Catholic nun jailed for 30 years for her part in Rwandan genocide

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Don't much matter where it stacks up on a list --they could have done something about it. Some of the things listed above we could take a decision not to do but we weren't in Rwanda with a gun in hand -- they were and they should have used them.

when something's in the news, it's interesting to see how many people jump on it.

rwanda was a tremendous tragedy but to look back with hindsight and judge when you're obviously ignorant aboot some realities of the situation

like their ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING

is... a little ridiculous.

the real question is would you care so much if some agenda-led news program had forced something else down your throat?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Looger

when something's in the news, it's interesting to see how many people jump on it.

rwanda was a tremendous tragedy but to look back with hindsight and judge when you're obviously ignorant aboot some realities of the situation

like their ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING

is... a little ridiculous.

the real question is would you care so much if some agenda-led news program had forced something else down your throat?

Whatever if you want to change the focus from what they didn't do to a personal attack then go for it. I have felt the exact same way since the first I knew of it but that is irrelevant. I think they should have acted and to not do so was an act of betrayal and accessory to murder.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Whatever if you want to change the focus from what they didn't do to a personal attack then go for it. I have felt the exact same way since the first I knew of it but that is irrelevant. I think they should have acted and to not do so was an act of betrayal and accessory to murder.

just trying to figure out where you're coming from here, i would think that the UN forces on the ground, that actually DID save as many people as they could without getting everyone they were protecting massacred by putting them into their compound.

if they'd preemptively assaulted the command / supply centers that the genocidal mob used, they'd definitely have died in vain as they had no assault capability whatsoever.

that action would have been throwing in with paul kagame of the uganda-based rebels, who were blamed (probably wrongly) for the assassination of rwanda's leader right before the massacre.

i ask you:

if the massacre was preplanned before the assassination, how could the UN forces have opposed it without being overwhelmed themselves?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I believe that the following orders defense (while it is likely still used behind closed doors) is with regards to specific acts on the part of the soldiers and not inaction on the part of the soldiers who at the time were placed into a very difficult situation.

The two books I have read on the subject are Shake Hands with the Devil (Obviously) as well as We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow we will be killed with our famlies: stories from Rwanda.

It is a very difficult situation to fully understand

In the case of Rwanda, the UN troops were in a really bad situation, the UN itself was paralyzed. They thought that if you threw troops into the area, that it would settle down, but there was very little in the way of offensive weapontry, or rules of engagement. So there's two parts to the whole following order argument.

1) Do the orders at the time make sense - Up until that point in time, to the commanders in the field and to the UN itself they probably did. Especially considering that the UN tried to define the mission in half measures instead of actually committing the forces in place to force themselves into the situation. Looking back, the UN probably wishes that they had put an actual armoured or even Air Cav division in place that had the weapons and mobility to intimidate the warring parties. This was a mismanaged mission, so in somebody's head the rules of engagment made sense but when applied to the real world they fell far short.

2) Are the orders in place legally enforcible and are they desirable. - If the troops had intervened, and in the ensuing crossfire, 10 or 20 or 30 refugee's had been killed or maimed, what would have the end result been? Sure you can argue that they would have saved a great many lives, but the world dosen't work that way anymore, and the soldiers who opened fire or imposed thier will would have probably been charged under war crime rules. Beyond that given thier equipment didn't give the soldiers on the ground the ability to enforce anything or help anyone, and at some point self preservation has to kick in as a factor as well.

If anyone should have been charged it was the UN soft suits who planned the mission, and decided what needed to go there.

Unfortunately it was a learning experience for the UN and the world that the common notion of the peacekeeper was dead, and it wasn't good enough to place yourself between two parties. The new truth is that in order to be a peacekeeper you have to have offensive capabilites, and the ability to project menace and power in a region, not wait for the sh#t to hit the fan before you react.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Looger

just trying to figure out where you're coming from here, i would think that the UN forces on the ground, that actually DID save as many people as they could without getting everyone they were protecting massacred by putting them into their compound.

if they'd preemptively assaulted the command / supply centers that the genocidal mob used, they'd definitely have died in vain as they had no assault capability whatsoever.

that action would have been throwing in with paul kagame of the uganda-based rebels, who were blamed (probably wrongly) for the assassination of rwanda's leader right before the massacre.

i ask you:

if the massacre was preplanned before the assassination, how could the UN forces have opposed it without being overwhelmed themselves?

