Logan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
This thread is intended to provoke debate. But let's try to keep it on the up and up. For all you Bush supporters, and for all the lib kooks, as JetJack would say, and anyone in between: what say you?
We know that Clinton did not. We also know that almost every other country did not. From what I have seen and read, the scale of death in Rwanda was far greater than that in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
P.S. - in keeping with my recent tradition, here are the "similar" threads found by the A.net search engine before I could post:
Nick & Jessica Have Split! by Workbench 2005-10-10 16:33:46
Bush Sucked Into..........Joke by Rsmith6621a 2005-10-13 04:11:30
Would You Work For A Bankrupt Airline? by MaverickM11 2005-10-17 20:38:50
What Would Happen If 50,000 German Soccer Fans... by CPH-R 2005-10-19 21:14:38
Have You Got A Pot Noodle Horn? by Gkirk 2005-10-07 11:17:40
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
Nope, no way.
Are we doing anything tangible in Darfur? For that matter, is ANYBODY doing anything tangible in Darfur? While it slips further into madness and chaos, further into the ongoing genocide, what are we doing to help? What CAN we do to help?
And Bush would have sent troops into Rwanda? Bush would have pressured the U.N. to act? He would have sent Bolton to shut them up like he is now on the issue of Darfur.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 74
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
Bolton is not shutting anyone up over Darfur....he's suggesting that we already know what's happening and that we should take further steps than simply more endless hearings and testimony. I'm ok with that.
As far as another Rwanda or Bosnia (we did not prevent the massacres that followed the first documented ones).....evidence indicates that the Bush administration is not too shy about taking action.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
To be honest, I wouldn't criticize any American president (Rep or Dem) for going into Iraq, while choosing not to go into Rwanda. To compare the two by simply mentioning death tolls is too simplistic.
Human life is human life, it doesn't matter where it is lost. It's a tragic situation in both places, but there are so many factors that must be weighed before a decision to intervene.
Let's be frank about it...Rwanda doesn't sit on a significant portion of the world's energy supply. Iraq does. Rwanda isn't immediately a potential haven for tens of thousands of radical Muslims. Iraq is. I don't think that means that Bush stood up in the Oval Office one day and said "let's go get the oil" like some of the inevitable posts in this thread will probably imply. Besides, even if he did, it would hardly be any less noble than the actions of a certain few UN officials and member nations whose leaders seemed to have no problem secretly undermining UN policy towards Saddam's regime. A policy the US respected for about 10 YEARS before deciding enough is enough.
Additionally, a hostile government or lawlessness in Rwanda doesn't pose anywhere near the level of threat to the rest of the world as does the same situation in Iraq. The focus of tensions there is regional and not directed at "all non-Muslims". Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many Rwandan radical groups who have pledged death to western civilization. And if they did, those factions have relatively few resources that could impact the rest of the world. On the other hand, bad guys in Iraq have access to far more dangerous resources and I think most logical people realize there is a need to contain those potential threats.
At the end of the day, it's not like the vast majority of good people think Rwanda doesn't deserve any help, but let's make a simple analogy -- you're walking in the woods and a bear appears to your right; at about the same moment, a coyote appears to your left...you've only got one bullet...which one do you deal with first??
KiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2166 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
Hamfist is right. To make the comparison based on loss of human life assumes that Iraq was based purely around humanitarian grounds. Most of what we have seen doesn't really seem to support this. Right or wrong, it was more about economics and security.
Logan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1035 times:
Quoting Hamfist (Reply 4): you're walking in the woods and a bear appears to your right; at about the same moment, a coyote appears to your left...you've only got one bullet...which one do you deal with first??
I don't get into situations like that without many bullets. That said, I don't shoot any of them. I'd have a pack of raw meat to appease both of them.
Quoting 767Lover (Reply 8): He said that not going into Rwanda was one of his biggest regrets of his presidency (aside from his personal issues).
I'll bet he doesn't regret the whole BJ thing all that much. But he should rightly regret not helping the Rwandans.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 7): Well, I was refering to that little war that happened in 1990.
Strike 2, L-188. They didn't attack us then, either.
You're as good at making up excuses as the Bush Administration. Now, why doesn't that surprise me.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 7): And Iraq's subsequent failure to live up to a single promise they made as part of the cease fire that ended it.
Looks like they lived up to the biggest one, despite the blind denial of war apologists like yourself: where are those WMD? Oh, they aren't there? Seems to me that we THE main thing. They didn't have them when the war began, so your premise is false, L-188.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 7): Truth be told, the war never ended it just took a 10 year cease fire.
Truth be told, that's a crock of crap, and anyone with an ounce of intelligence, or who isn't trying to apologize for this war, knows it.
Alberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2979 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1027 times:
Politicians cannot do the right thing. Their policies have to be carefuly crafted to appeal to voters and their fellow constitutents in goverment. Any politician who is bold enough to make a stand will most likely be crushed at election time, hence they keep their mouth shut.
short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7443 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1013 times:
Quoting Logan22L (Thread starter): We know that Clinton did not. We also know that almost every other country did not. From what I have seen and read, the scale of death in Rwanda was far greater than that in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
This was a civil conflict. We did fly aid into Kigali, a few C-5's were flown in for the UN Peacekeepers. Would we have intervened in the mddle of a civil war? No.
Logan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1007 times:
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 12): Any politician who is bold enough to make a stand will most likely be crushed at election time, hence they keep their mouth shut.
I never understood the need to pander to public or to political perception. If I (God forbid) were ever elected, I would blast through and do nothing to pander to Washington Senators, or Congressmen. I would make friends with no one. I suspect that if I acted in this manner, there's no way I would not get re-elected.
The issue is, the perks, particularly the retirement benefits for you and your spouse, are just too enticing. Our founding Fathers envisioned political service as a part-time volunteer position. Why has this one aspect of what our founding Fathers envisioned been raped? Simple: Free benefits for Congress, as voted by Congress. This is why I don't bother to vote, and yet I still have a right to bitch. Damn you all American citizens, you are fools. You have bought the lie that you make a difference. They have raped you, and you still vote for them. Idiots. Take it hard from behind, and don't you bitch about the cost of lube.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 22044 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 993 times:
Bush would not have gone into Rwanda, for the same reason he's not going into Darfur (the two situations are remarkably similar). I can't blame him specifically, since I don't know of any past presidents that would have gone in, but I do think that something should have been done.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 18008 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 992 times:
Quoting Logan22L (Reply 14): Free benefits for Congress, as voted by Congress. This is why I don't bother to vote, and yet I still have a right to bitch. Damn you all American citizens, you are fools. You have bought the lie that you make a difference. They have raped you, and you still vote for them. Idiots. Take it hard from behind, and don't you bitch about the cost of lube.
Let me help you move out of the US. Take B744F with you.
Quoting Alberchico (Reply 12): Their policies have to be carefuly crafted to appeal to voters and their fellow constitutents in goverment.
Both of these quotes are interconnected so I'll tackle them as one.
In 1941 The United States was on the sidelines watching Europe be brutalized by a maniac. No matter how evil the trangressions, it would never be enough to mobilize the American public behind the war effort. Even Lend-Lease was highly contentuous...leading some to rightly predict it was only the prelude to eventual US involvement.
There is substantial proof that the Roosevelt administration was aware of Japanese intentions as early as November 1941.
The big stink in the Pacific that turned the Japanese on America you ask?
So, Roosevelt let the Japanese pull off their diabolical "Surprise-Attack" to further his agenda in saving Europe.
Because it was the only way the American public would EVER support involvement in World War II.
Fast forward to the RIGHT NOW.
Anyone who says the war in Iraq isn't about Oil is a fool.
But Americans, the largest consumers on the planet of petroleum would never get behind a war purely for oil...But take it away, or charge us what its worth, and we cry bloody murder.
But fight a war over it? No way!
"We fight wars on purely humanitarian grounds only!" Or at least that's what we keep telling ourselves.....if we only knew the truth.
American Presidents walk a fine line of giving the people what they need, by taking away something they want. The two sides do not support the middle, they never have.
Saddam was an evil bastard...no doubt about it. But if the US would not take on Hitler without being a given a pass by the Japanese, why on earth would we ever take on Saddam? Well, he had one thing Hitler never had. OIL.
And Saddam, he had his eye on the one thing every Iraqi had wanted since 1899; Kuwait.
His fatal error was when he foolishly figured; after having watched America sit back and let Israel fly solo against the Arab World in the 1960's; why would they act any different with Kuwait?
Well Saddam you big dummy, Israel may be the cradle of Christianity, but they ain't got a drop of OIL!
Enter GB-II and with it the inevitable clash of fate.
Even 9/11 was not enough to engage battle with the Butcher of Baghdad. It was however enough for Afghanistan...the appetizer in the global war on "terror".
So what would have happened had we done nothing...allowed Saddam to further do in the region as he pleased? At this point he was already the martyr; the poster-boy for American-Hatred in the world....it might not have been Weapons of Mass Destruction, but it was certainly enough for the US to be extremely concerned.
Whatever your views, the fact remains, the USA without access to Middle East oil grinds to a screeching halt.
Saddam de-stabilized the entire region, he was a threat to not only the US economy, but to the world economy as well.
Being the leader of the world's greatest democracy and largest economy comes with responsibility most of the world cannot even begin to imagine.
And don't forget, men who prey on innocents can smell fear...if the US did nothing after 9/11; do any of you think that would have been the end of it? The bell rings, fight is over? Think again.
