Political Crossfire Forums

[theykilledkenny83]

I was watching Hotel Rwanda and I thought, "Why the hell didn't the U.N. help more? Why didn't Clinton send U.S. Troops to help them?" It is despicable that no one intervened in the Rwanda genocide. Keyword there is GENOCIDE. At the 1948 U.N. convention, All the countries participating agreed to intervene whenever acts of Genocide were taking place. The UN and Clinton ignored that statement. Clinton used 18 American casualties in Somalia 6 months earlier as an excuse to not intervene in the genocide, even though he knew about what was happening all along.(There are documents proving it.) Clinton isn't the only one to blame. The UN needed a heck of a lot more troops than just 2200. I know, you are probably going to say that Clinton apologized to Rwanda in 1998. The genocide was in 1994. Almost 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. Clinton's apology came four years too late. The UN s*cks also. They couldn't stop Somalia, Yugoslavia, or, even worse, Rwanda. You are probably asking why are we not in Darfur. I am asking that question also. I am disappointed that we are not in Darfur (one of the only things that I am disappointed in our president for, but he is working with the UN to possibly send troops there. It's just taking forever.) I pray that we are in Darfur soon. +p

[Demonic Spoon]

Because we are not the world's police, and thus have no obligation to help? Any help given should NOT be done through tax dollars-people shouldn't be forced to police Rwanda.

However, I would have no problem with a private milita group going over to kick some ass.

[theykilledkenny83]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Because we are not the world's police, and thus have no obligation to help? Any help given should NOT be done through tax dollars-people shouldn't be forced to police Rwanda.

However, I would have no problem with a private milita group going over to kick some ass.


I'm not just blaming the US, Demonic Spoon. I'm also blaming the rest of the world, especially the UN. 800,000 people died needlessly and no one was willing to stop it. When genocide occurs the rest of the world MUST stop it. If you read carefully, they agreed to do so after the 1948 UN convention. Guess they forgot about it. Whoops. We wouldn't be policing, we would be stopping genocide.

[antonio62]

theykilledkenny83 wrote: You are probably asking why are we not in Darfur. I am asking that question also. I am disappointed that we are not in Darfur (one of the only things that I am disappointed in our president for, but he is working with the UN to possibly send troops there. It's just taking forever.) I pray that we are in Darfur soon. +p

Actually the French alreayd have some troops in Chad defending refugee camps for the displaced people of Darfur and the African Union has troops in Sudan. I agree that we should do more about Darfur and the rest of what you said I agree with totally.

[Dr. Righteous]

theykilledkenny83 wrote: I was watching Hotel Rwanda and I thought, "Why the hell didn't the U.N. help more? Why didn't Clinton send U.S. Troops to help them?" It is despicable that no one intervened in the Rwanda genocide. Keyword there is GENOCIDE. At the 1948 U.N. convention, All the countries participating agreed to intervene whenever acts of Genocide were taking place. The UN and Clinton ignored that statement. Clinton used 18 American casualties in Somalia 6 months earlier as an excuse to not intervene in the genocide, even though he knew about what was happening all along.(There are documents proving it.) Clinton isn't the only one to blame. The UN needed a heck of a lot more troops than just 2200. I know, you are probably going to say that Clinton apologized to Rwanda in 1998. The genocide was in 1994. Almost 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. Clinton's apology came four years too late. The UN s*cks also. They couldn't stop Somalia, Yugoslavia, or, even worse, Rwanda. You are probably asking why are we not in Darfur. I am asking that question also. I am disappointed that we are not in Darfur (one of the only things that I am disappointed in our president for, but he is working with the UN to possibly send troops there. It's just taking forever.) I pray that we are in Darfur soon. +p

:clap:

[superskippy]

For Darfur I dont see why the EU doesnt just deploy troops there, they could end the genocide in a matter of weeks and they have the troops and the capacity to do so. Germany has the largest army in Europe at over 250,000 men, and France has over 150,000-200,000. Taking into account Poland, Italy, Spain, etc, they could have 400,000-500,000 troops on the ground.

Sadly I dont think they ever will deploy troops. In fact my cynical look on this tells me that if another country deployed troops to Darfur they would protest but thats probably jusy my cynicism talking.

