21 April 2010

Yeah... I'm with the Governor-General

Let's free the Hutus......so they can go out and find the real murderers...
Seriously, Michaëlle... we could have "prevented" it? 'Cos I'm thinkin'... not without air support and a couple hundred thousand boots on the ground.

"Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day."
Maybe while she's in the mood... the GG should apologise to Ujjal Dosanjh as well...
Mr. Dosanjh, who was savagely beaten in Vancouver in 1985 after speaking out against religious violence, said Canadian multiculturalism has allowed extremism to take root in Sikh and other ethnic communities.
Two different things, you say?

Only in scale, my friends, only in scale.

**********

FROM THE COMMENTS:
"Apparently, according to lefties, overwhelming force, on the ground force projection, and steadfast focus on the end goal works everywhere else, and on every other regime, except in Iraq and Afstan."
C'mon... I'm sure Michaëlle picked up all kinds of valuable military expertise... in her previous job at the CBC.

**********

RELATED: Live and don't learn
That makes some military officers queasy, however. They remember Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire being forced in 1994 to watch the swelling of genocidal killings in Rwanda because of declining troop numbers and waffling UN orders.
Again? Seriously?


6 comments:

jwkozak91 said...

Hmmm, who was the leader of the Pax Americana military colossus at the time, with heavy lift and millions of troops to spare? Oh, right - had to have the UN's blessing, and the UN wouldn't have accepted the "robust rules of engagement" needed to stop the slaughter anyway.

Rich said...

Indeed....correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the U.N. specifically refuse to sanction ANY increase in Cdn forces' actions to stop the bloodshed despite REPEATED frantic requests.
Our forces were, as I understand it, under direct U.N. control and were not permitted to act except in a very circumscribed way.
If I'm correct, we owe no apology.
Please chime in if my memory of this is inaccurate.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"rich says... under direct U.N. control and were not permitted to act"

which apparently was responsible, in no small part, for romeo dallaire's nervous breakdown & subsequent suicide attempt.

he had to sit through the days long siege & slaughter of those belgian peacekeepers... and was forbidden to go to their aid by u.n. higher ups.

guilt... it'll eat you right up.

*

metasyntactic variable said...

The reason the U.N. didn't want to get involved was due to the failure in Mogasdishu, despite Rwanda not being Somalia. The only way the Canadians could have intervened was by going rogue. And perhaps morally they should have done so.

langmann said...

Apparently, according to lefties, overwhelming force, on the ground force projection, and steadfast focus on the end goal works everywhere else, and on every other regime, except in Iraq and Afstan.

Neo Conservative said...

*
the united nations is to military strategy... what potato guns are to military armaments.

using michaëlle jean's touchy-feely logic here... the u.n. should immediately airdrop on zimbabwe and take out robert mugabe.

unfortunately, the reality is... you don't bring baby-blue helmets & light arns to a war-zone.

and hell... look at how the msm is going apeshit about taliban detainees... what would they have done about a full-out strike against those poor africans? as metasyntactic & langmann point out above... you either go in "balls to the wall" or you take your lumps & go home.

it's not about winning... political correctness is king.

hey, maybe we should have just sent dawg to mediate... sing it with me...

"if you're going... to see the hutus... be sure to wear... a flower in your hair"

*