NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, or no. Discuss your point.

Yes, but since it happened right after Somalia the political will wasn't there. Politicians decided that since a humanitarian intervention in Somalia turned into a battle between a little over a hundred US troops and a whole city that invervening again in Africa would be a bad idea.

Absolutely. That kind of genocide is mortally wrong and in violation of all of the standards of human rights espoused by the world's free nations. As the world's superpower and one of the members of the UN, we should have done whatever was necessary to avert that bloodshed, in the name of all that America stands for. The same goes with the Sudan.

Yes, but knowing how people are today, there would be probably be thousands of protestors on the streets screaming

"NO BLOOD FOR OIL!"

when we probably lose 100 U.S. Soldiers, to save 800,000 Rwandans from Genocide, they'll still probably be screaming that.

Now, if we had permission to send the tanks in, things would work out...

We Russians? No.

No money.

Yes. Duh.
Do you really expect people to say no?

Yes, or no. Discuss your point.

1. Define we.

2. Why aren't "we" intervening in Darfur?

Rwanda was then but Dafur is now. I guess "we" did not take a lesson from history. :(

No. It would be another example of American Imperialism. Mind you, this situation was caused by american interference in african affairs.

Absolutely. And we (defined here as the entire Western world) should be doing something about Darfur now. The troops aren't available for military intervention, but there are other ways to help.

America's one saving grace in the Rwandan situation was that it wasn't actively making things worse like France was.

Mind you, this situation was caused by american interference in african affairs.

That's not exactly the history of the Rwandan genocide that I'm familiar with. Mind explaining?

Who is 'we'?

I say no. I don't see why the U.S. has to police the entire world. There are plenty of hardships in America that go unaddressed every day and until everybody in our country is safe and well fed why should we spend money ona problem that we had nothign to do with. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for what happended there in 1994 but it was nto our fault.

That's not exactly the history of the Rwandan genocide that I'm familiar with. Mind explaining?


One of the main contributing factors of all unrest and revolution in Africa was due to the posturing by both America and the USSR during the cold war.

One of the main contributing factors of all unrest and revolution in Africa was due to the posturing by both America and the USSR during the cold war.

Parts of Africa, yes, but said posturing really had little to do with ethnic violence in Rwanda.

One of the main contributing factors of all unrest and revolution in Africa was due to the posturing by both America and the USSR during the cold war.
The genocide happened because of artificial borders drawn by European collonizers who lumped ethnic groups that had long standing conflicts together in one nation. America has had little involvement in Africa compared to European nations.

I say no. I don't see why the U.S. has to police the entire world. There are plenty of hardships in America that go unaddressed every day and until everybody in our country is safe and well fed why should we spend money ona problem that we had nothign to do with. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for what happended there in 1994 but it was nto our fault.
I agree that the hardships in America should be solved but there is nothing like the scale of 800,000 people getting killed within a year. That sort of problem makes America look perfect by comparison.

America has made committments to the cause of human rights, in the form of the United Nations, and the Truman Doctrine also requires America to defend people from violent minorities throughout the world.

Absolutely we should have intervened. I agree with Serapindal, we didn't have a right NOT to go in - even if it would kill our own troops, it would save maybe millions of Rwandans. Saying that we shouldn't go in because it would endanger our own troops or is not in line with our interests is tantamount to racism.

Yes, racism. I do not throw that label around lightly - in fact, I've never used it on this forum. It's racism because it is suggesting that our countrymens' lives are more important than foreigners' lives.

Events like Rwanda and Darfur will do for the UN what Manchuria and Abyssinia did for the League.

I say no. I don't see why the U.S. has to police the entire world. There are plenty of hardships in America that go unaddressed every day and until everybody in our country is safe and well fed why should we spend money ona problem that we had nothign to do with. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for what happended there in 1994 but it was nto our fault.

Genocide Convention of 1948.

I say no. I don't see why the U.S. has to police the entire world. There are plenty of hardships in America that go unaddressed every day and until everybody in our country is safe and well fed why should we spend money ona problem that we had nothign to do with. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for what happended there in 1994 but it was nto our fault.

I tend to agree. As far as I can tell Rwanda was, and still is, fairly inconsequential as far as American interests are concerned. I'll be the first to say that a genocide of that size, or any size, really, is a tragedy. But why should we risk our soldiers lives for the sake of, for the intents and purposes of our military, an inconsequential country? When those men and women enlist they put their lives in the hands of the government and they expect to be used for a cause that will benefit Americans (I'm pretty sure most people that join the military have the interests of everyone they know and care for in mind). I'd like to be politically correct and say that humanism prevails and that, as humans, the safety of the Rwandans was a priority for every person, but that's not really how I feel. 100 American soldiers are more importaint to me then all those that were killed in Rwanda because those 100 soldiers would give their lives to protect guys like me. I doubt many people in Rwanda would have done the same. I wouldn't have felt any more protected if we had intervened in Rwanda.

Of course, if the solders themselves were in favor of it then I would have supported an intervention. It's their lives on the line so it's their prerogative, I say. The monetary cost wouldn't be an issue.

and the Truman Doctrine also requires America to defend people from violent minorities throughout the world.

Only if those minorities are planning to overtake the current (representative) government and replace it with a totalitarian government. Specifically, Communist. We didn't have a problem with right wing totalitarian governments in South America. In any case, the Hutus were the majority in the country and the Tutsis eventually regained control of Rwanda after the genocide.

I'm going to say no. Call me heartless but if we wanted to concern ourselves with every international wrongdoing, we'd never get anything done. Lately our country has been cozying up to the idea that it has an even [i]greater responsibility to other countries' citizens than its own, which is something that exasperates me to no end.

Bear in mind I'm not condoning the actions of these folks, but rather I'm merely pointing out that it was a relatively small-scale occurance in the grand scheme of things. America is not obligated to solve everyone elses problems merely because we happen to have more money/tanks/guns/people/power or any other variable than anyone else.

People die. People kill other people for little or no reason, and this will continue regardless of whether or not we intervene every time it happens.

EDIT: And the Truman Doctrine can kiss my foot: it's one of the many useless pieces of legislation I'd like to clean my ass with.

Yes :(

But why should we risk our soldiers lives for the sake of, for the intents and purposes of our military, an inconsequential country? When those men and women enlist they put their lives in the hands of the government and they expect to be used for a cause that will benefit Americans (I'm pretty sure most people that join the military have the interests of everyone they know and care for in mind). I'd like to be politically correct and say that humanism prevails and that, as humans, the safety of the Rwandans was a priority for every person, but that's not really how I feel. 100 American soldiers are more importaint to me then all those that were killed in Rwanda because those 100 soldiers would give their lives to protect guys like me.
Again, this is the real problem: people just are not willing to help each other. Call me idealistic, but if people helped each other (not just the UN by the way, the whole world), the world would be better. And if wishes were fishes, we wouldn't have treaties on cod.

It was the fact that people were not willing to do anything that encouraged leaders like Mussolini and Hitl-*snip* (must not invoke Godwin's Law!).

Why exactly are American soldiers (or British soldiers, or any soldiers for that matter) more important than Rwandans? Of course they are supposed to protect "people like you" and people like me - people like you meaning people born in the right country? (I'm not accusing you of racism or anything, please don't misinterpret me)

"We" should decide on a policy as to when we intervene and when we don't, and stick to it. "We" went to Iraq. "We" helped them set up a democratic government. And yet at the same time, Zimbabwe was in a much, much worse situation. "We" went to Iraq to sort out weapons of mass destruction. What about Korea's nuclear program? What about the US's nuclear program? What about Porton Down in the UK? Sure, it would be nice if "we" could sort out all these problems, but it will never happen, so there should be a way of deciding what needs sorting and what should be left alone.

