The UN, a force for good or bad?

[Gamma Male]

I'd like to hear some of your opinions on the United Nations. Do you think it's necessary for world peace and stability? Do you not approve of them in their current state? Why or why not? What changes should be made?

[Syrum]

The UN was like League of Nations. Both have flaws. It's a good idea, but the UN can't so anything. Seeing the acidity counsel can block most things. On one side you have Russia and China. On other America and it's allies. This leads to nothing happening. Like most things tried to do in Syria was vetoed by my country. Because Syria is allied to us.

[Stronk Serb]

UN is goid. US is bad.

[Blood]

Oh god. I had to do a huge report on the UN and all I can really say is, they have good intentions but waste so much money in the process of trying to get things done. It's ridiculous.

[Stronger]

UN is goid. US is bad.

What does one have to do with the other exactly?

[Syrum]

Because the UN is basically run by America.

[WaffleSingSong]

I think the U.N is definitely a step in the right direction for the world, but it is largely ineffective as an actual organization (just like Blood said.)

I think the U.N could go for some major reform, and even though I don't like the sound of a global organization getting more powerful and influential on individual nations, I don't see any other way it could be effective. One way It could do so (if there not corrupt) is to police elections in nations that are threatened by corruption and intimidation, Crimea and Egypt as recent possible examples.

[Miserabilia]

I don't see the problem with all countries working together. Anything wrong with the Un system cold be fixed from within but the concept itself is awesome and it works awesomely. It's one step closer to world peace.

[Harry Smith]

The UN was like League of Nations. Both have flaws. It's a good idea, but the UN can't so anything. Seeing the acidity counsel can block most things. On one side you have Russia and China. On other America and it's allies. This leads to nothing happening. Like most things tried to do in Syria was vetoed by my country. Because Syria is allied to us.

It's not at all like the League of Nations, people just like to compare it so they can they can put the UN down-the league of nations lacked any form of power where as the UN has the power to put in place a Military mandate, and has in the last 50 years shown that it can achieve good.

I think the U.N is definitely a step in the right direction for the world, but it is largely ineffective as an actual organization (just like Blood said.)

I think the U.N could go for some major reform, and even though I don't like the sound of a global organization getting more powerful and influential on individual nations, I don't see any other way it could be effective. One way It could do so (if there not corrupt) is to police elections in nations that are threatened by corruption and intimidation, Crimea and Egypt as recent possible examples.

To be honest this is the biggest problem-people complain the UN is too weak and useless-however people wouldn't want the UN to have any more executive power so it's catch 22 for the UN. There's a tendency for people to bring up Syria but the US has been equally bad on Israel, refusing to let the UN investigate any of the crimes committed by them.

Also the UN do so much work behind the scenes-I know only he big stuff gets into the Media but they help secure aid and food for millions of people everyday-they provide security for war ravaged countries and they're helping tackle major issues like Global warming

[Syrum]

Actually, the UN doesn't. UN Peacekeepers have very strict orders, and they re very ineffective… Such as in South Ossetia. Kosovo, Somalia, list goes on.

[Southside]

Eh I'm not a big fan of their "peacekeeping missions" or the ineffective security council, but I will applaud them on their efforts to feed those who don't have food.

[Stronk Serb]

What does one have to do with the other exactly?


UN interventions have been mostly beneficial for the countries involved, while the US interventions mostly weren't.

[Jean Poutine]

The UN in its present form is okay, but it could just be so much more.

A united Earth, where everybody in the whole world is part of the same authority, where everybody can understand each other and accept each other on a cultural/religious level, even speak the same language, would be my utopia. However, at present Nation-states are the highest level independent bodies of authority (the UN is dependent on the member-states). For something to exist above even them, they have to will it into existence. Like humans of yore, according to the social contract theory, they'd have to sacrifice a part of their current freedom to ensure that the remaining freedoms are protected. They'd have to sacrifice their right to wage war and instead settle disputes through international courts, and sacrifice their army and military goods to give it over to a global peacekeeping force under UN command (imagine a force of 10-20 or even 30 million people, trained and armed by the richest "provinces" in the Union, with ultimate power projection in that the whole damn Earth is covered...there would not be rebels or terrorists anymore, at least not for long until they are shot in the face). Some of them would have to sacrifice their authoritarian regimes, some of them their theocracies (looking at you, Saudi Arabia) to give berth to the rise of human rights everywhere. At a deeper level, in the long run, they'd also have to sacrifice their powers of economic management and their currency to give way to a planetary economy that is centrally regulated, and even their legal systems to the profit of a consolidated, universal and planetary legal system. Richer "provinces" would have to dole out some money to the poorer in an equalization scheme that would probably look like Canada's. And when all is said and done, the UN will look more like a confederation or even a federation, and countries will look more and more like provinces. No country on Earth to this day wants to give its sovereignty to a supranational body. That's just the way it is, and that's why the UN is ineffective.

