American Military Europe

[Guest Derek L]

I am suggesting it is a contributing factor - you keep asking the same question... short of you actually providing your own answer to your own repeated question, I would suggest the onus is on you to suggest there was an unused & untapped UN sanctioned avenue for expeditious remedy to have stopped the genocide. Short of you doing that, yes... you are being naive. We are talking about a very short window for alternate action to have been taken - I believe 6 weeks is the oft mentioned period of the concentrated genocide. Over that 6 week period, the facts state the U.S. actively engaged in blocking expeditious action by the UN (per the quote from the formal OAU report I provided in my previous post - "The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN"

If we had of wanted to send our own APCs, the United States would have blocked us…..somehow? Did Canada make an effort to do this? Have any evidence to suggest that?

So again, if we had of wanted to send a battle group centered around the Canadian Airborne Regiment, to help prevent the Rwandan genocide, the United States or the UN wouldn’t allow us? That’s a strong claim, I don’t suppose you have anything to back that up? (Both that we offered and the US/UN didn’t allow us)

[bush_cheney2004]

If we had of wanted to send our own APCs, the United States would have blocked us…..somehow? Did Canada make an effort to do this? Have any evidence to suggest that?

Yes...waldo logic has determined that the US would have shot down any Canadian airlift to Rwanda.

So again, if we had of wanted to send a battle group centered around the Canadian Airborne Regiment, to help prevent the Rwandan genocide, the United States or the UN wouldn’t allow us? That’s a strong claim, I don’t suppose you have anything to back that up? (Both that we offered and the US/UN didn’t allow us)

Not even that much was forthcoming, starting with 6 water trucks!

[Army Guy]

and, respectively, I'm actually surprised you didn't take one poster to task for the false impressions and implications levied against Canadian Lieutenent-General Romeo Dallaire, notwithstanding broader aspersion toward Canada, Chretien and Canadian Force representation within the UN Rwanda forces. Although I have the guy on ignore, occasionally I'm moved to respond to quotations of his most fabricated best... I expect as you are aware, or if I might, should be aware, the official OAU report does not match the posted fabrications. It was the US/Allbright that did all in its power to undermine the effectiveness of the UN deployment from the very start. Most categorically, to the specific APC reference, Americans agreed to the UN request to provide the APCs... and then both the U.S. government and Pentagon proceeded to dither about price, while genocide ensued - nothing more, nothing less. Clinton in a self-serving manner, years later, spoke to his personal failures in not responding urgently and forcefully... claiming not to realize the urgency, the severity - ya, sure!

I actually thought this post died 4 pages ago...I agree with some of your post the US did have a role to play in the genocide in Rwanda, but reality is so did everyone else, i think what Dereck was driving at was the Gen did plead with any organization that would listen, including our own government to send vehs and what he requested most for troops...The Canadian government refused...along with all nations...Have you read his book, it not that bad actually , not a big fan of the Gen's, but then again he was a desparate man, that was to emotional attached to the people...and became more after the Beligian para incident. And nobody wanted to answer his call for assistance...sad really DND did issue mobilization orders to a few units but they were quickly recinded by the government....

One of the big major let downs is the UN , first in it's command and control aspects...Civilians controling a battle from a polictical perspective...does not work and will never work...on the polictical side it holds no weight and there fore has no power, it can ask nations to mobilize or fulfill a request but not very quickly....

After Rwanda there was a movement to create a UN operational division (25,000)in Europe i dont think it got off the ground as operational control was going to be with the UN...Not NATO or any other country.

Another problem with Rwanda is there is nothing worth fighting over, nothing worth putting bils into...except people and in todays world life is worth next to nothing , even less if they have no resources, or from Africa.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Another problem with Rwanda is there is nothing worth fighting over, nothing worth putting bils into...except people and in todays world life is worth next to nothing , even less if they have no resources, or from Africa.

