Did Clinton take reasonable measures in Rwanda?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Aug 25, 2006.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    In another thread it was suggested that our President has failed to take action in Rwanda because of the lack of oil.

    However upon further investigation it has been revealed that the former administration failed miserably from the very begining of the atrocities and genocide against Christians by Islamists in Rwanda.

    Here are several links to evidence that Bill clinton refused to take action in Rwanda:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200109/power-genocide
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/Rw01.pdf


    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/070800-01.htm
    http://www.alternet.org/story/9494/
    http://www.nathanielturner.com/rwandangenocide2.htm
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/

    Why would Clinton refuse to take action in Rwanda?

    He did not want to get the US involved in a war where there would be a loss of American troops and thus having his approval numbers drop. His refusal to act in Rwanda was all about his legacy.

    The left today ignores his refusal to act in Rwanda and works to criticize our President for what they did not want to do 10 years ago. If I was to use their form of logic that leads them to claim That our President hasnt done what they think he should in Rwanda because of the lack of oil, I would have to come to the conclusion that Clinton refused to act in Rwanda because of the lack of Interns.(but I digress)

    In the end it is all about Clintons approval numbers, the polls, and his legacy. His Presidency was lifted up by his shrewd but shallow politics, the huge economic drive by the dotcom industry(which when bottomed out lead to a recession due to his constant barrage of tax increases that could no longer be supported).

    Revisionism is alive and well, and is as fresh as this mornings cow patties.
     
  2. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    At least 10 million and maybe more than 20 million Christians have been the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' in Africa over the last 20 years.

    That is why the 'Christians' in Yugoslavia thought that they would get away with cleansing muslims. Yes, I believe that we should not have let that happen.

    But, the greater tragedy is that islam believes that (1) we are the police protectors (2) we will not protect Christians and (3) we will protect them so that they can keep killing us. . .

    Ethiopia
    Rwanda
    Somalia
    Eritrea
    Egypt
    Nigeria
    Morocco
    Lebanon
    Saudi Arabia

    If it is a country under islam or around it - Christianity is persecuted.

    do we forget the persecution of Christians in Israel? Bethlehem is now a muslim city. It was an historic Christian city. Even though Christians have been cleansed in Israel for 1800 years . . . by the Jews and by the muslims (a conservative estimate would be 50 thousand martyred*).

    I just keep praying for our brothers . . . and our sisters . . . that if they die for the Cross, God will glorify His name through their deaths for the faith.

    * data based upon an article by the Jewish publisher of Biblical Archaeological Review cir 1996.
     
  3. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,947
    Likes Received:
    298
    Two reasons the genocide in Rwanda was ignored:

    1. No needed valuable resources in Rwanda.

    2. It was Negroes being slaughtered.

    Clinton has not and will not acknowledge just how culpable he was. But he wasn't the only one. It was a massive failure by the U.N. for the same two reasons.
     
  4. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The question should not be why didn't we do anything about Rwanda, as bad as it was. We should be questioning why the current administration refused to call the current situation in Sudan what it really is, GENOCIDE. Carpo, it is rare that we agree, but unfortunately in this case you are right. :tear:
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    If you will actually read through the links you will find that it is Clinton who refused to call it Genocide in 1994. Again, revisionism is as fresh as this mornings cow patties.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,947
    Likes Received:
    298
    The U.S. ,under the current Administration, has long held the view that the killing in Sudan is genocide. The U.N was uncooperative in approving the sanctions the U.S had repeatedly asked for until lately.

    Your question is now answered.



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8364-2004Sep9.html

    http://www.nysun.com/article/31613

    U.N. Okays Sanctions in Sudan

    EXCERPT

    The council's economic sanctions against a Khartoum air force officer, a Janjaweed sheik, and two rebel leaders marked the first punitive measures taken against anyone involved in the ongoing atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region that have left hundreds of thousands dead and millions homeless, and which America considers genocide.

    China and Russia expressed reservations about the measures, but both countries refrained from vetoing the American-proposed resolution. Both, along with Qatar, abstained from the vote, while the rest of the 15 council members supported the action.
     
  7. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Talk about revisionism. The Darfur conflict did not start until early 2003. Sudan and Rwanda are two different countries, btw.

