Mercenaries for Humanity

[Darth SS]

Yes we can.

The Abraham Lincoln brigade is from a completely different era. It was an an era that was much more defined, and that had to fully realize the evils of man. Besides, even then there was a defined allegiance and they were given a direction. They weren't an entity that sat there and had to decide what was right.


Also, this kind of group would have been useless in Rwanda.

For starters, there was no peace to keep. Next, it was nigh impossible to evacuate anyone. Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably. The fact that many people simply don't get is this;

You have ten guys with guns. Opposing them is about a thousands guys with machetes who want you dead. They will encircle you, cut you off, close in, and then hack you to pieces. They'll run away only to come back, they'll hide from you and sneak up, they'll use their dead comrades as shields. There's no good way to deal with that, short of massive armed invasion.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably.

I may be wrong, but i don't think the U.N. was even allowed to draw weapons, comparing a group that's completly tied down by the entire world with tydeus's group, whose only point is to avoid those ties that would hinder any action to help people isn't a very compelling arguement. Also, the U.N. focused on getting people uninvolved in the conflict out, not in helping the Tutsis leave. But the fact that there are far too many of them is a valid point. This would work much better in Darfur, where you need to defend a village against people trying to attack you, in Rwanda, you'd have to fight the populace, something that would be nigh impossible, unless the group would be willing to kill enormous amounts of people, and that is definitly unhelpful to any cause.

[Darth SS]

Well, it depends who you ask.

If you ask Romeo Dallaire, he says they weren't allowed to shoot ever.

If you ask Kofi Annan and other UN officials, "The ammount of military power was expanded to match the scale of conflict."

[Loki, The Fallen]

I keep thinking it over... thinking theres gotta be something wrong with that idea... but I find it hard not to like it! Of course, we shouldn't kid ourselves. Don't hide behind cute labels, what were talking about is a western terrorist group really. They have no ties, they fight for what they believe is right, they answer to noone but themselves. Highly trained, western terrorists. As much as I think we need something to fight against the over-PC-ification (or other less nice words. Think 'sounds like') of the world, the lack of people with lofty ideals fighting for whats right, this really doesn't sound like much more then that, and I'm not sure we'd like to take the chance of having another group like that running around.

Oh, and Demetrius, I'd so join Mithril if I they would let me contribute, say, as a pilot after much more training, but only if they actually had fricken Arm-Slaves with fricken Lambda Drivers on every fricken one. That would be pretty badass. And of course, that would have to be after the UN got fixed, but once that happened, how much of a need for Mithril would there be? Actually, strike that, we could always use giant fricken robots with huge fricken guns shootin' down badguys!
Sure I'm dreaming, but its those dreams that keep us from being completely bored by the monotony of life.

But back to the discussion. It sounds all well and good, but I see some problems policing it within, and stopping it from becoming corrupt, as would anyone who works as a merc. If there was a very strict code, with very strict consiquensces, it could happen.

Although you made some pretty good points with it having a strong command structure, but what happens if a part of this group goes rogue? Decides you arn't staying true enough to the code? Or, another possibility, gets more money from the other side to, say, look the other way a bit, say "they got away"?

Ah, I'm throwin a bunch of what ifs out there, but the moderately evil idealistic vigilantie-justice side of me :yarr: is rooting for you, and hopes you can stop that genocide! But the side of me who overthinks this stuff, who tends to be a bit cautious, hopes the group disbands after acomplishing that mission. :brow: Any case, good luck!

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Utterly 100% insurmountable obstacles?

- Impartiality is impossible.

Who said it was necessary? Why would I need to be impartial when dealing with the kind of people who gang-rape thirteen-year-old girls, and slaughter infants and the elderly in their homes, only because their skin is one shade darker, and they have different facial features? These peoples deserve impartiality? Why? Because we're both fighting for "moral" causes? Oh, wait, but my cause has motherfucking reason and humanity and compassion and logic and evidence and everything that makes an argument more valid than its opponent! My cause is better! Can you honestly tell me I'm no more justified to fight to defend the innocent and save lives and broker peace than someone who's comitting genocide? Can you really say that?

"- Funding would be nigh-impossible to work out."

