Would you have supported a Rwandan intervention?

[Gan]

Clinton expresses regret in Rwanda
'I express regret for my personal failure'

Saturday, July 23, 2005; Posted: 8:26 p.m. EDT (00:26 GMT)


KIGALI, Rwanda (Reuters) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, visiting a Rwandan genocide memorial on Saturday, expressed regret for his "personal failure" to prevent the 1994 slaughter of 800,000 people.

On a brief visit to look at HIV/AIDS projects in the central African country, Clinton laid a wreath at a museum commemorating victims of the 100-day massacre by extremists from the Hutu majority which took place during his presidency.

"I express regret for my personal failure," he said before touring the museum, which features graphic images of people being decapitated and bodies twitching on the road.

"I think it faithfully, honestly, painfully presents the truth of the Rwandan genocide," he told reporters after seeing the museum which his Clinton Foundation partially funded.

"It is an important contribution to the history of the world, that the world cannot afford to forget," he said.

Clinton apologised on a previous visit to Rwanda in 1998 for not recognising the crime of genocide.

Clinton administration officials avoided the word in public for fear it would spark an outcry for action they were loathe to take, six months after U.S. troops were killed by Somali warlords in Mogadishu.

Rwanda was the last leg of Clinton's six nation African tour to see how the AIDS pandemic is affecting children on the world's poorest continent.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/07/23/clinton.rwanda.reut/index.html
__________________________________

I draw your attention to the bold paragraph above.

Would you, a member of John Q Public, called on the Clinton Administration to intercede on behalf of the 800,000 members of the Tutsis in the 100 day massacre led by Hutu extremists? Thats an approximate of 8,000 people a day that were killed because of what 'tribe' they were from.

I definately would have supported an intervention. :(

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[Artha]

Yes.

[ElanthianSiren]

Like all political decisions, the action depends on the information at hand at the time.

I'm not sure how I would have felt in 1998, but in 2001 I had an anthropology assignment on Rwanda and another one on Chechnya, and I was amazed that we didn't take more action. Hindsight is 20/20 though.

I'm hoping we learn from past mistakes and step in bigger in Sudan.

-M

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Ganalon

I definately would have supported an intervention. :(

I as well.



Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
I'm hoping we learn from past mistakes and step in bigger in Sudan.

-M


Again, yes.

[Ravenstorm]

Yes.

Raven

Absolutely not. After the disaster in Somalia I would not risk one American kid's life for that disaster of a nation. Unless there are sizable US interests there, then they can continue to kill themselves.

- Arkans

[Skirmisher]

The point is that even if the simple fact that it's the right thing to do isn't enough, there is the more pragmatic isue of world opinion and the world opinion of the US is about at an all time low.

To actually do something to aid a country where we do NOT have such a strong economic interest would be doing exactly what we claim to do all the time, but in reality do not.

The dual irony would be that we would be both doing something we always claim to yet do not and that by doing something to aid someone for what appears no real reward, we would be in the end rewarding ourselves in as much as international opinion of the US would go up.

That goodwill and improved standing would facilitate so many international efforts now stalled that it could far more than repay the costs entailed in such an undertaking.

Frankly, I'm not about to waste away an American kid's life just so we can be the "cool kid on the block" for the world. Why does it always have to fall on us when a country is completely fucked up?

Why not leave it to the colonial power that left it in such a disgraceful shape or just let them sort out their own mess. Not one American life should be lost over there and Somalia proved just why.

- Arkans

[Hulkein]

I gotta agree with the sentiment that the colonial powers that were at least partially responsible for the mess should've stepped in before America.

[Edited on 7-24-2005 by Hulkein]

[Terminator X]

If by intervention, you mean that an actually sufficient number of peacekeepers were deployed, then yes.