I say yes. Ater the Holocaust, we said "never again." Than we let it happen again. :(

Yes, or no. Discuss your point.

It's weird. We (the U.S.) get blamed when we DO intervene (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) and blamed when we don't (Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia). People just like to blame the U.S. regardless, I guess

Again, this is the real problem: people just are not willing to help each other. Call me idealistic, but if people helped each other (not just the UN by the way, the whole world), the world would be better. And if wishes were fishes, we wouldn't have treaties on cod.

It's a viscious cycle, isn't it? We probably could do something about it, but selfishness will prevail.

Why exactly are American soldiers (or British soldiers, or any soldiers for that matter) more important than Rwandans? Of course they are supposed to protect "people like you" and people like me - people like you meaning people born in the right country? (I'm not accusing you of racism or anything, please don't misinterpret me)

You answered your own question. The soldiers protect 'people like me'. Therefore, I feel gratitude toward them that puts them a notch above a Rwandan. I don't care if they don't know me personally or if they only do it because I happen to live in this country. I'm sure there are soldiers that wouldn't like me personally, but they'd still be out there fighting for their country and me by association.

It's weird. We (the U.S.) get blamed when we DO intervene (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) and blamed when we don't (Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia). People just like to blame the U.S. regardless, I guess
oh phleeeeese. U.S U.S U.S People blame the whole world for not intervening in those countries. Maybe you just haven't noticed?

Again, this is the real problem: people just are not willing to help each other. Call me idealistic, but if people helped each other (not just the UN by the way, the whole world), the world would be better. And if wishes were fishes, we wouldn't have treaties on cod.
What about a world where people help themselves? Why is it that so few people are prepared to trust the individual to solve his own set of problems?

People help other people when and if the person being helped embodies material values shared by the helper [and that's the way it should be]; anything else is unearned love, which is something of a contradiction if you ask me. You can't just turn around and say to me that 'All people deserve happiness' and then denounce Original Sin in the next breath since the two concepts are basically the same thing, only with different messages [i.e. 'All people are inherently bad and need to repent at some point' versus 'All people are inherently good and deserve you/my/his/her help']. Any ideology that preaches this doctrine in any variant is doomed: to doom humanity is to doom yourself. To secularize a mistake doesn't make it any less of a mistake.

I said yes because the Children need some direction and i can do that.

If these Gumby's need help we should give it but not just help we should get them off their knees and if they dont like it tough.

They cant sort themselves out then we should do it.

oh phleeeeese. U.S U.S U.S People blame the whole world for not intervening in those countries. Maybe you just haven't noticed?

But who else really had the capibility to do anything about it? The U.S. tried to intervene, on humanitarian grounds, in Somalia and got burned for it. Regardless of what some people think, we try not to make the same mistake twice.

Yes, but since it happened right after Somalia the political will wasn't there. Politicians decided that since a humanitarian intervention in Somalia turned into a battle between a little over a hundred US troops and a whole city that invervening again in Africa would be a bad idea.

Yeah. I just read about it. Somalia was really just made into a quagmire because of the UN and peacekeeping nations trying to get away before the right time.

I tend to agree. As far as I can tell Rwanda was, and still is, fairly inconsequential as far as American interests are concerned. I'll be the first to say that a genocide of that size, or any size, really, is a tragedy. But why should we risk our soldiers lives for the sake of, for the intents and purposes of our military, an inconsequential country?

So the problem is that Rwanda has no resources, only black people?

I think there should have definately been an intervention. I'm not the kind of guy who likes it when the Americans intervene, but to me there are two scenarios which require intervention:

1. A nation invading another soverign nation
2. Genocide

But who else really had the capibility to do anything about it? The U.S. tried to intervene, on humanitarian grounds, in Somalia and got burned for it. Regardless of what some people think, we try not to make the same mistake twice.
Many countries and especially many countries together. But no one was willing. It's not like any other country wouldn't have the resources, they just don't want to use them.

oh phleeeeese. U.S U.S U.S People blame the whole world for not intervening in those countries. Maybe you just haven't noticed?

Yes, some do, but even they accept part of the blame rather than finding yet another angle to attack Americans from without accepting an iota of responsibility. Personally, I will never ever again support intervening on anyone's behalf under any circumstance again. May the world get what it so richly deserves.

It's weird. We (the U.S.) get blamed when we DO intervene (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) and blamed when we don't (Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia). People just like to blame the U.S. regardless, I guess
Basically, I'd agree with you for the most part (save that the entire world was blamed for not helping the Rwandans).

Anyone condemning the US for invading Iraq (that'd be me) who'd also shake their finger at America for not intervening in other countries with gross violations of basic human rights (so not me) is part of the problem, not the cure. We're either part of the "World Police" or we aren't. It's not a half-ass situation. I think it's clear-cut.

It's even more offensive when we only intervene in situations that could affect our own self-interests (Iraqi oil), and ignore worse violations in countries that don't have much to offer us in fiscal terms.
Either we stop interfering in other nation's problems altogether, or we start cleaning up these cesspools one-at-a-time, with a clearcut agenda to do so.

One of the main contributing factors of all unrest and revolution in Africa was due to the posturing by both America and the USSR during the cold war.

Wrong, the belgiums caused the rift, the french provided the weapons, and orcastrated the war, and trained the troops, f**king french, theyd do anything for money.

What about a world where people help themselves?

As a libertarian, I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, but the fact is that the international system is not that world, legally at least. The U.S., and many other countries, had a treaty obligation to intervene in genocide wherever it occurred, and they did not.

Alright, this can all be fixed with a larger "defense" budget. We should intervene in EVERYTHING, and after we're done intervening, we should annex the place! And if any other countries complain, we'll just have our millitary glare at them. If another superpower invades a soveriegn nation, WE SHOULD JOIN IN, and get some land for ourselves!

It will be a great day in society when all the world superpowers can unite, by ganging up on the little weaker nations.

No. It would be another example of American Imperialism. Mind you, this situation was caused by american interference in african affairs.

What the hell? SAving people from genpcide isnt imperalism...
Everyone should have intervened... as we should have in Dafur.

Events like Rwanda and Darfur will do for the UN what Manchuria and Abyssinia did for the League.

Exactly. And we all know what happened next.. well we should but as this forum and many others show, a lot of people know about shit all

I tend to agree. As far as I can tell Rwanda was, and still is, fairly inconsequential as far as American interests are concerned.

For crying out loud it isnt about American or anyone elses nations interests... its about hummanitys interests. This should have had a response from the entire world... the US seems to forget that there are other people out there... as usual.

So the problem is that Rwanda has no resources, only black people?

Rwanda does have resources. Just not any that were essential to the United States at the time. From the State Department (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2861.htm) we see that this is true.

American business interest in Rwanda, other than in tea and telecommunications, is weak...

The fact that Rwanda happens to be populated by black people is irrelevent and only goes to show that you're trying to prove your point by calling me a racist. People are a resource if you have a significant amount of American companies with factories, offices, and stores in a country. Not a resource in the traditional sense, but they are importaint to a business.

The United States was getting no essential resources from Rwanda and we had little in the way of business there. Therefore, the only reason that we would have had to go in was for the sake of stopping genocide. I've already given my opinion on that.

For crying out loud it isnt about American or anyone elses nations interests... its about hummanitys interests. This should have had a response from the entire world... the US seems to forget that there are other people out there... as usual.

