NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize this remains a heated and sticky issue. Many people feel outrage that what they believe should or could have been done wasn't done, while others feel it was not the world's problem. What do you, personally, feel should have been done, if anything?

Nothing.

Bombing, to kill people. Lots of bombing to kill lots of people, so that way we could stop the killing of lots of people.

Serious answers only, please.

Serious answers only, please.

My answer was serious. You see, there was no pretty way to handle that. Either way, many people would die. SO, you see, in order to save lots of people from dying, you'd have to kill lots of people first. Kind of a vicious cycle of death.

My answer was serious. You see, there was no pretty way to handle that. Either way, many people would die. SO, you see, in order to save lots of people from dying, you'd have to kill lots of people first. Kind of a vicious cycle of death.

Ah. My apologies, then.

The survivors and witnesses of past genocides sure think genocide is the world's problem. Here's what those people have to say about Darfur today:

"When I think of the people in Darfur today, it makes me sick to the stomach because I know what it's like to watch your protectors walk away and I know the fear of waiting for help that never comes," says survivor and rally organiser Freddy Umutanguha, Coordinator for Aegis Rwanda. "We survivors stand with the victims in Darfur. We are not here to tell the world's politicians how to do their job. All we say is: if you don't protect the people of Darfur today, you will have failed to do it, and never again will we believe you when you visit Rwanda's mass graves, look us in the eye and say 'never again'."

"After the Holocaust, the World said 'never again' but genocide has happened again and again," says Susan Pollack. "A year ago I travelled to New Delhi to help send the message that 'never again' would mean nothing until world leaders accepted their responsibility to protect people at risk of mass murder. They did so; now they must honour their word for the people of Darfur."

"Darfur's Africans are being murdered. How can we leave them without protection?" says Kemal Pervanic. "I ask people everywhere; remember how Bosnia suffered and end the bloodshed in Darfur now. You don't have to be a politician to take up the responsibility to protect. Just start to make your voice heard. The world's leaders have to know we care."

The survivors and witnesses of past genocides sure think genocide is the world's problem. Here's what those people have to say about Darfur today:

We need to force CNN to cover it 24 hours a day, either the opressors will back off once in the world's eye, or, eventually, one country will be so outraged that they'll have to do something, and hopefully it won't be us.:)

Gen Dallaire said he only needed 5000 trained and equiped troops and he could have dismantled the setup.

It wasn't going to happen. Clinton was a poll driven President and Somalia made him gun shy.

Our rep wasn't even supposed to use the "G" word.

Even when the killing was done, they said there were going to look into the claims of genocide.

It wasn't going to happen. Clinton was a poll driven President and Somalia made him gun shy.

Shhh...don't criticize Clinton. You'll get DK started if he sees this. ;)

Should have seen the currency that was driving it, and then blown the diamond mines to hell. We would still be reaping benefits if we had done so.

Get 'White' Peace Keepers in there.
Blacks are ineffective.

Shhh...don't criticize Clinton. You'll get DK started if he sees this. ;)

Let's be fair - it wasn't just Clinton. The US was being criticized on all sides for overdoing things in Somalia, Panama, Grenada, x-Yugoslavia et al, so the US government as a whole decided A) it's not in our interest to get involved, B) the rest of the world doesn't want us involved, so C) let's just get our people out and leave it to the Europeans and Africans.

Of course, then the Europeans didn't do anything either.

What should have happened? A UN multi-national force should have stepped in as soon as it was clear what was happeneing. However, for that to ocur, the UN would have to have such a force available at short notice, and it doesn't. By the time one could have been formed, the situation was practically over.

is there a pattern in all those threads.?

We need to force CNN to cover it 24 hours a day, either the opressors will back off once in the world's eye, or, eventually, one country will be so outraged that they'll have to do something, and hopefully it won't be us.:)
Sadly that part probably would work.

Let's be fair - it wasn't just Clinton. The US was being criticized on all sides for overdoing things in Somalia, Panama, Grenada, x-Yugoslavia et al, so the US government as a whole decided A) it's not in our interest to get involved, B) the rest of the world doesn't want us involved, so C) let's just get our people out and leave it to the Europeans and Africans.

Of course, then the Europeans didn't do anything either.

What should have happened? A UN multi-national force should have stepped in as soon as it was clear what was happeneing. However, for that to ocur, the UN would have to have such a force available at short notice, and it doesn't. By the time one could have been formed, the situation was practically over.
actually there was a UN force present in Rwanda, the UN security council would not give permission to do anything. Had it taken military action it would no doubt have given the Rwandans cause to stop. French Legioners could have been flown in in a matter of days to bolster troops already there.

Rwanda was a case of white countries not willing to have their soldiers die for black africans.

Should have seen the currency that was driving it, and then blown the diamond mines to hell. We would still be reaping benefits if we had done so.

Wrong war. I think you mean Sierra Leone.