Before you laugh, ask yourself this : what does it matter if you are a citizen of Canada or a citizen of Earth? Would you really be more proud as a Canadian than as an Earthling if our whole planetary population coming together, working together managed to reduce poverty, ensure human rights everywhere, eliminated wars between nations, among other international problems? And that does not mean local culture would disappear either...just one look at my own. French-Canadians are still around and still vibrant even if they are in a literal sea of 300 million anglophones. There would still be people speaking French and English and Chinese and Arabic, they would simply learn one more universal language in school to communicate with everyone else. There is zero reason to be against a world civilization, and tons of good ones to be. It would literally be the best, greatest civilization the planet has ever seen and will ever see. They say two heads are better than one, but I'd say 7 billion heads are better than however many focus on these problems now.

For this new social contract to happen, we will probably have to wait for another calamity or another World War, as WWI was the spark that lit up the League of Nations and WWII gave birth to the UN. It won't be until countries realize that their existence would be much better safeguarded by banding up, not until Earth becomes too dangerous for a country to exist in that the UN will become more effective. Maybe an alien invasion?

In short, the UN is so limited in scope because the member nations don't want to make it anything more. We keep blaming the UN for being ineffective and useless, but the truth is that nation-states have to put something in it for it to be effective, and they don't. It is their own creation. They do not want to give away more of their sovereignty to it, so the UN exists in some limbo where it's awkwardly a sort of international charity manager shoring up kleptocrats in corrupt countries, a human rights watchdog gimped by the fact human rights abusing countries contribute to its funding, and an international police force without the muscle or the power deployment capabilities to enforce peace, and that is still completely dependent on independent policy-making by its member-states that might not always coincide with the UN's goals.

So instead of being a real force for good, the UN is just another place for countries to engage in power politics.

And for the love of God, please remove the Security Council veto.

[Stronger]

UN interventions have been mostly beneficial for the countries involved, while the US interventions mostly weren't.

But the thread asked specifically for the UN not US.

[Stronk Serb]

But the thread asked specifically for the UN not US.

Yeah, UN is good.

[tovaris]

theyr useles, and sause nothing but truble (sometimes even hardship and pain, khm BiH)

[Forsakenbymyself]

Oh god. I had to do a huge report on the UN and all I can really say is, they have good intentions but waste so much money in the process of trying to get things done. It's ridiculous.

^This!

Plus, the almost always throw that money in the face of local oligarchs, thus making all the hellp virtually disappear

[gliderman]

The UN does an exccellent job, but need to look at the P5's right to Veto, the Veto gets used for purposes that should not be allowed eg Crimea and Syria

[green white]

UN is not true in my country, my country is republic.
The last, my country UN, but it's not true in my country.

[coltonaustin]

The goal of the UN is great: get people together in unity and harmony. Their leadership and methods could be better. It may be a bit extreme but look up Agenda 21. It reminds me a bit of the Hunger Games. Glenn Beck coauthored a book on it.

One other thing: a global government would never work. And it makes me think of Revelation.

Draw your own conclusions...