Why do we have to take care of humanity's interests? Why can't the humanity in Africa solve their own damn problem? If a civil war broke out in the United States I assure you that Rwanda would not send their military over here to protect us (I'm assuming that they would have a significant military force and the means to get them to our country). It would be our problem and the problem of people that depend on Americans buying their goods.

It's weird. We (the U.S.) get blamed when we DO intervene (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, etc.) and blamed when we don't (Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia). People just like to blame the U.S. regardless, I guess

AHHHHH HOW BLOODY STUPID ARE YOU? Afganistan and Iraq were not interventions they were invasions justified by the so called war on terror. There was no great call frlom the international community for either. As for Kuwait... odd that it happens to be sitting on so much oil which was being sold for less than what Iraq wanted to sell thier oil for becuase they were broke after fighting a war which the US encouraged with Iran...

Its funny you know... I keep epexcting epople from the US to understand that that we doesn't only mean the US... it does mean the international community. You dont have to take the burden alone... not that you really do take any of the burden anyway.

On another note... A lot of you seem to suggest that the loss of US lives isnt worth it. Well then why did you allow BUsh back into office after he has wasted 1800 US lives in Iraq and wounded thousands more. All for the sake of an undefined purpose. (No WMDs were not the reason otherwise it would have been North Korea, Libya and Iran on the hit list).

No... I'm against intervening in other countries with our military unless said country is threatening the United States. After all, that's what the military is supposed to be there for. I'm against the war in Iraq, too, while we're on the topic.

If you are one of the people who say, 'Well it's worth losing a few US troops to go fix problems in country X', then you need to ask yourself if you, personally, would be willing to grab a rifle, go over there and get your head blown off to help fix the aforementioned problem. And if you wouldn't, then why expect others to be so self-sacrificing?

Thing is, we don't use our military consistently. If we're in Iraq because of human rights then we absolutely should have been in Rwanda. But we're not in Iraq for that, and as long as people here try to self-righteously insist that we are then we have no answer for why we aren't intervening in other places too. :(

Going back to the topic, what would we have done anyway? Shot a bunch of people? Taken in 1,000,000 Rwandan refugees? Created a country using artificial borders (which is the type of thing which caused a lot of the problems in Africa in the first place)?

Melkor, that was an awesome post BTW.

Why do we have to take care of humanity's interests? Why can't the humanity in Africa solve their own damn problem? If a civil war broke out in the United States I assure you that Rwanda would not send their military over here to protect us (I'm assuming that they would have a significant military force and the means to get them to our country). It would be our problem and the problem of people that depend on Americans buying their goods.

HAve you ever heard of leading by example? You dont do evil becuase someone else does you or you think they will. You should do good becuases its good. Secondly Rwanda does not have anywhere near the ability to interfer in anyones elses buisness. Besides it wasnt the civil war itself that was the problem it was genocide.

*Sigh* This is endemic of why the world is so stuffed. Everyone acts likes selfsih children as the playground burns to the ground around them. GROW UP WORLD, GROW UP HUMMANITY (no that does not mean the US... the US does not constitute hummanity, i am talking about everyone)

We all as human beings need to see that the world is only going to imporve when we start acting like responsible membersw of a community

Wrong, the belgiums caused the rift, the french provided the weapons, and orcastrated the war, and trained the troops, f**king french, theyd do anything for money.

True but the US doesnt have the right to beat up on the French... after all they gave chemical and biological weapons to Saddam, trained the Taliban, invaded a few Latin American countries etc etc...

On another note... A lot of you seem to suggest that the loss of US lives isnt worth it. Well then why did you allow BUsh back into office after he has wasted 1800 US lives in Iraq and wounded thousands more. All for the sake of an undefined purpose. (No WMDs were not the reason otherwise it would have been North Korea, Libya and Iran on the hit list).

Not all of us voted for Bush as you may be aware... and not all of us here support the war on Iraq either.

I don't think the loss of US lives is worth it in either case, unless those US people specifically volunteer to go over there and help.

I'm going to say no. *snip*
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. America, nor any other country is obligated to help any other country (well, except when treaties come in, but thats a whole other story). But while we are not obligated, that doesn't mean we shouldn't. In my opinion, the vast majority of problems (civil war, wars between 2 countries that doesn't impact the US, that sorta thing we by all means should allow people to handle themselves. But I personally cannot stand by a country that would watch as people are murdered because of their last name and do nothing. While a general civil war would involve two armed sides, a genocide involves one armed side and one side that is going to be eradicated for no reason. I think genocide is one of the few times the US should step up (along with all other nations) and say this is not right, and do something about it.

It is true that Rwanda was a relatively small example, but genocide is still genocide. Inquisition Spain was wrong. Nazi Germany was wrong. Cambodia was wrong. Stalinist Russia was wrong, and Rwanda was wrong (among many others) Numbers cease to matter in some cases. If one day America began to comit genocide against any group, and that group and their sympathizers couldn't stop it, I sure as hell would hope some nation would stand up and do something.

Allow me to be the devil's advocate for a minute.

AHHHHH HOW BLOODY STUPID ARE YOU? Afganistan and Iraq were not interventions they were invasions justified by the so called war on terror.

Human rights abuses are suddenly not enough of a cause to invade a country anymore?

As for Kuwait... odd that it happens to be sitting on so much oil which was being sold for less than what Iraq wanted to sell thier oil for becuase they were broke after fighting a war which the US encouraged with Iran...

And Iraq solved their problem by taking over Kuwait. Iraq would have taken over Saudi Arabia if international troops didn't start arriving when they did. So it's ok for Iraq to take over countrys when ever it wants to?

Its funny you know... I keep epexcting epople from the US to understand that that we doesn't only mean the US... it does mean the international community. You dont have to take the burden alone... not that you really do take any of the burden anyway.

We did take on a burden in the above situations. We did it because our interests were at stake.

On another note... A lot of you seem to suggest that the loss of US lives isnt worth it. Well then why did you allow BUsh back into office after he has wasted 1800 US lives in Iraq and wounded thousands more. All for the sake of an undefined purpose. (No WMDs were not the reason otherwise it would have been North Korea, Libya and Iran on the hit list).

We now have a new source of oil that will hold us over until we can make a transition to a new source of energy. Our lives revolve around energy.

That does feel a bit cold when I say it like that, but that's what the foreign policy is. Does that make it right? I'm not sure. Oil is a great thing to have right now, that's for sure. It'll sure be nice when we aren't dependent on it any more (cross your fingers).

Of course, the thing is, almost all the countries of the world (That is, most of the allied countries from WWII) should have intervened. This is not based on any moral or ethical standpoint (although I would argue that on moral and ethical levels all the nations of the world should have intervened, but that's just my opinion) but is based on keeping to one's word.

After WWII, and learning about Hitler's targeting and exterminating of over a million jews, homosexuals, and other indaviduals who were not in his Third Reich, the world at lage (especially almost all members of the allied nations) cried out in one voice and said, "Never again will we let genocide ocur!"

Then Rwanda happened. Nothing. No why didn't we? Because it cost too much. But that's irrelevant, as my point is at least the U.S. (I am unsure about all other countries, so I won't point any fingers) said "NEVER AGAIN!" and when Rwanda happened, they just denied that it was genocide until after the first few days, after which hundreds of thousands were already dead. Then they just shipped their citizens out of harm's way.