[Ravenstorm]

And for the record, I was also in favor of the US participating in a UN sanctioned and led intervention in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

Raven

[Terminator X]

after a president whose taxpayers pay for 1/3 of its annual funding told it to essentially go "fuck itself" the probability of such interventions are a rarity

[Gan]

I think we have a responsibility to the human race to say that acts such as mass genocide does not FIT within the paradignm of living on the planet Earth. If we say that by interveining by whatever means necessary then we do so.

If some maniac leads a movement such as this with the people in his own country and gets away with it, what is to stop him from next doing it to his neighbors country... and so on, and so on.

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
And for the record, I was also in favor of the US participating in a UN sanctioned and led intervention in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

Raven
But not Iraq. For the record.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The point is that even if the simple fact that it's the right thing to do isn't enough, there is the more pragmatic isue of world opinion and the world opinion of the US is about at an all time low.

To actually do something to aid a country where we do NOT have such a strong economic interest would be doing exactly what we claim to do all the time, but in reality do not.

The dual irony would be that we would be both doing something we always claim to yet do not and that by doing something to aid someone for what appears no real reward, we would be in the end rewarding ourselves in as much as international opinion of the US would go up.

That goodwill and improved standing would facilitate so many international efforts now stalled that it could far more than repay the costs entailed in such an undertaking.

I honestly believe that people would assign selfish reasons why we went in and helped. Even in this country i bet people would be up in arms demonizing. If it was the dems idea republicans would be lashing out and vice versa. "There the U.S. goes, killing brown people again" "Those warmongerers" etc. would be just the start.

[Back]

I would have supported it.

Wasn’t Somalia more about oil anyway? I didn’t have a problem with Somalia because I had no idea what it was about.

I did not (and still do not) agree with Iraq. Afghanistan I did not object to. I still want Osama’s head in fact.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Dave
But not Iraq. For the record.

Exactly. And I'm totally positive you can't see the difference between the two so I'm not even going to try. Congrats, you win again and you didn't even have to get started.

Raven

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Dave
But not Iraq. For the record.

Exactly. And I'm totally positive you can't see the difference between the two so I'm not even going to try. Congrats, you win again and you didn't even have to get started.

Raven

I see the difference, but I support national interests over that of any other use of our military.

[Back]

He has a point, as does Arkans and others who would disagree. A situation like Darfur should really be handled by the UN Security Forces, or NATO.

You know, I’m all for humanitarian efforts and defense. But I see our armed services as more defensive than humanitarian.

[Gan]

I agree that the primary function of our armed forces are to protect the US, including our interests and allies.

I just wish that the UN would have a greater level of effectiveness than it has historically. I mean, when the aggressors start aiming for the pretty little blue helmets is when the UN pack up and withdraw. For all intents and purposes, the UN is all bark and no bite, in my opinion. It would be nice if it even had a little bite, or maybe a scratch every now and then.

[Atlanteax]

I would not had supported intervention in Rwanda or Sudan...

... for the sole reason that it does not serve to benefit U.S. geopolitical strategic interests.

"Aid" should be spent on American poor first.

However, the U.S. should utilize the use of Proxies in such situations, such as encouraging Libya to intervene and be the mediator for the Sudan situation.

This helps the U.S. stay out of involvement, while still benefiting from Libyan intervention. Libya benefits due to that by doing soy, it curries favor with the U.S. by being its proxy.

[Artha]

Tutsi rebels (who couldn't have been very well armed, seeing as they were all exhiles or children of exhiles living in the forests of the Congo) pushed out the Hutu government in ~100 days. How costly (both in money and lives) could it have been to the US, who even under Clinton was orders of magnitude better?

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Artha]

[Gan]

There's a pretty detailed section about the Rwandan Genocide campaign in 1994 found on Wikipdeia's site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
____________________________
Rwandan Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Rwandan genocide was the organized slaughter of roughly one million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus during a timespan of 100 days in 1994. It has commonly -- and inaccurately -- been portrayed as simply an eruption of tribal conflict in which members of the ethnic Hutu majority spontaneously and uncontrollably unleashed widespread attacks upon the ethnic Tutsi minority; however, in actual fact the events which characterized the genocide were meticulously planned and orchestrated by political elites and carried out under the cover of an ongoing civil war.

