The West "Criminally Responsible"

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4668624/

[Texsox]

I thought you meant Joe Randa

 

It was a tragedy on an enormous scale. Still, how many places can we be? The world always looks to the US, then demonsrates against us when we act. Plus, this started so fast, it would have been nearly impossible at the time to put together a large enough force to put down the fighting.

 

I will probably go to hell for asking this but . . .

Is there a formula for when the US should be involved? Is one US death to save one foreign death worth it? One US death to save five? 25? I do not know. I do know I am sick of solving the world's problems, only to see US servicemen drug through the streets of some s*** hole.

 

Sometimes other people have to act.

[Queen Prawn]

I do not know. I do know I am sick of solving the world's problems, only to see US servicemen drug through the streets of some s*** hole.

 

Sometimes other people have to act.

 

My thoughts precisely.

[BrandoFan]

Talk about the power/aftermath of propaganda.

 

Nearly 1000 people murdered every 30 minutes, mostly with machetes and rocks. Children' heads smashed on church walls, sometimes by their own family members. Etc.

 

See the images. Listen to the testimonies of survivers.

 

Watch UN General Dallaire's 1st person account of the horror, in particular his encounter with Evil Itself.

 

The West failed is damn right. The whole world did.

[Texsox]

Talk about the power/aftermath of propaganda.

 

Nearly 1000 people murdered every 30 minutes,  mostly with machetes and rocks. Children' heads smashed on church walls, sometimes by their own family members. Etc.   

 

See the images.  Listen to the testimonies of survivers. 

 

Watch UN General Dallaire's 1st person account of the horror, in particular his encounter with Evil Itself.

 

The West failed is damn right. The whole world did.

We also fail when a solitary child is "accidentaly" killed in a gang related drive by. We fail when a youngster in the US fails to be vaccinated, or doesn't have adequate food or shelter. We fail when a grandmother cannot walk to her bank without fear of crime. We fail when our schools do not provide equal education for all.

 

Why just the west? Where was China, Russia, etc. in all this?

[cwsox]

Talk about the power/aftermath of propaganda.

 

Nearly 1000 people murdered every 30 minutes,  mostly with machetes and rocks. Children' heads smashed on church walls, sometimes by their own family members. Etc.   

 

See the images.  Listen to the testimonies of survivers. 

 

Watch UN General Dallaire's 1st person account of the horror, in particular his encounter with Evil Itself.

 

The West failed is damn right. The whole world did.

that episode is the shame of the 1990s that we can never explain.

 

and that is a collective we - every nation in the world - but any nation that claims moral authority is especially judged by its own claims

 

there was no political will to do anything in this country - Clinton gave it some thought and the Republicans in Congress sent the message no f***ing way, they would exert their political strength to demolish any US attempt to move, and Clinton acquiesed. Plenty of shame on everyone.

[southsider2k5]

We also fail when a solitary child is "accidentaly" killed in a gang related drive by. We fail when a youngster in the US fails to be vaccinated, or doesn't have adequate food or shelter. We fail when a grandmother cannot walk to her bank without fear of crime. We fail when our schools do not provide equal education for all.

 

Why just the west? Where was China, Russia, etc. in all this?

This is not ONE person. This was ONE MILLION people hacked to death with Machettes. Think about that for a second. And then think about the places we did invade during the 90's. Every cause we took up, was for waaaaaaayyy less deaths. Hell even the "butcher of Baghdad" only killed 1/10 of that many people.

 

This came from the inflamation of racial hatred, much like is exploited all over the world (India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine etc) that finally was allowed to happen.

[southsider2k5]

that episode is the shame of the 1990s that we can never explain.

 

and that is a collective we - every nation in the world - but any nation that claims moral authority is especially judged by its own claims

 

there was no political will to do anything in this country - Clinton gave it some thought and the Republicans in Congress sent the message no f***ing way, they would exert their political strength to demolish any US attempt to move, and Clinton acquiesed.  Plenty of shame on everyone.

I can't believe you are turning this into partisian politics.

