Another "never forget"

[GePap]

I know you were responding to Shogun Gunner...and it was still Spam!

On your actual comment: The US and other states had to argue why it wasn't genocide becuase if they had acknowledged it as genocide, they would have been bound to act. So there was a compelling issue: when genocide is being commited, the world is bound by treaties to intervene. Now, certainly following the law is not always advantageous to one's self-interest, specially when there is no one to enforce the rules (which is true in the international arena), but it was stil in my eyes disgusting to see people argue why this was not genocide when 1 million people were killed in 3 months (I find the Rwandan figures more honest), a rate of killing on par with the worst months of the Holocaust, and then 1.5 million people fled out of fear of retribution for the horrible crimes committed while they stood aside and did nothing.

[Shogun Gunner]

Who said anything about troops?

All I said is that it was underreported and that Americans couldn't find Rwanda on a map. Don't know = don't care.

In fact, I was thinking it as a criticism of the president (Clinton) or the government. It's really an American issue and problem. Americans students score the worst in geography and most Americans don't express much interest outside of Europe and the old British empire.

So, your "so?" response suggests that you fit into that category. If you don't, my apologies. If you do, I suggest thinking about the implications of hundreds of thousands of people dying over a questionable political issue -- and people not even caring.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you have no real arguement beyond blind appeals to emotion which is really a poor reason to commit troops to any opperation, at least try not to be rude about it.

Humanitarian grounds is a very strong reason for intervention by itself, IMO.



Many Bush supporters like to point out that Bush has overthrown Saddam Huessein not because of oil, but because Saddam was a murderous pyscho-path.


But when liberals use this same argument you call it illogical?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
But when liberals use this same argument you call it illogical?

Places I wouldn't have intervened when we did without a better reason include: Haiti, Kosovo, & Iraq.

[MrFun]

Ok, but how can you dismiss humanitrian reasons for intervention? Why do you see that as completely illogical?

[Spiffor]

It greatly shook me too I felt such powerlessness and horror

[East Street Trader]

The "War doesn't determine ..." quote in your sig is attributed to Bertrand Russell, Ollie.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Speaking of Geography, I expect that most of the goverments trying to decide what to do about Ruanda were midful of the the great logicial difficulty of mounting a major operation that, and order of magnitude greater than dealing with a situation on the Coast of East Africa, and surround by other state in various levels of non-order and crap infrastructure.

[GePap]

Tanzania and Kenya were not in significant problems at the point in time. Foreign troops were sent, by Belgium and France, but they did not do much at all to stemm the killings, becuase leaders in those two states did not want to get involved either in ending the killing.

[Lefty Scaevola]

They did not have enough numbers to get into a fight, nor a real prospect of getting them for some time. Central Africa is not an easy place to deploy a large outside force.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you have no real arguement beyond blind appeals to emotion which is really a poor reason to commit troops to any opperation, at least try not to be rude about it.

Isn't this the argument that Bush and Co have fallen back on in the absence of WoMD in Iraq.

Edit - OMG, I had the same thought as MrFun.

[DinoDoc]

Yes you did. Let's save time and just fast to foward my response to his comment you copied.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
They did not have enough numbers to get into a fight, nor a real prospect of getting them for some time. Central Africa is not an easy place to deploy a large outside force.

What fight? that is the thing- as small number of forces would have made huge differences: the killing was done by bands lacking any real firepower (but plenty of machete power). Even just 10,000 troops put there early on would have saved hundreds of thousands-after all, the killing ended when the Tutsi rebels fighting in from Uganda took the capital, and they were not much of a military force either.

Certainly the beginning of the killing would not have been stopped, specially since the Hutu government had been setting up the machinery of genocide for months before and the death of the president set of the killing almost immidiately- but for the few hundred thousands killed in the later months coul have been saved (and of course tens of thousands died when the Hutus fled to the Congo), and not getting the killers lead to instability in the Congo and set of that war and all its horrors.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, I agree with Dinodoc.

How can a military force be construed as humanitarian?

There are groups that could help, but the difficult part is that this is essentially a civil war. Does the US have a responsibility to intervene wherever there occurs a civil war?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes you did. Let's save time and just fast to foward my response to his comment you copied.

You never elaborated on your reasoning.