If they did this their reputation would be increased immensly, hell I'd actually respect the EU.

[antonio62]

France already dose have troops in neighbouring Chad defending refugees but refuse to go in to Sudan without a UN resolution which they don't have. They don't see it as their part of Africa as it wasn't a former French colony they see it as a place where the British should deal with it. It wouldn’t even take much it would only need a few thousand troops plus a little air support to do it but the British will never do anything until it hits the headlines and everyone in the country is appalled by it.

[superskippy]

But why does it have to be the British? France or Germany alone are more than capable of going in, also why do you need a UN resolution to stop a massacre and genocide for christ sake?

[Demonic Spoon]

Because the UN applies to governments, and governments should not force their citizens to pay for something like that?


Quote:
I'm not just blaming the US, Demonic Spoon. I'm also blaming the rest of the world, especially the UN. 800,000 people died needlessly and no one was willing to stop it. When genocide occurs the rest of the world MUST stop it. If you read carefully, they agreed to do so after the 1948 UN convention. Guess they forgot about it. Whoops. We wouldn't be policing, we would be stopping genocide.

Stopping genocide is policing. If someone really wants to stop it, then you can form a private militia group and go down there, or spend your money to hire some military contractors. You should not force OTHER PEOPLE to spend money, and OTHER PEOPLE (Soldiers) TO DIE just because YOU think something should be stopped.

If you think it's that important, then buy your ass a rifle, maybe a kevlar vest, and get your ass down to wherever you want to go. Or, preferably, if you don'tw ant to get shot, get a whole bunch of supporters, buy all of them rifles and kevlar vests, then go down.

[antonio62]

superskippy wrote: But why does it have to be the British? France or Germany alone are more than capable of going in, also why do you need a UN resolution to stop a massacre and genocide for christ sake?

Its how the French see the world. They see their former colonies as their responsibility and former British colonies a British responsability. They think it'll damage there image going in to places like Sudan where they may not be wanted without a UN resolution. The UN should do something but the UN says it wotn allow troops to go in without the Sudanese government agreeing to it. Its stupid I know but thats sadly how things are.

[guantanamo on toast]

theykilledkenny83 wrote: You are probably asking why are we not in Darfur. I am asking that question also.
Or in Chechnya perhaps?

Ah no, I forget. It's convenient to pretty much everyone.

[theykilledkenny83]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Because the UN applies to governments, and governments should not force their citizens to pay for something like that?


Quote:
I'm not just blaming the US, Demonic Spoon. I'm also blaming the rest of the world, especially the UN. 800,000 people died needlessly and no one was willing to stop it. When genocide occurs the rest of the world MUST stop it. If you read carefully, they agreed to do so after the 1948 UN convention. Guess they forgot about it. Whoops. We wouldn't be policing, we would be stopping genocide.

Stopping genocide is policing. If someone really wants to stop it, then you can form a private militia group and go down there, or spend your money to hire some military contractors. You should not force OTHER PEOPLE to spend money, and OTHER PEOPLE (Soldiers) TO DIE just because YOU think something should be stopped.

If you think it's that important, then buy your ass a rifle, maybe a kevlar vest, and get your ass down to wherever you want to go. Or, preferably, if you don'tw ant to get shot, get a whole bunch of supporters, buy all of them rifles and kevlar vests, then go down.

I would buy myself all that equipment....if I was old enough and I had the money. People are dying NEEDLESSLY because of their ethnicity or beliefs. The women are being raped and the men and children are being murdered. We don't want another Holocaust. That was the purpose of the already-mentioned 1948 UN convention. Whenever genocide is occurring, it HAS to be stopped. What you are saying is that whenever hundreds of thousands of people are dying in months because of genocide, we should just sit there and let the death toll rise and rise until it reaches a number of biblical proportions. It is the duty of the rest of the world to use that power for the good of man and to stop genocide.

[theykilledkenny83]

guantanamo on toast wrote: theykilledkenny83 wrote: You are probably asking why are we not in Darfur. I am asking that question also.
Or in Chechnya perhaps?

Ah no, I forget. It's convenient to pretty much everyone.