Its a rare day, I think when I agree with you, but you've summed this up really well, and your right on the mark. The UN forces there had no protection from assault and no way to muster an assault drill. That and command and control was horrible.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its a rare day, I think when I agree with you, but you've summed this up really well, and your right on the mark. The UN forces there had no protection from assault and no way to muster an assault drill. That and command and control was horrible.

exactly, war isn't just 'guys with guns', it's logistics, it's deployment abilities, it's staging areas, it's training, it's many many things.

monday morning quarterbacks looking at a UN deployment and wondering why they didn't do this or didn't do that may not be in possession of all the facts.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Looger

just trying to figure out where you're coming from here, i would think that the UN forces on the ground, that actually DID save as many people as they could without getting everyone they were protecting massacred by putting them into their compound.

if they'd preemptively assaulted the command / supply centers that the genocidal mob used, they'd definitely have died in vain as they had no assault capability whatsoever.

that action would have been throwing in with paul kagame of the uganda-based rebels, who were blamed (probably wrongly) for the assassination of rwanda's leader right before the massacre.

i ask you:

if the massacre was preplanned before the assassination, how could the UN forces have opposed it without being overwhelmed themselves?

We will never know if a show of force would have worked --Could the UN have whipped in air support? Would a bluff have worked? Could they at least have created a safe zone? If they were overwhelmed would the UN never again gone in without the power to fight? Should they have just done the right thing and damn the consequences?

[Looger]

you want this one Captain?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

We will never know if a show of force would have worked --Could the UN have whipped in air support? Would a bluff have worked? Could they at least have created a safe zone? If they were overwhelmed would the UN never again gone in without the power to fight? Should they have just done the right thing and damn the consequences?

From what I recall there was no offensive air assets in the area, and the situation was too fluid to even consider its use, combine that with the communication failures that hampered that particular UN mission and you get the whole deer in the headlights situation.

I don't know if a bluff would work, but in my mind it was unlikely since a bluff will only work if you have something to back it up with. The UN peacekeepers in that region didn't have a history of taking violent offensive action against anyone, and it was well known at that point that they were badly outmatched in the region. Again it came down to bad planning and execution by the UN.

Its easy to say that you should do the right thing and damn the consequences, but the chances of success of doing the right thing were next to zero, and chivalry in warfare especially in that region is essentially dead, you won't earn the respect of your enemy by failing, your showing a sign of weakness and your probably going to embolden your enemy.

Combine that with the fact that the first responsibilty of any commander in the field is pretty much to his men and preserving his command, and you get the indecision that we saw there. A military force thats in battle thats wiped out is no threat to no one and therefore useless in further situations, therefore there are some unpleasant times where you cut bait and hope to fight another day especially when faced with what essentially was a hopeless situation.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Looger

you want this one Captain?

Thanks, I'll take a look at it this weekend, I've also got a new book at home on the growing threat of terrorism in Canada, and how Canada is trying to get on top of it, I'll pop the title and writer in this thread if you want to try to find it. Its a pretty cool read.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I believe that the following orders defense (while it is likely still used behind closed doors) is with regards to specific acts on the part of the soldiers and not inaction on the part of the soldiers who at the time were placed into a very difficult situation.

The two books I have read on the subject are Shake Hands with the Devil (Obviously) as well as We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow we will be killed with our famlies: stories from Rwanda.

It is a very difficult situation to fully understand

You are right, of course. I didnt even realize this was pertaining to Rwanda when made the response. It was more of a canned statement regarding "I was only following orders."

