Full Version: Rwanda
In the space of one hundred days, eight hundred thousand people were dead. At the mercy of the Hutus: the Tutsis were rapidly slaughtered- the genocide was brought on by the death of the Hutu president of the nation, Juvenal Habyarimana, on 6 April 1,994. Hours after the president's plane was downed a violent machine began formation, it did not subside for three months.
The minority Tutsi and the majority Hutu populace have always been on unequal and turbulent footing since the colonial days of old. The colonists arrived in 1,916 from Belgium and did not attempt to aid the already highly-divided entities of the Tutsi and Hutu; by issuing identity cards that classified a Rwandan by their ethnicity the tension between the two groups widened.
The Belgian colonists considered both groups to be of equal status, and for two decades the Tutsi minority enjoyed privileges like which they had never known before and which would be robbed later. In 1,959 the group resentment of the Hutu spawned riots that spread into the neighboring lands of Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi. By the end of that particular event, twenty thousand bodies were accounted for- all Tutsi.
When the Belgians gifted power over Rwanda to Rwandans the Hutu took their place as majority and still govern today. In 1,962 the Hutu-led government began its campaign to make the Tutsi out to be the scapegoats of every disaster and or set-back the county experiences, the same holds true today.
Years before the genocide the president, Juvenal Habyarimana, began losing popular support and the economy was beginning to shatter. To make a tense political situation worse, with the support of moderate Hutus, Tutsi refugees in Uganda began to form the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Their aims were to overthrown the president and return legally to their homeland. However, the president remained in power and used the R.P.F. to his advantage.
By exploiting the group, he used it to launch a platform to bring radical Hutus back to his beckon call, as well as to label Tutsis inside Rwanda as R.P.F. collaborators. In 1,993 an uneasy peace was found when Juvenal Habyarimana and representatives of the R.P.F. signed a peace accord. History, however, has taught us that the accord did little to ever ease the unrest running rampant through the country. The straw that broke the camel’s back however came in April of the following year, when the president was assassinated.
Never established, the deaths of the Rwandan president, the president of Burundi and many predominant members of their staff remains a mystery. Whether it was the goal of the person or persons responsible, the immediate aftermath was disastrous, catastrophic and infamous. In Kigali, Rwanda’s capital city, the retribution began minutes after news of the murderer leader’s demise.
The slaughter of Tutsis and moderate Hutus began after the assassination of leaders of the political opposition. The violence spread like a buffer zone from the capital; within hours, recruits began radiating all over the country to carry out the slaughters.
Fueled by the presidential guard and short-wave radio propaganda, an unrecognized (and legally illegal) militia group named the Interahamwe formed. At its prime the group numbered in the neighborhood of 30,000 members. Soldiers and security forces coerced or encouraged average citizens into joining; in not-so-rare cases Hutu civilians were pressured into murdering their Tutsi neighbors under the direction and management of military personnel.
Members of the militant group were given things they lacked in exchange for their loyalty, such as food, clothing, money and rights to the land the Tutsis they killed once owned. The Rwandans were truly alone when the United Nations removed its troops from the country after the death of ten soldiers.
The day after the death of the Rwandan president, the R.P.F. launched its assault on government forces… United Nations attempts to negotiate a ceasefire amounted to very little, if anything.
But the tables turned in July when the R.P.F. captured Kigali and declared a ceasefire. The government collapsed. When it became obvious that the R.P.F. was victorious: an estimated two million Rwandans fled to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo). Those who fled, many of them at least, have been linked to being key figures in the mass slaughter.
Only after the threat subsided did United Nations relief workers and peace keepers arrive to maintain peace and restore basic needs services. On 19 July 1,994 an interim multi-ethnic governing body was devised. Amnesty was extended to all Rwandans in self-imposed exile and refugees were promised safe return to Rwanda.
A Hutu named Pasteur Bizimungu became president, the majority of his cabinet posts however were given to Tutsis and loyalist R.P.F. members. The search for justice is ongoing and painstakingly slow.
Five hundred Rwandans have been sentenced to death, another one hundred thousand have been imprisoned. Many of the masterminds of the massacre remain at large today, those who have lost their loved ones have been waiting for a decade for a justice that has yet to come.
My apologies for the lengthy explanation, yet I did restrain myself a great deal more than you might be thinking right now.
Questions for Debate:
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
4.) How could Tutsi/Hutu relations have been improved before the massacre?
5.) Do you support the death of those instrumental of the slaughter of Tutsis in this particular case?
The minority Tutsi and the majority Hutu populace have always been on unequal and turbulent footing since the colonial days of old. The colonists arrived in 1,916 from Belgium and did not attempt to aid the already highly-divided entities of the Tutsi and Hutu; by issuing identity cards that classified a Rwandan by their ethnicity the tension between the two groups widened.
The Belgian colonists considered both groups to be of equal status, and for two decades the Tutsi minority enjoyed privileges like which they had never known before and which would be robbed later. In 1,959 the group resentment of the Hutu spawned riots that spread into the neighboring lands of Uganda, Tanzania and Burundi. By the end of that particular event, twenty thousand bodies were accounted for- all Tutsi.
When the Belgians gifted power over Rwanda to Rwandans the Hutu took their place as majority and still govern today. In 1,962 the Hutu-led government began its campaign to make the Tutsi out to be the scapegoats of every disaster and or set-back the county experiences, the same holds true today.
Years before the genocide the president, Juvenal Habyarimana, began losing popular support and the economy was beginning to shatter. To make a tense political situation worse, with the support of moderate Hutus, Tutsi refugees in Uganda began to form the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Their aims were to overthrown the president and return legally to their homeland. However, the president remained in power and used the R.P.F. to his advantage.
By exploiting the group, he used it to launch a platform to bring radical Hutus back to his beckon call, as well as to label Tutsis inside Rwanda as R.P.F. collaborators. In 1,993 an uneasy peace was found when Juvenal Habyarimana and representatives of the R.P.F. signed a peace accord. History, however, has taught us that the accord did little to ever ease the unrest running rampant through the country. The straw that broke the camel’s back however came in April of the following year, when the president was assassinated.
Never established, the deaths of the Rwandan president, the president of Burundi and many predominant members of their staff remains a mystery. Whether it was the goal of the person or persons responsible, the immediate aftermath was disastrous, catastrophic and infamous. In Kigali, Rwanda’s capital city, the retribution began minutes after news of the murderer leader’s demise.
The slaughter of Tutsis and moderate Hutus began after the assassination of leaders of the political opposition. The violence spread like a buffer zone from the capital; within hours, recruits began radiating all over the country to carry out the slaughters.
Fueled by the presidential guard and short-wave radio propaganda, an unrecognized (and legally illegal) militia group named the Interahamwe formed. At its prime the group numbered in the neighborhood of 30,000 members. Soldiers and security forces coerced or encouraged average citizens into joining; in not-so-rare cases Hutu civilians were pressured into murdering their Tutsi neighbors under the direction and management of military personnel.
Members of the militant group were given things they lacked in exchange for their loyalty, such as food, clothing, money and rights to the land the Tutsis they killed once owned. The Rwandans were truly alone when the United Nations removed its troops from the country after the death of ten soldiers.
The day after the death of the Rwandan president, the R.P.F. launched its assault on government forces… United Nations attempts to negotiate a ceasefire amounted to very little, if anything.
But the tables turned in July when the R.P.F. captured Kigali and declared a ceasefire. The government collapsed. When it became obvious that the R.P.F. was victorious: an estimated two million Rwandans fled to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo). Those who fled, many of them at least, have been linked to being key figures in the mass slaughter.
Only after the threat subsided did United Nations relief workers and peace keepers arrive to maintain peace and restore basic needs services. On 19 July 1,994 an interim multi-ethnic governing body was devised. Amnesty was extended to all Rwandans in self-imposed exile and refugees were promised safe return to Rwanda.
A Hutu named Pasteur Bizimungu became president, the majority of his cabinet posts however were given to Tutsis and loyalist R.P.F. members. The search for justice is ongoing and painstakingly slow.
Five hundred Rwandans have been sentenced to death, another one hundred thousand have been imprisoned. Many of the masterminds of the massacre remain at large today, those who have lost their loved ones have been waiting for a decade for a justice that has yet to come.
My apologies for the lengthy explanation, yet I did restrain myself a great deal more than you might be thinking right now.
Questions for Debate:
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
4.) How could Tutsi/Hutu relations have been improved before the massacre?
5.) Do you support the death of those instrumental of the slaughter of Tutsis in this particular case?
I'll just take the first three:
What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
The UN has no army. Even if they approved a police action to confiscate Hutu weapons, and there were enough volunteering countries, it would have been a slaughter. Even the Hutu nuns were handing over gasoline to set the Tutsis on fire while alive. Basically, a police action would have required targeting nuns, children, machete-weilding peasants. Separating the good from the bad would have been insurmountably difficult. No thankyou.
They might have set up safe havens for the Tutsis, and employed volunteer peacekeepers to guard the facility. But those peacekeepers would have had to have been heavily armed, unlike the Dutch soldiers in Srebrenica, which were virtually unarmed and overrun....that would be worse than doing nothing. And of course, the cost of housing a million people indefinitely would have been astronomical. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN peacekeepers in such an instance would have been obliged to pay the Hutus to supply them, and the corrupt Hutu policemen too (Somalia-style). Another idea, the Tutsis could have been armed so they would have a chance to defend themselves, since prior gun laws had left them unarmed. That's the probably best idea, but it isn't very UN-esque.