[Dennis98]

They are clear forces of evil ... They didnt do anything to save victims on every side in Yugoslavian Wars .... They are doing only what Americans and West tell them ... They didnt tried to save Serbs on Kosovo during 1999 , they didnt tried do save Serbia and Montenegro during bombarding in 1999 , although Americans didnt ask UN to bombard Serbia and Montenegro ... They didnt even tried to save civilians in Srebrenica in 1995 , they just left the city , leaving civilians on mercy to the army of Republic of Srpska .... They didnt tried do save Tutsi people in Rwanda during genocide , result was One Million dead Tutsi people .... They didnt tried to save Palestine people in West Bank , although Israel army bombard them every day ... And many other examples of true "peacekeeping" in World : Kongo Crisis , Somalia Civil War , First and Second Liberian civil war and many others .... And on the end , how can someone call them "peace keepers" , after all theese examples , I still dont know ??? Just remember bombing of Yugoslavia 1999 , just remember thousands of innocent victims , remember little Marko Simic ( 2 year old Boy who died when American bombarded Novi Pazar and he died with his father hugging ) , remember Milica Rakic ( 3 year old girl , who died by American bombers in her own house , when shrapnels killed her while she was on potty chair ) , remeber Serbian passengers in train , and remember all victims , and you think that you are going to build your own luck on someone tragedy , and you still hope to better tommorow !? All theese years , me and all people from ex Yugoslavia dont know how can your pilots and politicians that were involved in bombarding of Yugoslavia can still sleep ??? If you can call them "peace keepers" , I just dont know how can WE ( no matter on differences ) call them so ?!

[Harry Smith]

.... They are doing only what Americans and West tell them ... They didnt tried to save Serbs on Kosovo during 1999 , they didnt tried do save Serbia and Montenegro during bombarding in 1999 , although Americans didnt ask UN to bombard Serbia and Montenegro ... They didnt even tried to save civilians in Srebrenica in 1995 , they just left the city , leaving civilians on mercy to the army of Republic of Srpska .... They didnt tried do save Tutsi people in Rwanda during genocide , result was One Million dead Tutsi people .... They didnt tried to save Palestine people in West Bank , although Israel army bombard them every day ... And many other examples of true "peacekeeping" in World : Kongo Crisis , Somalia Civil War , First and Second Liberian civil war and many others .... And on the end , how can someone call them "peace keepers" , after all theese examples , I still dont know ??? Just remember bombing of Yugoslavia 1999 , just remember thousands of innocent victims , remember little Marko Simic ( 2 year old Boy who died when American bombarded Novi Pazar and he died with his father hugging ) , remember Milica Rakic ( 3 year old girl , who died by American bombers in her own house , when shrapnels killed her while she was on potty chair ) , remeber Serbian passengers in train , and remember all victims , and you think that you are going to build your own luck on someone tragedy , and you still hope to better tommorow !? All theese years , me and all people from ex Yugoslavia dont know how can your pilots and politicians that were involved in bombarding of Yugoslavia can still sleep ??? If you can call them "peace keepers" , I just dont know how can WE ( no matter on differences ) call them so ?!

The UN don't follow the west otherwise they'd of given the US/UK support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Syria in 2013. Biggest myth that the UN is controlled by the west

The bombing of Yugoslavia was justified because of the genocide and other massacres being committed in Kosovo by Serbian forces-Serbian nationalists led by a war criminal who were committing ethnic cleansing and had been for the last 5 years.

We stopped a genocidal regime that was trying to wipe Kosovo off the map. Did you want us to sit back and watch another European genocide?

[Dennis98]

But than why they bombarded civilian targets , like houses and buildings ??? Marko Savic died hugging with his father in small auto tires store .. Milica died in her own house on her potty chair , Serbian civilians in train , Leaving Srebernica on mercy to the VRS , Rwanda Genocide ... You are talikng about genocide regime under Milosevic , boy , you were not born here , I lived in Milosevic times , and he was president that we will never have in future , we can just dream him ... Case Racak , hmmm .... If I remember , OVK put their dead soldiers in civilian clothes and called OEBS and others to see "genocide on Albanians" ... You say Serbian nationalists , than why are you not talking about ethnic cleaning on Kosovo 2001-2002 commited by Albanians ? There was nearly one million Serbs on Kosovo , and today there is only about 140 thousand Serbians on Kosovo , why didnt you stop that ethnic cleaning ? You stopped one genocide , but you automaticly started new one with changed sides ....

[Harry Smith]

I lived in Milosevic times , and he was president that we will never have in future , we can just dream him

Judging by the fact your 15 that means you were 3 when Milosevic left power in 2000, I'm not going to try and have a debate with someone who thinks that Milosevic was a good leader.

Do you support the murder of Kosovo Albanians?