For many, the Rwandan Genocide stands out as historically significant not only because of the sheer number of people that were murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of the way many Western countries responded to the atrocities. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, virtually all first-world countries declined to intervene, and the United Nations refused to authorize its peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time, led by Gen. Roméo Dallaire, to take positive action to bring the killing to a halt. This failure to act became the focus of bitter recriminations towards individual policymakers specifically, such as Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, as well as the United Nations and countries such as France and the United States more generally.

The genocide was brought to an end only when the Tutsi-dominated expatriate rebel movement known as the Rwandese Patriotic Front, led by Paul Kagame, overthrew the government and seized power. In the aftermath of the genocide, sporadic reprisals were often taken out against ethnic Hutus, causing hundreds of thousands to flee into eastern Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). The violence and its memory continue to affect the country and the region. Both the First and Second Congo Wars trace their origins to the genocide, and it continues to be a reference point for the Burundian Civil War.

(more at the link above)

[DeV]

Yes, because as much as we'd like to believe we are constantly living in fear of terrorism, there are people who actually LIVE in terror on a daily basis and have died by the millions because of it. And not only the US is supposed to intervene when it came to something as horrifying as genocide. Other nations are supposed to bear that burden as well. But, yes, definitely would have supported it.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
The point is that even if the simple fact that it's the right thing to do isn't enough, there is the more pragmatic isue of world opinion and the world opinion of the US is about at an all time low.

To actually do something to aid a country where we do NOT have such a strong economic interest would be doing exactly what we claim to do all the time, but in reality do not.

The dual irony would be that we would be both doing something we always claim to yet do not and that by doing something to aid someone for what appears no real reward, we would be in the end rewarding ourselves in as much as international opinion of the US would go up.

That goodwill and improved standing would facilitate so many international efforts now stalled that it could far more than repay the costs entailed in such an undertaking.

My thoughts exactly.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
And for the record, I was also in favor of the US participating in a UN sanctioned and led intervention in the Darfur region of the Sudan.

Raven

But not Iraq. For the record.

Too bad there isn't oil in Sudan.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by xtc]

Even though that was not the reason for the war, as i said it should be about what bests suits our national interests.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
Even though that was not the reason for the war, as i said it should be about what bests suits our national interests.

LOL the funniest part is you actually believe it.

BTW where are those weapons of mass destruction?

That seems to be the question of the year doesn't it.

Why are are troops not positioned at every pumping station and guarding the pipelines closely? Because Oil is not a priority.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
That seems to be the question of the year doesn't it.

Why are are troops not positioned at every pumping station and guarding the pipelines closely? Because Oil is not a priority.

Rumsfield stated one of his top priorites was guarding oil wells. US soldiers are guarding oil wells in Iraq and oil platforms in the the middle east. The first two things US soldiers secured in Iraq were oil wells and shipping ports.

"During the battle for Baghdad, the U.S. military was perfectly willing to dispatch some 2,000 troops to secure northern Iraq's oilfields"

LINK (http://www.planetaportoalegre.net/publique/cgi/public/cgilua.exe/web/templates/htm/1P4OP/view.htm?editionsectionid=252&infoid=11204&user=re ader)

You didn't answer my question.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

Strategic significance. the same would be done during any war. You do remember what Saddam did after he got his ass kicked in Kuwait right?
And 2,000 troops to protect an area that large is a very very VERY small number. What happened in 2003 does not matter today. Reread my last post. You're not going to prove anything by posting googled stories and links from years ago. If it was so important we would have done far more to secure the oil fields and protect the pipelines. Not to mention they would be up and running at a far greater capacity than they currently are.

I answered your question to the best of my ability. Since the location of any remaining weapons is not known how can I answer it anymore than i did.