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
No, but again, the UN doesn't have an army. Police action would require volunteers, and this it definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The western world is full of hypocrits who complain of injustice but do nothing, and crucify those who actually do something about it (Amnesty International is one example). If someone has the ability to save innocents, but chooses not to (though they know the people will die if no action is taken), are they as guilty as those who fired the shots? It's a moral dilemma, and often 'bloodless' measures result in MORE deaths of innocent civilians than intervention.
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
Eliminating Radio Rwanda would have helped substantially.
What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
The UN has no army. Even if they approved a police action to confiscate Hutu weapons, and there were enough volunteering countries, it would have been a slaughter. Even the Hutu nuns were handing over gasoline to set the Tutsis on fire while alive. Basically, a police action would have required targeting nuns, children, machete-weilding peasants. Separating the good from the bad would have been insurmountably difficult. No thankyou.
They might have set up safe havens for the Tutsis, and employed volunteer peacekeepers to guard the facility. But those peacekeepers would have had to have been heavily armed, unlike the Dutch soldiers in Srebrenica, which were virtually unarmed and overrun....that would be worse than doing nothing. And of course, the cost of housing a million people indefinitely would have been astronomical. I wouldn't be surprised if the UN peacekeepers in such an instance would have been obliged to pay the Hutus to supply them, and the corrupt Hutu policemen too (Somalia-style). Another idea, the Tutsis could have been armed so they would have a chance to defend themselves, since prior gun laws had left them unarmed. That's the probably best idea, but it isn't very UN-esque.
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
No, but again, the UN doesn't have an army. Police action would require volunteers, and this it definitely a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. The western world is full of hypocrits who complain of injustice but do nothing, and crucify those who actually do something about it (Amnesty International is one example). If someone has the ability to save innocents, but chooses not to (though they know the people will die if no action is taken), are they as guilty as those who fired the shots? It's a moral dilemma, and often 'bloodless' measures result in MORE deaths of innocent civilians than intervention.
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
Eliminating Radio Rwanda would have helped substantially.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 29 2005, 10:45 PM)
Questions for Debate:
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
4.) How could Tutsi/Hutu relations have been improved before the massacre?
5.) Do you support the death of those instrumental of the slaughter of Tutsis in this particular case?
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
4.) How could Tutsi/Hutu relations have been improved before the massacre?
5.) Do you support the death of those instrumental of the slaughter of Tutsis in this particular case?
1. The UN couldn't have made any effective difference, but the US could've committed as little as one Brigade sized unit to stop this. Once the US troops showed up and began shooting, I believe that the violence would've come to a screeching hault. (even African rebels are extremely afraid of US troops)
2. I believe that the Rwandan experience was simply a show of the blatent racist ideology of the west, hence no UN cry for help. Consider the fact that the Balkans were a multi-national UN force that was headed to stop a similiar situation against caucasians. NO, it wasn't right for the UN to leave these people to die by machete (sp?). Mr. Clinton refused action on the front end, and didn't make any attempt to stop what is nearly the worst massacre of contemporary history.
Of course it's hypocritical to send in troops on the back end. What did the UN hope to prove by sending in forces after the killing was done?? More flag waiving if you ask me...
3. In this case, I think (as ms pigpen stated) that the Radio was the medium by which to signal the genocide, and considering the rudimentary nature of the technology used that this could've been easily stopped. Secondly, if the UN had known about the plan, they could've asked for US support on the front end. Look at what happened in Haiti in terms of rebels engaging Marines. There were few firefights between Haitians and US forces in that they were petrified of the consequences. Do you think Rwandans w/ machetes would've engaged one of the best trained and equipped fighting forces in the world?? of course not...
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 09:04 AM)
1. The UN couldn't have made any effective difference, but the US could've committed as little as one Brigade sized unit to stop this. Once the US troops showed up and began shooting, I believe that the violence would've come to a screeching hault. (even African rebels are extremely afraid of US troops)[/b]
This is hindsight 20/20. Personally, I don't think it would have been that easy. Look at the Lebanon and Somalia examples. Kosovo and Bosnia are marginal successes only because they had a ratio of 1 peacekeeper to every 50 people. That would require a security force of 150,000 soldiers, minimum, stationed for years in Rwanda, to ensure the peace. An invading force pitting itself in the middle of a civil war is almost always a failure in progress. QUOTE
2. I believe that the Rwandan experience was simply a show of the blatent racist ideology of the west, hence no UN cry for help. Consider the fact that the Balkans were a multi-national UN force that was headed to stop a similiar situation against caucasians. NO, it wasn't right for the UN to leave these people to die by machete (sp?). Mr. Clinton refused action on the front end, and didn't make any attempt to stop what is nearly the worst massacre of contemporary history.
Of course it's hypocritical to send in troops on the back end. What did the UN hope to prove by sending in forces after the killing was done?? More flag waiving if you ask me...
Of course it's hypocritical to send in troops on the back end. What did the UN hope to prove by sending in forces after the killing was done?? More flag waiving if you ask me...
The Balkans were able to generate a multi-national force due to location. It was in the vested interest of Europe to not let that conflict spread, and there were thousands upon thousands of refugees walking over the border. They intervened in the Balkans because it was in their best direct interest to do so, and it was easy to generate sympathy because everyone was effected by the problem, and could see the effects of the genocide first hand. There was no such issue with Rwanda.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2005, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 09:04 AM)
1. The UN couldn't have made any effective difference, but the US could've committed as little as one Brigade sized unit to stop this. Once the US troops showed up and began shooting, I believe that the violence would've come to a screeching hault. (even African rebels are extremely afraid of US troops)[/b]
This is hindsight 20/20. Personally, I don't think it would have been that easy. Look at the Lebanon and Somalia examples. Kosovo and Bosnia are marginal successes only because they had a ratio of 1 peacekeeper to every 50 people. That would require a security force of 150,000 soldiers, minimum, stationed for years in Rwanda, to ensure the peace. An invading force pitting itself in the middle of a civil war is almost always a failure in progress. I don't believe that it would've required any permanent troops, as none were necessary after the genocide, were there? A large permanent undertaking wasn't necessary in Bosnia, was it?
Offensive military action is a far cry from a peace keeping effort. Your references to Somalia and Lebanon are interesting, in that there were never clear missions in either case. let's examine these;
Lebanon was a mess in that we were there in a "multi-lateral" position, if you will, only to stop the Muslims and the Israelis from killing each other; of which was ruined at the point in which we sent shells from a US Ship. There was no clear plan. Weinberger even came up with guidelines for intervention specifically from this military action. 150+ Marines died there with no clear action plan or need for being there.
Somalia was the same way. We had no plan to oust Aidid(sp?) and no clear cut strategy or goals. There was no American interest and our military backed out at the first sign of blood. (ie Blackhawk down) This is never how military action should be handled, and sends a message to the opponent that we're weak and vulnerable.
Rwanda, again, I believe could've been prevented or slowed by no more than say... the 2nd Marine Exp Task Force. I suppose most people on this board know little about military capability (considering all you get on network news is what is happening bad in Iraq...)
I've provided a little link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/2meb.htm
This unit is relatively new, but the capability was there in different form..
At any rate, we could've had men on the ground in under 48 hours, a full fledged fighting force in under 4 days, and later used UN peacekeepers in the same fashion that they were used.
Your mention about the intervention in the Balkans is pertinent, in that you said (paraphrased) that it served European interest. I agree, but in more than one way it shows the backbone of the UN and our inability to extend the same courtesy to non-caucasians in Africa. It's appalling to me...
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 01:17 PM)
I don't believe that it would've required any permanent troops, as none were necessary after the genocide, were there? A large permanent undertaking wasn't necessary in Bosnia, was it?
I might be mistaken, but I think peacekeepers remained in Bosnia for 6+ years after-the-fact. Peacekeeping forces might still be out there now, though I think we stopped those deployments a year or two ago.QUOTE
Offensive military action is a far cry from a peace keeping effort. Your references to Somalia and Lebanon are interesting, in that there were never clear missions in either case. let's examine these;
Lebanon was a mess in that we were there in a "multi-lateral" position, if you will, only to stop the Muslims and the Israelis from killing each other; of which was ruined at the point in which we sent shells from a US Ship. There was no clear plan. Weinberger even came up with guidelines for intervention specifically from this military action. 150+ Marines died there with no clear action plan or need for being there.
Somalia was the same way. We had no plan to oust Aidid(sp?) and no clear cut strategy or goals. There was no American interest and our military backed out at the first sign of blood. (ie Blackhawk down) This is never how military action should be handled, and sends a message to the opponent that we're weak and vulnerable.
Rwanda, again, I believe could've been prevented or slowed by no more than say... the 2nd Marine Exp Task Force. I suppose most people on this board know little about military capability (considering all you get on network news is what is happening bad in Iraq...)
I've provided a little link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/2meb.htm
This unit is relatively new, but the capability was there in different form..