So true...."those people" were judged to be absolutely expendable, even more so as the death toll mounted to become a genocidal abstraction. My sister was there to help protect endangered gorillas...not people! The same thing is happening in Somalia today.

[waldo]

I would suggest a touch of naivety on your part - do you believe Canada... any country... under the auspices of a formal UN peacekeeping mission, could on its own volition move unilaterally forward on any level?

You’re saying UN regulations are to blame for Canada not being able to send our own APCs? When the Americans didn’t produce theirs, do you have anything to suggest that the UN would be opposed to another nation contributing to make up for the short fall………for the sake of this discussion, why couldn’t Canada contribute?

I am suggesting it is a contributing factor - you keep asking the same question... short of you actually providing your own answer to your own repeated question, I would suggest the onus is on you to suggest there was an unused & untapped UN sanctioned avenue for expeditious remedy to have stopped the genocide. Short of you doing that, yes... you are being naive. We are talking about a very short window for alternate action to have been taken - I believe 6 weeks is the oft mentioned period of the concentrated genocide. Over that 6 week period, the facts state the U.S. actively engaged in blocking expeditious action by the UN (per the quote from the formal OAU report I provided in my previous post - "The Americans, led by US Ambassador Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN"

If we had of wanted to send our own APCs, the United States would have blocked us…..somehow? Did Canada make an effort to do this? Have any evidence to suggest that?

So again, if we had of wanted to send a battle group centered around the Canadian Airborne Regiment, to help prevent the Rwandan genocide, the United States or the UN wouldn’t allow us? That’s a strong claim, I don’t suppose you have anything to back that up? (Both that we offered and the US/UN didn’t allow us)

how about instead of drawing false conclusion and issuing a challenge, baseless in regards to anything I've said... you step up. You're the one with all the questions and no answers. I've provided you a linked reference, the official OAU report, and drawn summary quote from that linked reference showing significant critical blame being attached to U.S. actions. As I've read the report I've not encountered any references to your piqued interest point; i.e., (Dallaire/UN) specific requests to Canada & corresponding Canadian responses... Army Guy suggests he's aware of a rescinded DND mobilization order. I'd suggest you attempt to qualify that mobilization order and rescind therein - that may be a part of the answer you're seeking. I also note you've bounced right over the logistical angle/aspect I put forward; i.e., separate and distinct from any initial promises and commitments made by all contributing countries (that may or may not have been kept), in that short 6 week window, what alternate plans/solutions/deployments could have been realized to offset the massive killings during that short period of time? Realistically speaking...

[Guest Derek L]

[/size]

how about instead of drawing false conclusion and issuing a challenge, baseless in regards to anything I've said... you step up. You're the one with all the questions and no answers. I've provided you a linked reference, the official OAU report, and drawn summary quote from that linked reference showing significant critical blame being attached to U.S. actions. As I've read the report I've not encountered any references to your piqued interest point; i.e., (Dallaire/UN) specific requests to Canada & corresponding Canadian responses... Army Guy suggests he's aware of a rescinded DND mobilization order. I'd suggest you attempt to qualify that mobilization order and rescind therein - that may be a part of the answer you're seeking. I also note you've bounced right over the logistical angle/aspect I put forward; i.e., separate and distinct from any initial promises and commitments made by all contributing countries (that may or may not have been kept), in that short 6 week window, what alternate plans/solutions/deployments could have been realized to offset the massive killings during that short period of time? Realistically speaking...

So you’re not going to answer why we didn’t send additional troops? Realistically speaking, we could have deployed the first echelon of the CAR in under 72hrs……the entire regiment, probably a week after that.

Why were the orders rescinded?

Why Didn’t we deploy our own APCs?

[Guest Derek L]

And the Spanish now get further subsidised defence paid for by the American taxpayer....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/us-will-station-aegis-cruisers-in-spain-as-part-of-the-missile-defense-plan-for-europe/2011/10/05/gIQAfupSNL_story.html?wprss=rss_world

The Obama administration and the Spanish government have agreed to base Aegis Cruisers on Spain’s coast, as part of the anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect Europe against a potential Iranian nuclear threat, officials said Wednesday.

