I find the UNinvolved very inaccurate, they are involved, they just dont do anything.
afatcatfromsweden on
Tbf the UN forces would have not survived a serious battle. However, this doesn’t make their inaction any more palatable.
chewbaccawastrainedb on
>Chinese UN peacekeepers in the capital Juba, South Sudan, abandoned their posts entirely at one civilian protection site where tens of thousands had sought safety from successive bouts of fighting.
>
>Civilians died inside and outside the UN bases and hundreds possibly thousands of women were raped, including many within view of UN bases.
>
>On the last day of the fighting, about 80 to 100 government soldiers attacked a compound in Juba where they raped and gang-raped at least five international aid workers and physically or sexually assaulted at least a dozen others.
In 2023, some 332 Chinese peacekeepers, including 16 women, have received the prestigious UN medal for their service to the cause of durable peace in South Sudan.
Yeah…..
elenorfighter on
Didn’t they have only 1000 men in there and no heavy weapons?
lashedcobra on
Kofi Annan was less than worthless.
an-font-brox on
was the Suez Crisis genuinely the very last time UN peacekeepers made a material difference?
Metrack15 on
UN when it comes to the Rwanda genocide (and other catastrophes): A mimir
UN when it comes to fight against NK (totally not used to defend USA’s interests): REAL SHIT
whistleridge on
Meh.
First: 100 days is FAR too short a time to put together any sort of international response. The US could have acted on its own, but after Mogadishu they weren’t about to get involved on the ground in Africa and no one else in the UN remotely had the ability to mount an effective intervention in the time before the genocide burned itself out.
Second: the UN forces in Rwanda at the time in 1994 was just 2500 strong, led by Canadians, and majority Belgian and Indian in composition. It had almost no equipment heavier than machine guns and APCs, and was basically armed well-enough to get itself into a fight, but not well-armed or large enough to get itself out of that fight.
Third: even a force 5-10 times the size and armed with heavy equipment wouldn’t have been in any position to stop the genocide or to both safeguard and provide for large numbers of refugees. They could have walled off and held an escape corridor if someone was prepared to take in refugees, but that wasn’t an option.
Rwanda was a product of the international community as a whole knowing what was going on, deciding no one could do anything, and so no one even tried. It wasn’t a failure of the UN.
BenShealoch on
There’s no such verb as “genocided”. They were killed in a genocide.
GuitarPlayingGuy71 on
“Genociding” is not a word.
TheDarkLordScaryman on
That’s why whenever anything comes up with the UN my dad jokes that they will send in the guys with the little blue helmets
DVM11 on
The UN is NOT defeating the futility allegations
HistorianEntire311 on
And the worst thing is that, together with the United States being the global police, they are what more or less keeps the world at peace.
He begged, pleaded, DEMANDED help, more force and more support before it happened as he was present saw how the wind was blowing.
The UN dawdled and did nothing substantial, either ignoring or downplaying his concerns and demands.
It broke him. He contemplated suicide afterwards.
I will warn you, it’s a…tough read at times. He doesn’t shrink from anything and lays it all out
If you’re interested in the topic there is no better source or recount of it, in my opinion.
Tankyenough on
When will Americans (I assume) learn the difference between genitive and plural??
I keep seeing this *everywhere*. It’s Tutsis. Not Tutsi’s.
AdOrdinary232 on
Your reminder that non intervention also has consequences.
CuckAdminsDetected on
The UNinvolved in Peace?
Appropriate_Rent_243 on
you gotta be fucking dedicated to commit genocide with sticks and razors, wtf
Grandkahoona01 on
Sadly the UN is largely a failure. It had no actual power and no real enforcement mechanism.
No-Lunch4249 on
“Hey guys, what does my global peacekeeping force have no credibility??”
The peacekeepers:
Awsomesauceninja on
Example number *whatever* on the uselessness of the UN
Expensive-Storage-76 on
Thats why ultimately the NATO intervened in Yugoslavia instead of the UN. Look also up ‘Operation Bøllebank’ where heavily armed Danish troops (with tanks) returned fire on Serbian position. They received flak from UN leadership that they returned fire and the UN leadership was already sceptic from the beginning that the Danish troops brought *tanks* and heavy weapons.
Shady_Merchant1 on
The French and catholic church were complicit in the genocide which is a large part of why nothing was done
AdDry4000 on
Bold and wrong statement:
Peace never solves anything
It simply gives you time for the next opportunity
No-Taro3326 on
Remember Kofi Annan was the main UN official responsible for handling this and later oversaw Bosnia with the same outcome likely. Only thing different here was Tony Blair managed to convince Bill Clinton to have an actually military intervention to stop the murders.
CanadianRoyalist on
The problem the UN has is that it attempts to imitate the order the British Empire imposed on the undeveloped world, but with none of the strength or resolve needed to back it up.
When the British wanted to end slavery, we sent in the Royal Navy and ended it a gun point. Then we left in the name of “decolonisation” and it started up again.
Now the UN wants to end it… so they send strongly worded letters.
swainiscadianreborn on
People when the UN acts as an internationale forum: “Why aren’t you doing more?”
People when the UN does more: “THE UN SHOULDN’T ACT AS A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT! WORLD POLICE! REEEEEEE”
b3culeT on
The best type of UN peacekeeping is when they leave PMCs like EO to clean up.
