Documents: U.S. condoned Iraq oil smuggling

[patrone]

Originally posted by Wotan
The accusations against Kofi Annan don't come originate with me or the US. As I said you just don't what you are talking about.

You are just making things up as you go.

Type Kofi Annan / Peacekeepers / Rwanda in goggle and you will see who accuses who of what.

Kofi's own mouth

Mr. defender of Kofi's honor  has no clue of what happened in Rwanda and just waves his stupid UN Charter around as if it mattered.

Early warnings!
A January 11, 1994 telegram from General Roméo Dallaire, commander of the U.N. peacekeeping force, to his superiors was only one, if now the most famous, warning of massive slaughter being prepared in Rwanda. From November 1993 to April 1994, there were dozens of other signals, including an early December letter to Dallaire from high-ranking military officers warning of planned massacres; a press release by a bishop declaring that guns were being distributed to civilians; reports by intelligence agents of secret meetings to coordinate attacks on Tutsi, opponents of Hutu Power and U.N. peacekeepers; and public incitations to murder in the press and on the radio. Foreign observers did not track every indicator, but representatives of Belgium, France, and the U.S. were well-informed about most of them. In January, an analyst of U.S. Central Intelligence Agency knew enough to predict that as many as half a million persons might die in case of renewed conflict and, in February, Belgian authorities already feared a genocide. France, the power most closely linked to Habyarimana, presumably knew at least as much as the other two.

In the early months of 1994, Dallaire repeatedly requested a stronger mandate, more troops and more materiel. The secretariat staff, perhaps anxious to avoid displeasing such major powers as the U.S., failed to convey to the council the gravity of warnings of crisis and the urgency of Dallaire’s requests. The paucity of information meant little to the U.S. and France, which were well-informed in any case, but it led other council members with no sources of information in Rwanda to misjudge the gravity of the crisis. Instead of strengthening the mandate and sending reinforcements, the Security Council made only small changes in the rate of troop deployment, measures too limited to affect the development of the situation.

When the violence began, the secretary-general’s special representative, Roger Booh-Booh minimized both the extent and the organized nature of the slayings. Meanwhile Dallaire was fairly shouting the need for immediate and decisive action. Given the two points of view, the staff generally presented the more reassuring assessment to council members.

By late April, representatives of the Czech Republic, Spain, New Zealand and Argentina sought information beyond that provided by the secretariat and became convinced that the slaughter was a genocide that must be stopped. They pushed the Security Council to support a new peacekeeping operation with a stronger mandate to protect civilians. Had these non-permanent members been fully informed earlier—such as on January 11—they might have found their voices in time to have called for firm measures to avert the violence.

Economics??
As preparations for further conflict grew in February 1994, the Belgians were sufficiently worried by the deteriorating situation to ask for a stronger mandate, but they were rebuffed by the U.S. and the United Kingdom, which refused to support any measure that might add to the cost of the operation.
The concern for economy prevailed even after massive slaughter had taken place.
When a second peacekeeping operation was being mounted in May and June, U.N. member states were slow to contribute equipment needed for the troops. The U.S. government was rightly ridiculed for requiring seven weeks to negotiate the lease for armored personnel carriers, but other members did not do much better. The U.K., for example, provided only fifty trucks.

Further more, I cant quote more then this from the Speach in Rwanda 15 march 1998, By  US President Bill Clinton, as it seems to have "disapered" from US Goverments official files.

....the international community, together with nations in Africa, must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy, as well. We did not act quickly enough after the killing began. We should not have allowed the refugee camps to become safe havens for the killers. We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name: genocide. We cannot change the past. But we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear, and full of hope....

Chew on that Chewbakka.

Before you breath more about this particulare even, I sugest you get some facts.

You don´t know **** and you will never  know ****, Sorry.

By the way, thanks for honouring a Scandinavian God with you nick.....

[TweetyBird]

>>These dummies are using 1950-60's politico in the internet age of bits bytes and fact checking .....
<<

As others have posted




Some take longer to catch on.

Its different now, just different

[Wotan]

Chew on that Chewbakka.

Chew on what? Nothing you just posted means anything in regards to my previous reply.

Not one thing. I will break it down for you again but I doubt you have the mental capacity to follow along...

French and Belgian troops were on the ground, some 5000 Peace keepers at the start of the massacre. Kofi agreed to them pulling out after some Belgian soldiers were killed. Eventually Dallaire with was left with almost no troops.