If I have to, I will raise it myself. I will fucking go alone, if I have to. Every day, I become more convinced that this is the right thing to do, and what I am meant to do (and my convincing has come in no small part from the fact that the argument most frequently used against me here (everyone I've talked to outside this forum has thought it's a good idea, from XBL to parents to friends to teachers) is absurd and a logical paradox and promotes everything I believe is wrong with the world. If that's my opposition? So be it). I cannot live a normal life, and be happy. Do you understand this? I am pretty fucking weird, OK?

"- There's no good way to choose which is the 'right' side"

WHAT? Seriously? Fucking seriously? Fighting to stop genocide cannot be declared better than comitting it? Are you fucking serious? How can you possibly think that? It defies all logic and reason and evidence!

I've thrice demolished this argument, but let me do it again -- I guess I have to. OK, so, you believe that all ideologies are equally invalid to be forced on people, because they can't ever be proved one way or another. But, the notion that all ideologies are equally invalid to be forced on people is, itself, an ideology, and thus declares itsef invalid. So, you really can't ask anyone to follow it. Hell, you really can't ask yourself to follow it, because undoubtably there is a part of you (remember I don't believe in the unified self) that doesn't agree with that ideology, and wants to act according to other ideologies. Thus, forcing yourself to abide by the notion that all ideologies are equally invalid to force on people is, in fact, unethical, and you should stop. The argument nullifies itself, declares itself wrong! It is a paradox! Generally, arguments that are paradoxes are considered, uh, wrong.

Have I mentioned also that nothing can really be proven? Have I mentioned that laws are ideologies that cost people their lives (and life in prison is no better than death -- especially in America's horrific prison system)? Have I mentioned government forces people to do things all the time? Have I mentioned that everyone has competing impulses, so even when you're obeying "of your own free will" you're really stifling a different will, oppressing it? Have I mentioned these things?

Have I mentioned that we have reason? And logic? Have I mentioned that our ability to evaluate and decide good or bad is precisely what makes us human? For fuck's sake, even the guys who wrote Genesis knew that! Fucking what, like, 5,000+ years ago? Kind of been considered the basic tenet of humanity ever since? Heard that before?

Oh, hey, what about actions? I mean, why do anything? I mean, who's to say if living is good? Why live? There's no empiricial reason to live. In fact, there is no empirical reason to do anything! That would be antithetical to the idea of empiricism! It's not meant to suggest should or shouldn'ts, only what is. So, considering that, and considering that your act of living might hurt, hell might even kill someone else (maybe you get in a car crash? Pay taxes that are used to buy guns to kill people? Support industries in which a factory worker is killed or injured? There are so many indirect and direct links -- best to just sit in a corner and starve. It's the only morally correct solution), you should probably just stop. I mean, since you don't have any reason to do anything, since, apparently, no ideology, no idea is justifiable as an action, because maybe someone somewhere will get hurt, then I guess you'd better just quietly starve. Oh, but, wait! That might hurt your relatives! Damn! Looks like there's no way to exist in this world without hurting someone or something....Oh, wait, that's because that's true! The very nature of our psychotic little universe, with entropy, with killing necessary to living, utterly ruins our impartial support of all things good. Damn, I forgot, but nothing's good or bad. Right. Oops.

Sorry to be so tremendously sarcastic, but dear sweet shit, dude! This argument is absurd! It's basically the same argument people used to justify the tyranny of kings in the middle ages! Don't you belive in standing up for yourself? Standing up for others, who can't stand up for themselves? Doesn't that seem like a good idea?

"- There's more to modern conflict than shooting the "bad guys.""

Yeah. I knew that. What does that have to do with the FPA? Brokering peace would kind of be a big mission for the FPA. Oh, and defending other humanitarian workers, the FPA could do that, too. I keep forgetting to mention that. Anyway, uh, what was the point here? Just to be patronizing? Or was that when you called my idea a "naive sci-fi dream concocted with the idea that shooting solves everything"? Since no mod jumped all over that total flamage, let me just say I didn't appreciate it at all. I don't like being insulted and demeaned becuase you feel morally superior. Hah! Isn't irony great, kids?

"- You'd need mercenaries to join for 'non-profit.' -"

Yeah. So? Last time I checked, US soldiers don't get paid a whole lot. And, ah, last time I checked, I'd spoken with plenty of people, ex-military or just people with moral conviction and a sense of ethical duty, who are exactly the kind of people who'd be perfect for the FPA, and think it's a great idea. Are you really telling me that out of 6 billion+ people, I couldn't find 25,000 to fight for the justice of the defenseless, the oppressed, the massacred? What a sad world that would be. I may not be the most optomistic person in the world, but Christ, Darth, I'm not that gloomy.

