations where you think UN peace-keepers - and I use the term deliberately, as that is their primary function - would have driven the stakes up into more serious events?
|
Yes. A simple scenario - you are a UN peace keeper guarding a village. A US warplane shows up and heads to bomb it. Do you open fire?
Quote:
You'd think more people would go wtf, but that didn't happen, and given the correct conditions, more people than not will go along with what they perceive as the majority. Hutu civilians who went along with it did it to save themselves, possibly a spouse or a child. Most of them have said that the first was the hardest, then it got easy, and the memory of that first kill bothered them less as they killed more.
If you're thinking large #s of Hutu complicity = very large force against the UN, nope.
|
Yeah, this is an example of logic that bothers me. Somehow, i don't find it very reassuring.
Quote:
Mal? You've already said this RE Tutsi feeling towards the UN, and as I've said before: no, that isn't it. Kagame's ambivalence over the UN doesn't make a case against intervention, that's spin.
+Again, with Rwanda, armed confrontation was an issue when massacres began upon Pres Habyarimana's assassination half a year after Dallaire's arrival. UN troops could & would have stopped the genocide, and people who were there are convinced a small show of strength would have been enough.
|
I wish i had your optimism... Centuries of tribal and social feuding reversed by a few brave soldiers...