Why havent we sent the Special Forces to Rwanda?

Question

i mean the PM there is an ****, he has torture squads, so why dont we send the SAS, or u americans send Delta Force or just one huge strike or sumfin?

I mean take out those torture squads first using special forces, then send in SO19 to take out da PM.

Answer 1

S019 are attached to the police. the SAS are far more highly trained for that sort of task. the UN are doing their work, but this really isn't what the SAS are meant for, and if they did go, you wouldn't know a thing about it. the SAS mainly do battle feild preps, Close protection, taking out inderviduals rather than groups, they could take the PM out though

Answer 2

Because U.S. & British special forces are not designed to be sent around the world as a hit-squad.

And who do you propose to launch a hugh strike against the Rawanden people??

Do tell how a "sumfin" works??

Some people here think the U.N. is available to fix all that is wrong in the world, the U.N. can only go where it is asked and with forces which are pledged by countries willing to help, its completely voluntary.

The idea of a hugh U.N. Military Force sitting around ready to jump into the worlds trouble spots just does not exsist.

The anti U.N. posters here, have no idea how the U.N. is structured or works, there is a far bigger side to the U.N. than just the Peace-Keeping Forces.

Answer 3

The logistics would be complicated. How do you target torture squads? What is in it for our vital national interests? Why commit money and time to an issue that will not pay-off in the long run for Britain or America? The reason we don't concern ourselves with the issues of Africa is because we don't have vital interests and the interest we may have once had in a United Nations effort to do anything for Africa was abruptly destroyed by failed efforts in Somalia which stung Western nations in the buttox resulting in apathy for the future of the UN and Africa.

We do help but its rare. Take for instance Djibouti.

Also, for anyone that doesn't understand the UN there is correspondence courses to help. Go to http://unitarpoci.org/ because the UN is not as simple as the ideas many have conjured up in their own minds.

Answer 4

Good question.
Not really sure of a 'right' answer.
But here it goes:
If we do send in military forces without replacing the existing government, then we are interfering in the internal workings of a sovereign nation. We don't do that. For example; should the British have sent in troops to change the voting laws of the United States when the voting age was 21 but the draft age was 18 and young men were being sent to combat zones to fight for a country whose political system they had no voice in? Should the U.S. sent in forces to support the Catholic Irish in Northern Ireland? My answer is no in both cases.
Another point is targeting the right people. It's not as simple as the movies make it out to be.

Answer 5

Screw the f*cking UN. Every day we wait human beings are suffering.Every time the UN gets involved things go from bad to worse.All they seen to be good at is wasting time and getting good soldiers(from every country)killed so they can worry about the politics of the situations.

Answer 6

You think they haven't been in there?

Oh, you mean like we should go in and punish the people running things. Get rid of them.

Then what? How well did this work out for us in Iraq?

Answer 7

We sent George Clooney and Sean Penn what else do you want?

Answer 8

Probably because there is no hope for many of those African nations. They are constantly changing governments and constantly chopping each other up regardless of who is in charge or how they are helped.

Answer 9

Because as with all actions, we are letting the UN have a crack at it first.