NationStates Jolt Archive

According to a Rwandan report. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/05/rwanda-france.html)

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count.

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.

i wouldn't say worse, but there's no such thing as an innocent superpower, and it may not be obvious in america's shadow, but several components of europe incorporated, essentially still are. among them britan, france and germany.

and america's fat dirty fingers ARE just as much a part of the ruwanda thing and france's.

(it still comes from putting symbolic and other nongratifying pseudo-gain, ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in)

=^^=
.../\...

We've known for quite some time that nations rarely, if ever, play nicely in foreign policy. The only difference is that French people don't advertise themselves as some kind of bringer of liberty and freedom to all nations it invades as ardently as the American populace tends to do.

Cameroi, considering the U.S. did not have military forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide (France did), did not provide military supplies for the participants in the genocide (France did), and did not help participants escape to Zaire or France after the genocide (France did), saying that America's "fat dirty fingers are just as much a part of the Rwanda thing" is silly. Granted, America has done (and still does) truly sickening and awful things, involvement in the Rwandan Genocide is not one of them.

And NAS, that's a good point. Further, the fault lies only with the French government and the genocidaires themselves, not the French people.

According to a Rwandan report. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/05/rwanda-france.html)

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count.
It has? Note that I'm not necessarily doubting it, I'm just curious because I'd never heard about it before.

And this part in your article certainly gives me pause about accepting these findings just like that:

Rwanda cut diplomatic ties with France in 2006 after a French judge issued arrest warrants for nine ranking Rwandans — including current president and former Rwandan Patriotic Army leader Paul Kagame — suspected of plotting the downing of President Juvenal Habyarimana's airplane on April 6, 1994. The act helped spark the killings.

Again, this is not news. This only further confirms what has already been proved.

Again, this is not news. This only further confirms what has already been proved.
Well, yeah, you already said that. Which is why I was asking you for maybe a couple more links or really just information, since you seem to know so much about it.

The Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith, Africa in Chaos by George Ayittey, and An Ordinary Man by Paul Rusesabagina are good places to start.

Well, yeah, you already said that. Which is why I was asking you for maybe a couple more links or really just information, since you seem to know so much about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

The Fate of Africa by Martin Meredith and Africa in Chaos by George Ayittey are good places to start.

Right. Let us go buy those real quick and then we can come back next week and talk to you in your thread...

So those books proved stuff like this?:
"French soldiers themselves directly were involved in assassinations of Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis," the report said. "French soldiers committed many rapes, specifically of Tutsi women."

Because that's a hell of a difference from stuff like this, out of this article (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/1999/03/31/rwanda990331.html):
The U.S. Belgium, France and the United Nations were all told about Hutu plans to exterminate the minority Tutsi population and politically moderate Hutus.

But it charges they ignored the evidence.
Which is indeed old news. But somehow I don't think it's what you mean.

Yes, they prove both.

Cameroi, considering the U.S. did not have military forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide (France did), did not provide military supplies for the participants in the genocide (France did), and did not help participants escape to Zaire or France after the genocide (France did), saying that America's "fat dirty fingers are just as much a part of the Rwanda thing" is silly. Granted, America has done (and still does) truly sickening and awful things, involvement in the Rwandan Genocide is not one of them.

are you saying nothing made in america nor wholesaled by american proffiting intrests was marketed and supplied to the genociding intrests? (such as under the pretense of "fighting terror"?)

i suppose that MIGHT be POSSIBLE, but somehow i really tend to have my doubts.

=^^=
.../\...

To Cameroi: The U.S. is guilty of ignoring the genocide and seeing to it that the international community did not intervene (this has been documented in, among other sources, Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands With the Devil), but it did not participate directly in the genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Why thank you. Too bad it doesn't have any info of the sort I was talking about, no?

Yes, they prove both.
Well then, I'm sure glad this fruitful discussion was solved so successfully!

Whereyouthinkyougoing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_international_community_in_the_Rwandan_Genocide

Here's a quote from Shake Hands With the Devil. Emphasis is mine:

"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league."

Here's a quote from Shake Hands With the Devil. Emphasis is mine:

"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league."

and precisely how is a commentary an evidentiary document?

and how is "not participating directly" not contributing in enabling ways?
(the LATTER is what i ment by "fat dirty fingers", if i had ment an acusation of direct participation i would have more exlicity said so. and do we really know u.s., or u.s. backed coverert ops weren't involved? isn't it precisely the nature of covert ops that we can't and don't? isn't that the whole point of them?)

=^^=
.../\...

Uh, he was the commander of the United Nations Mission in Rwanda. I suggest you actually, you know, read the book. Your local library probably has it.

Whereyouthinkyougoing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_the_international_community_in_the_Rwandan_Genocide
Yeah, it has what the other articles had: that they protected the Hutu in Operation Turquoise and that they delivered arms (which they deny but then of course they would).