30 Comments
The UN, you never want to rely on them because you will be disappointed.
I read this article that contained how one of the rebel commanders told the UN to leave so they could end the genocide. It is an interesting read. [Link](https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/what-is-missing-in-peacekeeping-the-role-of-strategy/)
I find the UNinvolved very inaccurate, they are involved, they just dont do anything.
Tbf the UN forces would have not survived a serious battle. However, this doesn’t make their inaction any more palatable.
>Chinese UN peacekeepers in the capital Juba, South Sudan, abandoned their posts entirely at one civilian protection site where tens of thousands had sought safety from successive bouts of fighting.
>
>Civilians died inside and outside the UN bases and hundreds possibly thousands of women were raped, including many within view of UN bases.
>
>On the last day of the fighting, about 80 to 100 government soldiers attacked a compound in Juba where they raped and gang-raped at least five international aid workers and physically or sexually assaulted at least a dozen others.
In 2023, some 332 Chinese peacekeepers, including 16 women, have received the prestigious UN medal for their service to the cause of durable peace in South Sudan.
Yeah…..
Didn’t they have only 1000 men in there and no heavy weapons?
Kofi Annan was less than worthless.
was the Suez Crisis genuinely the very last time UN peacekeepers made a material difference?
UN when it comes to the Rwanda genocide (and other catastrophes): A mimir
UN when it comes to fight against NK (totally not used to defend USA’s interests): REAL SHIT
Meh.
First: 100 days is FAR too short a time to put together any sort of international response. The US could have acted on its own, but after Mogadishu they weren’t about to get involved on the ground in Africa and no one else in the UN remotely had the ability to mount an effective intervention in the time before the genocide burned itself out.
Second: the UN forces in Rwanda at the time in 1994 was just 2500 strong, led by Canadians, and majority Belgian and Indian in composition. It had almost no equipment heavier than machine guns and APCs, and was basically armed well-enough to get itself into a fight, but not well-armed or large enough to get itself out of that fight.
Third: even a force 5-10 times the size and armed with heavy equipment wouldn’t have been in any position to stop the genocide or to both safeguard and provide for large numbers of refugees. They could have walled off and held an escape corridor if someone was prepared to take in refugees, but that wasn’t an option.
Rwanda was a product of the international community as a whole knowing what was going on, deciding no one could do anything, and so no one even tried. It wasn’t a failure of the UN.
There’s no such verb as “genocided”. They were killed in a genocide.
“Genociding” is not a word.
That’s why whenever anything comes up with the UN my dad jokes that they will send in the guys with the little blue helmets
The UN is NOT defeating the futility allegations
And the worst thing is that, together with the United States being the global police, they are what more or less keeps the world at peace.
It’s much worse, the UN had warning.
There is a grim but good book regarding it, called, [“Shake Hands With the Devil”](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/215758.Shake_Hands_with_the_Devil), by Lt. General Roméo Dallaire regarding the build up to it.
He begged, pleaded, DEMANDED help, more force and more support before it happened as he was present saw how the wind was blowing.
The UN dawdled and did nothing substantial, either ignoring or downplaying his concerns and demands.
It broke him. He contemplated suicide afterwards.
I will warn you, it’s a…tough read at times. He doesn’t shrink from anything and lays it all out
If you’re interested in the topic there is no better source or recount of it, in my opinion.
When will Americans (I assume) learn the difference between genitive and plural??
I keep seeing this *everywhere*. It’s Tutsis. Not Tutsi’s.
Your reminder that non intervention also has consequences.
The UNinvolved in Peace?
you gotta be fucking dedicated to commit genocide with sticks and razors, wtf
Sadly the UN is largely a failure. It had no actual power and no real enforcement mechanism.
“Hey guys, what does my global peacekeeping force have no credibility??”
The peacekeepers:
Example number *whatever* on the uselessness of the UN
Thats why ultimately the NATO intervened in Yugoslavia instead of the UN. Look also up ‘Operation Bøllebank’ where heavily armed Danish troops (with tanks) returned fire on Serbian position. They received flak from UN leadership that they returned fire and the UN leadership was already sceptic from the beginning that the Danish troops brought *tanks* and heavy weapons.
The French and catholic church were complicit in the genocide which is a large part of why nothing was done
Bold and wrong statement:
Peace never solves anything
It simply gives you time for the next opportunity
Remember Kofi Annan was the main UN official responsible for handling this and later oversaw Bosnia with the same outcome likely. Only thing different here was Tony Blair managed to convince Bill Clinton to have an actually military intervention to stop the murders.
The problem the UN has is that it attempts to imitate the order the British Empire imposed on the undeveloped world, but with none of the strength or resolve needed to back it up.
When the British wanted to end slavery, we sent in the Royal Navy and ended it a gun point. Then we left in the name of “decolonisation” and it started up again.
Now the UN wants to end it… so they send strongly worded letters.
People when the UN acts as an internationale forum: “Why aren’t you doing more?”
People when the UN does more: “THE UN SHOULDN’T ACT AS A GLOBAL GOVERNMENT! WORLD POLICE! REEEEEEE”
The best type of UN peacekeeping is when they leave PMCs like EO to clean up.