"- If you're constantly going into the world's hotspots, you're going to lose people. You're going to lose a lot of people. -"

Really? No way! Oh, wait, was this just the patronizing again? Sorry, I forgot. No, no, it's cool. Go ahead and not-so-subtly insult my intelligence by shouting facts at me which not only are (a) obvious, but also (b) have been said already, and (c) I fucking acknlowedged. Really, I don't mind.

"- There's no way you'd have the latest state of the art technology all the time, and I get the distinct impression that a lot of your proposed solutions are just things you read in a magazine and didn't think all the way through. -"

Well, actually I don't think I read any of it in a magazine, but, whatever. You know, go ahead and treat me like an ignorant and impulsive child/redneck/hawk/Popular Science subscriber (which, btw, I don't subscribe to. Scientific American and the New Yorker for me, thanks. And Sci-Am never really has anything about weapons, really. Actually, I can't even remember the last time they mentioned that. They're usually too busy having actual researchers come write for them about real research.). That wouldn't be, like, totally rude or anything.

Have I mentioned that basically every of my nerdgasm-inducing ideas are actually practical/in place already? It's not that hard to pump someone full of HGH to turn them into a muscle-bound GoW character, or to slap on some Liquid Metal plating. We've got that already, thanks. But you know, I appreciate the constant effort to patronize me.

"You also realize that your logic is the same logic as that of a suicide bomber who hops onto the front of a Canadian Army Jeep and kills the soldiers inside. You realize that, don't you?"

Uh, no. No it isn't. False. Wrong. Incorrect.

Really?

You really can't see the differences between trying to stop genocide, and killing people because they have a different religion? Or because they support people with a different religion? You really can't fucking see the difference? Trying to broker peace by showing people that they cant' just shit over human rights willy-nilly (by use of force) is the same to you as killing because someone worships the same god as you, but in the wrong way? That's fucking absurd, right there, and I don't think anyone can argue with that. Oh, and, unlike you, Darth, when I say something negative about someone's argument, I don't just say it. I explain why it's true. I don't just say things like "naive sci-fi dream concocted with the idea that shooting solves everything" without fucking trying to justify that statement. OK? Go ahead and say negative things -- really, it's fine. That's part of debate. Call my argument absurd, ignorant, foolish, impulsive, amoral, deranged, whatever. But then explain why it is those things. That's the difference between debate and flaming.

Oh, and, logic, Darth, is precisely the fucking thing that allows us to differentiate between defending the fucking innocent and slaughtering people because their religion has a guy who wears a fancy hat, and yours doesn't. So don't pull the fucking "logic" card on me, Darth. You abandoned that privilege when you said no one can use logic to evaluate morality, ideology, humanity. You abandoned logic when you said that all ideologies, including your own, are invalid. You abandoned logic when you said that no ideology can be forced on other people. So, you don't get to fucking call logic on me, Darth. You're the one who said we aren't allowed to use it.

You know what's funny as shit? You say that all ideologies are invalid, that, essentially, no one can really claim the moral high ground, no one can ride their high horse (because that is the extension of your absolutist, indistinctive, unspecific argument, which makes no allowances, unlike mine, which does, and thus can't be carried to absurd extremes like yours -- that by the way, is why we use logic in the first place), but you've been nothing but insulting and patronizing all thread long, essentially, doing nothing but riding your high horse, trumpeting your moral superiority (which, again, is a concept you don't believe in). So, my question is, are you going to make up your mind?

[Darth SS]

- Impartiality is important. If you don't have it you start out as a vigilante group, and will eventually become nothing more than another army for a government. Maybe it's because they offer a lot of funding. Maybe it's because you've been on the same side so many times you don't question it. Maybe it's because they've saved your people and you've got a debt. Since you have no way to create a truly autonomous group, it is doomed to failed.



