Is it time for a Peace and Prosperity Party?

[elektra]

At war means attacked by another nation or has attacked another nation.

Still you got it wrong and placing blame on the Canadians.

you seem to refer to a NATO peace keeping mission during the Rwanda Civil War. This was part of NATO and they had rules that had to be followed. Rules of engagement that had to be followed as established by NATO. Canada troops were not allowed to use force military force and rules of engagement were specific as this was a NATO operations.

I am assuming your referring to the massacre.

In January 1994, Roméo Dallaire sent a message to senior officials at UN headquarters in New York, warning that a genocide was likely and asking permission to take preemptive action. However, his warning went unheeded.

the mandate was specific and they did not have enough troops or equipment to prevent the massacres,
Yet Dallaire and his peacekeepers worked courageously for weeks, helping countless individual Rwandans and foreign nationals to find safety or to escape the country.


Now you know the real story but if you have some different source please post it. They did not have the support or mandate to engage. They did what they could.

Canadian Peacekeepers in Rwanda

From 1993 to 1995, Canada was a leading contributor to a series of United Nations peacekeeping missions in the African nation of Rwanda. However, the United Nat...

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

The canadians were in charge, it was their general.

Dallaire, the canadian general could of stopped the Belgium army from deserting, I would of blown up their transport plane had I been Dallaire.

Dallaire, the canadian general in charge, had machine guns, never once were they fired against those armed with only machetes.

I feel bad for Dallaire, a paper pushing general, canadian, and as you state no experience at war, hence no bravery during battle, was put to the test, and failed. The stories of Dallarie, the canadian general, alcoholism is well known.

Dallaire is a drunk not because of what the world did not do, but because of what he did not do. Dallaire should of attacked, not cowered.

 

[Votto]

[I was going to suggest a Peace and Freedom Party, but that name has already been co-opted by a group of left-wing radicals who actually support foreign wars and domestic censorship.]

There seems to be a growing divide in the U.S. over two major issues: Peace vs. War and Prosperity vs. Government Regulation. While the latter is largely defined by political affiliation, the former holds some promise of breaching that distinction. True Liberals are being driven towards Libertarianism, while devout Conservatives are questioning governmental authority as never before. Could Trump's populism and RFKjr's honesty be harnessed to the same band wagon? Isn't it time for a new Third Party to unite these traditional adversaries into a viable political alternative to the moneyed establishment parties?

What do you think?

No, there is only one party and that party is the ever expansive and exponentially accelerating debt Leviathan that is also a borderless hell bound and gender confused whore from Babylon that will destroy all human life on earth for their Climate cult.

There is no room for any other.

 

[Resnic]

[I was going to suggest a Peace and Freedom Party, but that name has already been co-opted by a group of left-wing radicals who actually support foreign wars and domestic censorship.]

There seems to be a growing divide in the U.S. over two major issues: Peace vs. War and Prosperity vs. Government Regulation. While the latter is largely defined by political affiliation, the former holds some promise of breaching that distinction. True Liberals are being driven towards Libertarianism, while devout Conservatives are questioning governmental authority as never before. Could Trump's populism and RFKjr's honesty be harnessed to the same band wagon? Isn't it time for a new Third Party to unite these traditional adversaries into a viable political alternative to the moneyed establishment parties?

What do you think?

We had that with trump.

America was putting tarriffs on china and was trying to break our dependence on them and become more self sufficient.

America was more energy independent.

He was putting the plan together and set up our withdrawal from Afghanistan because he didn't believe in that war.

He helped broker peace with Jerusalem and Israel by actually recognizing them and helping ease tensions.

He was well on his way to erradicsting isis which was terrorizing and killing innocents without actually putting us in a war.

He was the only one saying we need to bring and end to Ukraine and Russia's war and wanted peace meanwhile everyone else has been pushing for war and supporting war.

He was punishing American companies for taking business outside America and taking jobs with them.

He wanted a border to protect America from being over run by illegals that would bleed the country, cities and states dry.

He tried to send federal agents to places like Chicago to stop him and antifa domestic terrorists but was denied the assistance by places like Chicago.

He wanted America to be strong, rich, independent, tough and great but was fought at every step of the way but people in the current administration.

We had a leader and a party of peace and prosperity, but was spit in the face for it.

 

[jwoodie]

Canada troops were not allowed to use force military force

What were they? Toy soldiers?

 

[Kilroy2]

What were they? Toy soldiers?

This was a NATO peace keeping mission. NATO established the rules and directives. They were not giving orders to engage. .Solders follow the rules. They go thru channels to ask permission if they need to exceed these rules. Yes they can defend themselves if threatened.

This was a NATO failure at the highest level. The ground troops told them multiple times that a genocide was coming and they were ignored by NATO command structure.

UN Peacekeepers felt mostly paralyzed by directives from New York. Neutrality was emphasised, with the risk of military retaliation - particularly after the Somalia experience - at the forefront of the minds of diplomats and UN staff alike. Some soldiers "believed that there were virtually no circumstances in which they could legitimately fire their weapons"

Seems like they send troops but don't shoot unless defending yourself. They were there not to escalate the war. Unfortunately the locals did what they wanted to do and avoid attacking the NATO troops.

