Another "never forget"

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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?

While there was a insurgency going on, things hardly developed like a civil war:

war in factUnfortunitely I have forgotten the names of the Hutu Militia and the president, so I will try without them:

So Rwanda was under the rule of the Hutu, the majority group that had been denied power by the minority Tutsi for decades (Rwanda was hit by ethnica violence before- in the 1970's 250,000 people were killed in ehtnic violence), just like in neighboring Burundi, were a Tutsi gov. lead a nasty counterinsurgency against Hutu forces. In Rwanda the gov. was fighitng against a Tutsi rebel army based out of Uganda. During 1993 the Hutu government began laying down the basics of the genoicde machine- pro-government papers spewed anti-Tutsi propaganda and Hutu militias were formed. then in Aril '94 the president dies in a plane crash (along with the president of Burundi). The very next day, Hutu militians begin closing off all the roads and the radio stattions begin coordinating the bands of killer who begin to hack away not only Tutsis (who are recorgnized if not by looks, also by their ID cards) but Hutu moderates who had not backed the Hutu extremists. The scale and form of the insuing genocide was horrific.

To me, the one single factoid that paint s a good picture of the emensity of the killing- most of the dogs in the country had to be killed-they were multiplying too fast and getting fat of the piles of corpses.

[Ned]

I think it was collective guilt among Clinton, the UK and France over Rwanda that forced the intervention in Kosovo.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Ned
I think it was collective guilt among Clinton, the UK and France over Rwanda that forced the intervention in Kosovo.

Agreed. I remember hearing/reading comments on this.

It also spawned theories and commentary about US and European attitudes concerning the valuation of life being greater in Europe versus Africa. Although those ideas were rejected in US and Europe - Africa and Asia took notice.

[GePap]

The problem was that at the time the UN was either in debate, or already had sent forces to Bosnia to create the safe zones (or whatever the term for them was) to keep Bosnian civlians safe- and at the same time this attrocity was underway in Rwanda and very little was done.

[Richelieu]

The triumph of Evil

A PBS documentary on the subject. Good stuff if only for the chronology.

[Sava]

Sad to say it, DinoDoc is right... America is not the world's policeman. If America is going to become the great liberator, then fine, let's mobilize our manufacturing base, let's conscript all able bodied men and women, and let's pacify the world.

since we aren't going to do that, it's hypocritical to pretend we're liberators and protectors against human rights violations...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Sad to say it, DinoDoc is right... America is not the world's policeman. If America is going to become the great liberator, then fine, let's mobilize our manufacturing base, let's conscript all able bodied men and women, and let's pacify the world.

since we aren't going to do that, it's hypocritical to pretend we're liberators and protectors against human rights violations...

This was not about liberation, and this was not "just" human rights violations: this was attempted Genocide, which the UN and its members, including the US, were obligated to stop. The spectacle of hundreads of thousands being massacred while people argued and openly said what was going on was not genocide was disgusting.

Great link Richelieu I read Philip Gourevitch's We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families . Hard subject to read about.

[Donegeal]

Thanks for the link, Richelieu.

I just read most of it. Scary stuff. My confusion on this is why did the UN troops already there not react? I am not sure what it was like there, but from my memory, the rivers ran red with blood and body parts. Most of the killings were done with macheties and done face to face. There was none of the cruel effecientcy of the gas chambers where the killings were done behind closed doors. It was massive public murder. To hell with stupid UN resolutions saying "only in self-defense". It seems to me that these UN soldiers sat there and watched crowds of people with macheties going from house to house hacking up the defenseless people inside. They should have defide orders and done something. It turns my stomach just to think about it.

[Q Classic]

it's a shame that america didn't intervene, but iirc, somebody made the pointed observation that we didn't have the stomach for it in the wake of somalia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Donegeal
To hell with stupid UN resolutions saying "only in self-defense". It seems to me that these UN soldiers sat there and watched crowds of people with macheties going from house to house hacking up the defenseless people inside. They should have defide orders and done something. It turns my stomach just to think about it.

This is one of the great tragedies, and a big problem with the UN as it is constituted- the primary concern remains national sovereingty: it is unlikely those troops would have been allowed into Rwanda as part of the Arisha (or was it Urisha) accords in the first place without those clauses, sicne then they would be a threat to the local regime (specially since the local regime was working hard setting up the groundwork for genocide).

[Donegeal]

I fully understand why the regulations are in place. I just personally feel that the soldiers there were morally obligated to do what they could, reguardless of the regulations.

Now please don't think that I am blaming this on the soldiers who did not break the rules. The blame still lies fully on the Hutus. I am just pointing out another mistake that happened there (or one that I personlly feel was made).

[GePap]

I did not think you were blaming the soldiers- I was explaining why UN leaders were so adamant about telling the soldiers not to do anything about what was going on.

To me the great failing was nto that the soldiers did not act right then and there, but that the UN first decided to pull out as they did, but more importantly, that they refused to label this genocide and obligate themselves to act. Certainly the Mitterand government deserves the most scorn for its actions, thought the Clinton government was also at fault.

[pchang]

Originally posted by GePap
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.

I guess you never saw Zulu or Zulu Dawn

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by East Street Trader
The "War doesn't determine ..." quote in your sig is attributed to Bertrand Russell, Ollie.

Thanks, fixed. I generally think it is lame to quote forum posters in the signature, so now I don't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by pchang


I guess you never saw Zulu or Zulu Dawn

I guess you failed to follow the links provided, in which the commander of the UN forces in the ground openyl stated that with 5000 men he could have made a significant impact on stopping the genocide, specially since the Genocidal Hutu Power government was also at the point having to contend with the rebel Tutsi army.