[cwsox]

I can't believe you are turning this into partisian politics.

I honestly ask, how is that partisan? Both - all - sides did nothing and I said that and how it was that they did nothing.

 

The Key to My Neighbor's House by Elizabeth Neuffer is one good book among many that outline the very bipartisan nothingness of US inaction as well as everyone else's inaction other than to wthdraw the few UN peacekeeping forces that were there.

 

There are many more places of inaction to cite but if discussion of this is just going be labeled partisan I don't have the energy or desire this Holy Week or perhaps ever again for that. From the point of view of the Church one particular church body was totally silent while many of its adherents (laity and clergy) were wielding the machetes including in the massacres of other of its members that took place in its places of worship and schools. But then again all church bdies world wide were silent for not demanding some sort of whatever could be done to stop the killing. This is not a place where anyone looks good at all.

 

Our nation as the sole superpower did nothing, bipartisanly. The UN did nothing. NATO did nothing. The EU did nothing and EU nations have historic ties in Rwanda. Th African nations did nothing. The nations of the East did nothing. The Church did nothing.

[Texsox]

Every action we take collectively is judged against political gain or loss by each party. It is a sad fact of our democracy.

[southsider2k5]

Our nation as the sole superpower did nothing, bipartisanly.  The UN did nothing.  NATO did nothing.  The EU did nothing and EU nations have historic ties in Rwanda.  Th African nations did nothing.  The nations of the East did nothing. The Church did nothing.

The last paragraph of that post sounded like Clinton wanted to, but the big bad republicians wouldn't let him... anyways.

 

And that last paragraph of your reply would have been all you needed to say. Hell I wouldn't have had a clue all of this was going on, but I was in college and had a prof who was a native Nigerian, and was keeping up abreast of the horrors in Rwanda.

 

IMO you should add that the press did nothing. They can give time to a fraudulent check writer, but about one million people die in Africa in ethnic cleansing, and nary a word of it. They should be held just as responsible, if not more than government bodies, because it is their duty to inform the public.

[cwsox]

I humbly suggest you looked at too much interpretation of what I said - Clinton did have instincts to act, the Republicans in Congress especially the House said no way, and Clinton meekly went along - he didn't lift a finger to build a consensus within this country to do something, he spent no political capital, he did nothing - that to me is saying that everyone involved did nothing. Everyone did nothing. That also includes the Demcrats in Congress who followed Clinton's lead and did nothing. As I write that, I do not see nor intend partisan statements and if you see them, I deeply apologise for it is not intended. No one wanted to do that had any cost and no one did a thing.

 

I do disagree on the press. While it was ongoing the press did cover it, the information was out there as it happened. I remember sitting with the New Yorker trying to comprehend the ethnic groups involved and comprehend the scope of what was happening when it started. A lot of the press covered it. The press did not do nothing, they reported fairly well when the president's plane was shot down, as it began, as the toll went 100,000 - 200,000 - 300,000 - etc. NPR and BBC were all over it too. The press did its job.

 

Simply no one cared. No one wanted to send troops to serve as a peace keeping force, to get between the Hutus and the Tutsis. No one did anything with the exception that the press did report and it was with knowledge that we did nothing. I have to commend the press for doing its job which makes the inaction of everyone (everyone) else that much worse.

[southsider2k5]

I humbly suggest you looked at too much interpretation of what I said - Clinton did have instincts to act, the Republicans in Congress especially the House said no way, and Clinton meekly went along - he didn't lift a finger to build a consensus within this country to do something, he spent no political capital, he did nothing - that to me is saying that everyone involved did nothing. Everyone did nothing.  That also includes the Demcrats in Congress who followed Clinton's lead and did nothing.  As I write that, I do not see nor intend partisan statements and if you see them, I deeply apologise for it is not intended.  No one wanted to do that had any cost and no one did a thing.

