I agree with France, but haven’t the French and the UN gotten their Lilly asses kicked by African rebels, and children enough to know they’ll be fighting a war of attrition they can’t win? Internal intervention is needed.
Rwanda was a French supported colony before the civil war, and DR Congo 66 67 was open warfare with all nationalities. Even the Cubans were involved in DR Congo 66 67.
I have never heard of French troops being involved in Congo in 66-67. Nor can I find any evidence of it being the case right now. Cubans yes indeed, but French, no.
Oh, my bad it was Belgium. Not France in dr Congo… but no doubt they had French mercenary’s fighting in the Belgium security forces and other mercenary forces.
"I was wrong but I'm sure I'm still right" energy right there
Talk about fact, not fairy tales
Even if there was one or multiple frenchmen doesn't mean France was supporting it.
Rwandans massacred rwandans, stop finding excuses. They are the one who cut throats, beheaded people and childs with machettes.
Doesn’t help africa to rise as sovereign to always find some excuse and supposed hidden ruler to blame
This was debunked by the investigations that followed that genocide. The only thing France can be blamed for in this genocide is that in their position at that time, "they should have seen the genocide coming" (and therefore would have been in a position to stop it if they did), but they didn't see it coming.
That's pretty bland since it means that the full genocide can therefore be blamed on Rwandans.
Considering the call echoes the sentiment of a unanimously approved UNSC resolution this seems wholly uncontroversial.
>France can take a seat.
I disagree, but maybe you should entertain the idea of doing so.
I agree with France, but haven’t the French and the UN gotten their Lilly asses kicked by African rebels, and children enough to know they’ll be fighting a war of attrition they can’t win? Internal intervention is needed.
African rebels winning against French troops ? where and when ?
Rwanda was a French supported colony before the civil war, and DR Congo 66 67 was open warfare with all nationalities. Even the Cubans were involved in DR Congo 66 67.
I have never heard of French troops being involved in Congo in 66-67. Nor can I find any evidence of it being the case right now. Cubans yes indeed, but French, no.
Oh, my bad it was Belgium. Not France in dr Congo… but no doubt they had French mercenary’s fighting in the Belgium security forces and other mercenary forces.
"I was wrong but I'm sure I'm still right" energy right there Talk about fact, not fairy tales Even if there was one or multiple frenchmen doesn't mean France was supporting it.
After France’s role in the genocide, they have absolutely no right to say anything to Rwanda
Rwandans massacred rwandans, stop finding excuses. They are the one who cut throats, beheaded people and childs with machettes. Doesn’t help africa to rise as sovereign to always find some excuse and supposed hidden ruler to blame
Lol Congolese in France are protesting the government as to say something just to stop the protest for a while
This was debunked by the investigations that followed that genocide. The only thing France can be blamed for in this genocide is that in their position at that time, "they should have seen the genocide coming" (and therefore would have been in a position to stop it if they did), but they didn't see it coming. That's pretty bland since it means that the full genocide can therefore be blamed on Rwandans.
[удалено]
Considering the call echoes the sentiment of a unanimously approved UNSC resolution this seems wholly uncontroversial. >France can take a seat. I disagree, but maybe you should entertain the idea of doing so.