NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I wonder if the wreath that Clinton puts on the memorial is hollow. I think his innactions at the time were enough to tell me what he thought of the whole ordeal. Just a sad deal that none of the world leaders of the time including Clinton didnt step in. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/23/clinton.rwanda.reut/index.html

Well, again the message to the dictators and warlords is clear: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Listen... everyone was at fault. Every damn leader, politician and nation on the face of the earth is at fault for not doing a damn thing. The corrupt Secretary General of the UN was at fault for not bringing reports of planned genocides to the UN. Every security council member was at fault for cutting peacekeeper forces and refusing to allow them to help.

But again, I have more respect for people like S.G. Koffi Annan and Ex-President Clinton who own up to some of this crap. They could easily ignore it, or claim ignorance or innocence, but instead they admit thier part and apologize. It will never change what happened, but it's still something.

To blame Clinton as the source of the problem is well somewhat ignorant. Well maybe hateful.

He is to blame for his inaction. Clinton was a poll driven President. If the Senate or Congress wanted to get involved they could have screamed about the inaction.

Fact remains Rawanda had nothing to plunder so this "disagreement" was alowed to go on.

Clinton and any Westren leader can be blamed for it.

The general in the field said all he needed was 5000 well equiped and well trained soldiers and that horror could have been avoided.

If Clinton wants to make it up to these people then he should be rallying the powers to help build that country up. Raise it from the poverty that it is. Give the people and the children a future.

That would be a worthwhile legacy.

Hmmm now I have a drink for two friends that were lost.... :(

As a Canadian, I am far more disapointed at Canada's inaction during the genocide, as we had a top General (Romeo Dalaire) in there and for that reason alone should have pledged troops to help end the genocide. Every Western leader was responsible (personally, the French, whom supplied the machetes to the people who committed the genocide and have never admitted responsibility for it, are the most responsible), so blame alone should not be placed on Clinton's shoulders.

As a Canadian, I am far more disapointed at Canada's inaction during the genocide, as we had a top General (Romeo Dalaire) in there and for that reason alone should have pledged troops to help end the genocide. Every Western leader was responsible (personally, the French, whom supplied the machetes to the people who committed the genocide and have never admitted responsibility for it, are the most responsible), so blame alone should not be placed on Clinton's shoulders.

I agree that this whole thing was a faliure on everyone's part not just one group. I have to agree with Dalaire though that the middle nations need to stop free riding.

As a Canadian, I am far more disapointed at Canada's inaction during the genocide, as we had a top General (Romeo Dalaire) in there and for that reason alone should have pledged troops to help end the genocide. Every Western leader was responsible (personally, the French, whom supplied the machetes to the people who committed the genocide and have never admitted responsibility for it, are the most responsible), so blame alone should not be placed on Clinton's shoulders.

I agree that blame goes beyond Clinton. I can't comment on Canadian involvement or lack thereof. But I can say that the French hold no blame more or less than any other nation; selling tools does not complicity make.

I agree that blame goes beyond Clinton. I can't comment on Canadian involvement or lack thereof. But I can say that the French hold no blame more or less than any other nation; selling tools does not complicity make.

The belgians were pretty bad as well. They basically made the Hutus and Tutsi's a class system favoring the Tutsi minority. They UN loses 10 peacekeepers and they cut the amount of troops from 2500 to 250. :headbang:

The reason we didn't go to Rwanda is
A.) They are black,
B.) They have no natural resource for us to exploit.

If Clinton had gone to Rwanda, the Republicans would have ate him up. Remember the things they said when he authorized the bombing campaign in the Balkans? Then they got all pissy because Democrats didn't jump in line behind the President and support Iraq, when they did the exact same thing four to seven years earlier.

If Clinton had gone to Rwanda, the Republicans would have ate him up. Remember the things they said when he authorized the bombing campaign in the Balkans? Then they got all pissy because Democrats didn't jump in line behind the President and support Iraq, when they did the exact same thing four to seven years earlier.
Mmm, hyppocricy. There would be no politics without it.

The right wing of america is just playing politics with this. Clinton doesn't intervene, he is wrong. He says he was wrong, right still bashes him. He intervene's in Balkans, right bashes him.

We could have gone into iraq, and the right would have bashed him. There is no pleasing some people.

The reason we didn't go to Rwanda is
A.) They are black,
B.) They have no natural resource for us to exploit.

If Clinton had gone to Rwanda, the Republicans would have ate him up. Remember the things they said when he authorized the bombing campaign in the Balkans? Then they got all pissy because Democrats didn't jump in line behind the President and support Iraq, when they did the exact same thing four to seven years earlier.

And what does A) have to do with it?

I like how you just throw that out there :rolleyes:

Got any proof that A had anything to do with it?

And what does A) have to do with it?

I like how you just throw that out there :rolleyes:

Got any proof that A had anything to do with it?

Werent they sending plenty of troops to Yugoslavia and were cutting the troops in Rwanda?

And what does A) have to do with it?

I like how you just throw that out there :rolleyes:

Got any proof that A had anything to do with it?

Blacks didnt get real rights until the 1960's in america. There are a large number of racists in america, though most of them are not vehemently racist, or even consider themselves as such.