 

I do disagree on the press. While it was ongoing the press did cover it, the information was out there as it happened.  I remember sitting with the New Yorker trying to comprehend the ethnic groups involved and comprehend the scope of what was happening when it started.  A lot of the press covered it.  The press did not do nothing, they reported fairly well when the president's plane was shot down, as it began, as the toll went 100,000 - 200,000 - 300,000 - etc. NPR and BBC were all over it too.  The press did its job. 

 

Simply no one cared.  No one wanted to send troops to serve as a peace keeping force, to get between the Hutus and the Tutsis.  No one did anything with the exception that the press did report and it was with knowledge that we did nothing.  I have to commend the press for doing its job which makes the inaction of everyone (everyone) else that much worse.

There is no way the press did enough in this manner. A suicide bombing in Israel gets the lead on the 5 o clock news, complete with gory pictures of distruction and wounded people dazed and confused. One million people die, and we get stock photo and a map of Africa at the very end of the newscast, or a small story buried in the back pages of the newspaper.

 

And for them is all comes down to money, not their duty to report. This is the type of thing that should be innundating the news, forcing people to question their leaders who are ignoring it. Instead we get buried with utter crap. But since people would rather watch the latest details of Bill's affairs, we heard barely anything.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/04/07...cide/index.html

[mreye]

The last paragraph of that post sounded like Clinton wanted to, but the big bad republicians wouldn't let him... anyways.

I got the same thing.

[mreye]

Papers prove US knew of genocide in Rwanda

 

US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal.

 

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

 

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president knew of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

 

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington policymakers.

 

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

 

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

 

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington, went to court to obtain the material.

 

It discovered that a secret CIA briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, his vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of officials included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, 1994, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which . . . is spreading south".

 

Three days later the secretary of state, Warren Christopher, and other officials were told of "genocide and partition" and of declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

 

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

 

Ms des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act."

 

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

 

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other Western countries not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed United Nations peacekeepers but also for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

 

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance.

 

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

 

Sounds like the Republicans fault.

[Texsox]

Sounds like the Republicans fault.

Republicans would have known about it also, they get briefed on world events. They do not wait to be told things by the President.

 

One of the problems I see is we are too quick to blame one party or the other. Thay all need to share the blame or the credit.

[cwsox]

I got the same thing.

then I apologise for not wording it well.

 

 

Although might you both be awfully, awfully over sensitive?

 

 

Go back to those days and the House GOP leadership was dead set against any US peace keeping missions in Rwanda. No nation building (as your candidate ran on in 1996 and 2000) at all. Gingrich and Delay were very clear on their total opposition to US involvment.

 

That does not place the blame on the big bad republicans. After Somilia no one was wanting to get involved in Africa again. I very clearly said Clinton did nothing. He acquiesced. He did not go out and build a case, he didn't do anything. The Democrats in Congress did nothing. They could have made a case and failed to.

 

If you think I am blaming one party here, I am not. I didn't, anywhere in this thread, and if someone says that one party is at fault, they are not being honest. Both sides shared equally and complicitly in the silence.

 

When the UN pulled its small forces out the entire world abdicated.

 

In retrospect, it is easy to second guess but the fact is on this one the moment Clinton started hinting he might want to act he got total opposition from across the aisle and Clinton went with that instead of doing anything and I am very sure that had Clinton actually pushed the matter the oppsoition would have included folks from his side of the aisle. So Clinton did nothing, he hinted, then he dropped it. Now how you can interpret that as blaming one side is beyond me. I blame my guy and my party and your party and its leadership and the Church and every nation in the world including the UN and the African nations and everyone.

 

Given Somilia was still fresh in everyone's mind and given the opposition to Clinton sending some troops to Haiti (and that includes both sides of the aisle critics) and the later controversy over intervening in Kosovo, how anyone can imply that the failure to act in Rwanda was anything but mutual is beyond me. And it astounds me that some try to blame Clinton - as if they supported intervention then, which they did not. The failure to act was everyone's failure, the blame is on everyone, and anything else than mutual silence in the face of genocide here is just not reality, just not the way it was.

