PDA

View Full Version : Should the EU or the UN have intervened in Rwanda or Darfur?

SUBMAN1
03-31-08, 04:40 PM
Just kind of curious to hear the responses on this one.

-S
Steel_Tomb
03-31-08, 04:41 PM
Absolutely YES, why shouldn't we? See my response in the Iraq war thread :P.
SUBMAN1
03-31-08, 04:42 PM
Wow! You responded faster than I could make the poll! :D
Kapitan_Phillips
03-31-08, 04:44 PM
Isnt the UN's job stopping crap like that? Isnt that why the bluehelmets are called Peacekeepers?
silentrunner
03-31-08, 04:58 PM
We who have very much to be thankfull for must helo those who are less fortunate.
DeepIron
03-31-08, 05:05 PM
Consider for a moment this, how many other places are UN Peacekeepers involved right now? Even the UN has only so many resources and with all the stupidity and violence going on in the world these days, I'd say the UN forces were stretched pretty thin already.

So, what do you do in Darfur? Field a small, ineffective force and get them killed too? I strongly doubt that the UN could have landed a force in Darfur large enough and well-equipped enough to stop the genocide and bloodshed.

The tragedy in Darfur is heinous, but I can't how the UN could have curbed it...:nope:
Skybird
03-31-08, 05:16 PM
Should the EU or the UN have intervened in Rwanda or Darfur?


:lol:
STEED
03-31-08, 05:20 PM
Should the EU or the UN have intervened in Rwanda or Darfur?


:lol:


Have you been reading my mind Skybird? :hmm:


The Fourth choice - Best laugh I had all day.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
DAB
03-31-08, 05:21 PM
Intervene by what means? In Rwanda in 1995 there was no coherrent European cooperation militarily outside of NATO. WIth the exception of Britain and France, there was no scope for anyone else to project power.

And today Darfur is a landlocked region in a landlocked country. Name a country other then the United States that has the military capability to project itself into such a region without the support of one of Sudans neighbours
Trex
03-31-08, 07:49 PM
There was a UN force in Rwanda and there has been a peacekeeping force in Darfur. Their failure illustrates the trick knee of classic peacekeeping - unlesss everybody wants peace, it is a non-starter.

Looking just at Darfur, it's a bazillion miles from anything and all three sides have said they won't cooperate and will fight any peacekeepers going there. Odds ain't great, frankly. The world could send in troops, but they wouldn't be peacekeepers; they'd be in the middle of another Iraq.

Oh, for the record, Darfur is one of the few places on this planet to make Afghanistan look hospitable.
fatty
03-31-08, 10:30 PM
Isnt the UN's job stopping crap like that? Isnt that why the bluehelmets are called Peacekeepers?

Peacekeepers, not peacemakers. The blue helmets can only step in when all sides of the conflict agree to their presence and request U.N. assistance.
caspofungin
04-01-08, 12:09 PM
Oil companies from other countries are reluctant to deal with Soudan to exploit oil in Darfur because they care for their image regarding Human Rights (well you know what I mean)

actually, the first major oil companies in sudan were mainly canadian, but then because sudan got put on the list of countries allegedly sponsoring terrorism by the us, those companies were forced out (i'm assuming because they were either part us owned or had a lot of business in the us -- canada's the us #1 source of oil) and chinese companies took advantage of the vacuum.

but keeping the peace in darfur would be hard work when all sides aren't interested in peace and some factions actually make political capital out of what's going on.