At any rate, we could've had men on the ground in under 48 hours, a full fledged fighting force in under 4 days, and later used UN peacekeepers in the same fashion that they were used.
Your mention about the intervention in the Balkans is pertinent, in that you said (paraphrased) that it served European interest. I agree, but in more than one way it shows the backbone of the UN and our inability to extend the same courtesy to non-caucasians in Africa. It's appalling to me...
Lebanon was a mess in that we were there in a "multi-lateral" position, if you will, only to stop the Muslims and the Israelis from killing each other; of which was ruined at the point in which we sent shells from a US Ship. There was no clear plan. Weinberger even came up with guidelines for intervention specifically from this military action. 150+ Marines died there with no clear action plan or need for being there.
Somalia was the same way. We had no plan to oust Aidid(sp?) and no clear cut strategy or goals. There was no American interest and our military backed out at the first sign of blood. (ie Blackhawk down) This is never how military action should be handled, and sends a message to the opponent that we're weak and vulnerable.
Rwanda, again, I believe could've been prevented or slowed by no more than say... the 2nd Marine Exp Task Force. I suppose most people on this board know little about military capability (considering all you get on network news is what is happening bad in Iraq...)
I've provided a little link.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/2meb.htm
This unit is relatively new, but the capability was there in different form..
At any rate, we could've had men on the ground in under 48 hours, a full fledged fighting force in under 4 days, and later used UN peacekeepers in the same fashion that they were used.
Your mention about the intervention in the Balkans is pertinent, in that you said (paraphrased) that it served European interest. I agree, but in more than one way it shows the backbone of the UN and our inability to extend the same courtesy to non-caucasians in Africa. It's appalling to me...
I don’t know, aevans, we’ll have to disagree on this one. I think the “clear plan” guideline is much easier said than done. In Lebanon, there was a clear plan to act as a neutral third party between the hostile parties to deter the aggression. In Somalia there was a clear plan to distribute food aid. The country was run by warlords, in a state of hostile anarchy, so what good would ousting one violent warlord for another do? The only option would have been to take over that country and install martial law. In both cases acting as the neutral party in an effort to intervene and make everyone play nice created hostility and our forces became the targets.
Per the outcome of the Rwanda offensive, it wouldn’t have been the same had we intervened. We play by an International set of laws (in spite of what so many people think). The Tutsi army defeated the Hutus in Rwanda much the same way Executive Outcomes the RUF in Sierra Leone, where less than 300 mercenaries could do in weeks what the UN forces could not do in years. When the Hutus were overcome, they fled and were killed by the tens of thousands. It was a bloodbath, and they played dirty, and I personally think it’s best we stayed out of that.
The fact that a long-standing commitment may well have been needed or that the situation was complicated seems to me to be a failure to consider the alternative.
Fortunately as this is a historical debate we have the alternative displayed before us and I think it is perfectly clear that the wrong decision was made.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved without the kind of dangerous special-ops action that led to the spectacle in Somalia.
Both the UN and US failed completely to set up safe zones in this very small country that could have housed civilians until the situation was brought under control.
Stepping into the middle of a civil war is dangerous, but if the west is not prepared to do dangerous things they will find that nothing is all that they'll be doing.
I can't really understand how it could be though as anything but a failure due to a combination of apathy and cowardice that UN forces no only failed to send more forces to respond to the process but actually ran evacuating Westerners and leaving these people to be massacred.
It never would have been allowed in Eastern Europe, and I think aevans176 has a point that race played a role in this. Not malicious racism but a Eurocentric view of the world that has led and continues to lead most Americans and Europeans to believe that the only important conflicts is the world involve white people as one of the competitors.
It was a failure of will then and it continues to this day.
Fortunately as this is a historical debate we have the alternative displayed before us and I think it is perfectly clear that the wrong decision was made.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved without the kind of dangerous special-ops action that led to the spectacle in Somalia.
Both the UN and US failed completely to set up safe zones in this very small country that could have housed civilians until the situation was brought under control.
Stepping into the middle of a civil war is dangerous, but if the west is not prepared to do dangerous things they will find that nothing is all that they'll be doing.
I can't really understand how it could be though as anything but a failure due to a combination of apathy and cowardice that UN forces no only failed to send more forces to respond to the process but actually ran evacuating Westerners and leaving these people to be massacred.
It never would have been allowed in Eastern Europe, and I think aevans176 has a point that race played a role in this. Not malicious racism but a Eurocentric view of the world that has led and continues to lead most Americans and Europeans to believe that the only important conflicts is the world involve white people as one of the competitors.
It was a failure of will then and it continues to this day.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2005, 04:14 PM)
I don’t know, aevans, we’ll have to disagree on this one. I think the “clear plan” guideline is much easier said than done. In Lebanon, there was a clear plan to act as a neutral third party between the hostile parties to deter the aggression. In Somalia there was a clear plan to distribute food aid. The country was run by warlords, in a state of hostile anarchy, so what good would ousting one violent warlord for another do? The only option would have been to take over that country and install martial law. In both cases acting as the neutral party in an effort to intervene and make everyone play nice created hostility and our forces became the targets.
I think that Lebanon is a great example of the fact that politicians start wars. Even Colin Powell stated in reference to Beirut;
"I was developing a strong distaste for the antiseptic phrases coined by State Department officials for foreign interventions which usually had bloody consequences for the military, words like "presence," "symbol," "signal," "option on the table," "establishment of credibility." Their use was fine if beneath them lay a solid mission. But too often these words were used to give the appearance of clarity to mud."
***at this point, Colin Powell was a Major General and an assistant to the Secretary of Defense- C Weinberger***
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/history/powell.html
Somalia, contrary to popular belief was not specifically a food-related aid venture, even according to UN Resolution... how bout a link!!
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
The thing is that Somalia and Lebanon had political goals that changed by the minute and were dictated to military leaders whom were then responsible for dancing within the parameters. This "multi-lateral/play-nice position" doesn't work in military affairs. In my eyes, it has to be clear and decisive. There is no such thing as a fair fight.
Something else you have to understand is that in Rwanda, there were even very little small arms and the resistance would've been futile. You mentioned "Executive Outcomes" and Sierra Leone; ever wonder where this company came from?? The men were predominantly well-trained ex-South African Defense Force personnell. If 300 well trained men could do what UN peace keepers couldn't... what could 1000 Marines do?? (be careful...it's not just me that believes in the USMC...!)
Yes- there were peace keepers in Bosnia for an extended period of time, but I was referring to Rwanda. (Lest we not forget that we sent troops to Rwanda after the genocide...)- Operation Support Hope
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/support_hope.htm
Please don't take offense- but your logic is flawed. If we were concerned with sticking troops in Rwanda on a permanent basis and believed that it would become a long-term debaucle, why did we send them later??
I would presume that you're talking about the idea that had we stopped the violence pre-genocide, that there would've been violence after our departure?? I'm confident that as impoverished as Rwanda and it's neighboring nations are, that US Marines on their shores annihilating large groups of Hutus would've quelled violence as people know it.
Consider the fact that, regardless of what CBS news wants you to see, even in Iraq there is very little violence even though most Iraqi's want the US out. Why???.... Simply because they know they don't stand a chance. However, I can say from personal accounts that the situation in Iraq is consistently getting better. Don't want to take my word?? How about an Australian's word???
http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/
Heck- everyone likes to use the word insurgents, but even as Iraqi Prime Minister Ibraham al-Jafari said himself, insurgents would insinuate that these people are Iraqi... which is rarely the case (many "insurgents" are anti-American cells from neighboring nations).
If I were to make an educated guess; because Rwanda was an African nation inhabited by non-caucasians (don't get an ideas, I'm as white as it gets) that it was un-important and not worth spending American resources on while there was still a risk....
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 02:54 PM)
Somalia, contrary to popular belief was not specifically a food-related aid venture, even according to UN Resolution... how bout a link!!
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
Actually, your link indicates pretty much what I said. It was a humanitarian aid mission, which, due to the law of unintended consequences, expanded into much more military engagement. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
QUOTE
Something else you have to understand is that in Rwanda, there were even very little small arms and the resistance would've been futile. You mentioned "Executive Outcomes" and Sierra Leone; ever wonder where this company came from?? The men were predominantly well-trained ex-South African Defense Force personnell. If 300 well trained men could do what UN peace keepers couldn't... what could 1000 Marines do?? (be careful...it's not just me that believes in the USMC...!)
Executive Outcomes was able to acheive what they did because they aren't confined to specific Rules of Engagement under the Laws of Armed Conflict. Executive Outcomes could have saved lives in Rwanda by using this method, too. In fact, the organization was considered and contacted by the Secretary-General of the UN during the early days of the genocide for a possible intervention. Apparently they decided against it, though. This was ironic, because the UN ousted EO from Sierra Leone after they restored order...and the place went downhill again. QUOTE
Yes- there were peace keepers in Bosnia for an extended period of time, but I was referring to Rwanda. (Lest we not forget that we sent troops to Rwanda after the genocide...)- Operation Support Hope
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/support_hope.htm
Rwanda didn't need longstanding peacekeepers because the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) took over and used tactics that we would never use. In fact, Amnesty International has been sending us nasty grams for our support of them (which is mostly demining and humanitarian training). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/support_hope.htm
QUOTE
Please don't take offense- but your logic is flawed. If we were concerned with sticking troops in Rwanda on a permanent basis and believed that it would become a long-term debaucle, why did we send them later??