Of course, this has been a repeating pattern. In the DRC, there was genocide. But the fact that the rebels kept on stealing cobalt and coltan and selling it to the U.S., made us say, "Aw, what a shame. But I don't want to give up my cell phone..." Just because Coltan was used in Cell Phones (well, not only because, but that and the fact that when the U.S. tried to intervene in a lesser conflict they got beaten pretty badly to no avail combined to form the same result) the U.S. didn't intervene.

And now in Darfur, we don't intervene because what it boils down to is there isn't enough agracultaral land for the nomands and the farmers. So the nomads come in and kill the farmers. The costs to start reforesting the edges of the Saraha to push it back would be very long term, and the cost to support all those people and keep them from killing/being killed would be so costly that it's just not economical. That's one of my main arguments against capitalism, but then again, after an extensive debate I've narrowed down the choise of communism/socialism/capitalism down to core values, and it appears I'm just a deviant in todays society.

Whoops. Got sidetracked a bit there. Anyway, just to re-pharse my thesus and finish the essay format, we should have intevened (at least) because we said we would.

HAve you ever heard of leading by example? You dont do evil becuase someone else does you or you think they will. You should do good becuases its good.

First, I'm not so sure that it was evil that we did not do anything to help the victims of the genocide. I am, however, pretty sure the killers were more evil then we were.

Second, there is already a pan-African organization of African nations that is designed to look out for Africa's interests. They had the military might to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Why didn't they do it?

Secondly Rwanda does not have anywhere near the ability to interfer in anyones elses buisness. Besides it wasnt the civil war itself that was the problem it was genocide.

It was a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying that Rwanda actually has the ability to stop a civil war in the United States

Now, the civil war wasn't a problem, but the genocide was? At what point is killing no longer acceptable? What is the number of civilian deaths that must occur before the civil war becomes unacceptable to us? Would one death less then that number be fully acceptable?

Maybe the issue is that it was an organized killing. Would an unorganized killing of those people have been more tolerable to the world then what did happen?

*Sigh* This is endemic of why the world is so fucked. Everyone acts likes selfsih children as the playground burns to the ground around them. GROW UP WORLD, GROW UP HUMMANITY (no that does not mean the US... the US does not constitute hummanity, i am talking about everyone)

Soldiers that are to be used to protect the United States getting killed by Hutu militants and children in a playground are uncomparable.

Let me clarify. If there would have been popular support from the public and full support from the military then I wouldn't have had a problem with intervention. Our 'interests' are what ever we decide they are. Resources and business are generally thought of as important enough to us to warrent military action in their protection, but if there is enough opposition to said military action then those resources and businesses suddenly aren't important anymore. Just the same, if enough people really want to solve Africa's problems then we can solve their problems. But the support has to be there.

Human rights abuses are suddenly not enough of a cause to invade a country anymore?

I didnt say that. But Iraq wasnt over human rights although Bush played that up


And Iraq solved their problem by taking over Kuwait. Iraq would have taken over Saudi Arabia if international troops didn't start arriving when they did. So it's ok for Iraq to take over countrys when ever it wants to?


No Iraq was not going to invade Saudi Arabia and it only invaded Kuwait becuase it thought the US would let it go. Not that I agree with what Iraq did. This was the one of the only cases were the world has united in the right way... even if it was for the wrong reasons.


We did take on a burden in the above situations. We did it because our interests were at stake.


I know. And if you are able to say it honestly then I dotn have a problem.. aside from the ethical ones. What I object to is people using those examples to show how great the US is and going on about how the world brings them down when they were only trying to help. If people say "it was for our interests" straight out I am not going to attack them.


We now have a new source of oil that will hold us over until we can make a transition to a new source of energy. Our lives revolve around energy.


I dont disagree.


That does feel a bit cold when I say it like that, but that's what the foreign policy is. Does that make it right? I'm not sure. Oil is a great thing to have right now, that's for sure. It'll sure be nice when we aren't dependent on it any more (cross your fingers).

Once more I agree.

BUT these were not the points I was arguing on. I was arguing that the US and everyone else has to start acting in hummanities interests if they want the world to improve.

I was also annoyed with the way people use Iraq etc to say that the US does try to help the world but people keep on attacking it anyway.

I agree wth what US foriegn policy is but I still believe people should start acting in a more co-operative way and get over the ethno-centricity that is part of the propoganda of the nation state system.

No Iraq was not going to invade Saudi Arabia and it only invaded Kuwait becuase it thought the US would let it go. Not that I agree with what Iraq did. This was the one of the only cases were the world has united in the right way... even if it was for the wrong reasons.

Iraq never actually did it so I suppose it'll be up for debate for all time.

BUT these were not the points I was arguing on. I was arguing that the US and everyone else has to start acting in hummanities interests if they want the world to improve.

It's the classic conflict between long term benefits and short term benefits. People love to say 'Think of the children', but it turns out that in many situations, the better the long term benefits of a decision are, the worse the short term benefits are. Yes, we could probably raise the standard of living to an acceptable level (by western standards) if we really put our minds to it, but I'm not so sure that most people are that selfless. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but it'd inevitably require military action and I'm not sure if solders would feel that their own life is more important to them them humanity's future. 10,000 years of human history have shown us that we tend to look out for ourselves and our families first, as I believe someone said earlier.

That's the situation. We already know what the best answer (I considered saying 'ideal answer', but I'm fairly sure that the solutions to the world's problems would be a bit more feasible then that implies) is to humanity's problems. Now how do we reconcile the two?

First, I'm not so sure that it was evil that we did not do anything to help the victims of the genocide. I am, however, pretty sure the killers were more evil then we were.

Yes they were more evil. But standing back and watching the innocent die is still evil. Once more I say this to the entire world just not the US.


Second, there is already a pan-African organization of African nations that is designed to look out for Africa's interests. They had the military might to stop the genocide in Rwanda. Why didn't they do it?

Lets be honest here. Africa is a hole. Most countries struggle to remain a coherrent state let alone consider international action



It was a hypothetical situation. I'm not saying that Rwanda actually has the ability to stop a civil war in the United States.

But does two wrongs make a right?


Now, the civil war wasn't a problem, but the genocide was? At what point is killing no longer acceptable? What is the number of civilian deaths that must occur before the civil war becomes unacceptable to us? Would one death less then that number be fully acceptable?

A civil war is bad but if it is kept a confilict between willing armed groups and civillians are not dilberately targeted it is not a problem. We have let many conflicts slide by without to much of a ethical hiccup but this was deliberate genocide.


Maybe the issue is that it was an organized killing. Would an unorganized killing of those people have been more tolerable to the world then what did happen?


It is hard to imagine a million deaths accidently.


Soldiers that are to be used to protect the United States getting killed by Hutu militants and children in a playground are uncomparable.

Note that i call on the world not just the US. All member nations of the UN have signed treaties and agreements that would suggest they are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the world. Why bother to be part of the UN if you dont agree with its values or dotn want to support them?


Let me clarify. If there would have been popular support from the public and full support from the military then I wouldn't have had a problem with intervention. Our 'interests' are what ever we decide they are. Resources and business are generally thought of as important enough to us to warrent military action in their protection, but if there is enough opposition to said military action then those resources and businesses suddenly aren't important anymore. Just the same, if enough people really want to solve Africa's problems then we can solve their problems. But the support has to be there.

True but the US is a member nation of the UN and so my above argument applies. Furthermore the US often uses the values of the UN to justify thier actions and thereby puts itself in a position that requires them to act in line with thier own reasoning.

Can I ask if you follow the realist school of thought on IR? If so do you support Bush because a lot of his critics are actually conservative realists.