Chechnya is debatable, while it is a problem, we would have to ask permission from the Russians. It is, after all, THEIR territory and they are trying to take care of it. (even though they probably aren't doing a good job)

[guantanamo on toast]

theykilledkenny83 wrote: ask permission from the Russians.
So frickin' quoteworthy. :lol:

[Bobicito]

I agree with Demonic Spoon, it shouldn't be are obligation to go in and help theese people whenever there is a problem.

[TNBiologist]

Got to agree with the people that say we are under no obligation to go in and help other people. If someone wants to help then send these people the means to defend themslves. The UN refused to arm the people being slaughtered because they thought (rightly so) that if you arm people that are being killed because of a belief then they will use those arms to defend themselves and the UN stated that it did not want a war, so I guess they are cool with genocide. http://www.blackcollegeview.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/04/42030194ebd45

Personally, I think the US needs to stay the hell out of there. We went into Irag to stop genocide there against the Kurds, among other eesons which we will not get into on this thread, and now everyone wants out. If we go into Dufar, what will be any different. We will start loosing troops there and the public at large will then start screaming to get our troops out and teh region will still be unstable.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
I would buy myself all that equipment....if I was old enough and I had the money. People are dying NEEDLESSLY because of their ethnicity or beliefs. The women are being raped and the men and children are being murdered. We don't want another Holocaust. That was the purpose of the already-mentioned 1948 UN convention. Whenever genocide is occurring, it HAS to be stopped. What you are saying is that whenever hundreds of thousands of people are dying in months because of genocide, we should just sit there and let the death toll rise and rise until it reaches a number of biblical proportions. It is the duty of the rest of the world to use that power for the good of man and to stop genocide.

Then get your f***ing parents to get some guns and go down there. Once again ,you are ignoring the fact that YOU can actually do something about it. But apparently you'd rather piss and moan to force OTHER people to pay for it, and OTHER people to die for what YOU believe in.

[theykilledkenny83]

TNBiologist wrote:
We went into Irag to stop genocide there against the Kurds, among other eesons which we will not get into on this thread, and now everyone wants out.

Maybe because the genocide is no longer occurring? We are trying to set up a form of government, and I predict we should be (mostly) out of Iraq by the end of this year.

And Demonic Spoon, if my parents had the money, I would be in darfur with a gun in a heartbeat. When people are dying needlessly by the thousands, you would expect us to piss and moan. I f you saw how bad it really is, you would probably want to stop it as well in stead of watching the death toll go higher and higher until it reaches unbelievable numbers. It has been called "Rwanda in slow motion" and we all know how bad THAT was.

(I'll mention it again, there is already an obligation to go into a country and stop genocide. I've already mentioned this a bunch of times. look up The 1948 UN convention and you will see what I mean.

Plus, you make it seem like I am the only one with these beliefs. That is so far from the truth its not even funny.

[conguy]

I agree. We need to do something about Sudan. If someone goes in there, things would get much better.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
And Demonic Spoon, if my parents had the money, I would be in darfur with a gun in a heartbeat. When people are dying needlessly by the thousands, you would expect us to piss and moan. I f you saw how bad it really is, you would probably want to stop it as well in stead of watching the death toll go higher and higher until it reaches unbelievable numbers. It has been called "Rwanda in slow motion" and we all know how bad THAT was.


I do want it to stop. However, i am not going to force others to do it. You wnat to stop it, and don't have the money? Sounds like you're just making excuses. Advertise. Ask for donations. Get a bunch of people from around your state (or around the country), accept some donations for equipment (and kevlar armor and maybe a bit of training), and head on down to Rwanda.

Hell, guns are not that much. You can buy an AK-47, a solid, dependable assault rifle for only a couple hundred. You can buy some very high quality kevlar armor (same type the army uses) for about $500. You aren't seriously going to tell me you can't get a job and scrounge up that much, are you?

Quote:
(I'll mention it again, there is already an obligation to go into a country and stop genocide. I've already mentioned this a bunch of times. look up The 1948 UN convention and you will see what I mean.


Uhh, no. The UN should not be telling countries around.
Quote:
Plus, you make it seem like I am the only one with these beliefs. That is so far from the truth its not even funny.


I never said that. I bet there is a multitude of people who whine about Rwanda, but never stop to do anything about it.