Bait

Bait

?

let them at it I couldn't care less. fuck'em all, if the victims started killing the guilty, sure go ahead, let them all kill eachother.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could force sensitivity classes on people in General? Sure... it could be misused for evil but not if we're really, really careful.

?
Shuut!!!!!!!!!!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could force sensitivity classes on people in General? Sure... it could be misused for evil but not if we're really, really careful.
evil=careful
Shuut!

We need to force CNN to cover it 24 hours a day, either the opressors will back off once in the world's eye, or, eventually, one country will be so outraged that they'll have to do something, and hopefully it won't be us.:)

Anderson Cooper was doing a special report about human rights abuses in central Africa.

Now, however, he's doing a story about how people cheat at the lottery.

Ah, the fickle whims of the news media...

Let's be fair - it wasn't just Clinton. The US was being criticized on all sides for overdoing things in Somalia, Panama, Grenada, x-Yugoslavia et al, so the US government as a whole decided A) it's not in our interest to get involved, B) the rest of the world doesn't want us involved, so C) let's just get our people out and leave it to the Europeans and Africans.

Of course, then the Europeans didn't do anything either.

What should have happened? A UN multi-national force should have stepped in as soon as it was clear what was happeneing. However, for that to ocur, the UN would have to have such a force available at short notice, and it doesn't. By the time one could have been formed, the situation was practically over.

Sorry bucko.

Clinton himself said he blew it.

If the US said they were going to send troops, the rest would have followed.

Everybody did manage to get their people out however.

After all who gives a shit about the poorest country in the world. Nothing to plunder so why get involved?

actually there was a UN force present in Rwanda, the UN security council would not give permission to do anything. Had it taken military action it would no doubt have given the Rwandans cause to stop. French Legioners could have been flown in in a matter of days to bolster troops already there.

Rwanda was a case of white countries not willing to have their soldiers die for black africans.

Part of it and add in the fact they are extremely poor

Everyone should have been frozen, and the two groups could have been sent to opposite ends of the world, in really big ice blocks.

There.

Anderson Cooper was doing a special report about human rights abuses in central Africa.

Now, however, he's doing a story about how people cheat at the lottery.

Ah, the fickle whims of the news media...

More like the short attention span of the average american.

Everyone should have been frozen, and the two groups could have been sent to opposite ends of the world, in really big ice blocks

There.

What and have them do Tanqueray ads?

What and have them do Tanqueray ads?

"Everything in moderation - even genocide! *laughs and kicks back on a boat with a martini*"

What and have them do Tanqueray ads?
Possibly. Might improve the Rwandan economy, and would mean that less people died, so actually, yeah.

Gen Dallaire said he only needed 5000 trained and equiped troops and he could have dismantled the setup.

It wasn't going to happen. Clinton was a poll driven President and Somalia made him gun shy.

Our rep wasn't even supposed to use the "G" word.

Even when the killing was done, they said there were going to look into the claims of genocide.

I believe you are refering to Romeo Dallaire.

Part of it and add in the fact they are extremely poor

Not to mention there's no oil. ;)


Sorry, it had to be said.

Not a damn thing

Wrong war. I think you mean Sierra Leone.

I mean the godawful bloody massacres between hutus and tutsis that included plenty of Zaire and Ugandan activity (and still does for that matter) as well as Rwandan activity.

Nothing to plunder so why get involved?

I don't think it had to do with resources. We intervened in Eastern Europe under Clinton, but not in the former state of Zaire, which is, minerally speaking, one of the richest countries on the planet.

I mean the godawful bloody massacres between hutus and tutsis that included plenty of Zaire and Ugandan activity (and still does for that matter) as well as Rwandan activity.

Ah. The "diamond mines" part made me think of S.L.

I believe you are refering to Romeo Dallaire.

Sorry I thought Gen was obvious for General ;)

I realize this remains a heated and sticky issue. Many people feel outrage that what they believe should or could have been done wasn't done, while others feel it was not the world's problem. What do you, personally, feel should have been done, if anything?

it is tragic and horrible...but we cant help.

it is tragic and horrible...but we cant help.

As it was said
I think if people see this footage, they'll say Oh, my God, that's horrible. And then they'll go on eating their dinners.

i'm a big fan of helping those that help themselves. if you don't value your life enough to defend it through force.....why should you expect others to come from around the world to defend you through force? expecting other people to value your life more than you do is just silly

Sorry bucko.

Clinton himself said he blew it.

At least he's man enough to admit his mistakes. Wish Bush could do the same. -.-

i'm a big fan of helping those that help themselves. if you don't value your life enough to defend it through force.....why should you expect others to come from around the world to defend you through force? expecting other people to value your life more than you do is just silly

And the useless post of the day goes to! :rolleyes:

I agree damn those lazy slags like the Jews and Armenians! They had it comming to them.

Just like the people of Dafur! Lazy slags the lot of them!

*sighs*