On another note I dont ebelieve the recent invasion fo Iraq was about oil. The US has the ecconmic might to get what it needs. I believe it was an extention of a policy that believed if a freindly democratic regime could be installed in a trouble area the US would be able to exert more influence over the area and thus save themselves trouble in the long run and secure valuable recources as well

I wouldn't have done a thing.

Africa, by in large, is a basket case, money has been thrown at them year after year after year; they've never been able to get their shit together - let them stew in their own juices - whipe off the debt, and simply close all contacts, economic, travel etc etc don't let them borrown any money, and cut off contact.

Let these countries beat the crap out of each other, and eventually they'll get their shit together - or eliminate each other, what ever happens, I don't want to see another cent wasted on them.

It's the classic conflict between long term benefits and short term benefits. People love to say 'Think of the children', but it turns out that in many situations, the better the long term benefits of a decision are, the worse the short term benefits are. Yes, we could probably raise the standard of living to an acceptable level (by western standards) if we really put our minds to it, but I'm not so sure that most people are that selfless. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but it'd inevitably require military action and I'm not sure if solders would feel that their own life is more important to them them humanity's future. 10,000 years of human history have shown us that we tend to look out for ourselves and our families first, as I believe someone said earlier.

That's the situation. We already know what the best answer (I considered saying 'ideal answer', but I'm fairly sure that the solutions to the world's problems would be a bit more feasible then that implies) is to humanity's problems. Now how do we reconcile the two?

I agree entirely with your points and will admit that we probably will continue this pattern of behaviour.

To be honest I only started posting so angrily becaude a lot of the posts suggest that most people are still stuck in the mind set of "My nation is better than yours nanananna" and rather than offer debate just post frustrating stuff like "the US is the best" and "we dont have to do anything becuase they wouldnt"

I still believe that people should be putting more effort into co-operative behaviour and I dont think that loss of life is nessary even when military intervention is used. If the aim and purpose of the intervention is clear and the soldiers know what they are doing then I think a lot can be done with minimal loss of life.

Yes they were more evil. But standing back and watching the innocent die is still evil. Once more I say this to the entire world just not the US.

I'm guessing that our main source of conflict is that I'm looking at the world as a place with distinct national borders and you're looking at it as a world community. I think we can both agree that globalization hasn't progressed to the point where it would become manditory for national governments to take the position of being part of a global community on every issue. Perhaps it would be better to answer this question in terms of your ideal (The world is probably divided on the issue. For every person that likes his country but wouldn't mind the world being more close knit then it is, there's someone that thinks we've gone too far already.) and in terms of what is pragmatic given the state of international politics.

Ideal Answer: You're probably right.
Pragmatic Answer: It's only our problem if we benefit from being a part of the solution.

Lets be honest here. Africa is a hole. Most countries struggle to remain a coherrent state let alone consider international action

Well, they don't have the power of western nations, that's for sure. I admit that I don't know a lot about the cooperation between African nations, so I'm reading the wikipedia article on the African Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union). It seems that you might not be too far off. There are questions of whether the money exists in Africa for the union to pull off its ideas. But it's still there and it can do something.

Note that the African Union didn't exist in 1994. Its predicessor, the notoriously corrupt Organization of African Unity was in place at the time. They might not have been too much.

Coincidentally, most of the foreign African soldiers keeping the peace in Darfur right now are from Rwanda.


But does two wrongs make a right?

It depends on whether you think it is wrong in the first place. If you were to take the above mentioned pragmatic stance, you could say that a civil war isn't your problem and thus inaction is neutral. If you take the idealistic stance then no, they do not. But they sure make you feel better.

A civil war is bad but if it is kept a confilict between willing armed groups and civillians are not dilberately targeted it is not a problem. We have let many conflicts slide by without to much of a ethical hiccup but this was deliberate genocide.

That's true...

It is hard to imagine a million deaths accidently.

I agree. It was just a what-if question.

Note that i call on the world not just the US. All member nations of the UN have signed treaties and agreements that would suggest they are willing to make sacrifices for the betterment of the world. Why bother to be part of the UN if you dont agree with its values or dotn want to support them?

Ok, just replace 'US soldier' with 'UN soldier'.

Why be a part of the UN when you don't want to support them? Because sometimes a decision comes along that benefits you. Nations in the UN are there for their own benefit first and for the benefit of others second. Cynical, but effective.

True but the US is a member nation of the UN and so my above argument applies. Furthermore the US often uses the values of the UN to justify thier actions and thereby puts itself in a position that requires them to act in line with thier own reasoning.

Our dress is muddied, isn't it? So is every other nation's. That's why no one makes a significant fuss when we're hypocritical. They'd do the same thing if they were in our position.

Can I ask if you follow the realist school of thought on IR? If so do you support Bush because a lot of his critics are actually conservative realists.

Selectively. It's a rare president that I would agree with wholly. The only president I'm ever going to agree with on every decision is me (Even then, maybe not. Clinton seems to regret not doing anything about Rwanda). I will be president. The monkeys and men with the personality and face of a piece of wood that we have now won't stand a chance.

On another note I dont ebelieve the recent invasion fo Iraq was about oil. The US has the ecconmic might to get what it needs. I believe it was an extention of a policy that believed if a freindly democratic regime could be installed in a trouble area the US would be able to exert more influence over the area and thus save themselves trouble in the long run and secure valuable recources as well

Reverse domino effect. I'm familier with that stance but it's not one I've given a whole lot of thought to lately (I think it's been about a year since I last discusses that with friends) so it's not something I thought about. I'm sure that's a factor.

We intervened in Rwanda?

As they say, you learn something new every day.

I cant imagine why we didnt.

A bully, America may be, but one that could have done some good.

Bush makes so many attempts to make us beleive that we are in Iraq to benefit the Iraqi people, "To stop a mass murdring tyrant", but when a gonocide was happening....we did nothing.

Thats the ultimate in hippocracy.

:rolleyes: Asking "Should we have intervened in Rwanda?" is tantamount to asking if its a bad idea to put your dick in the blender. It was a complete no-brainer, right from the start. I'm not sure how extensive the coverage was in other countries, but in Canada, due mostly to us having Peace Keeper posted in the thick of the Rwandan Genocide, it was all over the news.

It was nauseating enough during the Rwandan Genocide watching the UN stick its thumb up its ass, while the USA buried its head in the sand. But seeing the bullshit going on in Darfur, and the shit thats poised to hit the fan in Zimbabwe (and other countries around the world I'm sure) is mind boggling in its testament to the utter uselessness and underlying evil of all politics beyond the local level. The disgust I have for the UN, especially member countries like US, Canada, England, most of Europe, knows no bounds. :mp5:

That we even asked ourselves the question should we or shouldn't we (in regards to Rwanda and other genocides) shows nthe depth of the problem. There should be NO question, whatsoever. Sitting back and debating while millions die, when we have the resources to stop it, makes us almost as bad as the shitlicks that are did/are doing the killing. :mad:

Bush makes so many attempts to make us beleive that we are in Iraq to benefit the Iraqi people, "To stop a mass murdring tyrant", but when a gonocide was happening....we did nothing.

George Bush wasn't president in 1994. Each president brings to the office his own foreign policy.

George Bush wasn't president in 1994. Each president brings to the office his own foreign policy.


You must live in the Thumb.

Sorry..thats an insider Michigan joke.

No he wasnt in charge at that time.
But, even since then, the Hutus and Tutsi's have been slaughtering each other....and all the while...Bush claims to be in Iraq for some kind of humanitarian reasons?

I dont think so.

You must live in the Thumb.

Sorry..thats an insider Michigan joke.