[Dennis98]

As first , I remember Milosevic times , belive or not , I still belive when my father was coming every night with giant black bag , that was full with money ( Deutsche Marks ) .. I remeber that my father was only man who drove gray Mercedes S500 in that times in my city ... I remember good life without national tensions in my city ( my city has Muslims , Serbs and Albanians ) ... Second , Milosevic left power on October 2000 , so tehnicly that was 2001 ( nearly ) ... Today , my father has still very good salary , but he can not compare with Milosevic great times ... National tensions are bigger than ever in time of "democratic" regime , although we lived better without national tensions in my city during "nationalist" times of Milosevic ... Third , no , I do not support killing Albanians because I am muslim too , and I love and respect Albanians ... But , EYE FOR EYE , TOOTH FOR TOOTH as my people says ... God only knows why did he punished all peoples on ex Yugoslavia ...

[Stronk Serb]

Judging by the fact your 15 that means you were 3 when Milosevic left power in 2000, I'm not going to try and have a debate with someone who thinks that Milosevic was a good leader.

Do you support the murder of Kosovo Albanians?


He doesn't support the genocide. He is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of helping one side but not the other even though both are equally guilty. Operation Oluja (Storm): forceful relocation of Serbs living in Croatia. Not to mention many were killed. Srebrenica:7 the Bosniaks who were there butchered about 10,000 Serbian villagers in and near Srebrenica. That's the amount massacred by Serbs a bit later. Albanians were protesting because Milošević wanted to pass legislation so that they can't live off the state. The way he handled the violent protests was not the best way. OVK, Albanian terrorists were extracting internal organs from Serbian POWs and selling them on the black market, commiting genocide and drove the Serbs out. Like it was previously said, there were a million Serbs on Kosovo. Now it's exaggerating if I say that there are 200,000 left. Where did they go? They were killed or forced out.

[Harry Smith]

He doesn't support the genocide. He is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of helping one side but not the other even though both are equally guilty. Operation Oluja (Storm): forceful relocation of Serbs living in Croatia. Not to mention many were killed. Srebrenica:7 the Bosniaks who were there butchered about 10,000 Serbian villagers in and near Srebrenica. That's the amount massacred by Serbs a bit later. Albanians were protesting because Milošević wanted to pass legislation so that they can't live off the state. The way he handled the violent protests was not the best way. OVK, Albanian terrorists were extracting internal organs from Serbian POWs and selling them on the black market, commiting genocide and drove the Serbs out. Like it was previously said, there were a million Serbs on Kosovo. Now it's exaggerating if I say that there are 200,000 left. Where did they go? They were killed or forced out.

No-they were protesting about this, the people of Kosovo wanted independence and the Serbians sent in the Army to try and crush any form of democracy

On 26 June 1990 Serbian authorities closed the Kosovo Assembly citing special circumstances.[75] On 1 or 2 July 1990 Serbia approved the new amendments to the Constitution of Serbia in a referendum.[75][77] Also on 2 July, 114 ethnic Albanian delegates of the 180 member Kosovo Assembly declared Kosovo an independent republic within Yugoslavia.[75][73] On 5 July the Serbian Assembly dissolved the Kosovo Assembly.

About the serbs-they left. In the same way that the majority of Hindus left Pakistan for India in 1948. The Serbs moved out because they saw the Serbian tanks coming into Kosovo. There were only 194,000 odd serbians in Kosovo

According to the 1991 Yugoslavia census, there was 194,190 Serbs in Kosovo[

Around 120,000 remain in Kosovo

[Stronk Serb]

No-they were protesting about this, the people of Kosovo wanted independence and the Serbians sent in the Army to try and crush any form of democracy



About the serbs-they left. In the same way that the majority of Hindus left Pakistan for India in 1948. The Serbs moved out because they saw the Serbian tanks coming into Kosovo. There were only 194,000 odd serbians in Kosovo

Not all of the people. You forgot the Serbian minority. What about other cases I listed. The OVK warlords are ruling Kosovo now. Some dandy good work did the UN do.

[Vlerchan]

It was NATO and not the UN that bombed Serbia? (Daesus98 seems to imply the opposite above). The UN didn't interevene in that instance because there was permanent council members partaking in the strikes - Russia and China didn't even suggest it because it being vetoed was going to be the obvious outcome of a suggestion to engage, an impossible idea in itself, the NATO force.