The accusations against Kofi have nothing to do with what the UN SC or the US or any UN member did or didn't do. The fact is if Kofi had done his job earlier (as he himself admits) then the outcome might have been different.

Annan's office ordered Dallaire to neither protect the informant nor confiscate the arms.

[/b]

Once again you are unable to follow a simple point from A to B. Do you have a CO2 detector in your house? Maybe with the colder weather you locked yourself in and CO2 is ruining your mind. Open a window or quickly move outside into the fresh air.

Unless you can make a coherent reasonable reply based on what is actually being discussed then I will leave you to your left wing Euro-trash non-sense.

Just deal with the subject at hand with out trying to shift the discussion else where. If you can't discuss the subject then just shut up.

[patrone]

Ouch, hurts dos´nt it?

[Yeager]

what a bore...what a tool.  you just picked the crap side to stand with yo.  thats all.

Your all tools, Im a tool too.  Its all garbage and no one here and no country with the exception of the few you never heard of are on any sort of moral high ground on any issue.  You just pick your sides and either fight it out or run and hide.

Like Boyington said: "Show me a hero and I'll prove hes' a bum."

What a bunch of self oscillators

[SLO]

Wotan, the U.S. has a big say in the SC, K. Annan does not...

there were no INTEREST for any whatsoever country to STOP the Rwandan massacre...

the UN the U.S. and all others are to BLAME...

remember we said 'NEVER AGAIN' after the Holocaust...

but believe me, if there was OIL in Rwanda, no massacre would of takin place:)

[Yeager]

canada did NOTHING to stop the bloodshed!

[Wotan]

Wotan, the U.S. has a big say in the SC, K. Annan does not...

there were no INTEREST for any whatsoever country to STOP the Rwandan massacre...

the UN the U.S. and all others are to BLAME...

remember we said 'NEVER AGAIN' after the Holocaust...

but believe me, if there was OIL in Rwanda, no massacre would of takin place

Another person ignorant of the facts speaking about a subject not in discussion.

Troops were already on the ground in Rwanda when the massacre started, they left. Kofi admits his errors why can't you?

Belgium pulled its peace keepers, the French did nothing. The UN or SC or whatever organization you wish to point out had nothing to do with that.

There's oil in Sudan, that's why the French aren't doing anything meaningful there. So if you are suggesting that if oil was in Rwanda the US would have sent troops and that only US peace keepers and troops can get the job done then I would agree with you.

From the Dutch in Bosnia, to Belgians in Rwanda, to French inaction in Sudan EU 'peace keeping' doesn't inspire much confidence.

The French Canadian Dallaire as head of the troops in Rwanda failed as well. He followed the orders from Kofi's office and sat on his hands while people were massacred.

You can blame the US or UN SC or the bogey man for all I care but any way you want to argue it it just shows how worthless the UN unless the US takes control of the situation. Absent US leadership and troops nothing gets accomplished. The US can do that on its own.

If that's the point you wish to argue then go for it, a lot folks would agree.

[patrone]

Seems like the "Woodman" digs himself even deeper in the pile of dirt....

[JBA]

According to the UN there was no genocide, so they don’t have to bear the blame that way.



http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-world014131518feb01,0,480390.story

February 1, 2005


UN: NO GENOCIDE IN SUDAN. A United Nations commission concluded .......but it stopped short of calling the violence genocide,

[Suave]

Oh  

Reminds me of Kruschev's televized meeting with Nixon.

Wotan's right, the UN had sufficient manpower in rwanda to prevent what was happening, but the belgian's withdrew at the first sign of conflict.  And no other members of the UN did a damn thing except fascilitate the genocide, including the US. The only UN personnel that got any good done were the ones that disobeyed Annan.  In the end, the UN personnel that stayed in rwanda couldn't even get the UN to supply them with body bags for the UN's own dead personell.  800,000 were dead and the UN was still pontificating the definition of genocide.

The US was probably the only UN member that would've put it's men in harms way. But that wasn't going to happen under the Clinton admin.

If the US doesn't lead the initiative the UN is indecisive and ineffectual. If the US does take the initiative, the UN is hindering and adverse.

But you went off on some irrelevant antiamerican tangent.. again.

[patrone]

Read again Suave:
When the UN troops wanted reinforcments this is what happend:

21 of April 1994
The U.N. Security Council votes unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.

(USA voted for the pullback of UN troops!)