None taken. From my point of view, I see a nation full of civilians with government issued machetes, guns, and grenades. Separating the bad from the good would have been insurmountably difficult, and our forces do follow the ROE. The casualties would have been enormous. A bloodbath comprised almost entirely of civilians. That is what happened, but the blood was on their own hands rather than ours, and we would have suffered casualties too. I agree it was absolutely horrific, but ultimately Rwanda did this to itself.
QUOTE
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
Nothing. The UN does not have the political power or will to intervene in a civil war of this magnitude and, as Mrs. Pigpen rightly pointed out, the UN certainly doesn't have the military capability either.QUOTE
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
Would any one have been happier to see UN troops caught up in the massacre? What could they have done to prevent it? Even in Bosnia the UN were powerless against the aggression of the various locals. My own brother served there and saw the Danish UN compound shelled by Serb artillery. The UN has no power unless the parties involved agree to abide by it. The idea that the Hutu's would have allowed the UN into the nation is ridiculous.
QUOTE
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
By whom? The UN? Nothing. The rest of the world? Who knows? The surrounding nations did nothing, what could they do? They didn't have the political will or military capability to intervene either. African nations seldom do.
Europe and the USA?
Try explaining to the electorate why 'our lads' have to die to protect Africans from each other?
Most people in the west still look upon Africa as Joseph Conrad did, and with good reason. The whole continent is a cess pool of corruption, racism and violence. Even its best run nations are crime ridden examples of terrorism, nepotism and tyranny.
QUOTE
4.) How could Tutsi/Hutu relations have been improved before the massacre?
After so many years of violent hatred? Forced segregation I suppose? I don't know and I doubt any one else does.QUOTE
5.) Do you support the death of those instrumental of the slaughter of Tutsis in this particular case?
Yes. Any one found guilty of crimes of this magnitude deserves the death sentence. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTE(turnea)
It never would have been allowed in Eastern Europe, and I think aevans176 has a point that race played a role in this. Not malicious racism but a Eurocentric view of the world that has led and continues to lead most Americans and Europeans to believe that the only important conflicts is the world involve white people as one of the competitors.
Since when does having a Eurocentric world view make any one a racist? Its all to convenient to lay the blame else where but lets be clear about what actually happened here. An African ethnic minority massacred the members of another African minority, whilst the rest of Africa looked on.
Yet somehow, its a Eurocentric racist world view thats to blame for 'letting' this happen...
What exactly do you think any one could have done to prevent this?
Why should our soldiers face death when Africa looks on with its usual attitude of lazy indifference?
QUOTE(turnea)
The lives of hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved without the kind of dangerous special-ops action that led to the spectacle in Somalia.
How? QUOTE(turnea)
Stepping into the middle of a civil war is dangerous, but if the west is not prepared to do dangerous things they will find that nothing is all that they'll be doing.
And how many times have you taken up arms to protect other people? Its easy enough to talk about war, or that taking on danger is necessary when you are not the one who has to take responsibility for the decision to send thousands of men and women into harms way.
For my part I feel no obligation at all to put myself or any other Dane into harms way in order to satisfy an unrealistic perception that holds us to blame for the crimes of other people. If that makes me a racist then so be it.
QUOTE(turnea)
It was a failure of will then and it continues to this day.
A failure of will indicates there was a will to intervene ...which the rest of your post claims doesn't exist. Make your mind up. Either we didn't want to intervene and thus excersized our will accordingly, or we did want to intervene (despite this claim of 'Eurocentric racism') and thus our will failed.
You can't have it both ways.
In my opinion, there was nothing we could have done, nothing we were obliged to do and nothing we should have done that we didn't already do so many times before. Its about time the Africans started taking responsibility for themselves.
editted for spelling
QUOTE(moif)
Try explaining to the electorate why 'our lads' have to die to protect Africans from each other?
Most people in the west still look upon Africa as Joseph Conrad did, and with good reason. The whole continent is a cess pool of corruption, racism and violence. Even its best run nations are crime ridden examples of terrorism, nepotism and tyranny.[...]Its all to convenient to lay the blame else where but lets be clear about what actually happened here. An African ethnic minority massacred the members of another African minority, whilst the rest of Africa looked on.
Yet somehow, its a Eurocentric racist world view thats to blame for 'letting' this happen...
What exactly do you think any one could have done to prevent this?
Why should our soldiers face death when Africa looks on with its usual attitude of lazy indifference?
Most people in the west still look upon Africa as Joseph Conrad did, and with good reason. The whole continent is a cess pool of corruption, racism and violence. Even its best run nations are crime ridden examples of terrorism, nepotism and tyranny.[...]Its all to convenient to lay the blame else where but lets be clear about what actually happened here. An African ethnic minority massacred the members of another African minority, whilst the rest of Africa looked on.
Yet somehow, its a Eurocentric racist world view thats to blame for 'letting' this happen...
What exactly do you think any one could have done to prevent this?
Why should our soldiers face death when Africa looks on with its usual attitude of lazy indifference?
For someone who claims to have learned form Europe's centuries of petty, bloody squabbles this post demonstrates precious little of that learning.
Americans should know this old line of argument very well. It was the same argument used by a majority of Americans prior to two "World" Wars raging in a continent that we may very well have left alone.
Europeans killing Europeans as they always had done. For centuries these people had been bringing war both to their own shores and the world at large.
Until recently Europe could have been aptly named a plague upon the Earth. The majority of nations in this world could testify to the cruelty and greed of Europeans. On every inhabited continent they raped, pillaged, murdered and stole.
Every major European nation and many of the minor ones bears the records of atrocities somewhere on our planet.
There are entire races of people who have been placed on the brink of extinction do the Europeans lusts for their lands. Everywhere they went they stole something, not the least of nearly all of Africa.
Every African country I can think of had to put up with invaders from Europe. Every one with the humilation of being treated like animals in their own homeland.
Europe was nothing but trouble, follow the line of any major conflict in the world and Europe always seems to be at it's end to this day.
..and yet not once, but twice nations around the world rallied to their support. Places as far flung as Brazil, stung as they where by Portuguese imperialism fought on behalf of Europe.
When Germany invaded Prague what did Europe do?
Did they step in to stop it?
Most of the World had a very tough decision to make. Europe could easily have been left to it's own devices. To deal with the wars that Europeans had caused.
So what if the Nazi's slaughtered civilians? It's not as if the rest of Europe was a great moral cut above. The Nazis where merely the end result of a racism all Europe shared.
..and yet because even Europeans were human being nations around the world joined the war.
I could go on, Europe leaned heavily on the United States for years to come.
The point remains the same. When civilians are being slaughtered waiting around and wondering why the people on the neighborhood won't or can't solve the problem accomplished nothing.
It was the US and Europe that held power in this world in the '90s. They have the wealth and the capability to send troops. To set up internal refugee camps. To confront this militia which traveled with impunity killing civilians with machetes.
The EU sent a force alright, to evacuate Europeans.
It was pure callous cowardice, even Bill Clinton (president at the time) has admitted this.
Turnea, I agree, Africa has been historically abused egregiously.
However, in the case of Rwanda a reality check is in order here. This was not some rouge militia causing all of the problems. One out of every 50 Rwandans actively participated in this slaughter. If one out of 50 citizens within the continental United States went mad at once and started slaughtering every, say, red haired person they could find (and "sympathizers" of a red-haired people), I would fully expect foreign nations to try and retrieve every citizen they could to bring them home safely. Countries are responsible to their own citizens first and foremost.
However, in the case of Rwanda a reality check is in order here. This was not some rouge militia causing all of the problems. One out of every 50 Rwandans actively participated in this slaughter. If one out of 50 citizens within the continental United States went mad at once and started slaughtering every, say, red haired person they could find (and "sympathizers" of a red-haired people), I would fully expect foreign nations to try and retrieve every citizen they could to bring them home safely. Countries are responsible to their own citizens first and foremost.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2005, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 02:54 PM)
Somalia, contrary to popular belief was not specifically a food-related aid venture, even according to UN Resolution... how bout a link!!
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
Actually, your link indicates pretty much what I said. It was a humanitarian aid mission, which, due to the law of unintended consequences, expanded into much more military engagement. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
I think that if you take a look at the timeline a little more closely, you'll see that this engagment lasted nearly 2 years, of which only a couple of months had an "aid based" resolution. I think any military officer could've told you that a nation run by warlords as impoverished as Somalia is, would've caused armed engagement.
To answer a couple more of your points- yes, as a Marine I am very familiar with Rules of Engagement (as you coin the phrase). We do have to follow protocol, but the rules aren't as strict as you'd imagine. For instance, if you put an expeditionary force on the ground, I would imagine that the Rwandans in this case would begin shooting pretty quickly. This is something they teach you to be ready for anytime soldiers' feet hit the ground. Typical intervention begins with armed Marines being flown in via helicopter, with armed gunship support readily available. High casualties?? Maybe... but nothing near the over 1 million tutsis that were slaughtered.
