[Potato-VS-]

This is just a view that I recently tried to explain to my cousin... once again a rant and blah blah but the whole idea that he believes that canada contributed troops to Rwanda right from the start is completly incorrect (we gave LGen. Dallaire and Mjr. Brent at the beginning of the mission and that was all) and he believes that Dallaire doesnt know what hes talking about even though he was FORCE COMMANDER of UNAMIR. Anyway, I dont know if you agree with it but pretty muchly it sums up what could have possibly gone wrong if the US waited for the world.

I recently finished reading LGen. Romeo Dallaire’s book Shake Hands with the Devil; The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. I must say that the entire campaign from start to finish was poorly run but the whole real reason why the mission failed was because of greedy self-centered western countries (including Canada, France, the US, the UK, and the rest of the Security Council at the time) did not activly contribute what they promised or even what they could which in itself is wrong. The only countries that contributed to a peacekeeping force in the area in the beginning and during the Civil War/Genocide were Belgium, Ghana, Tutsinia and Bangladesh however, Belgium withdrew after ten Belgian soldiers were killed and the Civil War flaired back up. Three of these countries are developing countries and could not possibly keep their troops in the region with full supplies (all they came with was their kits and expected UNAMIR [UN Aid Mission in Rwanda] to provide everything else). Personally I believe that many countries in the UN decided that the innocent people Rwanda didn’t matter in any way shape or form and there was absolutely every reason possible not to contribute a large force of peace keepers to the region to stop a genocide that swept across the country leaving 800, 000 - 1, 000, 000 Rwandans directly and indirectly dead in its wake. By the time the world reacted to what was going on the Civil War had been won by the RPF (Rwandan Patriot Force) and the Genocide had subsided in a total RGF (Rwandan Government Force) and Hutu withdrawal from the region but then they could not bring back the thousands of Rwandans who were killed through mutilation, mass graves by the genocide.

This, however unfortunate, is beside the point. Many believe that the Second Gulf War was wrong and should have been carried out through the UN. As stated by some, the UN would have been able to bring down Saddam more “legally”. However, there are a few small problems with this:

1. If the UN had decided to do something about the situation in Iraq then it would have required a Chapter 7 UN mission. (A Chapter 7 mission is when a country is forcefully invaded and peace and justice is enforced on all therein). A Chapter 6 or even a Chapter 6 and a half mission would never have had enough power to take down Saddam and would have lead to many deaths amount UN forces (since both are peacekeeping operations and their mandate would never have really met with the circumstances in Iraq). There was no way in hell that Saddam would give up power peacefully and leave Iraq. An example of a Chapter 7 mission would be Somalia.

2. If a Chapter 7 mission was in fact used then who would provide the back bone? Well, the two biggest military powers on the Security Council most likely, the United States and UK. What this means is that either way they would most likely invaded Iraq through the same route.

3. Almost every Chapter 7 mission - and every UN peace keeping mission - depend on the countries in the UN to provide troops and supplies. The UN has no reserves, weapon/ammunition supplies, etc. Everything in the UN is on a pull basis (unlike a military alliance such as NATO). This means that Force Commanders need to request and badger the contributing country to supply troops with supplies - which is not an easy feat. Therefore, you need a country with significant military backing to support your mission. Because of this, most peacekeeping missions don’t get enough supplies since many of the nations that actually can supply anything of substance will not.

The over all point is this: if the states had waited and gone in with the UN then the contributing countries could be in a worse position with limited supplies, troops, and an outdated and incorrectly matched mandate. In which case, the stage would have already been set for a mission failure such as Rwanda and Somalia. Overall, even if the States went in with the UN then the entire thing could have been completely messed up by now and lead to a subsequent withdrawal of all forces from the region. In which case, once again, the western “backbone” UN countries would be proving to the world’s terrorists, warlords and anarchists that you don’t need to worry about the UN, they will screw up their own mission by themselves.