Here's a quote from Shake Hands With the Devil. Emphasis is mine:

"Let there be no doubt: the Rwandan genocide was the ultimate responsibility of those Rwandans who planned, ordered, supervised and eventually conducted it. Their extremism was the seemingly indestructible and ugly harvest of years of power struggles and insecurity that had been deftly played on by their former colonial rulers. But the deaths of Rwandans can also be laid at the door of the military genius Paul Kagame, who did not speed up his campaign when the scale of the genocide became clear and even talked candidly with me at several points about the price his fellow Tutsis might have to pay for the cause. Next in line when it comes to responsiblitiy are France, which moved in too late and ended up protecting the genocidaires and permanently destabilizing the region, and the U.S. government, which actively worked against an effective UNAMIR and only got involved to aid the same Hutu refugee population and the genocidaires, leaving the genocide survivors to flounder and suffer. The failings of the UN and Belgium were not in the same league."
Same here, sans arms shipments.

The most explosive statement of your OP's article, however, the one which prompted me to even post here, namely that French soldiers were directly involved in the killing and raping in Rwanda, isn't mentioned anywhere.

It is mentioned in the wiki entry on Operation Turquoise, which says that "In May 2006, the Paris Court of Appeal accepted six courtsuits deposed by victims of the genocide to magistrate Brigitte Reynaud. The charges raised against the French army during Operation Turquoise from June to August 1994 are of "complicity of genocide and/or complicity of crimes against humanity." The victims allege that French soldiers engaged in Operation Turquoise helped Interahamwe militias in finding their victims, and have themselves carried out atrocities."

So there's very probably truth to it, I'd think, but that's far from it being "old news, long proven" - especially seeing how the report in your OP's article was commissioned by the Rwandan government, which has a spectacularly bad relationship with France.

Also, sorry for the slowness in replying, the stupid phone won't stop ringing. Grrr.

According to a Rwandan report. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/05/rwanda-france.html)

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count..

French involvement of some sort has, but whether it resembles what the Rwandan report states is another matter.

[
This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies...

Nobody said that they did, as far as I'm aware.


France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.

"were". They haven't been in that league for many years.

saying that America's "fat dirty fingers are just as much a part of the Rwanda thing" is silly. Granted, America has done (and still does) truly sickening and awful things, involvement in the Rwandan Genocide is not one of them.

Don't you know, everything in the world is America's fault.

Instead of focusing on why, lets just wallow in our suckiness.

Wesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesuckwesu ck:mad:
:rolleyes:

I'm not sure how many people actually read the report, but it certainly isn't what's already been proved. It claims a much higher level of direct involvement on behalf of the French.

While certainly the French don't have a clean record in Rwanda (to say the least) I'd say this looks more likely a form of diplomatic retaliation against the French, rather than a reliable source.

I wonder how many of the people saying 'it's not that bad' and 'there was no direct involvement' and 'yeah, but other people are worse' would be having a 180 degree turn of opinion if you were to substitute the word 'America' for 'France' in that news report.

On reading a little of what has been stated...i have come to the conclusion that the Africanised Bees were to blame.

I wonder how many of the people saying 'it's not that bad' and 'there was no direct involvement' and 'yeah, but other people are worse' would be having a 180 degree turn of opinion if you were to substitute the word 'America' for 'France' in that news report.

Wonder away, but there's a world of difference between 'France didn't do enough to stop it' and 'French soldiers raped and killed people'. And it's a report from a body appointed by the Rwandan government after they've broken diplomatic ties with France over arrest warrants. Makes it smell more than a little fishy.

According to a Rwandan report. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/05/rwanda-france.html)

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count.

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.You're right. That isn't new at all.

We've known for quite some time that nations rarely, if ever, play nicely in foreign policy. The only difference is that French people don't advertise themselves as some kind of bringer of liberty and freedom to all nations it invades as ardently as the American populace tends to do.

True, although the French schtick is usually one about how they're bringing culture and civilization...you know, steam up the river, plant the flag and declare the natives "Civilized Frenchmen".

Americans prefer to cloak their misdeeds in other ways.

I wonder how many of the people saying 'it's not that bad' and 'there was no direct involvement' and 'yeah, but other people are worse' would be having a 180 degree turn of opinion if you were to substitute the word 'America' for 'France' in that news report.

If it were about direct US involvement in genocide? I'd think it bullshit too.

This proves

Ceci n'est aucune preuve.

To Cameroi: The U.S. is guilty of ignoring the genocide and seeing to it that the international community did not intervene (this has been documented in, among other sources, Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands With the Devil), but it did not participate directly in the genocide.

curse of being american perhaps.
we dont get involoed we get cursed. Rawanda.
We do get involoed we get cursed. Iraq.

Look world make up your mind. You want the US to intervene ? Or do you not? Because, if we are going to intervene it will be on our terms not yours.

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.

Your genuine concern for the suffering of the Rwandans is a beautiful thing to behold.