I liken it to riot police marching into a crowd of looters w/ Tear Gas. Once the shooting starts, it's easy to see that most looters tuck tail and run.
Secondly, the Hutus were wearing colored cloths to mark their origin. It would've been no harder to discern the enemy than in a true military engagement. However, in the event that you couldn't easily tell friend from foe (as in Afghanistan/Iraq), those shooting would quickly be identified~!
Finally, I look at the Hutus for what they are, untrained-ill equipped barbarians. It would've taken no military effort.
Using your logic, if I can ma'am, why did the military intervention work in the Balkans while it wouldn't have in Rwanda. Mind you, the reasoning was nearly identical. Genocide is Genocide... we attacked military targets, and once bombs started dropping many "barbarians" dropped their weapons and fled. Not surprising for untrained soldiers...
Most people that engage in these acts do so in that they don't have an expectation of reprisal. Yes, the RPF fought back and didn't fight cleanly, but they were even still a militia based force that was extremely poorly equipped. The Hutus' genocide revolved around a group think function, of which they were very unorganized and ill trained/equipped. US Marines in the middle of the violence would've cause chaos and an inability to maintain control. It wouldn't have lasted very long...
turnea.
Colonialism, born of Imperialism was the way of the world. It was not just a European phenomenon but the way by which all nations were once ruled.
The only thing that sets Europe apart from the rest of the world is the measure of success enjoyed by the European powers of old. And that is all. Despite your apparent belief that Europe is some how the root of all human infamy, every where the Europeans went they found people's governed by tyrants and by the same standards or worse that followed in the wake of the Europeans.
Europe did not bring tyranny, slavery and death to the world, these things already existed and it was by and large the Europeans who also put an end to most of these practices.
Colonialism in Africa was a natural end to the political evolution under which all humanity has suffered and whilst you describe African people being being treated like animals I see Africans freed from slavery, given the benefits of a close interaction with European nations, given the advantages of technology, given the advantages of education and western learning, and eventually being given their lands back, usually by non violent means.
That the Europeans were just 'racists' is a gross over simplification of the time and a self imposed delusion as to the nature of all other human beings. ALL human beings are racists and Rwanda proves this amply. Africans are no different to Europeans and given the edge would just as easily have colonised us as we colonised them.
Your high flung rhetoric regarding Brazil and the USA coming to Europe's aid in the second world war is about as apt as a fairy tale. America did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on America. Just as the Japanese did. They left the USA with no choice. I also find it amusing that now the second WORLD war is being regarded as a European war since I never knew the Japanese were Eurocentric.
I'll thank you to read about the recent history of my country before you judge us so easily for whilst the nazi's were busying gassing Jews, Denmark was busy saving them.
It might surprise you to learn that not all Europeans are racists, though given the audacity of your judgement against us you probably don't believe that. In fact, the majority of Europeans have fought and died and struggled to create democracy instead of monarchy, freedom from religion, the ending of slavery. Equal rights for all people, including women and all the other glad trappings of modern western society.
If you want to talk about a Eurocentric world, then why not include all of these for as sure as colonialism, imperialism and exploitation were European attributes, so too were education, democracy, universal equality, invention and medicine.
Europe, now just as it was ten years ago has no capability to send its military into Africa on the scale necessary to have prevented Rwanda. Look at the figures Mrs. P provided. They are accurate enough. At least 150,000 soldiers would have been needed to stop the violence and just where do you think Europe is going to cough up that many men? In case you hadn't noticed there is only one nation in the world today capable of shifting that many troops at short notice and it ain't in Europe my friend.
Europe's military forces are now smaller and less mobile than at any time since the Napoleonic war. Thanks to the cold war our entire land army resources are geared towards defence against other land forces. We simply don't have the logistics needed to shift huge numbers of troops into central Africa, and especially not on short notice.
In case you hadn't noticed there are no colonial powers left in Europe and all the resources the colonial powers once had have long since disappeared. The mighty Royal Navy for example could hardly muster together enough ships to retake the Falklands, and that was twenty years (and a long of cut backs) ago.
And if thats not good enough for you, just take a good long hard look at the former Yugoslavia. It was right on our door steps and we didn't have the resources, either political or logistical to stop it. We sent in our UN tanks and soldiers and they were bloody useless.
Since we couldn't even stop a massacre happening on our own doorstep, how would we be able to stop a much larger massacre, thousands of kilometres away in a place where we are not welcome?
I see you pointing a finger and making demands but I don't see you offering any answers as to how you think we could realistically go about such a folly.
So, I am unmoved by your post. I repeat, there is nothing we could have done. The locals would never had allowed the UN to interfere so sending peacekeepers as we did in Bosnia would be to place our soldiers, with their meager resources in mortal danger.
Acting outside of the UN, for example, through NATO would have been politically difficult and logistically impossible. As it is, the European nations can hardly provide any support in Afghanistan and Iraq where the conditions are far better suited to intervention since mass murder is not being committed in either nation.
I shall leave you with this simple quote...
...and you may ponder the significance of what it means with regards to international military intervention and Bill Clinton.
editted for spelling
Colonialism, born of Imperialism was the way of the world. It was not just a European phenomenon but the way by which all nations were once ruled.
The only thing that sets Europe apart from the rest of the world is the measure of success enjoyed by the European powers of old. And that is all. Despite your apparent belief that Europe is some how the root of all human infamy, every where the Europeans went they found people's governed by tyrants and by the same standards or worse that followed in the wake of the Europeans.
Europe did not bring tyranny, slavery and death to the world, these things already existed and it was by and large the Europeans who also put an end to most of these practices.
Colonialism in Africa was a natural end to the political evolution under which all humanity has suffered and whilst you describe African people being being treated like animals I see Africans freed from slavery, given the benefits of a close interaction with European nations, given the advantages of technology, given the advantages of education and western learning, and eventually being given their lands back, usually by non violent means.
That the Europeans were just 'racists' is a gross over simplification of the time and a self imposed delusion as to the nature of all other human beings. ALL human beings are racists and Rwanda proves this amply. Africans are no different to Europeans and given the edge would just as easily have colonised us as we colonised them.
Your high flung rhetoric regarding Brazil and the USA coming to Europe's aid in the second world war is about as apt as a fairy tale. America did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on America. Just as the Japanese did. They left the USA with no choice. I also find it amusing that now the second WORLD war is being regarded as a European war since I never knew the Japanese were Eurocentric.
QUOTE
Most of the World had a very tough decision to make. Europe could easily have been left to it's own devices. To deal with the wars that Europeans had caused.
You make it sound as if these nations had a choice. That Europe's influence was not considerable. That the European powers had let these nations go and so the rest of the world had the freedom to act on its own volition. QUOTE
So what if the Nazi's slaughtered civilians? It's not as if the rest of Europe was a great moral cut above. The Nazis where merely the end result of a racism all Europe shared.
And this sounds to me like the widest, most biased, generalization you could possibly make... So, we Europeans were all racists on a par with the nazi's and apparently this is something that sets us aside from all other human beings... I'll thank you to read about the recent history of my country before you judge us so easily for whilst the nazi's were busying gassing Jews, Denmark was busy saving them.
It might surprise you to learn that not all Europeans are racists, though given the audacity of your judgement against us you probably don't believe that. In fact, the majority of Europeans have fought and died and struggled to create democracy instead of monarchy, freedom from religion, the ending of slavery. Equal rights for all people, including women and all the other glad trappings of modern western society.
If you want to talk about a Eurocentric world, then why not include all of these for as sure as colonialism, imperialism and exploitation were European attributes, so too were education, democracy, universal equality, invention and medicine.
QUOTE
It was the US and Europe that held power in this world in the '90s. They have the wealth and the capability to send troops. To set up internal refugee camps. To confront this militia which traveled with impunity killing civilians with machetes.
Give me a break!Europe, now just as it was ten years ago has no capability to send its military into Africa on the scale necessary to have prevented Rwanda. Look at the figures Mrs. P provided. They are accurate enough. At least 150,000 soldiers would have been needed to stop the violence and just where do you think Europe is going to cough up that many men? In case you hadn't noticed there is only one nation in the world today capable of shifting that many troops at short notice and it ain't in Europe my friend.
Europe's military forces are now smaller and less mobile than at any time since the Napoleonic war. Thanks to the cold war our entire land army resources are geared towards defence against other land forces. We simply don't have the logistics needed to shift huge numbers of troops into central Africa, and especially not on short notice.
In case you hadn't noticed there are no colonial powers left in Europe and all the resources the colonial powers once had have long since disappeared. The mighty Royal Navy for example could hardly muster together enough ships to retake the Falklands, and that was twenty years (and a long of cut backs) ago.
And if thats not good enough for you, just take a good long hard look at the former Yugoslavia. It was right on our door steps and we didn't have the resources, either political or logistical to stop it. We sent in our UN tanks and soldiers and they were bloody useless.
Since we couldn't even stop a massacre happening on our own doorstep, how would we be able to stop a much larger massacre, thousands of kilometres away in a place where we are not welcome?
I see you pointing a finger and making demands but I don't see you offering any answers as to how you think we could realistically go about such a folly.
So, I am unmoved by your post. I repeat, there is nothing we could have done. The locals would never had allowed the UN to interfere so sending peacekeepers as we did in Bosnia would be to place our soldiers, with their meager resources in mortal danger.