[Chen Kenichi]

I am not educated about Rwanda and Somalia, so I can't really comment on those instances, but I highly doubt if an invasion condoned by the UN was launched that it would fail and require withdrawl. That, to me, seems absolutely absurd. A joint force would have at least saved the US billions of dollars. Also, is there anything limiting the amount of support the US gives if the UN acted???

What was the point of rushing the invasion? There was no immediate threat from Iraq. I find it highly unlikely that we would be victim of another terrorist attack with the whole world now focused on the middle east. The inspections were keeping Iraq at bay, and should they find anything then Bush's actions wouldn't be so questionable. Did Bush save us from any impending danger by discerning foreign policy and throwing patience out the window? I doubt it.
_________________

[Azrael]

I honestly believe that the U.N. as it is being run now is turning into the new League of Nations. For those that don't know, the League of Nations failed miserably, which is partly why we now have the U.N. The problem is that it is a huge beaurocracy, and it is one in which no two entities are vying for the same thing. The problem with trying to get the U.N. to finish what was started in Iraq is the fact thatRussia and France did not want to go into Iraq, no matter what. We could have had Saddam on the TV telling the world to go take a piss, but because of those two countries and their auto veto powers, nothing would have been done. In fact, I seem to remember a couple of times that Saddam did do just that, and what did the U.N. do? Nothing, well, basically nothing, since all they did was to tell Iraq that it was a very bad country who had best shape up. This is the kind of problem that the U.N. has been having for years with Iraq, I can't remember the exact numbers, but I'll look things up and find out, but the U.N. has censured Iraq several times since 1991. It has also condemned Iraq for being a general a$$hole of a country. How many people cared that Saddam gave more money to the families of suicide bombers in Iraq than to his own people? How many people cared that Saddam gassed his own people, as well as those of his enemies. One of my teachers was there when Saddam decided to electrify a wetland as an Irani army unit moved through it. It is part of the reason she fled. These are not things that have not been proven, or are disputed. They are the facts, and even armed with these facts, the U.N. did nothing. The U.S. isn't blameless here, so don't think I"m saying we are angels who turn everything we touch to gold. We have made many mistakes, of those the most recent being that we had allowed Saddam to laugh in our faces for so long, while at the same time allowing him to continue his despotic ways. The American people have become a complacent people, focused more on what type of cell phone matches our newest outfit than on how we can benefit the world today. Sure, maybe the Bush administration exaggerated the case against Iraq. As for myself, I don't really give a damn, since that dumb bastard of a dictator has been a thorn in my side since I joined the military, which was almost 9 years ago. We took out Slobodan Milosevic, and he was not nearly as bad a guy as Saddam is. I think the American people knew what the right thing was, but were so worried about pissing off other countries that they felt they needed to prove to them that he's a shit. Now that other countries know that we'll take the hard road, there have been changes in the international community. Libya has begun the road to making amends with the international community. This after years of sanctions, and proposals and bickering that got nowhere. If anyone wants to argue that there was another reason for this sudden change, let them try.

Well, that's almost enough rambling for now, but I'd just like to close with one thing:

If the Bush administration hadn't gone to war, then there would be one more dictator still terrorizing his own people. If the American public can't see that one simple fact, then we're worse off than I feared. If the President decided to do this thing knowing full well that he would have to deceive the public to do so, then I think that is probably one of the most difficult choices to have to make, because he would have known, and been told by all his advisors, that it would mean the end of his years in the oval office. Sure things haven't gone entirely smoothly, but then if you look at history you'll realize that rebuilding a country never does, just look at how long it took to rebuild Germany.
_________________
Under construction!!!

[Paddyjack]

Saddam was an ass, that is a given. Just like many others dictators in the world. Will you start taking all of them one by one, just because they does not fit with your views?? If a very strong country, like China for example, decides that americans are led by a cancer administation and wiping them out would be a good thing for the World (and believe me, I'm sure numerous rogue countries will agree with that POV), then they have the right to attack you? No?? WHY NOT?