No he wasnt in charge at that time.
But, even since then, the Hutus and Tutsi's have been slaughtering each other....and all the while...Bush claims to be in Iraq for some kind of humanitarian reasons?

I dont think so.

That's true, but I guess the logic is that Hutus and Tutsis aren't from the area of the world that is home to the people that want to suicide bomb westerners. His goal appears to be to bring stability and a pro-American (or, at least, indifferent) attitude to the middle east. If the new Iraqi government manages to survive and we don't somehow royally piss off the arab world again then his goal should be a possible to achieve.

And that must be a pretty inside joke because I've never heard it. I live on the opposite side, if that makes a difference.

That's true, but I guess the logic is that Hutus and Tutsis aren't from the area of the world that is home to the people that want to suicide bomb westerners. His goal appears to be to bring stability and a pro-American (or, at least, indifferent) attitude to the middle east. If the new Iraqi government manages to survive and we don't somehow royally piss off the arab world again then his goal should be a possible to achieve.

And that must be a pretty inside joke because I've never heard it. I live on the opposite side, if that makes a difference.


If Iraq manages not to errupt into civil war the minute we leave, I'll eat my hat.
I hope im wrong and the damn place will know some measure of peace..but my natural skepticism tells me it wont.
Radical Islam will never be pro-America..we are the Great Satan, and boy howdy, do some of them hate our frickin guts.
Its too late to mend fences....the only real thing they want..is for us to butt the hell out, and leave them alone.
Unfortunatly, they have the oil that we want..and cant afford to take no for an answer.
So..in the ME we will stay.

As for the Thumb....your from Michigan, arent you?

Its an old addage..."What..are you kidding? You must be from the Thumb!"

As for the Thumb....your from Michigan, arent you?

Its an old addage..."What..are you kidding? You must be from the Thumb!"

I'm from Michigan. I've never heard that though. We're terribly uncultured out here in the wilderness.

I'm from Michigan. I've never heard that though. We're terribly uncultured out here in the wilderness.


Ok..heres another Michiganese saying your SURE to know...
I'll start it, and you can finish it.....

"If you dont like the weather in Michigan......"

Ok..heres another Michiganese saying your SURE to know...
I'll start it, and you can finish it.....

"If you dont like the weather in Michigan......"

Wait five minutes.

I feel cheated. It's been nothing but hot and humid until yesterday. Rain never hits Manistee, so we haven't had that going for us for the last few days. Edit: It's not too bad now! 52 degrees offsets the 100% humidity.

Wait five minutes.

I feel cheated. It's been nothing but hot and humid until yesterday. Rain never hits Manistee, so we haven't had that going for us for the last few days.


Same here...hot humid and sticky....with a slight possiblity of a little rain to make it even more damp.

Its funny...all winter long I wish summer would get here..and then..by August...Im tired of the blazing, humid hot weather...

Same here...hot humid and sticky....with a slight possiblity of a little rain to make it even more damp.

Its funny...all winter long I wish summer would get here..and then..by August...Im tired of the blazing, humid hot weather...

At least houses don't come with air conditioning, or we'd be using it. :) I'd be a poor man if I had air conditioning. I'm going to burn my neighbor's house for heat this winter.

When I went to Arizona earlier this summer I learned of a fascinating way to beat the heat. Just put aluminum foil up on any of the windows in your house that are exposed to direct sunlight. I now have aluminum foil taped to all the windows in my house that face west. It's not hot enough to put them on the eastern side and the rest are shaded by trees. I don't care how it looks from the outside. The results are far too comfortable to give it up.

:rolleyes: Asking "Should we have intervened in Rwanda?" is tantamount to asking if its a bad idea to put your dick in the blender. It was a complete no-brainer, right from the start. I'm not sure how extensive the coverage was in other countries, but in Canada, due mostly to us having Peace Keeper posted in the thick of the Rwandan Genocide, it was all over the news.
As a pretty unappologetic Nationalist (as opposed to racist) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of argument put my predilictions aside (American might exists to stamp my hand for the freedom party, assclowns elsewhere can fend for themselves. If they would wish American assistance they should consider becoming strategically important.).

How many Rawandans, who essentially all look alike, should US forces violently dispatch, frequently from over the horizion, and in truly horrific ratios? Remember, they wouldn't be fighting soldiers, or even crazy naked machinegun wielding Liberians wearing clown makeup. They'd be shooting and guys with machetes who were going to kill their neighbors, because it seemed like a good idea when they heard it on the radio. How many should Americans kill in a fantastically lopsided manner in order to ease the concience of those who wouldn't risk their lives or spilling blood for a cause they believed in?

The armed forces have two purposes. To kill the enemy army until in the interests of self preservation the politicians agree to terms the victors can accept. Or to break the will of a people through total war, and the savage killing of the general population ill-equiped to fight back (which is something of the point of having a professional military).

Even Iraq makes more sense than intervening in Rawanda, and that is something of an ill conceived, poorly excecuted cluster fuck of epic proportions.

Only if those minorities are planning to overtake the current (representative) government and replace it with a totalitarian government. Specifically, Communist. We didn't have a problem with right wing totalitarian governments in South America. In any case, the Hutus were the majority in the country and the Tutsis eventually regained control of Rwanda after the genocide.
I know that in reality the Truman doctine was only applied against communist groups, but theoretically it should be applied against all attampts at violent subjigation by armed minorities.

The Tutsis were not the only ones killed by the Hutu militants, who were a minority. They also killed many moderate Hutus.

Lately our country has been cozying up to the idea that it has an even greater responsibility to other countries' citizens than its own, which is something that exasperates me to no end.
You don't seem to think that the US Government even has a responsibility to its own citizens.

People die. People kill other people for little or no reason, and this will continue regardless of whether or not we intervene every time it happens.
I don't doubt the impossibility of preventing all killing. But at least several (hundred) thousand Rwandans could have been saved if the Hutu death groups had been eliminated early on. The lives of those Tutsis were worth saving.

What about a world where people help themselves? Why is it that so few people are prepared to trust the individual to solve his own set of problems?
Because the individual can't always solve his own problems. How would you solve the problem of a fanatical band of men with machetes chasing after you?

Liverbreath']Yes, some do, but even they accept part of the blame rather than finding yet another angle to attack Americans from without accepting an iota of responsibility. Personally, I will never ever again support intervening on anyone's behalf under any circumstance again. May the world get what it so richly deserves.
Funny, I thought you were on the pro-Iraq war side of things.

Heh. The world did "intervene." We sent our peacekeepers there to sit and watch the slaughter.

I voted "yes" but UN intervention as it is currently defined is a farce.

My ROE? Stop disarming the populace, you can't exterminate an armed people; then, put peacekeepers on the street with orders to shoot any combatant.

THAT would work. Having them wear blue helmets and drive white tanks through a beige environment and stand in the open while crowds are machine-gunned while handing out little flag-pins is a disgusting PR move and shows you just how far the UN and its beaurocratic posse is from reality.

No he wasnt in charge at that time.
But, even since then, the Hutus and Tutsi's have been slaughtering each other....

Even if this is true, it's not happening on nearly the same scale, nor is there any equivalency (as you seem to be suggesting) between the Hutus (genocide perpetrators) and the Tutsis (genocide victims). I don't mean to suggest that Bush is free of hypocrisy -- his lack of action on Darfur is difficult to excuse, though certainly not as difficult as Europe's -- but I think it's unfair to suggest that humanitarian issues have nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

A straightforward question for those of you who think we (that is, the U.S. specifically) should not have intervened: Is the U.S. a signatory to the Genocide Convention of 1948?