- The mere fact that you say you'll fund it yourself drives home how naive you are about this. You want to fund a small army. You need to give these guys enough money to pay for their mortage, to pay for their kids' braces, to pay for pizza, to pay for anything really. You also need to pay more than their own armed forces. I mean, why join this group when you can just join the army for more money? You have to pay this to everyone every single month, at least. But then, you need to buy all this high tech equipment you want. You need to pay for their training. For training facilities. You need to pay for ammunition, most of which would be expended in training. You need to maintain air power to get to and from countries. You need to pay for maintenance of that air power, maintenance of your facilities, and maintenance of your combat gear. For multiple years.

Here's numbers.

The Canadian Armed Forces employ about 92 000 personnel that accomplish all the jobs above. Less than a hundred thousand. The annual expenditure for this?

13.9 billion dollars Canadian. About 11.8 billion dollars American.

I'll assume you want maybe 900 people, total. I'll be generous and not include the cost of state of the art equipment, or the need to pay more than the normal army. So, that's about 1/100 of the Canadian Army.

That's still 139 million dollars.

A year.


Now, I'll admit. I have been slightly patronizing. However, my comment comparing you to the terrorist stands.

You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it.


Where does that line end? You kill all the genocidaires. You kill the people who organized it. You kill the people who encouraged the organizing. You kill the people who gave them reason to organize it.

Where does it stop?

At what point do you say, "Oh wait. I'm the bad guy."



You should also note I'm not the one who said all ideologies are invalid.

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that. Just by doing that, you're being illogical.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

- Impartiality is important. If you don't have it you start out as a vigilante group, and will eventually become nothing more than another army for a government. Maybe it's because they offer a lot of funding. Maybe it's because you've been on the same side so many times you don't question it. Maybe it's because they've saved your people and you've got a debt. Since you have no way to create a truly autonomous group, it is doomed to failed.

I didn't realize what you meant by "impartiality." You really could have been more specific earlier on, Darth. But, as to national impartiality, I've already explained my stance on how to maintain it.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

- The mere fact that you say you'll fund it yourself drives home how naive you are about this. You want to fund a small army.

Reply, taken from one of my previous posts: "Mainly, because the FPA would start out small. I really should have specified this -- I mean, at the beginning, as few as two dozen soldiers. Yeah, you aren't gonna stop genocide with that few soldiers, I know. However, you can protect some civilians, and you can garner a whole hell of a lot of free media attention, which you can use to funnel donations into your bank account, and people into your uniforms. "

Originally Posted by Darth SS

You need to give these guys enough money to pay for their mortage, to pay for their kids' braces, to pay for pizza, to pay for anything really. You also need to pay more than their own armed forces. I mean, why join this group when you can just join the army for more money? You have to pay this to everyone every single month, at least.

Reply, taken from three of my earlier posts: "(1)If you volunteer for the FPA, you've forgone those individualistic goals that our modern society trumpets as the only goals worth having. You've forgone that nice house in the cul-de-sac (or the gated community, or the apartment in SoHo, whatever your inclination is), the nice car to go with it, and the nice stuff to sit incide. You've even forgone the nice family to live in it with you. Of course, once you're out, you can do all that, but while you're in it? You are so much more resiliant, independant, and free. Reject society, and what can people who endorse it possibly do to punish you?

(2)Furthermore, when you sign up for a sixteen-year tour (well, between 10 and 20. I chose 16 because it was a standard Roman tour of duty), or a lifetime tour (16 is minimum), you probably don't have a family of your own (as in wife/husband and kids) at home, and if you do, you're such an irresponsible jackass that you won't by the time you get home.

(3)Well, again, non-profit. I mean, considering that the soldiers are going to be basically living with the FPA, overseas, then that means wages don't have to be very high. Say, $5,000 a year or so. After all, no need to buy food, utilities, furniture, cars, no need to pay insurance, rent, loans, or anything else. Members with families they need to support or other costs would simply apply for additional funds. Others could opt for lower wages, if they don't need the money. Again, keeping the force small reduces costs, and, really, much of the cost is at start-up, and can be controlled by limiting the hiring of new soldiers.

Donations really could cover it. I mean, look at other charitable organizations around the world! They don't require as much money to pay/supply individual workers, but they have far, far more people, and far, far more infrastucture to maintain and expand."

Originally Posted by DarthSS

But then, you need to buy all this high tech equipment you want. You need to pay for their training. For training facilities. You need to pay for ammunition, most of which would be expended in training. You need to maintain air power to get to and from countries. You need to pay for maintenance of that air power, maintenance of your facilities, and maintenance of your combat gear. For multiple years.