Werent they sending plenty of troops to Yugoslavia and were cutting the troops in Rwanda?
That is hardly evidence for it … the two locations are hardly identical situations a number of area’s … to use the fact that one place that happened to receive the aid some think it should have and blindly attribute that to race without any supporting evidence is nothing more then an attempt to insert a rather well known debate de-railer appeal to emotion

Blacks didnt get real rights until the 1960's in america. There are a large number of racists in america, though most of them are not vehemently racist, or even consider themselves as such.
That statement is fairly true but it in no way supports the supposition that one of the main reasons we did not “intervene” is because of race

I am not trying to make a value judgement on if we were wrong or right to not intervene rather was trying to point out that point A) (that race was a major issue … a big enough one that it was the first on his/her list) had absolutely no support for it other then the fact that they happen to be black and we happened to not intervene … so far no proven link between the two

To blame Clinton as the source of the problem is well somewhat ignorant. Well maybe hateful.

He is to blame for his inaction. Clinton was a poll driven President. If the Senate or Congress wanted to get involved they could have screamed about the inaction.

Fact remains Rawanda had nothing to plunder so this "disagreement" was alowed to go on.

Clinton and any Westren leader can be blamed for it.

The general in the field said all he needed was 5000 well equiped and well trained soldiers and that horror could have been avoided.

If Clinton wants to make it up to these people then he should be rallying the powers to help build that country up. Raise it from the poverty that it is. Give the people and the children a future.

That would be a worthwhile legacy.

Hmmm now I have a drink for two friends that were lost.... :(
The argument can be made that all the work Clinton has done in the last five years as regards Africa is a way of atoning for his lack of action while in office. He'll probably never be able to undo the damage he allowed to happen, but at least he's doing something. I wonder if we'll see Bush in Iraq after he gets finished with his second term, trying to fix the mess he's made there? I wouldn't bet on it.

And what does A) have to do with it?

I like how you just throw that out there :rolleyes:

Got any proof that A had anything to do with it?

It is easy. Because the government, a predominantly white organization, sees no reason to help black Africans, because it is entirely *thier own* fault for getting that way in the first place. When was the last time we went to black Africa to help in or prevent war? Somalia, under Clinton, and he was lamblasted for it.
We have always been willing to help white people, people of 'strategic importance' (i.e. Israel, Southeast Asia, the Balkans) or people with exploitable resources (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan), but when it is a bunch of poor, black people getting killed off in a genocidal frenzy, we do nothing. It is a racist system.

Anyhow, the Human Rights Watch had this to say (italics mine): Some specialists at the State Department who had followed Rwanda for months certainly understood that a genocide had begun, even if they did not use that term. They accordingly argued for firm action. But those higher up in the department, those at the White House, and those in the military did not or would not hear them. Those at the top had little incentive to go beyond their misconceptions to understand the situation. Rwanda was small, poor, remote, and African—in their eyes, irrelevant to the “national interest” of the U.S. In addition, the officials heard no widespread outcry from the American people, a consideration of overwhelming importance for political leaders who at the time focused more on domestic than on international issues.

The link to this is here (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno15-8-01.htm#P232_66638)

That statement is fairly true but it in no way supports the supposition that one of the main reasons we did not “intervene” is because of race

I am not trying to make a value judgement on if we were wrong or right to not intervene rather was trying to point out that point A) (that race was a major issue … a big enough one that it was the first on his/her list) had absolutely no support for it other then the fact that they happen to be black and we happened to not intervene … so far no proven link between the two

Are you trying to imply that the U.S. government is not racist, and that race plays no part in where we go and who we set out to help?

As angered as I am by the fact that he wouldn't do for Rwanda what he did for the Balkans (gateway to the Black and Caspian seas), I have to give the guy credit for admitting that he didn't make the right decision. I have nothing against stopping ethnic cleansing in the Balkans region or pumping oil to Europe, but if we're going to make stopping genocide a priority (an admirable one, for sure) then I'd like to see it done where ever there is genocide. I don't know if humanitarianism for its own sake is a naive concept, but it's a good concept, even if it is.

Are you trying to imply that the U.S. government is not racist, and that race plays no part in where we go and who we set out to help?

Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. We invade countries based on their strategic importance to our country and maybe to that of our closest allies (Our strategic interests probably don't vary too much from those of our close allies. That's why they're our allies.). If Rwanda was sitting on a vast pool of oil and that oil was in the hands of the Tutsi tribe then you can bet your ass we'd have been over there.

The social services sector of the American government is predominately non-white. They are the ones that run our social systems. So to suggest institutional racism is a misnomer truly. Now the true reasons that may lie behind the lack of help in Rawanda might be Somalia. As the article suggests the US pulled out of Somalia 6 months prior. Maybe because Clinton didnt know how to handle that correctly he didnt want to jump into Rawanda. But with that said I feel he does bear some responsiblity for not doing anything as do the rest of the Westren powers that could have done something. But then again the true blame lies on the ones that did the crime.

While I believe that the US should've forcefully intervened in both Rwanda and the Balkans, most people at the time considered the Balkans a serious threat and destabilizing force, while Rwanda was just "venting steam." (Violence flared in Rwanda on many occassions...and few would think such a genocide possible in so short a time in such an unadvanced nation)

How can the government be racist if it tried to help in Somolia? clinton obviously didnt want more american dead bodies for a useless cause in central africa after the shit storm he got for the dead bodies on the horn of africa...

You all think its an easy mission of just handing out food and stuff for these people it isnt, that was a civil war, one the US would have to take a side on of which both sides were murderers, and as such the world would chastize the americans for being imperalists or some stupid shit like they do now, basically damned if you do damned if you dont.