The plan will make it easier to maintain a continuous naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, and also provide security in the eastern Atlantic.

The Spanish do have their own AEGIS ships….If there’s a further need, they should build more……

“This announcement should send a very strong signal that the U.S. is still continuing to invest in this alliance and that we’re committed to defense relationship with Europe even as we face budget constraints at home,” Panetta said at a ceremony attended by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

“In this challenging fiscal environment partnerships like NATO are even more essential to protecting our common interests,” Panetta said.

Honestly, what are the Americans getting out of this deal?………Iran can’t hit North America…..yet…….And when they can, then base BMD ships in strategic locations……and dust off the SAC counterforce books……

[jacee]

So, you don't think Canada went on the cheap side militarily because they knew they were protected by the USA?

But I can see your point. Russia, China, and Mongolia were fearful of the power of the mighty sea-king.

We don't need all the 'defense' the US does. We don't make enemies by meddling in the politics and leadership of countries, invade and occupy t take their resources solely for corporate profits.

Our mining companies hire their own security to do their dirty deeds.

[Guest Derek L]

We don't need all the 'defense' the US does. We don't make enemies by meddling in the politics and leadership of countries, invade and occupy t take their resources solely for corporate profits.

Our mining companies hire their own security to do their dirty deeds.

What do you think Libya was about?

[bush_cheney2004]

We don't need all the 'defense' the US does. We don't make enemies by meddling in the politics and leadership of countries, invade and occupy t take their resources solely for corporate profits.

Neither does the US...soley for corporate profits. Canada hatched a scheme (The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti) to depose the democratically elected president of Haiti with the US and France. Are you purposely blind to this and other Canadian interventions? If so, why? Is Iraq just easier to spell than Haiti?

[Guest Derek L]

Neither does the US...soley for corporate profits. Canada hatched a scheme (The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti) to depose the democratically elected president of Haiti with the US and France. Are you purposely blind to this and other Canadian interventions? If so, why? Is Iraq just easier to spell than Haiti?

Yup…….and the indirect descendents of the “Devil’s Brigade” and Canadian Airborne Regiment managed to seize the airport in Port-au-Prince…Kinda shows that when there‘s a will, there‘s a way….but hey, we’re friendly Canada

[Army Guy]

Taken from an interveiw with Gen Dallaire and Amnesty International NOW magazine, Winter 2002

My link

Three days after the Rwandan killings began, with Dallaire's troops running short of rations as well as ammunition, about l,000 European troops arrived in Kigali. The general watched with frustration as the well-armed, well-fed Westerners landed and left again as soon as they'd evacuated their own nationals. Then, after Hutu militias killed ~o Belgian paratroopers, Brussels withdrew all of its peacekeepers (the only significant Western contingent and the only one that was properly equipped) from the U.N. mission. Dallaire's depleted force was on its own.

Even as the already desperate situation worsened, Washington called for a complete withdrawal of peacekeepers. On April 21, after international pressure, the U.S. agreed to a limited force and supported a Security Council resolution slashing the force to 270 peacekeepers. U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright accurately described the tiny force as enough "to show the will of the international community."

Another reason Rwanda failed

"A young officer is entering a village," Dallaire recounts. "The village has been wiped out except for a few women and children still alive [in a ditch filled with bodies]. There is 30 percent AIDS in that area. There is blood all over that place, no rubber gloves. Does the platoon commander order his troops to get in there, into the ditch risking AIDS, and help?" The question, it turns out, is not an exercise in armchair ethics. "When I asked the platoon commanders, those from 23 of the 26 nations that sent forces said they would order their troops to keep marching. Commanders from three nations- Holland, Ghana, and Canada-were saved the complexity of the question because by the time they turned around their troops were already in the ditch."