 

And it was never a secret. It was fully reported in the print media. I don't watch much television so I don't know what the networks or cables ran but it was very fully examined in the print media and via NPR and BBC as soon as the Rwandan president's plane was shot down which started the killing spree. Everyone knew. The UN yanked its troops. It was all covered. It was all covered. The world - everyone - did nothing.

 

To imply that only secret intelligence knew and Clinton hushed that - now that is bulls***. Alll one needs to do is go back and get the New Yorkers from that time period, or any of an number of journals, and it was all there, week by week as it unfolding. NPR and BBC were covering it daily. The whole world knew as it was happening. The very small contingent of UN troops felt threatened and withdrew and everyone knew.

 

Clinton apologised as he should have. We all owe the dead an apology. We all did nothing. We. Collective. Humanity. Nations. UN NATO Africa the Church everyone failed everyone and everyone did nothing.

[Texsox]

then I apologise for not wording it well.

 

 

Although might you both be awfully, awfully over sensitive? 

 

 

Go back to those days and the House GOP leadership was dead set against any US peace keeping missions in Rwanda.  No nation building (as your candidate ran on in 1996 and 2000) at all.  Gingrich and Delay were very clear on their total opposition to US involvment.

 

That does not place the blame on the big bad republicans.  After Somilia no one was wanting to get involved in Africa again.  I very clearly said Clinton did nothing.  He acquiesced.  He did not go out and build a case, he didn't do anything.  The Democrats in Congress did nothing.  They could have made a case and failed to.

 

If you think I am blaming one party here, I am not.  I didn't, anywhere in this thread, and if someone says that one party is at fault, they are not being honest. Both sides shared equally and complicitly in the silence.

 

When the UN pulled its small forces out the entire world abdicated.

 

In retrospect, it is easy to second guess but the fact is on this one the moment Clinton started hinting he might want to act he got total opposition from across the aisle and Clinton went with that instead of doing anything and I am very sure that had Clinton actually pushed the matter the oppsoition would have included folks from his side of the aisle.  So Clinton did nothing, he hinted, then he dropped it.  Now how you can interpret that as blaming one side is beyond me.  I blame my guy and my party and your party and its leadership and the Church and every nation in the world including the UN and the African nations and everyone.

 

Given Somilia was still fresh in everyone's mind and given the opposition to Clinton sending some troops to Haiti (and that includes both sides of the aisle critics) and the later controversy over intervening in Kosovo, how anyone can imply that the failure to act in Rwanda was anything but mutual is beyond me.  And it astounds me that some try to blame Clinton - as if they supported intervention then, which they did not.  The failure to act was everyone's failure, the blame is on everyone, and anything else than mutual silence in the face of genocide here is just not reality, just not the way it was.

 

And it was never a secret.  It was fully reported in the print media.  I don't watch much television so I don't know what the networks or cables ran but it was very fully examined in the print media and via NPR and BBC as soon as the Rwandan president's plane was shot down which started the killing spree.  Everyone knew.  The UN yanked its troops.  It was all covered.  It was all covered.  The world - everyone - did nothing.

 

To imply that only secret intelligence knew and Clinton hushed that - now that is bulls***.  Alll one needs to do is go back and get the New Yorkers from that time period, or any of an number of journals, and it was all there, week by week as it unfolding.  NPR and BBC were covering it daily.  The whole world knew as it was happening.  The very small contingent of UN troops felt threatened and withdrew and everyone knew.

 

Clinton apologised as he should have.  We all owe the dead an apology.  We all did nothing. We.  Collective.  Humanity.  Nations.  UN  NATO Africa the Church everyone failed everyone and everyone did nothing.

I think what some people are trying to prove is Republicans cannot read a report. They needed Clinton to read it to them and tell them what to do.

 

Just like some Democrates seem to think that Bush needs to tell them what is right and wrong and how to read.

 

:headshake

 

Politics 101

 

If it turns out good, get on the bandwagon and have your picture taken.

 

If you are on the bandwagon, kick off the other party

 

If it turns out bad, blame it on the other party

 

And the rhetoric goes round and round, round and round, round and round.