I refer to the first reply I made in this post (the one mentioning the initial size of the force).

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Here's numbers.

The Canadian Armed Forces employ about 92 000 personnel that accomplish all the jobs above. Less than a hundred thousand. The annual expenditure for this?

13.9 billion dollars Canadian. About 11.8 billion dollars American.

I'll assume you want maybe 900 people, total. I'll be generous and not include the cost of state of the art equipment, or the need to pay more than the normal army. So, that's about 1/100 of the Canadian Army.

That's still 139 million dollars.

A year.

"need to pay more than the normal army" -- refer above to the quote related to pay.

Further, maintainence is a bitch, but, no air-power would be purchased. Fighters really don't make a lot of sense, generally. Most anything a plane can do, a missle can do cheaper, with less fuel, no risk of pilot death or error, and a bigger payload. So, no planes. Or tanks, probably, and minimal other machinery. No, say, carriers, destroyers, fighters, helicopters, tanks, or whatever else. Armored transport vehicles, like the Strykers, sure, and Humvees of course. And, probably some kind of mobile air-defense platform, but everything to a minimum, and not until the FPA really got cookin', basically.

In many instances, bases could be chosen in neighboring countries (like in Chad, where the Chadian government is terrified that they'll be overthrown by the janjaweed as the Arab militias move into their country), to minimize overhead. Local nations who would benefit from the FPA's actions, who are not involved could be comissioned for the kind of heavy-machinery stuff, at least much of the time (again, like in Chad's case).

Since the FPA's soldiers would be pretty much overseas, all the time, transport to and from home-countries wouldn't really be an issue. Basically, really, really minimal overhead. And, for the most part, hulking plates of metal (what will undoubtably serve as much of the cost of equipping the FPA soldiers, as the stuff would be some advanced, expensive alloy (like Liquid Metal) and it may or may not need to be individually fitted) doesn't need a lot of maintainence. Yes, other stuff does, but for the most part, we could keep the level of technical sophistication low, at first anyway. Basically, guns, armor, cameras (the helmets, which would ideally encase the entire head, would feature external cameras and mics to pipe in video and audio. Should the cameras fail, there'd have to be a visor, and a shutter which could be raised or lowered, if the cameras failed), and cooling (it'd get hot in all that armor). For the most part, the soldiers could probably be trained to fix their own malfunctions (I mean, really, that makes the best tactical sense as well).

Consider also that the FPA would have far less in the way of bureaucracy, and far fewer permanent bases (if any) to maintain, and any bases would be far smaller, and located in countries with very favorable exchange rates (read: most things tend to be dirt cheap in Africa). Further, unlike national militaries, the FPA wouldn't be doing things like funding research, or doing all kind of National Guard-type stuff.

So, no, not 139 million a year. And, anyway, there are other humanitarian organizations with at least those operating costs. I mean, look at the Red Cross. The International Red Cross Comittee's 2005 budget was over $800 million US dollars, according to Wikiality.

So, even if costs were to be that high -- which, ah, they won't be, because simply taking a fraction of a national military's annual expenditures in no way is representative of the FPA's cost, given their dramatically different focuses and organization -- it'd still be more than feasible, just by donation.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Now, I'll admit. I have been slightly patronizing. However, my comment comparing you to the terrorist stands.

That was. An apology? Huh?

Originally Posted by Darth SS

You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it.

Yes, in this way, I am similar to a terrorist. So is every great leader that we consider in all of human history. Hell, the fact that a worldview like yours even exists (you know, the one that's a logical paradox, delcares itself invalid by its own nature, and rejects basically every Great Person of history as a murderous fiend) is thanks to some people fighting for freedom, for peace, for stability, for rights! Otherwise you'd still be living in your own shit in a field for some medieval lord. But, wait, instead, society progressed, thanks in no small part to people making a stand for fucking morality at the expense of others.

Let me just ask you: would it be ethical for anyone to step into Darfur? Because, after all, even if the UN went in with a (non-castrated) military, it'd still be because they thought they were morally correct. And don't pull that "well, then it's the whole world thinking it's OK" crap, becuase that's a false appeal to authority. Everyone can be wrong. Everyone has been wrong before. So, really, by your logic, ever standing up for anything is wrong. What a cheery world it would be if we all followed that "logic."