I could tell [the peacekeepers] to do things," he says, "but they would check with their country. The troops are under my operational command, but they remained under the ultimate command of their nations, so. . . if a national capital feels that a [rescue] mission is unwarranted, or too risky, or something, the soldiers can turn around and say, 'No, I can't do it."' ( Canada actually had a world wide reputation for doing this in Rwanada and Yugo) In Yugo we had 2 battle groups call CANBAT 1 and CANBAT 2 our allies called us CAN'T BAT...)

Asked to name one of the countries that ordered its soldiers not to move injured Rwandans to safe areas, even when Dallaire told them to, the general hesitates for a long time before saying, "Bangladesh." It was the Ghanaians, he adds, who performed most humanely.

Another reason.

For all the blame he heaps on himself, Dallaire also faults the strictures that bound him in 1994 and that will have to change if the world is to avoid another Rwanda. The institution of peacekeeping missions, he says, is deeply flawed. Even if he had received the political and humanitarian training the job demanded, the U.N.'s rules would have robbed him of the ability to use his military skills. With thousands of civilians begging for protection as they were hunted down in their homes and churches,

Another.

The designation of "tribal" conflict also nicely avoided the word "genocide." Had a major power or the U.N. invoked that term in time, all states that were signatories of the 1948 convention on genocide would have been obliged to condemn the slaughter and act to stop it.

Avoiding the word did not however avoid the fact. "They knew how many people were dying," Dallaire says, no matter what word they used. "The world is racist," he says bitterly. ,' "Africans don't count; Yugoslavians do. More people were killed, injured, internally displaced, and refugeed in 100 days in Rwanda than in the whole eight to nine years of the Yugoslavia campaign," he says, and there are still peacekeeping troops in the former Yugoslavia while Rwanda is again off the radar. f "Why didn't the world react to scenes where women were held as shields so nobody could shoot back while the militia shot into the | crowd?" he asks. "Where... boys were drugged up and turned into child soldiers, slaughtering families?...Where girls and women were systematically raped before they were killed? Babies ripped out of their stomachs? ...Why didn't the world come?"

Dallaire supplies his own answer: "Because there was no self-interest....No oil. They didn't come because some humans are [considered] less human than others."

Another interview from Front line. My link

Kofi Annan was the U.N. under-secretary general for peacekeeping operations. He had the responsibilities in regards to the mounting and operation of peacekeeping missions around the world. You had Kofi Annan, the head; you had Iqbal Riza, a solid functionary within the U.N. as his chief of staff, who really ran the day-to-day things; and then you had Maurice [baril, the military adviser]. They operated in a "triumvirate," what I call it anyway. These three were the heart of DPKO and decisions were [made] very much together. They worked in synergy.

A key note here is the Name Maurice Baril ring a bell he should he was once the CDS for our military.

[Army Guy]

So you’re not going to answer why we didn’t send additional troops? Realistically speaking, we could have deployed the first echelon of the CAR in under 72hrs……the entire regiment, probably a week after that.

Why were the orders rescinded?

Why Didn’t we deploy our own APCs?

Why, because our government did not have the will(balls) to act, and instead wanted this to play out on the floor of the UN. and yet we as a Nation sent our Gen down there, infact the Military Advisor was an EX Canadian CDS so WHy we'll never know, except it was our government decission not to act...

Another piont we could have sent 2000 fully equiped soldiers down without blinking an eye..Ya they would have been dismounted, and could have gathered up vehs along the way...

the APC question well we could have moved them Via hercs, but it would have taken a shit load of trips...and been expensive...remember lives have a value on them , what the general public does not know is just how little they are really worth...

[Guest Derek L]

Why, because our government did not have the will(balls) to act, and instead wanted this to play out on the floor of the UN. and yet we as a Nation sent our Gen down there, infact the Military Advisor was an EX Canadian CDS so WHy we'll never know, except it was our government decission not to act...