Sometimes it boils down to an eye for an eye. It's the only language some men can understand. "You hit us, We hit you; harder."
The President had to do something...so I for one will not judge; but pray, for the dead, the Iraqi, American, Nepalese, Filipino, Turk and every other life wasted; for a speedy return of peace; and for every American and coalition soldier a safe journey home.
To second-judge a man on a decision I will never come close to ever having to make, it is not my right.
The only thing I demand is that my President does what is right for his country, and in this, I am confident he is doing what is best for Democracy, not just here in America, but anywhere the trappings of capitalism reign free and prosper.
Now, as for Clinton, for him to "Regret" not going into Rwanda is an end-play to gain favorable treatment of his legacy by the biographers...
So Bill? What made jumping into Somalia okay, but not Rwanda?
Somalia was a haven for modern-day pirates and bush league terror merchants. The fact that the people of this nation were being murdered by tribal thugs was a mere afterthought...expendable pawns in the clash for power.
What was the prize?
Look no further than the shipping lanes that passed by Somalia's front door.
Freighters full of the world's cargoes passing from the Suez to the Red Sea, to the Arabian Sea, to, you guessed it, the PERSIAN GULF, and from Asia to Europe, and on to the rest of the world.
Clinton's objective was not the people of Somalia otherwise we would have been in Rwanda too...."Black Hawk Down" was in the name of protecting that important flow of commerce that glanced the shores of NE Africa...i.e.: OIL.
Tell it like it is Bill...the Rwandas were not worth it...the oil tankers being harrassed and potentially sunk in the Arabian Sea were.
That's OK, the truth sometimes hurts. But spare us your compassionate B.S.
Bottom line..The U.S. has never been in the business of getting into wars over the rights of peoples.
Even our great Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, but rather the "Tariff of Abominations", or, states, such as South Carolina deciding it no longer wished to contribute taxes to the central treasury.
Lincoln fought over money. Slaves, well, they were what got the Northerners behind it...because truth be known, if they had known why the South was so pissed off, the United States would be 50 individual sovereign nations right now, and not this giant apparatus of corporations it has grown to become.
OIL. Plain and simple.
Americans equate it with FREEDOM.
your version of "democracy" is a line full of like minded sheep who never question authority. Some people don't want to go to Nazi or Stalin rule, don't try to drag the most powerful country down with you while some of us are trying to demand we use our power for good, not selfish greedy actions only at times when they benefit us
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 975 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 18): One past I disagree with you on is that President Bush's war in Iraq was a necessary reaction to 9/11 (unless I misinterpreted you).
I was intentionally vague on that point because I have yet to distill this concept of 9/11 and Iraq in my own mind.
Are the two connected?
Probably more so.
When a person, or a people are wounded to their very core, and they have no one to focus their anger upon, they lash out at the closest, and easiest to strike target...it is human nature.
Iraq I believe is an extension of this most basic of human traits.
The WMD's existed not because Bush wanted them to exist, but because the American people wanted them to exist. We could not understand how something like 9/11 could happen...we wanted blood, and since Osama has yet to be found and brought to justice...our anger exploded onto Iraq.
Whatever the *real* reasons for us being there...we need to finish what we started; unlike previous presidents that abdicated a strong foreign policy for votes...
When the US left Vietnam...was the suffering over?
Ask the Cambodians how the US retreat destabilized Southeast Asia for almost two decades...is that what the world wants? Another 1.5 million executed Cambodians?...but this time, because the scale is greater, make it 5 million dead over 5 million square kilometers. Call it Hell on Earth, just don't call it the cradle of civilization as it was once called.
Is the world better because Saddam is gone?
Comparing dead for dead at this juncture; probably not if relying purely on statistics.
But can we afford to just pick up and leave? Absolutely not!...
It all comes back to OIL.
We think the price of gasoline is high now?
What would happen if the US abandoned one of the world's largest oil producing regions? And we thought Katrina was a bitch? We aint seen nothing yet!
Don't be surprised if conservatively, crude reached $150-$200 a barrel.
It would send the world economy into a nosedive, a depression/recession even China could not weather, no matter how they manipulated their currency....Where would the world send all their SUVs and Luxury cars? India's economy grinds to halt, China's oil fired power plants shut down and the consumer goods they produce disappear, trade between nations evaporates, while civil war consumes the Middle East.
Truth is, bad as it may seem now, it could be a hell of lot worse.
Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6920 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 970 times:
The problem in Rwanda was essentially a throwback to European (Belgian) colonial influence where they favoured the less populous tutsis over the more populous hutus. Hence the resentment and ultimately civil war.
Why did no-one bother?
The people were poor and black? The world powers are primarily rich and white.
No strategic importance? For anyone?
To get involved would be seen as the return of colonialism?
The UK are present in Sierra Leone.... poor, black, civil war and DIAMONDS.