They are clear forces of evil ...
The UN couldn't possibly interevene in Serbia.

I have no idea how their ineffectiveness as a force for good (see: West-East split) as such makes them 'evil.'

[Dennis98]

Comrade Mike - It is enough to just acept , that there was victims on all sides during war .. Not only on Serbian , there was also on Slovenian, Albanian , Croatian , Montenegrian , Bosniak ( Muslim ) , Macedonian . And you should not ever asset only your people casualities , because there was casualities on every side ... Because of my respect to the all victims , I asserted Serbian victims also , I asserted even Rwandan and Somali victims in one of my previous texts , because nationality and religion doesnt play big role , victim is still victim , no matter if it is White , Black , or American , Russian , Serbian , Bosniak , or Catholic , Orthodox , Protestant , Muslim , Hindu , Budhist or Atheist , or Rich or Poor , or Democrat , Communist , Nazi , Liberalist or Conservative - victim is still victim no matter on skin , nationality , religion , material status or political view .. God only knows why did he punished all theese innocent people ... We should just remember innocent victims during war because of respect to death people , but we should only remember , not revenge for them , because one day person that revenged someone will surely pay for that ( fucking carma xD ) , if not that person during life , than his progenies ...

[Harry Smith]

Not all of the people. You forgot the Serbian minority. What about other cases I listed. The OVK warlords are ruling Kosovo now. Some dandy good work did the UN do.

The organ theft is a black area, the UN/EU are investigating it but there's a severe lack of evidence that it was wide spread, the UN have arrested and tried dozens of Kosovo War criminals for individual cases however unlike Serbia it was from the bottom up.

They're warlords in your eyes, in the eyes of the majority of Albians in Kosovo they're freedom fighters who helped them remove a fascist dictator.

[Dennis98]

Harry Smith - I think that sources from Balkan are more accurate than Wikipedia , where you probbably look for informations .... Second , Serbian never recogonised Kosovo , so If Somali people recogonise Somaliland is that important , same as Albania recogonise same people country , or Albanians that declared indepedent Kosovo ... not whole world recogonised Kosovo ... I can declare now Bearland in Montenegro , so who carres ? Third , Albanians ethnicly cleanded Kosovo during 2001-2002 to they could settle Albanians from Albania in empty left Serbian houses , so they can have more Albanian populacy on Kosovo , so they can call referendum where there will be 90% of Albanians and so they can declare indepedency .... They planned all that actions , and they succeed in them ...

[Stronk Serb]

The organ theft is a black area, the UN/EU are investigating it but there's a severe lack of evidence that it was wide spread, the UN have arrested and tried dozens of Kosovo War criminals for individual cases however unlike Serbia it was from the bottom up.

They're warlords in your eyes, in the eyes of the majority of Albians in Kosovo they're freedom fighters who helped them remove a fascist dictator.

Well, our police arrested Milošević after rigged elections. Also Kosovo is swarming with black market activity now. Drugs, weapons... At least they could've let the northern part which was mostly Serbian join Serbia.

[Vlerchan]

I can declare now Bearland in Montenegro , so who carres ?
In general, laws are common agreement back by threat of violent force. People care about Kosovo's independence because Kosovo has the means to back it up. People don't care about Bearland's independence because Bearland doesn't have the means to back it up. It doesn't matter if you won't recognise Kosovo, because Kosovons have the bigger stick.

I think that sources from Balkan are more accurate than Wikipedia , where you probbably look for informations ....
I doubt it.

Wikipedia makes an attempt to remain impartial. Due to the tribal nature of the post-Yugoslavian sector I wouldn't imagine the same impartially is retained.

Albanians ethnicly cleanded Kosovo during 2001-2002.
Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

[Dennis98]

Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

Just type 2004 unrest on Kosovo .... As I said they planned that since start of the conflict ... And second , I will not debate any more about this , because people as you are creating image that I hate Albanians , but , generaly , I dont , because they are Muslims too , and I dont hate them , so , I love them and I support them in their intention to have indepedent country , but I just mentioned some crimes that they commited on Serbians , because as I said , for me it doesnt matter nationality , religion , material status and political view of some victims , it is sadly anyway ... But I just wanted to show that people on Balkan ( no matter which people ) can not call them "peace keepers"

[Vlerchan]

Just type 2004 unrest on Kosovo ....
Regardless of how you or the Serbian media might try frame this it was not 'ethnic cleansing' by the common definition of the term.

edit: I also did notice that you tried to change the dates around.