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Where does that line end? You kill all the genocidaires. You kill the people who organized it. You kill the people who encouraged the organizing. You kill the people who gave them reason to organize it.

Where does it stop?

Uh, as soon as possible. Last time I checked, there were people who fought for a moral cause who didn't try to kill everyone in the entire world (that's what you're driving at, right? Because that's exactly what it seems like). In fact, last time I checked, there were people who fought for a moral cause who stopped fighting when that cause was achieved, or it failed. Like, in Spain, or in WWII, or in the American Civil War, or in the French and American revolutions, or in the Civil Rights movement (hey, you said it's unethical to enforce morality on others, and that means the morals of equality and freedom as well, and not necessarily through violence, either), or in all the colonies' bids for freedom, in Algeria, in Vietnam, the Reds in Russia (sure, it turned out poorly, but would you classify all the poor, abused, downtrodden peasants as terrorists? I guess so! What monsters, eh?), women everywhere, anyone who every fought off an invading army ever, and so on. This is absurd. Please stop simply stating this argument over and over. Try to refute my points, hell, even acknowledge that I made them. Just stop saying the same thing over and over without providing any response to anything I said. That doesn't move the debate forward at all.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

At what point do you say, "Oh wait. I'm the bad guy."

Ideally, never, because we didn't do anything wrong. Ideally, we would stop before ever getting to that point. The goal here is to end the conflict. That means not allowing agression to happen, and then forcing both sides to broker for peace, since all their military attempts to resolve the conflict are failing anyway (thanks to the FPA shutting them down).

See, here's the crazy thing -- some ideologies are better than others. *GASP!* Yes, I know, shocking. Nazis, are, in fact, not justified to slaughter Jews, while Darfurians are in fact justified to defend themselves. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but there's this whole "reason" thing, that lets us differentiate between the two. It sounds nutty, I know, but it's true.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

You should also note I'm not the one who said all ideologies are invalid.

Yes, yes you are. "You have decided that your side is right and you have the moral authority to enforce it."

No, technically, you did not literally add at the end "and this is wrong," but you did use that statement to compare me to an Islamic fanatic/terrorist, so, I'm guessing you were saying that it's a bad thing. Just a guess, though.

Originally Posted by Darth SS

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that. Just by doing that, you're being illogical.

Well, when your post is tremendously inspecific, and you say things like "There's no good way to choose which is the "right" side," and then pretty much flat-out say that it's not OK to enforce your moral philosophies, then I think I'm OK to infer that you consider all ideologies invalid to force on others, which was actually the assertion I made.

[Fifthfiend]

You're the one who read my post, went apeshit, and decided that I must have meant that.

You are the one trying pretty hard to antagonize him into going apeshit.

Stop that, please.

Also, Tydeus - stop going apeshit.

[Tydeus]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

You are the one trying pretty hard to antagonize him into going apeshit.

Stop that, please.

Also, Tydeus - stop going apeshit.

Sorry, fifth.

You have any input on this topic? I'd really love to hear it. I always enjoy debating with you, fifth, mainly because we both agree on things like how logic can be used to determine the relative value of moral philosophies.

[adamark]

Originally Posted by Darth SS

Yes we can.

Also, this kind of group would have been useless in Rwanda.

For starters, there was no peace to keep. Next, it was nigh impossible to evacuate anyone. Third, the UN tried to do what you just described, which was essentially peacekeeping. They tried and failed miserably. The fact that many people simply don't get is this;

You have ten guys with guns. Opposing them is about a thousands guys with machetes who want you dead. They will encircle you, cut you off, close in, and then hack you to pieces. They'll run away only to come back, they'll hide from you and sneak up, they'll use their dead comrades as shields. There's no good way to deal with that, short of massive armed invasion.

Darth SS, you are making a very unrealistic and dare I say a bigotted comparison between Rwandans and evil, orc zombies. As if they acted like hordes of creatures. No. They are men, afraid of death like any man is. Also, the genocide didn't occur by hordes of thousands like a feeding frenzy. It was committed man by man, village by village. A group of 10 mercenaries with guns would be the PERFECT rescue operation. They couldn't stop the whole genocide, but they could save perhaps one village at a time. Your belief that the only way to deal with it is "massive armed invasion" is... dead wrong. Re-evaluate your stance.