Personally, I do not feel any guilt whatsoever for what some people did to other people. As a society, we can hope to help where we can, but we cannot be held responsible for the actions of others if we are unable to do so.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

From what I recall there was no offensive air assets in the area, and the situation was too fluid to even consider its use, combine that with the communication failures that hampered that particular UN mission and you get the whole deer in the headlights situation.

I don't know if a bluff would work, but in my mind it was unlikely since a bluff will only work if you have something to back it up with. The UN peacekeepers in that region didn't have a history of taking violent offensive action against anyone, and it was well known at that point that they were badly outmatched in the region. Again it came down to bad planning and execution by the UN.

Its easy to say that you should do the right thing and damn the consequences, but the chances of success of doing the right thing were next to zero, and chivalry in warfare especially in that region is essentially dead, you won't earn the respect of your enemy by failing, your showing a sign of weakness and your probably going to embolden your enemy.

Combine that with the fact that the first responsibilty of any commander in the field is pretty much to his men and preserving his command, and you get the indecision that we saw there. A military force thats in battle thats wiped out is no threat to no one and therefore useless in further situations, therefore there are some unpleasant times where you cut bait and hope to fight another day especially when faced with what essentially was a hopeless situation.

I think your explanation is dang good from a military perspective. Two things though that I wonder about. One is the military force that is wiped out - I can see that if it's a unit of an army involved in a fighting war where it would make sense to not waste troops. I'm not sure Rwanda qualifies as this was it -- Stepping aside meant game, set and match.

Also in that situation with women and children being slaughtered in the streets I don't know as preserving your men is your priority looking at it from what is your duty to your fellow man.

It would certainly have sucked to be iin that position and I'm thinking that as usual the UN SUCKS!!! to be sure but I still wonder if those guys are still having nightmares and wondering if they should have just gone ahead and disobeyed orders.

[Looger]

belgium's UN troops pulled out long before the UN did.

i'm not saying the UN's perfect but to judge it solely on the success of its missions when its member nations don't put their money where their mouth is, i think, flawed.

plenty of UN resolutions are never enforced because no member nations deploy.

the UN is a joke, but there is more to say here than just 'the UN sucks'

personally i see the UN as a serious enemy of the sovereignty of nations everywhere, just another small step in the wrong direction of one world government run by the wrong bunch of elites.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

I think your explanation is dang good from a military perspective. Two things though that I wonder about. One is the military force that is wiped out - I can see that if it's a unit of an army involved in a fighting war where it would make sense to not waste troops. I'm not sure Rwanda qualifies as this was it -- Stepping aside meant game, set and match.

Also in that situation with women and children being slaughtered in the streets I don't know as preserving your men is your priority looking at it from what is your duty to your fellow man.

It would certainly have sucked to be iin that position and I'm thinking that as usual the UN SUCKS!!! to be sure but I still wonder if those guys are still having nightmares and wondering if they should have just gone ahead and disobeyed orders.

Preserving unit strength is far more important when you think about a UN mission, because unlike a conventional nation states military, with the UN, its unlikely that your going to be re-enforced (trust me I know). And a dramatically weakened UN force thats already under gunned is beyond worthless.

You've bought up the prevalent argument about woman and children, and I have to give you a really unpleasant argument about that. Lets say that you rush to the rescue, without UN support because you can't get authorization from your commanding body (UNSC), and you save some lives but your unit gets decimated because your undergunned, in the time between this and your unit getting re-enforced, refugee's in the thousands get wiped out because your unable to respond properly. As ugly as it sounds the best choice that a commander in the field can make is often the most unpleasant and least moral choice of them all.

I'm sure that the members of that peacekeeping mission are kept up at night by thier decision, and the fact that they were left in a unwinnable situation.

[CaptainCrunch]

As promised the book is calle "Inside Canadian Intelligence, exposing the new realities of Espionage and International terrorism" Its written by Dwight Hamilton and has interviews with former members of CSIS and the RCMP counter intelligence units. Its pretty well written and has some interesting insight.