[anrigirl]

The UN overall does a very good job, but no countries should be able to veto.

[Dennis98]

Vlerchan - You should work on your abilities of writting and understanding .. I SAID THAT I DONT HAVE ANYTHING AGAINGST ALBANIANS , THEY ARE MY BROTHERS , BUT I JUST MENTONED SERBIAN VICTIMS BECAUSE , AS I SAID , FOR ME VICTIM RELIGION , NATIONALITY , SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL STATUS AND POLITICAL VIEW IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME , BECAUSE VICTIM IS VICTIM , AND THAT IS SAD TRUE ... My media is not Serbian , it is Montenegrian and Montenegro recogonized Kosovo as indepedent country ... Second , I dont understand what did you want to say with : " I also did notice that you tried to change the dates around." ?

[Vlerchan]

snip.
Okay. So we agree that Albanians didn't ethnically cleanse Kosovo in either 2001-2002 or 2004. Great.
" I also did notice that you tried to change the dates around." ?
You said:Deasus98: "Albanians ethnicly cleanded Kosovo during 2001-2002."But when I asked for evidence supporting this claim you changed your tune to:
Deasus98: "Just type 2004 unrest on Kosovo ...."
2001-2002 and 2004 are not the same dates.

[Dennis98]

I agree that there was not true ethnic cleaning , but they expeled Serbs from Kosovo , burnt their churches and monasteries .. When Milosevic losed on elections , they used time between his fall and constitution of new "democratic regime" to kill Serbs and to threat them , that were 2001-2002 times ... But crowning of anarchy on Kosovo were 2004 unrests ... And you should acept that we know the best on Balkan about crimes in wars and there was a lotttt crimes on every side ... So , Albanians were both victims and war criminals , as every side in war .

[Vlerchan]

but they expeled Serbs from Kosovo.
I've seen no evidence that Serbians were expelled from Kosovo [by the Kosovo government].

I do accept though that ethnic-Serbs were intimidated by ethnic-Albanians which would have been a factor in the departure of Serbs from Kosovo post-2000.

So, Albanians were both victims and war criminals , as every side in war .
Yes. I agree that Albanians also committed crimes.

I don't think there was any 'good guys' in any of the Yugoslav conflicts.

[Dennis98]

Finally , we found similar laguage to talk ... Anyway , "I've seen no evidence that Serbians were expelled from Kosovo [by the Kosovo government]." - that is biggest problem in every war , same when Hutu govenment in Rwanda hadnt any evidence of Interhamwe killings of Tutsi people in Rwanda .. Same was in Yugoslavia , Serbian govenment doesnt have evidence of Serbian crimes commited on Albanians and other nationalities , also , Albanian govenment doesnt have evidence of ther expellation and killings of Serbs ... So , crime commiting govenment never has "evidence" ... And , as my people says , "for real truth , always listen both sides , so you can find real truth" - same here ...

[Harry Smith]

Finally , we found similar laguage to talk ... Anyway , "I've seen no evidence that Serbians were expelled from Kosovo [by the Kosovo government]." - that is biggest problem in every war , same when Hutu govenment in Rwanda hadnt any evidence of Interhamwe killings of Tutsi people in Rwanda .. Same was in Yugoslavia , Serbian govenment doesnt have evidence of Serbian crimes commited on Albanians and other nationalities , also , Albanian govenment doesnt have evidence of ther expellation and killings of Serbs ... So , crime commiting govenment never has "evidence" ... And , as my people says , "for real truth , always listen both sides , so you can find real truth" - same here ...

Your wrong about Rwanda, everyone in the west thinks it about Hutu and Tutsi when in fact both of are creations of the western colonialists in the late 1800's-they don't exist. The Rwandan situation was so much more complex than just Hutu and Tusti because they didn't even exist

The serbians knew what they were doing to Albanians-heck the government ordered it

[Vlerchan]

... that is biggest problem in every war ..
But your claims relate to events that happened after the war.

... same when Hutu govenment in Rwanda hadnt any evidence of Interhamwe killings of Tutsi people in Rwanda.
I'm also pretty sure there's strong evidence backing this.