Another piont we could have sent 2000 fully equiped soldiers down without blinking an eye..Ya they would have been dismounted, and could have gathered up vehs along the way...

the APC question well we could have moved them Via hercs, but it would have taken a shit load of trips...and been expensive...remember lives have a value on them , what the general public does not know is just how little they are really worth...

Exactly……..There was little will within the Canadian government, as well as the American government, to further engage……..

And also agreed, the CAR could have easily went to Rwanda, seized the airport and appropriated civilian vehicles if needed……..They were, after all a light force……..And my second point, with only our Herc fleet at the time, realistically bringing anything heavy than an Iltis would not be feasible…..this being my reasoning that it’s a second case of lack of will on the government of Canada’s part……..As I stated earlier, the airforce identified the need for strategic airlift as far back as the 60s…….

[waldo]

how about instead of drawing false conclusion and issuing a challenge, baseless in regards to anything I've said... you step up. You're the one with all the questions and no answers. I've provided you a linked reference, the official OAU report, and drawn summary quote from that linked reference showing significant critical blame being attached to U.S. actions. As I've read the report I've not encountered any references to your piqued interest point; i.e., (Dallaire/UN) specific requests to Canada & corresponding Canadian responses... Army Guy suggests he's aware of a rescinded DND mobilization order. I'd suggest you attempt to qualify that mobilization order and rescind therein - that may be a part of the answer you're seeking. I also note you've bounced right over the logistical angle/aspect I put forward; i.e., separate and distinct from any initial promises and commitments made by all contributing countries (that may or may not have been kept), in that short 6 week window, what alternate plans/solutions/deployments could have been realized to offset the massive killings during that short period of time? Realistically speaking...

So you’re not going to answer why we didn’t send additional troops? Realistically speaking, we could have deployed the first echelon of the CAR in under 72hrs……the entire regiment, probably a week after that.

Why were the orders rescinded?

Why Didn’t we deploy our own APCs?

Exactly……..There was little will within the Canadian government, as well as the American government, to further engage……

well... it seems you got the answer you wanted, after all. And yet, you with all the questions, couldn't state your own "exactly" answer, up front? You wanted to dance a bit?

notwithstanding Army Guy's closer perspective, I suggest you're taking liberty with an answer that fits your predisposition - one that, somehow, seems to want to negate/ignore the overall influence of the UN process, of the well stated and acknowledged U.S. "expeditious blocking" measures. Could the Canadian government, on its own volition, respond outside the UN Security Council, outside and around the U.S. "expeditious blocking"? Could it?

[Guest Derek L]

well... it seems you got the answer you wanted, after all. And yet, you with all the questions, couldn't state your own "exactly" answer, up front? You wanted to dance a bit?

notwithstanding Army Guy's closer perspective, I suggest you're taking liberty with an answer that fits your predisposition - one that, somehow, seems to want to negate/ignore the overall influence of the UN process, of the well stated and acknowledged U.S. "expeditious blocking" measures. Could the Canadian government, on its own volition, respond outside the UN Security Council, outside and around the U.S. "expeditious blocking"? Could it?

Ahh, you again……..I don’t see why the Government of Canada couldn’t have increased their response to the genocide if they saw fit……….Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

Still waiting for your response as to why we didn’t increase our commitment to Rwanda………

[waldo]

Ahh, you again……..I don’t see why the Government of Canada couldn’t have increased their response to the genocide if they saw fit……….Do you have evidence suggesting otherwise?

Still waiting for your response as to why we didn’t increase our commitment to Rwanda………

ahh, you again... the guy with all the questions but no answers of his own... unless, apparently, someone provides the answer you're looking for - hey?

do you have evidence suggesting the Canadian government saw fit to increase a response and on it's own volition chose not to... do you have evidence that the Canadian government wanted to negate/ignore the overall influence of the UN process, of the well stated and acknowledged U.S. "expeditious blocking" measures?

again, to the answer you are not providing, could the Canadian government, on its own volition, respond outside the UN Security Council, outside and around the U.S. "expeditious blocking"? Could it?