Acting outside of the UN, for example, through NATO would have been politically difficult and logistically impossible. As it is, the European nations can hardly provide any support in Afghanistan and Iraq where the conditions are far better suited to intervention since mass murder is not being committed in either nation.
I shall leave you with this simple quote...
QUOTE
With expenditure of $455 billion, the United States accounted for almost half the global figure, more than the combined total of the 32 next most powerful nations, said SIPRI, which is widely recognized for the reliability of its data.
Link....and you may ponder the significance of what it means with regards to international military intervention and Bill Clinton.
editted for spelling
QUOTE(moif @ Aug 4 2005, 11:53 AM)
Colonialism, born of Imperialism was the way of the world. It was not just a European phenomenon but the way by which all nations were once ruled.
The only thing that sets Europe apart from the rest of the world is the measure of success enjoyed by the European powers of old. And that is all. Despite your apparent belief that Europe is some how the root of all human infamy, every where the Europeans went they found people's governed by tyrants and by the same standards or worse that followed in the wake of the Europeans.
I recognize that and the point I was making does not have to do with any perception that Europeans were any more barbaric that any other group of people on Earth.
They are not, though they weren't much less barbaric either.
The point was that just as you claimed Africa was a mess of a continent, the same claims could have been made of Europe preceding each world war.
Europe exported brutality on a scale the rest of the world could never hope to match.
If we are to judge the value of a life by the decisions of their political leader the lives of Europeans during WWII would not have been worth a single US soldier.
QUOTE(moif)
Colonialism in Africa was a natural end to the political evolution under which all humanity has suffered and whilst you describe African people being being treated like animals I see Africans freed from slavery, given the benefits of a close interaction with European nations, given the advantages of technology, given the advantages of education and western learning, and eventually being given their lands back, usually by non violent means.
It just took about a hundred years
Let's not minimize the crimes that took place, Europeans where instrumental in making Africa what it is today.
The Nazi invasion of Denmark was not one wit more brutal and callous.
QUOTE(moif)
Your high flung rhetoric regarding Brazil and the USA coming to Europe's aid in the second world war is about as apt as a fairy tale. America did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on America. Just as the Japanese did. They left the USA with no choice. I also find it amusing that now the second WORLD war is being regarded as a European war since I never knew the Japanese were Eurocentric.
The war started in Europe, had not Nazi Germany give Japan there support the Japanese would likely have stopped with Manchuria in their rampage.
Germany gave them support to go further.
Germany declared war on the US because of their material support for the UK, we could have easily formed a non-aggression pact.
QUOTE(moif)
And this sounds to me like the widest, most biased, generalization you could possibly make... So, we Europeans were all racists on a par with the nazi's and apparently this is something that sets us aside from all other human beings...
Not necessarily, but then you are one who adheres to judging people by their actions and Europe had more than it fair share of those...
Again, the point is not that Europeans are any worse than the rest of the world, but that they were no better than the "lazy" Africans you blam for the situation.
QUOTE(moif)
Europe, now just as it was ten years ago has no capability to send its military into Africa on the scale necessary to have prevented Rwanda. Look at the figures Mrs. P provided. They are accurate enough. At least 150,000 soldiers would have been needed to stop the violence and just where do you think Europe is going to cough up that many men? In case you hadn't noticed there is only one nation in the world today capable of shifting that many troops at short notice and it ain't in Europe my friend.
Europe already had forces in the vicinity and they didn't have to stop the situation all on their on.
Just do something to help, but they did nothing.
They could have advocated in the UN for intervention, but again nothing.
QUOTE(moif)
So, I am unmoved by your post. I repeat, there is nothing we could have done. The locals would never had allowed the UN to interfere so sending peacekeepers as we did in Bosnia would be to place our soldiers, with their meager resources in mortal danger.
There were already UN peacekeepers, they were pulled out.
QUOTE(moif)
...and you may ponder the significance of what it means with regards to international military intervention and Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton has at least admitted to his failure.
Edited to fix the darn quotes
1.) What could the U.N. have done to keep peace during the genocide?
Sent in more troops...? The problem is that the UN peace keeping forces are dependant on member nations to supply men, money, and equipment. There are a lot of things that could have happened, before and during the genocide that would have curbed the violence, if Dallaire was able to get the support he repeatedly asked for. The fact is that he started with less than 2000 troops, from Ghana, Burma (I think?) and Belgium. There were horrible communication barriers (even the Belgian force did not speak French), some of the troops that were sent were poorly trained or poorly equipped (although they were supposed to come with their own provisions).
Additionally, the UN kept insisting that Dallaire keep open communication with the Hutu militia, because they were legally in charge of the country. This meant that they were exposed to all the manouevers that Dallaire felt that they should not have been privy too. And the UN ambassador was pretty indifferent the whole situation, preferring to take extended vacations to his home country (I can't remember where that was exactly...Somewhere in West Africa).
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
No it was not right for the UN to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation. However, with no country, except Belgium, offering up a substantial amount of military support, I also see no other option. The UNAMIR was doomed to fail from the beginning because member nations did not think Rwanda was important enough.
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
SO MANY THINGS, I can't even remember them all. Firstly, Romeo Dallaire requested 5000 troops, and he says in his book that analysts had reviewed his plan for peace keeping and they agreed that had he had the military and logistical support he had asked for, the genocide might have been prevented. Even if he wasn't able to get his initial support, well before the genocide, an informant from the Hutu militia started telling UNAMIR about the the plans for slaughter and offered to tell them where hidden weapons caches were. The informant wanted full protection for himself and his family if he was going to give up anymore information, however the UN refused protection and said Dallaire should work through the government. Stopping the French government from supporting the Hutus would have been another thing that would have prevented the slaughter.
I still think that had Dallaire had the support he had asked for, the genocide would have been prevented. Rwanda, just before the genocide, was supposed to be reaching a peace agreement, and had there not been the infinite delays in switching over the governments, the genocide might not have happened. The fact that there were constant delays (and not enough UN personnel to see the change go through smoothly), only aggravated the situation between Hutus and Tutsis, and when the president died, it left the extremists in his administration in power. The government should have gone through an easy transition that allowed more moderates into power...And then all died, or went into hiding once the genocide started...Hmph.
Sent in more troops...? The problem is that the UN peace keeping forces are dependant on member nations to supply men, money, and equipment. There are a lot of things that could have happened, before and during the genocide that would have curbed the violence, if Dallaire was able to get the support he repeatedly asked for. The fact is that he started with less than 2000 troops, from Ghana, Burma (I think?) and Belgium. There were horrible communication barriers (even the Belgian force did not speak French), some of the troops that were sent were poorly trained or poorly equipped (although they were supposed to come with their own provisions).
Additionally, the UN kept insisting that Dallaire keep open communication with the Hutu militia, because they were legally in charge of the country. This meant that they were exposed to all the manouevers that Dallaire felt that they should not have been privy too. And the UN ambassador was pretty indifferent the whole situation, preferring to take extended vacations to his home country (I can't remember where that was exactly...Somewhere in West Africa).
2.) Was it right of the U.N. to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation with no support? Was it hypocritical to their central goals to return only after the bloodshed had ended?
No it was not right for the UN to have left Rwanda in such a hostile situation. However, with no country, except Belgium, offering up a substantial amount of military support, I also see no other option. The UNAMIR was doomed to fail from the beginning because member nations did not think Rwanda was important enough.
3.) What could have been done to protect against violence before it even began?
SO MANY THINGS, I can't even remember them all. Firstly, Romeo Dallaire requested 5000 troops, and he says in his book that analysts had reviewed his plan for peace keeping and they agreed that had he had the military and logistical support he had asked for, the genocide might have been prevented. Even if he wasn't able to get his initial support, well before the genocide, an informant from the Hutu militia started telling UNAMIR about the the plans for slaughter and offered to tell them where hidden weapons caches were. The informant wanted full protection for himself and his family if he was going to give up anymore information, however the UN refused protection and said Dallaire should work through the government. Stopping the French government from supporting the Hutus would have been another thing that would have prevented the slaughter.
I still think that had Dallaire had the support he had asked for, the genocide would have been prevented. Rwanda, just before the genocide, was supposed to be reaching a peace agreement, and had there not been the infinite delays in switching over the governments, the genocide might not have happened. The fact that there were constant delays (and not enough UN personnel to see the change go through smoothly), only aggravated the situation between Hutus and Tutsis, and when the president died, it left the extremists in his administration in power. The government should have gone through an easy transition that allowed more moderates into power...And then all died, or went into hiding once the genocide started...Hmph.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 4 2005, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 3 2005, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Aug 3 2005, 02:54 PM)
Somalia, contrary to popular belief was not specifically a food-related aid venture, even according to UN Resolution... how bout a link!!
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
Actually, your link indicates pretty much what I said. It was a humanitarian aid mission, which, due to the law of unintended consequences, expanded into much more military engagement. http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190...ia_0104,00.html
I think that if you take a look at the timeline a little more closely, you'll see that this engagment lasted nearly 2 years, of which only a couple of months had an "aid based" resolution. I think any military officer could've told you that a nation run by warlords as impoverished as Somalia is, would've caused armed engagement.