You don't seem to think that the US Government even has a responsibility to its own citizens.
You're really starting to piss me off with shit like this: you come into thread and choose like two or three lines of text that I've written and you systematically ignore the rest, subsuming the remainder of my arguments under a horrifically ignorant statement like this.

If you would actually care to read and understand all of my posts rather than the select few arguments you've seen before, you would rapidly come to understand that this is most assuredly not the case. If you can't dance with the big boys, you'd best be on your way. This cherry-picking shit you're pulling isn't going to fly for much longer.

I don't doubt the impossibility of preventing all killing. But at least several (hundred) thousand Rwandans could have been saved if the Hutu death groups had been eliminated early on. The lives of those Tutsis were worth saving.
Hindisght is 20/20. Furthermore, I don't feel any worse about myself whether they're alive or dead; their well being or lack of it is their responsibility, not mine. If you or a group of like minded people would prefer to help them that's certainly your perogative, but you [and most leftists] fail to realize that the above is more or less a projection of values. Long story short: I don't share your sympathies. Stop lording them over me.

Because the individual can't always solve his own problems. How would you solve the problem of a fanatical band of men with machetes chasing after you?
Me? I'd die fighting. Look pal, you can shake this pity tree all you want, but ain't nothin' gonna fall out. Pity is not a justification for policy anymore than hatred is.

And yes he can. History is filled with examples.

Pity is not a justification for policy anymore than hatred is.
A bit off-topic: I like the phrase. :p




On-topic: I personally believed we should have intervened in Rwanda. A succesful genocide, IMO, can only bolster other people who believe that genocide is the answer to all of their problems, and people like that exist EVERYWHERE. (Except Sealand, of course :p )

True but the US doesnt have the right to beat up on the French... after all they gave chemical and biological weapons to Saddam, trained the Taliban, invaded a few Latin American countries etc etc...

Only goes to show that all countries have bad days when it comes to foreign policy. There was a time when France had an overseas empire second only to Britain's, and they were very reluctant to let it go. They didn't mind killing a few natives in the process of trying to keep that empire, either. Same goes for the British, the Belgians, the Dutch, etc. etc.

Hindisght is 20/20. Furthermore, I don't feel any worse about myself whether they're alive or dead; their well being or lack of it is their responsibility, not mine. If you or a group of like minded people would prefer to help them that's certainly your perogative, but you [and most leftists] fail to realize that the above is more or less a projection of values. Long story short: I don't share your sympathies. Stop lording them over me.
It's this kind of mentality that allowed the Holocaust to happen! The rights to life and security are universally recognised and we have, at least in theory, taken on the responsibility to protect them in the world.

Me? I'd die fighting. Look pal, you can shake this pity tree all you want, but ain't nothin' gonna fall out. Pity is not a justification for policy anymore than hatred is.
Why should you and thousands of others have to die fighting when others could help you?

Way to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned pity.

And yes he can. History is filled with examples.
Care to provide some? No examples spring to mind when I try to think of unarmed disorganised groups successfully defending themselves from armed organised groups intent on killing.

Why should you and thousands of others have to die fighting when others could help you?
Wait a second, in your last post you said something like 'their lives are worth saving' and then in your next breath decreed it would be impossible to stop all killing on the planet. Tell me, if their lives are worth saving why not everyone else's too?

Don't you notice the contradition in saying you want to save people of all shapes and colors while saying it's impossible to save everyone?

Way to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned pity.
Yes you did, Brett! yes you did!

Because the individual can't always solve his own problems. How would you solve the problem of a fanatical band of men with machetes chasing after you?


pit·y P Pronunciation Key (pt)
n. pl. pit·ies
Sympathy and sorrow aroused by the misfortune or suffering of another.
A matter of regret: It's a pity she can't attend the reception.
By attempting to personalize the argument, you are attempting to instill these exact feelings. I think this speaks for itself.

Care to provide some? No examples spring to mind when I try to think of unarmed disorganised groups successfully defending themselves from armed organised groups intent on killing.
It's one of those things that you will fail to notice every time if you refuse to notice them. When you think about it, every time any person has come to power and acted within his value structure, that's exactly what he's doing: he is [rightly or wrongly] solving his own damn problems even if he's got a meaner pink streak than you. If he happens to think that his problem or his obligation is world suffering, then you can bet your ass that any one of your philosophical lumiaries would fit this very description. If you want examples, pick up a history textbook. If you want theories and mindless optimism, stick to Socialism.

Furthermore, your above reply is a blatant straw man. Originally, my opening premise was "people can solve their own problems." Now, it has been distorted to "Unarmed disorganised groups" [of people]. Take another shot at it.

No. Simply put we have NO business there.

Now here is some advice for Americans from somebody with authority because even living 200+ years ago, he still displayed far more intelligence than all of you Americans combined. Sad ain't it?

"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington

(George Washington's farewell address was help prepared by writers such as Alexander Hamilton and Jefferson)

Now here is some advice for Americans from somebody with authority because even living 200+ years ago, he still displayed far more intelligence than all of you Americans combined. Sad ain't it?
Don't flamebait. Some of us [particularly myself] don't happen to care for it very much.

"So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith."

I especially like this part, because as I continue to hint (perhaps a little too subtly?), the United States had a treaty obligation to intervene in Rwanda.

Wait a second, in your last post you said something like 'their lives are worth saving' and then in your next breath decreed it would be impossible to stop all killing on the planet. Tell me, if their lives are worth saving why not everyone else's too?

Don't you notice the contradition in saying you want to save people of all shapes and colors while saying it's impossible to save everyone?
We don't have the manpower to save all victims of genocide, but we should try to save as many as possible. If we could save all the victims, I would advocate that.

You're using a variant of the boring old anti-war argument that "why aren't we toppling all the dictators?" - no matter how desirable it is to solve all the world's problems, neither our armies nor our coffers are big enough to do it, especially not all at the same time.

So, back to Rwanda, how do you think the Tutsis should have solved their problems?

I would also like you to stop freaking out every time I mention "killing" and "genocide". I'm not just appealing to pity. However squeamish these words may make you, that's what happened there.

No. Simply put we have NO business there.

Now here is some advice for Americans from somebody with authority because even living 200+ years ago, he still displayed far more intelligence than all of you Americans combined. Sad ain't it?

Washington was writing in the world of the late 18th century. Given that America was poor and weak then, most European countries still viewed the area as fair game for imperialist conquest. It's no surprise that he favoured isolationism.

But today we live in a much more interdependent world. America has not only made international commitments; she is an interventionist superpower. Isolationism is just not an option any more.

We don't have the manpower to save all victims of genocide, but we should try to save as many as possible. If we could save all the victims, I would advocate that.
So who gets to pick and choose? You? Why?

You're using a variant of the boring old anti-war argument that "why aren't we toppling all the dictators?" - no matter how desirable it is to solve all the world's problems, neither our armies nor our coffers are big enough to do it, especially not all at the same time.
I agree, it's completely boring. Its boring, frankly, because it's never been answered to our satisfaction, and because it's used over and over again to little effect. We get this same answer every time, and the fact that we keep asking these questions should be sufficient proof that we're not satisfied with this answer. Again, who gets to pick and choose? To what degree are you willing to compromise my freedoms to solve these problems?

I am fully aware that we don't have the monetary capacity to solve every problem, manpower nonwhistanding. To me, this sounds like a restatement of your first rebuttal only in a slightly different context.