Then USA and UK argueed about the coasts, delaying the second deployment about 7 weeks.

Albright delayed the gathering of the SC for several days. The whole affair smells very much. The Fiasco from Somalia made USA to hazitate, but also economics

Atleast French troops where re-deployed  in "operation Turquise" inspite of the unwillingly SC.

[Wotan]

April 7

Hutu gunmen systematically start tracking down and killing moderate Hutu politicians and Tutsi leaders. The deputy to the U.S. ambassador in Rwanda tells Washington that the killings involve not just political murders, but genocide.

The U.S. decides to evacuate all Americans.

Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, is told by headquarters not to intervene and to avoid armed conflict.

Day 1
Estimated Death Toll: 8,000

He was told by Annan's office, not by the US or UN SC. You keep ignoring that fact. What happened 2 weeks later in the UN is really irrelevent to Annan's mishandling of the situation early on. Even if the US and UN SC decide to send more troops it would have taken sometime to deploy.

April 9, 10, 11

Evidence mounts of massacres targeting ordinary Tutsis. Front page stories newspaper stories cite reports of "tens of thousands" dead and "a pile of corpses six feet high" outside a main hospital.

Gen. Dallaire requests a doubling of his force to 5,000.

Nearly 3,300 Americans, French, Italians and Belgians are evacuated by troops sent in from their countries.

Day 4
Estimated Death Toll: 32,000

April 15

Belgium withdraws its troops from the U.N. force after ten Belgian soldiers are slain. Embarrassed to be withdrawing alone, Belgium asks the U.S. to support a full pullout. Secretary of State Christopher agrees and tells Madeleine Albright, America's U.N. ambassador, to demand complete withdrawal. She is opposed, as are some African nations. She pushes for a compromise: a dramatic cutback that would leave a token force in place.

Day 8
Estimated Death Toll: 64,000

April 16

The New York Times reports the shooting and hacking to death of some 1000 men, women and children in a church where they sought refuge.

Day 9
Estimated Death Toll: 72,000

April 19

By this date, Human Rights Watch estimates the number of dead at 100,000 and calls on the U.N. Security Council to use the word "genocide."

Belgian troops leave Rwanda; Gen. Dallaire is down to a force of 2,100. He will soon lose communication lines to outlying areas and will have only a satellite link to the outside world.

Day 12
Estimated Death Toll: 100,000

After Belgian peace keepers were killed Belgium was looking for a way out. They made a request to the US and the UN SC to withdraw. On the 21 April the UN SC votes:

April 21, 22

The U.S. and the entire U.N. Security Council vote to withdraw 90% of the peacekeepers in Rwanda.

At the urging of Human Rights Watch, the White House issues a statement calling on four Rwandan military leaders to "end the violence."

Had Kofi done something sooner and given Dellair the authority to do something other then watch things would have transpired differently. The best point at which to stop the massacre was before it got out of hand. By April 21 over 100,000 people were already murdered.

What happened on the 21st wouldn't have saved them and is irrelevant to the mishandling of the situation by by Annan's office and my criticism of Annan. Even Kofi admits as much.

Seems like the "Woodman" digs himself even deeper in the pile of dirt

So what pile of dirt are you talking about? The one in your head?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Wotan
The French Canadian Dallaire as head of the troops in Rwanda failed as well. He followed the orders from Kofi's office and sat on his hands while people were massacred.

Why this superflous precision ?

I feel guilty enought by the lack of action of my governement no need to add the screw up of some one else.

Plus there is ressources in Rwanda :  diamond and bauxite.

[Wotan]

Because Slo is French Canadian?

 

I had a shot and I took it...

I feel guilty enought by the lack of action of my governement no need to add the screw up of some one else.

I wasn't blaming you or the French... Poor leadership on the part of the Annan and the UN is what allowed the ball to get rolling.

My criticism is toward Annan, not only did he fail his duties in the case of Rwanda (getting back on the topic of this thread) his family made money from the UN Oil for Food program. Doctoryo seems to think that this is the same thing as the US (Clinton) turning a blind eye to oil deals that violated the UN embargo. As if the US could have stopped even if they wanted to...

With the conflict of interest in regards to Oil for Food and Kofi's failure in regards to Rwanda he should resign or be sent home in shame.

Crabofix feels the need to defend him even on points where Annan himself admits his failure.

At the very very least Crabo's position just goes to show what a joke the UN is to begin with.

Either way he wants it still don't look good for the UN.