In the case of alleged population transfers by the Kosovo government there's no evidence.

Serbian govenment doesnt have evidence of Serbian crimes commited on Albanians and other nationalities.
I'm also pretty sure there's strong evidence backing this too.

In the case of alleged population transfers by the Kosovo government there's no evidence.

---

... they don't exist.
The Hutu and the Tutsi are considered distinct ethnogroups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi

Both groups also existed before colonialism.

[Dennis98]

Look dude , there are crimes that are comitted during and after war in Yugoslavia ... Second , I mean evidence like "evidence" , they have them , but they are pretend like they dont have ....

[Harry Smith]

The Hutu and the Tutsi are considered distinct ethnogroups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi

Both groups also existed before colonialism.

Much more complex than that because whilst the groups existed in name the colonists simply split the population in half and said your a Tutsi/your a hutu when in fact people owned much more loyalty to individual tribes

[Vlerchan]

Look dude , there are crimes that are comitted during and after war in Yugoslavia.
Okay. I'm not willing to discuss the crimes that there's no evidence to back.

---

Much more complex than that because whilst the groups existed in name the colonists simply split the population in half and said your a Tutsi/your a hutu when in fact people owned much more loyalty to individual tribes
I agree that the conflict between the Hutu and the Tutsi people was a result of meddling by colonial powers (read: Belgium) and was more complicated that two ethnogroups simply coming together in the same area.

I also thought the Tutsi and Hutu were individual tribes?

[Dennis98]

I also thought the Tutsi and Hutu were individual tribes? - Yes they are individual tribes with many differences .. Hutu have darker skin , bigger noses , bigger mouth and Belgians used them like slaves , while Tutsi people were "higher class people" that could participate in govenment jobs in Rwanda during Belgian , but Hutu couldnt , although there was and there is still more Hutu than Tutsi ... So , yes , they are different tribes , with many differences and different history ...

[Harry Smith]

I also thought the Tutsi and Hutu were individual tribes? - Yes they are individual tribes with many differences .. Hutu have darker skin , bigger noses , bigger mouth and Belgians used them like slaves , while Tutsi people were "higher class people" that could participate in govenment jobs in Rwanda during Belgian , but Hutu couldnt , although there was and there is still more Hutu than Tutsi ... So , yes , they are different tribes , with many differences and different history ...

Okay. I'm not willing to discuss the crimes that there's no evidence to back.

---


I agree that the conflict between the Hutu and the Tutsi people was a result of meddling by colonial powers (read: Belgium) and was more complicated that two ethnogroups simply coming together in the same area.

I also thought the Tutsi and Hutu were individual tribes?

http://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Glory-Monsters-Collapse-Africa/dp/1610391071

This book explains it really well, I don't have my copy on me now but it says how a number of tribes/groups were classed as being Tutsi despite the fact that shared no similarity. The Belgians literally said-if you're rich/landowning then your a Tutsi

The Tutsi elite were defined by their exclusive ownership of land and cattle. Hutus, however, though disenfranchised socially and politically, could shed Hutuness, or kwihutura, by accumulating wealth, and thereby rising through the social hierarchy to the status of Tutsi.

Moreover, this Belgian affirmation of the Hamitic theory provided a conceptual foundation for Tutsis and Hutus to start identifying themselves as different ethnic groups. The Belgians established a comprehensive race theory that was to dictate Rwandan society until independence: Tutsi racial superiority and Hutu oppression. The institutionalization of Tutsi and Hutu ethnic divergence was accomplished through administrative, political economic, and educational means.

[Vlerchan]

The Belgians literally said-if you're rich/landowning then your a Tutsi.
It's my understanding the the Belgians did the exact opposite.

Prior to the colonial era, Tutsis generally occupied the higher strata in the social system and the Hutus the lower. However, social mobility was possible, a Hutu who acquired a large number of cattle or other wealth could be assimilated into the Tutsi group and impoverished Tutsi would be regarded as Hutu. A clan system also functioned, with the Tutsi clan known as the Nyinginya being the most powerful. Throughout the 1800s, the Nyingiya expanded their influence by conquest and by offering protection in return for tribute.

http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/education/rwandagenocide.shtml

It was when the Belgians arrived that a rigid Tutsi-Hutu divide was made and such social mobility was brought to an end.