[Guest Derek L]

ahh, you again... the guy with all the questions but no answers of his own... unless, apparently, someone provides the answer you're looking for - hey?

do you have evidence suggesting the Canadian government saw fit to increase a response and on it's own volition chose not to... do you have evidence that the Canadian government wanted to negate/ignore the overall influence of the UN process, of the well stated and acknowledged U.S. "expeditious blocking" measures?

again, to the answer you are not providing, could the Canadian government, on its own volition, respond outside the UN Security Council, outside and around the U.S. "expeditious blocking"? Could it?

A limited response sure, if it so wanted……Would it have prevented the entire genocide? Probably not, but a regiment of Paras could have saved thousands of lives…………So again, why didn’t we send them?

As for the government “ignoring the UN process”, and what evidence I have relating to it, of course I don’t………I’m asking why they didn’t……

So why didn’t we?

[bush_cheney2004]

Even a limited response was not to be forthcoming from Ottawa or Washington....Rwanda was not a high priority at the time:

“The government never let on it had information,” said Maj. Brent Beardsley, the military aide to Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, who headed the U.N. force in Rwanda.

Beardsley wrote the reports for the United Nations and said each one of them was also sent along to the department of national defence in Ottawa.

“Africa and Rwanda were not a priority,” Beardsley said in a phone interview. “Canada was the best informed nation in the world (on what was happening in Rwanda.)

By April 15, “we were reporting ‘ethnic cleansing.' That was the word we were using because it had come out of the Balkans. Genocide wasn't in our vocabulary,” he said.

“Ottawa knew something was going on. . . everyone was sitting back and waiting for some else to take a lead.”

http://migs.concordia.ca/W2I/news_whydidottawaignore.htm

[Jissi]

In US scientists now know how to provoke ocean monster waves.

Face it as it is! Well-known scientific Physical Review Letters edition (http://prl.aps.org) announces the upcoming publication of the US scientists’ treatise, containing a successful laboratory simulation of anomalous ‘monster (killer) wave’. It is already known that the height of the simulated killer will certainly twice exceed the medium height of the natural ocean monster wave and will undoubtedly become quite a serious threat for every kind of ships, so that it can be easily used by the US army to break up every possible attack coming from the ocean (sea). Nice....! Have nothing to add... As I can see it is a high time for Japanese to think seriously about some kind of ‘oceanic defense’... Want to believe that the March terrible tsunami, brought thousands deaths, wasn’t a simple ‘successful’ newly-fledged weapon test on the Pentagon’s behalf. Fundamentally consider that such a ‘scientific discovery’ should receive extremely serious attention on the whole world’s society behalf as well as meet the following it reaction!!

[Guest Derek L]

In US scientists now know how to provoke ocean monster waves.

Face it as it is! Well-known scientific Physical Review Letters edition (http://prl.aps.org) announces the upcoming publication of the US scientists’ treatise, containing a successful laboratory simulation of anomalous ‘monster (killer) wave’. It is already known that the height of the simulated killer will certainly twice exceed the medium height of the natural ocean monster wave and will undoubtedly become quite a serious threat for every kind of ships, so that it can be easily used by the US army to break up every possible attack coming from the ocean (sea). Nice....! Have nothing to add... As I can see it is a high time for Japanese to think seriously about some kind of ‘oceanic defense’... Want to believe that the March terrible tsunami, brought thousands deaths, wasn’t a simple ‘successful’ newly-fledged weapon test on the Pentagon’s behalf. Fundamentally consider that such a ‘scientific discovery’ should receive extremely serious attention on the whole world’s society behalf as well as meet the following it reaction!!

O.....K...