If there was any evidences of WoMD, the UN would have acted. That was their criteria. What goes inside was not really their business. France refused to go to war, claiming no WoMD existed, and they were right, there was none, the dispatch has been published last week. They stood true with what they believed, and with their opinions on the matter. It was the same with Canada. Rules existed in the world, and UN was the embodiement of them. USA going against UN has the consequences that anybody can do anything now. Oh... USA is strong, you don't have to worry right now, so you don't care... but I'm telling you that 30-50 years from now, things may well be very different in the world.
_________________
PJ --- ancient IDIOT with a rusty CROWBAR....
but still SWINGING!




Rock2..... JUST SAY NO!!!!!

[Azrael]

That seems to be the point of our foreign policy for the past few years, doesn't it? Getting rid of the despots has been what the U.S. has done for many years, so how is this a departure? We helped get rid of old Slobedoobeedoo, we kicked the Taliban out. We have isolated Kim Jong Il to the point where the entire world considers him an idiot. We even tried to go and help the Somalis out until the American public lost their appetite, I seem to remember that we also went into Vietnam for the same reasons, it failed, but hey, we tried. How is getting rid of one more tyrant something new? Of course things change in the world, in fifty or sixty years the whole world might not exist, then all of our good intentions would be for naught. Of course, if we don't act as we can to make the world a better place, than we're not much better than those who are actively making it worse, are we?

Of course you might not care that hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, Christians and Jews were murdered by Saddams regime, but I'm damn sure it mattered to their families (Hey wait, isn't that what we got rid of Slobodan for?). I'm also damn sure that it mattered to me when I got to see men crying as they thanked me for getting rid of Saddam. When was they last time any of you had someone do that for you? There is no better feeling than that, and as far as I'm concerned, it's all the justification I'll ever need. You mentioned about what if China decided to come and wipe us out, well, let them try, because I'm pretty certain that Americans would not do what the Iraqis did, which was dance in the streets as we came rolling through their towns. We would fight, tooth and nail, to defend ourselves and our way of life.

Don't try and tell me that that's exactly what the Iraqis are doing, because it's not. In Iraq, you have the minority tribe, which had been in power for many years, all pissed off now cause they're treated like everyone else, and so they're fighting back, plus you have the foreign fighters, who just like fighting the U.S. and everything we stand for.

Oh, and even if there had been weapons of mass destruction found, I honestly don't think the U.N. would have authorized anything more than a verbal smackdown on Saddam. The French and Russia had Iraq so indebted to them that it made no sense for them to depose Saddam. With regime change, oftentimes comes a new beginning, and they were unsure of whether or not they would be able to get a return on their money. They liked Saddam and Iraq right where they had them, and anyone who doesn't recognize that one simple fact has been looking through rose colored glasses.
_________________
Under construction!!!

[Blown]

not going to write a novel like you guys, but the UN is a joke IMO. Or has become one.

[Potato-VS-]

I agree the League of Nations turned south and just gave into hitler and other dictators through appleasement. The whole idea behind the UN's mandate is flawed - since they have no active supplies or even troops they need countries like France and Russia - two security council members who will never be kicked because of their vast amount of power - to aprove a mission. The world sits on its hands while some people suffer and die, sure they sent about $100million US in aid to Rwanda and troops from various countries (france formed a unilateral coalition but it was commanded appart from UNAMIR). The whole idea that a country such as Canada, the US or France has to get approval from the rest of the world and the security council - because they dont want to piss anyone off - means that they world sits idle with millions of people are abused, murdered and gased by dictators, terrorists, and anarchists around the world.

And about Saddam not having any WMDs, didnt they find mortar rounds with some gas in them recently? From back in the gulf war or something? Last I heard it was suspected to be something that Iraq wasnt suppose to have and that some comisson was looking into it. Also, in a country even as small as Iraq its possible to hide a few WMDs.

[merf]

[Bright Red Nipples]

[Potato-VS-]