[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Dave]

[xtc]

Here some more information on troops that are guarding oil export platforms off Iraq. (This story is today)

LINK (http://www.theage.com.au/news/iraq/iraqis-can-guard-oil-says-australian-commander/2005/07/25/1122143786932.html?oneclick=true)

US troop are also guarding the Colombian oil pipeline.

LINK2 (http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=66)

Oil not a priority.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by xtc]

You really have a thick head.

A few troops guarding a 1000000000000000 mile pipeline means nothing especialy considering its a countries ONLY real source of income. (look at the price of oil if you really wanted to know how much it matters) You forget the U.S. pays the same price for its oil as everyone else.

P.S. (did you even sign up for "THE AGE" or just copy and past the link?

In the end it all comes back to what I have said this entire thread. National Interests.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
You really have a thick head.

A few troops guarding a 1000000000000000 mile pipeline means nothing especialy considering its a countries ONLY real source of income. (look at the price of oil if you really wanted to know how much it matters) You forget the U.S. pays the same price for its oil as everyone else.

P.S. (did you even sign up for "THE AGE" or just copy and past the link?

I have a thick head?

I have posted numerous links that talking about troops protecting oil and you say they aren't.

Here is one more for. The have created a private army in Iraq to protect the oil.

LINK (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1074965.htm)

[xtc]

Even the US Coast has gone to Iraq to protect oil.

"In addition, the Coast Guard provided port security in key logistics ports in Kuwait and Iraq and at Iraqi oil terminals in the northern Arabian Gulf. "

LINK (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/coastguard/a/uscgwar.htm)

Please read your own links.

"MAXINE MCKEW: Iraq's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia and getting them back into full production holds the key to the country's economic recovery."

answers your question right there as to why they need to be protected.

It is in our national interest to see Iraq succeed.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Dave]

[xtc]

Here is some more of the US military guarding oil in Iraq.

"U.S. military set up Task Force Shield to guard Iraq's energy infrastructure, particularly the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline."

LINK (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)

Oil not a priority.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
Please read your own links.

"MAXINE MCKEW: Iraq's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia and getting them back into full production holds the key to the country's economic recovery."

answers your question right there as to why they need to be protected.

It is in our national interest to see Iraq succeed.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Dave]

So now you finally admit the US military is guarding the oil? But they are doing it for altruistic purposes?

LOL

Not for the reasons you think there big guy.

[Hulkein]

Uh, guarding the oil lines is necessary to get that country on their feet in terms of doing business to sustain the new government.

It's not like our Army is guarding the pipeline, filling up buckets of oil in the process.

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Dave
Please read your own links.

"MAXINE MCKEW: Iraq's oil reserves are second only to those of Saudi Arabia and getting them back into full production holds the key to the country's economic recovery."

answers your question right there as to why they need to be protected.

It is in our national interest to see Iraq succeed.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Dave]

So now you finally admit the US military is guarding the oil? But they are doing it for altruistic purposes?

LOL

I never said that they were not guarding it. I said it was not a major priority of the forces there. We would commit far greater numbers if that was the case.

[Nieninque]

I would have supported military involvement in Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq (When Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds) and any number of oppressive regimes where the fundamental reason for doing so was to uphold/protect human rights/lives.

[Gan]

By interveining into situations such as Rwanda or Chechnya would we further assume the role of Police Force: Earth? Its been debated and understood that having an isolationist attitude towards other countries conflicts, especially at this magnitude, will eventually spill back over and affect our interests, our allies, or humanity in general.

I think the Clinton administration did a huge disservice to Rwanda by ignoring the issue and did the human race a disservice by ignoring the issue. And as Skirmisher stated, they also did America a disservice by ignoring something as serious as this because there were no 'direct American interests' threatened, thus giving the world the impression that we're only in it for the 'money'.

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Ganalon]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Uh, guarding the oil lines is necessary to get that country on their feet in terms of doing business to sustain the new government.