I think Belgium's actions in the early 20th century were as much to blame as France's during the genocide. If the Belgian government of Rwanda had not taken to a divide and conquer tactic that designated Hutu and Tutsi as ethnic groups (rather than the economic classifications they had become), the genocide and the events leading up to it over decades (Rwandan Civil War, etc.) could probably have been avoided.

Of course, the genocide was completely unforeseeable in 1926, and the Belgians who implemented ID cards displaying Hutu or Tutsi ethnicity are not exactly responsible.

The point it that no one group is to blame more than any other involved party (with the exception of the extremist Hutus, who actually committed the genocide).

curse of being american perhaps.
we dont get involoed we get cursed. Rawanda.
We do get involoed we get cursed. Iraq.

Look world make up your mind. You want the US to intervene ? Or do you not? Because, if we are going to intervene it will be on our terms not yours.

Yes, because those situations were exactly the same.

Try this.

Stopping Genocide=Good
Invading on false claims with questionable motivation=bad.

Yes, because those situations were exactly the same.

Try this.

Stopping Genocide=Good
Invading on false claims with questionable motivation=bad.

As if Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass-murderer...

Of course the reasons were wrong, but the action (in theory) was right.

As if Saddam Hussein wasn't a mass-murderer...

Of course the reasons were wrong, but the action (in theory) was right.

He was, and if the US had gone in when they were gassing the Kurds with the stated objective of stopping it I dare say they would've found much more backing than they did going in when they did.

He was, and if the US had gone in when they were gassing the Kurds with the stated objective of stopping it I dare say they would've found much more backing than they did going in when they did.

You mean a nation actually ignored horriffic human rights abuses until they thought it would benefit them to intervene?
Shock! I am SHOCKED, good sir, at the political implications of this revelation! Why, next you'll be telling us that politicians don't have our best interests in mind, and that cigarettes cause cancer, and that teenagers are having sex! :eek::eek::eek:

He was, and if the US had gone in when they were gassing the Kurds with the stated objective of stopping it I dare say they would've found much more backing than they did going in when they did.

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that someone willing to use chemical weapons on his own people may be developing other WMD's (which fortunately turned out to not be true). Regardless, Hussein was a ruthless man and got what he deserved in the end. Crimes against humanity have no statue of limitations.

You mean a nation actually ignored horriffic human rights abuses until they thought it would benefit them to intervene?
Shock! I am SHOCKED, good sir, at the political implications of this revelation! Why, next you'll be telling us that politicians don't have our best interests in mind, and that cigarettes cause cancer, and that teenagers are having sex! :eek::eek::eek:

We didn't go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust, really???

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.
Ahh...the good ol' "But they doing it too!" defence. An oft-used and very sound political and legal defence in sandpits and playpens across the globe.

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to believe that someone willing to use chemical weapons on his own people may be developing other WMD's (which fortunately turned out to not be true). Regardless, Hussein was a ruthless man and got what he deserved in the end. Crimes against humanity have no statue of limitations.
It seemed a fair bit of a stretch for everyone but the US government. Whatever the reasons, it certainly wasn't to prevent/stop a genocide.



We didn't go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust, really???

Er, no.

Er, no.

It was sarcasm. I hope

We didn't go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust, really???


Er, no.

http://uk.gizmodo.com/bush-shock.jpg

-snip-

Yeh. You got owned enough in this thread so far so I won't join in, but seriously....

Reading comprehension.

Look into it, will you?

It was sarcasm. I hope

Damn. *goes to make sarcasm smiley*:$

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count.

Nope. Try again.

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/9731/americaaw7.png

seriously as much as you and others would like to believe we are not all out to get you:wink:

edit: my Paint skillz are hardcore

According to a Rwandan report. (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/05/rwanda-france.html)

Not that this is news. This has already been documented by too many sources to count.

This proves that the U.S. does not hold a monopoly in the field of despicable foreign policies. France's actions in Africa are easily as bad (or worse) than the U.S.'s in the Middle East and Latin America.

The US did have a hand in Rwandan genocide. We knew, as did all of the UN, that a genocide was occuring and we did nothing.

But the great thing here is that we did not invade or occupy another nation. That is the most important thing. We did not allow petty human rights and freedoms to absolve our loyalty to the UN. Who wants to get involved in a civil war? Those people worked it out on their own, even though the result of that solution caused the first and second Congo wars, and now that area of the world is in great shape.

Isn't everyone happy that no one stood up against tyranny?

Yes, because those situations were exactly the same.

Try this.

Stopping Genocide=Good
Invading on false claims with questionable motivation=bad.

last time i checked saddam killed between 1 and 2 million.

yes i am pissed because of how the invasion was handled. but we should have left right after the mission accomplished banner was displayed. maybe keep a few speical ops/sniper teams there to shoot saddam if he crawls out of his hole.

this whole be the police force for the iraqis I dont like.

last time i checked saddam killed between 1 and 2 million.


Yes, but that was well before the US got there and the troops certainly weren't going in to stop genocide.