Look at the resolutions:
1. First, UNSCR 751 and 767: Initiation of Operation Provide Relief to deliver humanitarian aid.
2.Next, UNSCR 794: Operation Restore Hope, permitting all necessary means to create a secure environment to deliver the aid.
3. Next, UNSCR 814, broadens mission to political reconcilitation, disarmament, and nationbuilding…
4. (eventually) Directs UNOSOM to take all necessary means to bring those responsible to justice….yadda, yadda.
Notice the progression from the first to the last? First, the humanitarian mission which led into unintended consequences and lots of military engagement. It could have escalated even further, but we cut our losses. I’m not writing a thesis here. I have a pretty good understanding of what went on in Somalia. Since it is sort of pertinent to the topic because I believe that intervention in Rwanda would have led to an even greater though similar fiasco, I’ll elaborate.
When we entered Somalia, it was in a state of anarchy and internal clan rivalries. Over a dozen different factions wished for control. Eventually, guns were more abundant than food and the people started to starve. US Troops were sent in to reopen the supply lines so the people could eat. Initially, Aidid welcomed our intervention, since he believed we would side with him, so we established headquarters in Mogadishu (his turf). However, our presence led to more of a potential that he and his thugs would be disarmed, so his chief rival, Mahdi, worked to obtain political advantage through us. Tensions grew, and we were sucked into choosing sides.
Somalis came to view U.S. and UN forces as participants in their war, as the rival factions continued to fight and try to use our occupation and pit us against each of them. Relief organizations’ supplies were plundered by the warlords. Aidid portrayed himself as the aggrieved party, and his stature was raised, as he launched a low-intensity guerrilla war against our presence. Meanwhile, our forces (and the UN) were funding the warlords because every cab they took, every place they stayed, and everything they bought, went into the warlords’ coffers to buy weapons. Every working citizen and business owner was under control of the warlord mafia. Rather than providing relief, UN forces escalated the violence and provided weapons funding.
QUOTE
To answer a couple more of your points- yes, as a Marine I am very familiar with Rules of Engagement (as you coin the phrase). We do have to follow protocol, but the rules aren't as strict as you'd imagine. For instance, if you put an expeditionary force on the ground, I would imagine that the Rwandans in this case would begin shooting pretty quickly. This is something they teach you to be ready for anytime soldiers' feet hit the ground. Typical intervention begins with armed Marines being flown in via helicopter, with armed gunship support readily available. High casualties?? Maybe... but nothing near the over 1 million tutsis that were slaughtered.
I liken it to riot police marching into a crowd of looters w/ Tear Gas. Once the shooting starts, it's easy to see that most looters tuck tail and run.
If you say so. Hindsight is 20/20. You break it, you buy it, and all. I wouldn't wish to buy the already broken Rwanda. I didn't coin the phrase rules of engagement, BTW, I'm just stating the obvious. I liken it to riot police marching into a crowd of looters w/ Tear Gas. Once the shooting starts, it's easy to see that most looters tuck tail and run.
I think you are assuming too much in your belief that you know what the reactions would be here. I'd give them a little more credit, myself.QUOTE
Secondly, the Hutus were wearing colored cloths to mark their origin. It would've been no harder to discern the enemy than in a true military engagement. However, in the event that you couldn't easily tell friend from foe (as in Afghanistan/Iraq), those shooting would quickly be identified~!
Finally, I look at the Hutus for what they are, untrained-ill equipped barbarians. It would've taken no military effort.
Again, if you say so. I'll give them a bit more credit for cleverness than you do. I'm sure you believe what you're saying, but I disagree. Finally, I look at the Hutus for what they are, untrained-ill equipped barbarians. It would've taken no military effort.
QUOTE
Using your logic, if I can ma'am, why did the military intervention work in the Balkans while it wouldn't have in Rwanda. Mind you, the reasoning was nearly identical. Genocide is Genocide... we attacked military targets, and once bombs started dropping many "barbarians" dropped their weapons and fled. Not surprising for untrained soldiers...
The Balkans weren't the same situation. Different location, an air-only campaign. Lots of infrastructure damage with comparatively little loss of life. The Balkans had "military targets", Rwanda doesn't by comparison. Just a lot of people (especially civilians) with weapons, to include child "soldiers". The Balkans had a lower population...and securing the peace still took tens of thousands of soldiers years to maintain.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 4 2005, 12:40 PM)
QUOTE
Using your logic, if I can ma'am, why did the military intervention work in the Balkans while it wouldn't have in Rwanda. Mind you, the reasoning was nearly identical. Genocide is Genocide... we attacked military targets, and once bombs started dropping many "barbarians" dropped their weapons and fled. Not surprising for untrained soldiers...
The Balkans weren't the same situation. Different location, an air-only campaign. Lots of infrastructure damage with comparatively little loss of life. The Balkans had "military targets", Rwanda doesn't by comparison. Just a lot of people (especially civilians) with weapons, to include child "soldiers". The Balkans had a lower population...and securing the peace still took tens of thousands of soldiers years to maintain.
I don't disagree that the Balkans were to a certain degree a different military engagement. However, even according to President Clinton, the air campaign on our part was intentionally directed at not putting our soldiers in harms way. It cost large amounts of dollars and long periods of time to change the tide without troops on the ground. The essential nature of physical troop presence is tantamount to any other portion of a campaign. The targets in the Balkans were unimpeded for large junctures in that they weren't afraid of US military reprisal. Bombings were frequently ineffective at diminishing their troops strength or impeding their "genocidal goals"... hence the fact that this went on for an extended period of time.
I understand your logic, which is common for US Civilians. People are afraid of casualties, expense, and bad press. However, in my eyes the horror of what happened in Rwanda didn't get the attention it deserved/deserves still due to political ramifications that center around race. As you mentioned earlier in your posts, it served European interests to intervene in the Balkans, and it was a wonderful UN PR opportunity, but in my eyes was no more or less important than Rwanda. Considering the loss of life in Rwanda, the Balkans were menial in comparison.
Casper Weinberger had a philosophy that boiled down to the idealism that if it didn't serve US interests, don't get involved (to paraphrase). In my eyes, neither case would've passed the test. So that being said, we probably should approach a more all or nothing mentality when it comes to these matters.
What happened in Rwanda never should have happened and kimpossible pretty much said what I would have. Sometimes its hard to know when to get into a conflict or not within a particular country. aevans176 is correct about the Hutu's wearing colored clothing in order to identify eachother, but its hard to say if we did go in would they lose them? As well like I said its hard to know when to get into a conflict because you might not know the whole situation, so with limited resources you have to pick your fights.
When I say that I am not saying it was right for only going in after the fact, because as we see the same thing is happening in Sudan right now to some extent. It is disheartening to see things like this happen. For me I would much rather our government work to stop these kinds of things then being in places like Iraq right now. Before anyone reminds me yes I know what Saddam did back in the late 80's early 90's and we should have taken care of that back then not now.
A great movie that enlightened me more to what happened in Rwanda even if thru one mans prospective is Hotel Rwanda. The extras on the DVD show some really disturbing images but I am glad that I watched them because it shows some facts that all governments really did not want us to see at the time.
When I say that I am not saying it was right for only going in after the fact, because as we see the same thing is happening in Sudan right now to some extent. It is disheartening to see things like this happen. For me I would much rather our government work to stop these kinds of things then being in places like Iraq right now. Before anyone reminds me yes I know what Saddam did back in the late 80's early 90's and we should have taken care of that back then not now.
A great movie that enlightened me more to what happened in Rwanda even if thru one mans prospective is Hotel Rwanda. The extras on the DVD show some really disturbing images but I am glad that I watched them because it shows some facts that all governments really did not want us to see at the time.
QUOTE(Cadman @ Aug 6 2005, 05:57 AM)
A great movie that enlightened me more to what happened in Rwanda even if thru one mans prospective is Hotel Rwanda. The extras on the DVD show some really disturbing images but I am glad that I watched them because it shows some facts that all governments really did not want us to see at the time.
I agree, that movie was moving. I'm glad it was toned down a lot and didn't show the true horror of the situation. Now, imagine a scene with US military members jumping off of of helicopters and spraying crowds with bullets and grenades. No one would be thanking us after the fact, because no one would have known that a million people would have otherwise died, and we'd be paying reparations and occupying the country now. That this isn't obvious to everyone is confusing to me. It's a farce that only militia men were involved in this activity. Rwanda is comprised of peasants. Women, children, nuns were completely involved in this as well. Remember the scene in Somalia. Contrary to aaevans' analysis, the crowds didn't run away in all directions. They swarmed in.
The Sudan, as you mentioned, as been experiencing this. The Congo lost over two million people in less than three years (more than twice as many people as Rwanda), in the late 90s after the Rwanda incident. The violence in India between the Hindus and Muslims killed more people in one large riot than were killed in Sbrenika. A country needs to pick its battles carefully. We can't save every country from itself.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 6 2005, 09:52 AM)
I agree, that movie was moving. I'm glad it was toned down a lot and didn't show the true horror of the situation. Now, imagine a scene with US military members jumping off of of helicopters and spraying crowds with bullets and grenades. No one would be thanking us after the fact, and we'd be paying reparations and occupying the country now. That this isn't obvious to everyone is confusing to me.