    Carpo,
    Note I used the word "refused", (past tense). I know that they have since declared genocide, although it took until September of 2004 to do so, after thousands of lives had been slaughtered, and hundreds of thousands fleeing to Chad. China was the major UN hold-up. They have a major stake in Sudanese oil.
     
    #7 Filmproducer, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2006
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    You need to go back and actually read the links.
     
  9. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I do not need to go back and read the links, I am fairly well versed in the atrocities that took place in Rwanda. My initial post asked why talk about Rwanda when genocide is CURRENTLY happening in Darfur, Sudan. The Clinton administration could not declare genocide in DARFUR, SUDAN because the conflict did not start until the middle of Bush's 1st term.

    Maybe you should go back and read my posts instead of telling me to read the links.
     
  10. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If the point of this thread is to do nothing but bash Clinton's handling of Rwanda, then I agree. We should have tried to do more, although as history has proven, African countries are not as valuable to our national priorities. In that same vein I will also criticize the current adminstration on it's handling of Darfur, Sudan. Omar Hassan al-Bashir is 10 times the tyrant Hussein was. His janjaweed are more brutal. The NIF, (National Islamic Front), regime is engaging in the systematic destruction of the Christians and ethnic African tribal groups at an alarming rate.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,947
    Likes Received:
    298
    "...refused to call the current situation..."

    Your mixing of what you say is "past tense" with what is obviously present tense must be what led to my confusion. Perhaps a modifier such as "had refused" would more clearly indicate past tense.

    Sorry I misunderstood you.
     
  12. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sorry about that, I see what happened now. Oops :eek:
     
  13. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thank you for your post. It is refreshing to see someone who knows historical facts regarding the fall of African countries (like dominoes) to islam and cares about our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks again.
     
  14. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sudan has had genocide going on - Christians being killed by muslims for several decades. The US Government and the world have ignored the genocide occurring there until oil was discovered. Then all of a sudden, it mattered.
     
  15. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I agree. Everyone turns a blind eye until it serves their purpose. The current Darfur situation started in early 2003, but we, (US), would not admit genocide was taking place until September 9, 2004. Ironically enough after it was found that the Sudanese government was a major supplier of Chinese oil. Most of the African countries have had some sort of ethnic cleansing take place at one point or another after decolonization.
     
    #15 Filmproducer, Aug 25, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2006
  16. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    Nice dodge. Now, what did Bush do?
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    First you explain what it was that I dodged.
     
  18. ACADEMIC

    ACADEMIC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nearly NOTHING is uni-causal in international relations or ever good or evil in clarion stark contrast.

    Chuck Colson, who I often disagree with but always respect and hear out whenever I can, charges that the lack of action in Rwanda, concurrent with action in Bosnia, is due to what he characterizes as an unconscious psychology in favor of white Europeans over Blacks. Rwandans do not look like white Americans but Bosnians do, Colson says, so the Clinotn administration never acted. Colson is clearly on to something here, in my view, but his assertion still points to a uni-causal theory of causality for non-interventon, which is very misguided in my view.

    In fact, Colson should know better, though the fact that he was not entrusted with many international relations matters during his White House tenure may be very telling.

    Fact is, international relations decisions are always based upon a complex of confilcting factors and concerns, each imperfectly seen. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. For those conditioned by any form of simplistic black and white thinking, this can make such matters difficult to fully grasp.

    -----------------------------
     
    #18 ACADEMIC, Aug 26, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2006
  19. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,947
    Likes Received:
    298
    The delay was not so much a matter of recognizing it as it was proving it.

    A declaration of "genocide" in the UN carries with it certain responsibilities. One is to be sure it's true.

    Even with all the time we spent investigating it and gathering evidence before the actual declaration, that was not enough to sway enough countries to have the U.N. make the declaration and take steps against it, for a long time.

    Your cynicism concerning the delay being related to oil is not backed up by the facts.
     
  20. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clinton waited for a long time before intervening in Bosnia also. In fact, he didn't intervene directly. What he did was relax the arms embargo that let the Bosnians get heavy weapons to match the Serb ones.

    The Bosnians were a majority in Bosnia, and once they obtained suitable weapons, the Serbs were much more agreeable to discuss peace. The primary weapon Clinton used against the Serbs was the threat of violence.

    That being said, Clinton should have acted more decisively in the case of Rwanda, which was certainly his greatest failure in international relations.
     

Share This Page

Loading...