International response to the Rwandan genocide - Wikipedia

 

[Kilroy2]

Troops were sent under NATO rules and mandates. It was a peacekeeping force with limited number of soldiers also they were directed to not intervene.

Rules established required them not to engage in the fighting. Yes, I would imagine they could defend themselves if attacked.

Rwanda was after the Somalia experience where under NATO sent US troops. US lost about 75 dead US solders that were paraded thru the streets.

Rwanda which came after had NATO directives which were clear and they were not to engage or intervene. The troops notified NATO multiple times that things were going to get violent but NATO leadership did nothing. They were not giving orders to engage or get involved with the fighting.

Troops complained that they could do nothing as they were under the NATO directive. Solders follow orders.

Lessons from the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, 25 years after the genocide it failed to stop

Learning from what actually worked during the United Nations’ infamously ineffective 1994 peacekeeping mission in Rwanda may save lives in the future.

theconversation.com

 

[RhodyPatriot]

[I was going to suggest a Peace and Freedom Party, but that name has already been co-opted by a group of left-wing radicals who actually support foreign wars and domestic censorship.]

There seems to be a growing divide in the U.S. over two major issues: Peace vs. War and Prosperity vs. Government Regulation. While the latter is largely defined by political affiliation, the former holds some promise of breaching that distinction. True Liberals are being driven towards Libertarianism, while devout Conservatives are questioning governmental authority as never before. Could Trump's populism and RFKjr's honesty be harnessed to the same band wagon? Isn't it time for a new Third Party to unite these traditional adversaries into a viable political alternative to the moneyed establishment parties?

What do you think?

Fantastic post.

A Peace and Freedom Party is long overdue.

Oh wait, it's called: "MAGA".

 

[RhodyPatriot]

It's time for Trumpers to join the Shut The Fuck Up Party.

Yuck.

You're so repugnant.

 

[Billiejeens]

We had that with trump.

America was putting tarriffs on china and was trying to break our dependence on them and become more self sufficient.

America was more energy independent.

He was putting the plan together and set up our withdrawal from Afghanistan because he didn't believe in that war.

He helped broker peace with Jerusalem and Israel by actually recognizing them and helping ease tensions.

He was well on his way to erradicsting isis which was terrorizing and killing innocents without actually putting us in a war.

He was the only one saying we need to bring and end to Ukraine and Russia's war and wanted peace meanwhile everyone else has been pushing for war and supporting war.

He was punishing American companies for taking business outside America and taking jobs with them.

He wanted a border to protect America from being over run by illegals that would bleed the country, cities and states dry.

He tried to send federal agents to places like Chicago to stop him and antifa domestic terrorists but was denied the assistance by places like Chicago.

He wanted America to be strong, rich, independent, tough and great but was fought at every step of the way but people in the current administration.

We had a leader and a party of peace and prosperity, but was spit in the face for it.

This
All of this.

 

[fncceo]

How about a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw ALL parties?

Every single candidate runs on his or her own merits as an independent. Every bill is raised and voted on without a party approval.

 

[Kilroy2]

Yeah with MAGA, when they stored the capitol building it was all about peace and freedom to choose a president.

 

[d0gbreath]

When the power of love, outweighs the love of power, you can have a peace and prosperity party.

 

[Billiejeens]

When the power of love, outweighs the love of power, you can have a peace and prosperity party.

See - Trump Presidency.

 

[Billiejeens]

Yeah with MAGA, when they stored the capitol building it was all about peace and freedom to choose a president.

Where did they store it?

 

[Billiejeens]

How about a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw ALL parties?

Every single candidate runs on his or her own merits as an independent. Every bill is raised and voted on without a party approval.

Silly and childlike, frankly.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

[I was going to suggest a Peace and Freedom Party, but that name has already been co-opted by a group of left-wing radicals who actually support foreign wars and domestic censorship.]

There seems to be a growing divide in the U.S. over two major issues: Peace vs. War and Prosperity vs. Government Regulation. While the latter is largely defined by political affiliation, the former holds some promise of breaching that distinction. True Liberals are being driven towards Libertarianism, while devout Conservatives are questioning governmental authority as never before. Could Trump's populism and RFKjr's honesty be harnessed to the same band wagon? Isn't it time for a new Third Party to unite these traditional adversaries into a viable political alternative to the moneyed establishment parties?

What do you think?

They are the wrong two people for it, but I am on board with the party.

It is time to quit being the world's police force and spending as much on our military as the next 8 countries combined. We can no longer afford it.

Government regulations could be cut in a lot of places but at the same time we cannot sacrifice clean air and water.

 

[Kilroy2]

Where did they store it?

In their minds

 

[jwoodie]

Silly and childlike, frankly.

Yeah, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of dummies.

 

[Billiejeens]

Yeah, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of dummies.

Because they envisioned that only 1 vote would be needed to pass legislation?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, the Founding Fathers were a bunch of dummies.

Wags Wearing Wigs Wee-weeing on the People