Well for starters it's far from obvious that the US would have to jump out of helicopters and gun down any crowds.
Setting up internal refugee camps and conducting patrols to evacuate Tutsi civilians would have not caused much moral ambiguity at all.
Both are entirely defensive actions (unlike the Somalia affair). Anyone who engaged US troops would be doing so entirely of their own will.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pipgpen)
It's a farce that only militia men were involved in this activity. Rwanda is comprised of peasants. Women, children, nuns were completely involved in this as well. Remember the scene in Somalia. Contrary to aaevans' analysis, the crowds didn't run away in all directions. They swarmed in.
Of course, in Somalia it was a few special forces troops trying to arrest a number of prominent individuals in the community.
A light footprint was necessary in that action, not in Rwanda.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pipgen)
The Sudan, as you mentioned, as been experiencing this. The Congo lost over two million people in less than three years (more than twice as many people as Rwanda), in the late 90s after the Rwanda incident. The violence in India between the Hindus and Muslims killed more people in one large riot than were killed in Sbrenika. A country needs to pick its battles carefully. We can't save every country from itself.
We can certainly save some.
"Picking your battles" doesn't mean not picking any at all.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 6 2005, 08:00 AM)
Setting up internal refugee camps and conducting patrols to evacuate Tutsi civilians would have not caused much moral ambiguity at all.
Both are entirely defensive actions (unlike the Somalia affair). Anyone who engaged US troops would be doing so entirely of their own will.
Hutu "sympathizers" were killed as well. Many were made to throw grenades in school buildings and machete down Tutsis. It would have been just as easy to use those intimidation tactics to create a wall of armed children and mothers, storming the safe-havens and patrol units. It might sound reasonable and easy to do such "entirely defensive actions". It rarely is...especially not in this sort of a case.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 6 2005, 10:13 AM)
Hutu "sympathizers" were killed as well. Many were made to throw grenades in school buildings and machete down Tutsis. It would have been just as easy to use those intimidation tactics to create a wall of armed children and mothers, storming the safe-havens and patrol units. It might sound reasonable and easy to do such "entirely defensive actions". It rarely is...especially not in this sort of a case.
We could always debate what "could" have happened. If armed women and children were used to kill unarmed women and children, the choice is rather clear.
We could try to avoid the death of human shields, but the prospect never fazed us in Iraq and it shouldn't have in Rwanda.
I sincerely doubt the intimidators would have been that successful, they never were anywhere else.
The fact of the matter is we could have tried. If our worse fear was bad PR then clearly the inaction was anything but justified.
What was needed was not unprecedented action.
QUOTE
Dallaire was instructed to have UNAMIR focus only on evacuating foreign nationals from Rwanda, and the change in orders even led Belgian peacekeepers to abandon a technical school filled with 2,000 refugees, while Hutu militants waited outside, drinking beer and chanting "Hutu Power." After the Belgians left, the militants entered the school and massacred those inside, including hundreds of children. Four days later, the Belgians withdrew their peacekeepers, and the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR down to 260 men.[...]Following the Belgian forces' withdrawal after 10 soldiers were killed, General Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanian, and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of "safe control". His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis.
Rwandan Genocide
This was with fewer than a thousand soldiers, even Clinton admits that we failed miserably in this instance.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 6 2005, 08:21 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 6 2005, 10:13 AM)
Hutu "sympathizers" were killed as well. Many were made to throw grenades in school buildings and machete down Tutsis. It would have been just as easy to use those intimidation tactics to create a wall of armed children and mothers, storming the safe-havens and patrol units. It might sound reasonable and easy to do such "entirely defensive actions". It rarely is...especially not in this sort of a case.
We could always debate what "could" have happened. If armed women and children were used to kill unarmed women and children, the choice is rather clear.
We could try to avoid the death of human shields, but the prospect never fazed us in Iraq and it shouldn't have in Rwanda.
QUOTE
The fact of the matter is we could have tried. If our worse fear was bad PR then clearly the inaction was anything but justified.
What was needed was not unprecedented action.
Rwandan Genocide
This was with fewer than a thousand soldiers, even Clinton admits that we failed miserably in this instance.
What was needed was not unprecedented action.
QUOTE
Dallaire was instructed to have UNAMIR focus only on evacuating foreign nationals from Rwanda, and the change in orders even led Belgian peacekeepers to abandon a technical school filled with 2,000 refugees, while Hutu militants waited outside, drinking beer and chanting "Hutu Power." After the Belgians left, the militants entered the school and massacred those inside, including hundreds of children. Four days later, the Belgians withdrew their peacekeepers, and the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR down to 260 men.[...]Following the Belgian forces' withdrawal after 10 soldiers were killed, General Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanian, and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of "safe control". His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis.
Rwandan Genocide
This was with fewer than a thousand soldiers, even Clinton admits that we failed miserably in this instance.
[I] This is all after the fact. It's like arguing that we should have shot down the planes at 911.
Actually I would agree with both of you turnea and Mrs. Pigpen for almost the same reasons even if they are not clearly apparent. When our country decides to go into a conflict it needs to decide what kind of actions and how many forces would be required, which we can see using the Afghan/Iraq wars as an example.
If it was up to me because we were hunting down the group that attacked us in Afghanistan I would have used the number of forces minimum we put into Iraq to hunt for Bin Laden.
But then that gets me thinking if it wasn't for Bin Laden and Al Queda being in Afghan, but there being another reason for going into Afghanistan the amount of forces we sent in would have been fine. Since we were more or less supporting the people within the country to over take the Taliban.
So it does need to be a balancing act as Mrs. P says
For instance, with Bosnia being in the region of the european countries and middle eastern countries having something we need oil, but what does African countries have except people and in some parts gold or uranium? While I know some will attack me for saying the middle eastern countries and oil link. It does give a little credence to why our country and others show little effort in some parts of the world when tragedies happen compared to when the samething happens in different parts of the world. I am not blaming either side of our political aisle cause neither are clean on this. Just that I would rather our resources be used in more of a humanitarian way when possible instead of force. Like what happened after the Tsunami.
If it was up to me because we were hunting down the group that attacked us in Afghanistan I would have used the number of forces minimum we put into Iraq to hunt for Bin Laden.
But then that gets me thinking if it wasn't for Bin Laden and Al Queda being in Afghan, but there being another reason for going into Afghanistan the amount of forces we sent in would have been fine. Since we were more or less supporting the people within the country to over take the Taliban.
So it does need to be a balancing act as Mrs. P says
QUOTE
We can't save every country from itself.
But then at the sametime turnea you also make points which I also agree with about setting up refugee camps. That is exactly what Hotel Rwanda did, all they need was the protection that they had until the UN pulled out and more places like it. But that gets us to the questions that seems to always comes around to why do we decide to go here and not there.For instance, with Bosnia being in the region of the european countries and middle eastern countries having something we need oil, but what does African countries have except people and in some parts gold or uranium? While I know some will attack me for saying the middle eastern countries and oil link. It does give a little credence to why our country and others show little effort in some parts of the world when tragedies happen compared to when the samething happens in different parts of the world. I am not blaming either side of our political aisle cause neither are clean on this. Just that I would rather our resources be used in more of a humanitarian way when possible instead of force. Like what happened after the Tsunami.
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
In Iraq we had (or at least thought we had) a national security interest. Firing at human shields in the interest of humanitarian relief only is counterproductive. If we had gone in, I'd be right behind you because the action would be done, lives would have ultimately been saved, and we'd be debating with ICC backers who would wish to charge our government and soldiers with crimes against humanity.
..and we could ignore them like we always do.
We should never let unreasonable criticism influence our decisions. If someone wants to whine about saving a million lives, let them.
Human shields have never forced their way into refugee camps before and I didn't hear of any of the commanders already on the ground in Rwanda worrying about that threat.
An excuse for inaction can always be found, but this isn't a good one.
Although the action I noted is being considered after the fact, so is everything is this "History" debate.
With that in mind I don't see how anyone could doubt we did the wrong thing.
QUOTE(turnea @ Aug 6 2005, 09:17 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen)
In Iraq we had (or at least thought we had) a national security interest. Firing at human shields in the interest of humanitarian relief only is counterproductive. If we had gone in, I'd be right behind you because the action would be done, lives would have ultimately been saved, and we'd be debating with ICC backers who would wish to charge our government and soldiers with crimes against humanity.
..and we could ignore them like we always do.
We should never let unreasonable criticism influence our decisions. If someone wants to whine about saving a million lives, let them.
Human shields have never forced their way into refugee camps before and I didn't hear of any of the commanders already on the ground in Rwanda worrying about that threat.
An excuse for inaction can always be found, but this isn't a good one.
Although the action I noted is being considered after the fact, so is everything is this "History" debate.
With that in mind I don't see how anyone could doubt we did the wrong thing.
To me, historical debate is placing things in the context of the time, not knowing the outcome, and considering the repercussions of choosing a different course of action. Without that the Rwanda debate, IMO, is similar to a philosophical debate over whether it's better to toss a family in front of a speeding train knowing that the result would be the train slowing down and not plunging into an entire village, or something. The person throwing the family into the speeding train might technically be doing the right thing and saving lives, but....
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.