It's not like our Army is guarding the pipeline, filling up buckets of oil in the process.

"U.S. military set up Task Force Shield to guard Iraq's energy infrastructure, particularly the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline."

America is the largest buyer of Iraqi oil.

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Hulkein
Uh, guarding the oil lines is necessary to get that country on their feet in terms of doing business to sustain the new government.

It's not like our Army is guarding the pipeline, filling up buckets of oil in the process.

"U.S. military set up Task Force Shield to guard Iraq's energy infrastructure, particularly the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline."

America is the largest buyer of Iraqi oil.

America is the largest buyer of oil period.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Hulkein
Uh, guarding the oil lines is necessary to get that country on their feet in terms of doing business to sustain the new government.

It's not like our Army is guarding the pipeline, filling up buckets of oil in the process.

"U.S. military set up Task Force Shield to guard Iraq's energy infrastructure, particularly the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline."

America is the largest buyer of Iraqi oil.

America is the largest buyer of oil period.

Thank you for proving my point, with America being the largest consumer of oil in the world, oil is a priority.

[Hulkein]

<< "U.S. military set up Task Force Shield to guard Iraq's energy infrastructure, particularly the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline." >>

Insurgents were busting up the pipeline from the beginning. They were doing this to slow down the recovery of Iraq after regime change.

If we don't guard the pipeline and let every asshole who feels like throwing a grenade at it do so, how the hell is Iraq ever going to make any money to fund basic civic programs?

<< America is the largest buyer of Iraqi oil. >>

NO WAY AMERICA BUYZ A LOT OF OIL OMGOMGOMGOMG U CRACKED TEH CASE

What has happend to oil prices since the start of the war?

Why did we have sanctions on them and not just let them sell their oil?

It was not a priority for the war. It is important to the stability and economic success of Iraq.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I think the Clinton administration did a huge disservice to Rwanda by ignoring the issue and did the human race a disservice by ignoring the issue. And as Skirmisher stated, they also did America a disservice by ignoring something as serious as this because there were no 'direct American interests' threatened, thus giving the world the impression that we're only in it for the 'money'.
I agree. The entire world stood silent. The security counsel failed and so did the Clinton administration, miserably.

And then, there was that collective political consensus that allowed this group of Rwandan extremists to orchestrate one of the most classic cases of genocide in the 20th century, unanswered. This was a preventable genocide, in my opinion.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
What has happend to oil prices since the start of the war?



China happened.

[Gan]

Here's probably the most comprehensive site I've seen on the details of the Iraqi oilfields and production capabilities as well as who has major interests in it. Its on the Department Of Energy (DOE) website.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html#oil

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
Even though that was not the reason for the war, as i said it should be about what bests suits our national interests.

Alright, assuming you are fine with ignoring the glaring fact that it would have been the right thing to do, you seem to have missed the main thrust I was making in my earlier post and that is that such involvement actually IS in our national interest.

And my point is that sometimes things are slightly more complicated than simply getting an immediate return on an investment.

The US got decades of play out of being the "good guy" fighting the bad evil Soviets.

There is no evil empire to most of the world anymore unless you mean the US itself.

We would begin to regain the ability to state firmly to the rest of the world that the US is a country that gives aid to not only those that directly increase our profit margins, but to those in the most dire need as well.

One of the main reasons that so many people are able to recruit all these angry young men to attack the US is the horrible reputation the US currently has.

This is one way to take that weapon away from them

Or ignorance, being the major factor to recruit suicide bombers.
When all you hear about growing up is hate America, your going to do it.

You're right, it may have been the right thing to do. I guess I'm just callus now, because it didn't serve our interests directly. If there was a peacekeeping force sent there made up of equal numbers from every country (instead of 99% US 1% everyone else, as it normally is) I would not have a issue with us sending troops. Since the rest of the world didn't care enough to do that, then i don't care either.