Rwanda?? did it have to happen?

the u.n. takes forever to do anything...then when they finally deploy,they still do nothing...god help you and yours if you have to wait for the u.n. to come to your rescue...

 

majorwoody state .....the purpose of any wall or palisade is that it can be
thinly defended...not undefended.
I believe than any defensive line or structure is an investment of time ,
men and means to multiply the force of a defender , as majorwoody state
to multiply by 0 is no defence at all , only a delay and impediment
a good defence lines cost little ,cannot be turned , is rapidly set, has
proper manning , mobile reserve behind and good patrolling in front ,
the worst is an expensive set up , easy to side step, short manned with
no reserves and no intel

the great wall, the roman limes, the maginot line and the israeli bar lev
line fail at one or more of those factors

My feeling is than a defensive line over time become a trap for the
defender
..
.
.
.

 

Paris Insurrection 1944, the surviving members of the ressistance would laugh if you said they where professional soldiers. I also advocated arming the African Rebels and helping form and train African Forces in Darfur to protect themselves from the Arabs. This thread was originally about Rwanda, and do not forget that the UN did not do anything at all to help the Tutsis, the Tutsis saved themselves through force of arms.

But can it not also be said that the threat of family and kin being massacred would be a better detterent then a proffessional Western Soldier who you know will only fight with you and will leave your family out of it?

By Balkans I was reffering to the Genocide in the 1990s, when UN Peace Keepers where sent to Bosnia, but helped the Serbs instead of keeping the peace. The Genocide actually helps my case because it was American and NATO, not the UN that stopped it.

NATO I would say is a much better peace keeping body then the UN although it has a much lower membership. I also already mentioned how the UN Works. The Muslims formed a voting block, and they all generally vote together on everything, the most of the Former Soviet Countries have also remained in their old voting block voting with them, Sudan is an Arab Muslim Country, hence the UN will do nothing of any meaning there. If any UN forces are sent anytime their mandate will be do absoloutly nothing, and their presence will protect the Genocide rather then stop it. You should remember Rwanda, and the fact that had Tutsi Militias not been raised all the Tutsis would have been killed by the Hutus.

So in that case you concede that it would be better for the US or NATO to deal with the Genocide in Darfur either through arming the Africans or sending their own forces then the UN. Besides Sudan is immune from any actions.

The UN only cares about Slandering Israel, and holding World Conferences against Jews which they hypocritically call anti-rascist conferences.

 

the only way,honestly folks,for any peacekeeping body to succeed in well,peacekeeping,would be to forget about peacekeeping and disregarding morals

 

Paris Insurrection - so the Germans leaving had nothing to do with the large Allied armies approaching then?
And it was peaceful? Tell that to all the poor people designated as 'Collaborators'* by the mob.

* this list happened to include quite a few actual Resistance members in it...


I think that the basic thrust of this topic is that the UN has the potential to be an effective peace-keeping body (and has demonstrated this on occaision) but on the whole needs some kind of shake-up in proceedure to allow it to be fully effective.

 

It would depend on the definition.

Reservist forces do recieve professional training, and do get paid, therefore (though part-time) they are professional soldiers.

A Professional soldier is a member of the Armed Forces (which includes reserve units like the TA or NG).

An Armed Civilian would be me picking up a gun and heading for the barricades.

The only real blurry bit is a Militia - where civilians serve and train like professional soldiers but without pay. However, AFAIK no such body exists today - at least not one that is in any way effective.

 

The Allies did not want to take Paris at that point, they thought only in how to end the war quickly and successfully. Not only was it not a strategic advantage, but it was a strategic liability. The fuel it would take to get enough forces to Paris, the fuel it would take to then keep Paris supplied was thought to have been a great burden on the war effort (General Patton ran out of fuel). The troops it would then take to keep public order was also thought to have been higher then what actually was needed. Even Charles De Gaulle tried to keep the insurrection from happening. I also never said it was peaceful I said it worked, and I never advocated arming Africans at random, I advocated training an African Army and equipting it, which is different from what smeg implied, and works more effectively then the UN in Rwanda where it was the Tutsi and only the Tutsi Militias that stopped the Genocide.

I disagree, the Muslim and Arab block voting prevents the worst human rights violaters from even being mentioned, and the worst situations (Like Darfur) from being dealt with. As I said if a UN force was sent to Darfur the Arab and Muslim block would make it's mandate sol weak that all they would do would be help the Genocide by giving legitimacy to the Sudanese Government. Just like at the first meeting of the "New" UNHRC, all it did was dedicate itself to demonization and lying about Israel while ignoring all else.