So, back to Rwanda, how do you think the Tutsis should have solved their problems?
You know what? That's not for me to decide. I cannot condone or condemn that which I do not understand, and it is thoroughly impossible for me to make a moral judgement for folks living halfway across the world. I have no obligation to solve other peoples problems. Go ahead, call me heartless and selfish--and when you're done with that, you might deign to tell me why I'm wrong.

I would also like you to stop freaking out every time I mention "killing" and "genocide". I'm not just appealing to pity. However squeamish these words may make you, that's what happened there.
Umm... freaking out? Where did I "freak out?"

Interestingly, I've gotten you to go from "Way to put words in my mouth. I never mentioned pity" to "I'm not just appealing to pity." [Emphasis mine] How's that crow taste, Swimmingpool?

Furthermore, where are your responses to the rest of my post? Am I to assume in their absence that you can find no credible reply? Between that and all the flipflopping on the pity issue, it sure sounds to me like someone needs to reexamine their premises.

We don't have the manpower to save all victims of genocide...

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's obvious that we can't save all victims of a genocide, not for lack of manpower, but because by the time we realize a genocide is in progress, some victims are necessarily already beyond saving.

If you mean that we can't intervene all genocides, then I disagree. Genocide is not a particularly common crime, after all. If not for the unfortunate fact that virtually all of our troops are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq (no, I have no desire to argue with anyone over the morality of either these two wars, in this thread at least), I have little doubt that the U.S. alone would be able to stop all genocides currently taking place.

Yes. The answer is yes. Of course America should have. The situation was three trillion times as bad as Iraq.

What Africa too black for America or something? I mean those Iraqies are black but they can be passed off as deeply tanned.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's obvious that we can't save all victims of a genocide, not for lack of manpower, but because by the time we realize a genocide is in progress, some victims are necessarily already beyond saving.

If you mean that we can't intervene all genocides, then I disagree. Genocide is not a particularly common crime, after all. If not for the unfortunate fact that virtually all of our troops are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq (no, I have no desire to argue with anyone over the morality of either these two wars, in this thread at least), I have little doubt that the U.S. alone would be able to stop all genocides currently taking place.
Well said, but I'd take it a step further. If America is obligated to intervene every time something like this happens, then why isn't anyone else? Why is this expectation lorded over us and no one else? Just because we have more money than you means we have to solve your problems for you? Why the hell weren't you [Swimmingpool] flying off your chair to get Rwanda involved in the Rwanda debacle? Why not Turkey or China or Uzbekistan?

Are you kidding me? Rwanda will go down as a Black eye in the face of the UN. No clue why Clinton didn't allow the Marines to go in with full air/armor/arty backup. Heck, the UN didn't even authorize it's own troops on the ground to open fire to protect the Tutsis from being slaughtered by guys with machetes.

Shows how useless the UN was 11 years ago and how useless it is now.

I seen no reason why the US should have gotten involved in Rwanda.
Everybody would have just criticized us if we had, anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It's obvious that we can't save all victims of a genocide, not for lack of manpower, but because by the time we realize a genocide is in progress, some victims are necessarily already beyond saving.

If you mean that we can't intervene all genocides, then I disagree. Genocide is not a particularly common crime, after all. If not for the unfortunate fact that virtually all of our troops are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq (no, I have no desire to argue with anyone over the morality of either these two wars, in this thread at least), I have little doubt that the U.S. alone would be able to stop all genocides currently taking place.

Nowhere near "all" the Troops/marines are being "tied up" with the 2 ongoing conflicts. If all the NG and Regular and reserve army left to go to Iraq/AFG/go deal with Iran, there would still be plenty to take care of the CONUS. Who? Call up the militia. Anyone with past military or LEO experiance and who has a rifle and gear. Deputize them, give them a crash course, and put them with local LEOs.

I seen no reason why the US should have gotten involved in Rwanda.
Everybody would have just criticized us if we had, anyway.

Your right, Drunk Teddy Kennedy, Reed, and Hitlery would scream "QUAQMIRE!" and pull a chicken little routine.

I especially like this part, because as I continue to hint (perhaps a little too subtly?), the United States had a treaty obligation to intervene in Rwanda.

You do realize if we listened to Washington we wouldn't have had that treaty to begin with. Because WE WOULD HAVE HAD LITTLE POLITICAL AFFILIATION WITH THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

Trade relations are good, but that doesn't mean we start signing treaties all over the place to save this and that country.

Washington was writing in the world of the late 18th century. Given that America was poor and weak then, most European countries still viewed the area as fair game for imperialist conquest. It's no surprise that he favoured isolationism.

But today we live in a much more interdependent world. America has not only made international commitments; she is an interventionist superpower. Isolationism is just not an option any more.

Not complete isolationalism. He meant political isolationalism. He said specifically that our best intrest when it comes to the world is TRADE. Our biggest weapon is the fact Americans BUY stuff. Why do we not want to go to war with China and vice versa? Because we'd lose to much money in trade.

Us having to be the world's police force however is ludicrous. We aren't even PAID to be the world's police force. Police departments are paid through taxes. We are just wasting our damned time and resources when all we have to do is manage our trade relations better.

Serbs killed a few terrorists and Europe was all on board to accuse them of genocide. Black bodies clog rivers and the Europeans don’t give a damn. Too busy exploiting the French province of Ivory Coast and making Chocolate from the Blood of Africans to care about Rwanda I suppose. Next time, put Turbans on the Corpses and the Foreign Legion will pop in to save the day in no time.

Your right, Drunk Teddy Kennedy, Reed, and Hitlery would scream "QUAQMIRE!" and pull a chicken little routine.
I was referring more to the international community, but you’re probably right.

Your right, Drunk Teddy Kennedy, Reed, and Hitlery would scream "QUAQMIRE!" and pull a chicken little routine.
Reality calling.... Politicians of which party compared Kosovo to Vietnam again? The first conflict to fullfill the original promise of strategic air power. Statistically, Iraq is becoming very similar to Vietnam. There are even murmers of a forthcoming "tet" offensive inside Bagdad and the green zone.

The only thing that makes these sorts of attacks politically effective in the American landscape are the lies of the administration in power. Once those lies are undeniably revealed how can a basically good public continue to trust in their ability to prosecute a war at the expense of American lives and security.

That the Clinton administration foresaw the fruitlessness of intervetion in Rwanda, preserving American power (only to be squandered later), is a virtue, not a fault.

Reality calling.... Politicians of which party compared Kosovo to Vietnam again? The first conflict to fullfill the original promise of strategic air power. Statistically, Iraq is becoming very similar to Vietnam. There are even murmers of a forthcoming "tet" offensive inside Bagdad and the green zone.
Iraq isn’t like Vietnam for three very important reasons.
Our casualties are nowhere near as high; there is no draft, and the enemy has been removed from power. Any comparison of anything to Vietnam by either side is pathetic disingenuous political bilge. That war was something terrible and unique. To compare a modern war to it, dishonors those men who were forced to go over there and die fighting because they were too hamstrung by politicians.

Yes the USA as well as the rest of the world should intervened. I'm not making excuses: Rwanda was considered to be under the Frances sphere of influence-sounds very 19th century, plus Peacekeeping was nothing like it is now, the UN were not as well equipped to deal with such large scale instances of genocide considering the blue helmets could not physically intervine unless they came direct fire. But yes there should have been large scale intervention.

No. It'd have been of no help. All that would've happened is that the Hutus and Tutsis would kill eachother after the troops left. Force of arms cannot change minds. Only showing the two groups that killing eachother was counterproductive would. Today, Hutu militias in the Congolese forests are still trying to kill Tutsis.