so who then?

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

infringing on another country is ok with you now, I thought meddling in other country's affairs was wrong...Do you have any idea what the shit storm would happen if we were in other countries right now blocking radio broadcasts we deem extreme?

Because the Wests role in the Rwandan genocide all boils to the issue of not blocking the radio broadcasts, right?
As for Bosnia, the U.S ordered that the Bosnian Muslims not be allowed to arm themselves. They were then left to be slaughtered. The U.S assisted in the Bosnian genocide.
As for Rwanda, the U.N troops there could have intervened but were ordered not to. Although that's o.k with you because meddling in other countries is deemed extreme, right? Except when it comes to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Occupiued Palestinian territories, e.t.c.

have I ever on these boards anywhere defended going into iraq or afghanistan. Do not get me twisted up with some others on here...I have never defend the military action of the United States...I hate that we go anywhere, I would love it if we would just protect ourselves and let other countries do the same. So knock that shit off...why don't you ask me what I think about those wars rather than assume because I feel that we are not to blame for th entire worlds ills...

You ignored my question...do the Hutus, and I will even add the serbs since you quickly changed the subject, have any responsibility, or is it simply that the UN, and by proxy the US, failed to protect the universe from the universe. I love it, people have been fighting for years and years and hating each other for more and the US is always at fault with you byrnzie. We have only been around for 234 years, been an influential country for far less time, how on earth are we responsible for the way people who have been at war for a thousand years treat people...I don't get it.
and you changed my words . . . I said can you imagine the shit storm if the US blocked all radio broadcasts we deemed extreme. At least get it right if you are going to have a problem with it

Byrnzie

mikepegg44 wrote:

...do the Hutus, and I will even add the serbs since you quickly changed the subject, have any responsibility, or is it simply that the UN, and by proxy the US, failed to protect the universe from the universe. I love it, people have been fighting for years and years and hating each other for more and the US is always at fault with you byrnzie. We have only been around for 234 years, been an influential country for far less time, how on earth are we responsible for the way people who have been at war for a thousand years treat people...I don't get it.

I suppose we should look at the roots of the ethnic tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis. By all accounts it was the Flemish (Belgians) who instigated that. The fact is the colonialists in Africa - The British, Belgians, French - left the place in tatters and after having ruled largely with divide-and-conquer tactics for approx 100 years left all those rivalries behind to blow up in their wake.
Of course those Hutu's with the machetes are ultimately to blame for the killings, but the Western powers knew of the simmering tensions, and the plans for mass murder a long time before it al kicked off. There were opportunities to prevent the thing spiralling out of control but the issue was ignored. A case in point was Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire's radio call that reported 'four major weapons caches and plans by the Hutus for extermination of Tutsis.' That warning was ignored. And even after the slaughter began the Western powers did nothing to stop it. This thread is about U.S Presidents, and Clinton was President at the time. He knew what was happening and he chose to do nothing about it. As someone who had possibly the greatest influence over any decision taken by the U.N, he undoubtedly shares a large portion of the blame for the fact that over 800,000 people were slaughtered. And when you combine this with his inaction on the Bosnian genocide, and his imposing of the sanctions on the civilian polpulation of Iraq, then I think that to say he was one of the greatest U.S President's is highly questionable.

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

I suppose we should look at the roots of the ethnic tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis. By all accounts it was the Flemish (Belgians) who instigated that. The fact is the colonialists in Africa - The British, Belgians, French - left the place in tatters and after having ruled largely with divide-and-conquer tactics for approx 100 years left all those rivalries behind to blow up in their wake.
Of course those Hutu's with the machetes are ultimately to blame for the killings, but the Western powers knew of the simmering tensions, and the plans for mass murder a long time before it al kicked off. There were opportunities to prevent the thing spiralling out of control but the issue was ignored. A case in point was Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire's radio call that reported 'four major weapons caches and plans by the Hutus for extermination of Tutsis.' That warning was ignored. And even after the slaughter began the Western powers did nothing to stop it. This thread is about U.S Presidents, and Clinton was President at the time. He knew what was happening and he chose to do nothing about it. As someone who had possibly the greatest influence over any decision taken by the U.N, he undoubtedly shares a large portion of the blame for the fact that over 800,000 people were slaughtered. And when you combine this with his inaction on the Bosnian genocide, and his imposing of the sanctions on the civilian polpulation of Iraq, then I think that to say he was one of the greatest U.S President's is highly questionable.

I am not particularly familiar with the pre-colonial history in this case, but I'd be surprised if the Belgians were the major "cause" of this tribal rivalry. Colonial powers did leave things to explode in their wake, but in many cases what exploded were pre-existing animosities that then got worse after the Europeans left.

Byrnzie

rebornFixer wrote:

I am not particularly familiar with the pre-colonial history in this case, but I'd be surprised if the Belgians were the major "cause" of this tribal rivalry. Colonial powers did leave things to explode in their wake, but in many cases what exploded were pre-existing animosities that then got worse after the Europeans left.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html
'The roots of Rwanda's genocide lie in its colonial experience. First occupied and colonized by the Germans (1894-1916), during World War I the country was taken over by the Belgians, who ruled until independence in 1962. Utilizing the classic strategy of "divide and rule," the Belgians granted preferential status to the Tutsi minority (constituting somewhere between 8 and 14 percent of the population at the time of the 1994 genocide). In pre-colonial Rwanda, the Tutsis had dominated the small Rwandan aristocracy, but ethnic divisions between them and the majority Hutus (at least 85 percent of the population in 1999) were always fluid, and the two populations cannot be considered distinct "tribes." Nor was inter-communal conflict rife. As Stephen D. Wrage states, "It is often remarked that the violence between Hutus and Tutsis goes back to time immemorial and can never be averted, but Belgian records show that in fact there was a strong sense among Rwandans ... of belonging to a Rwandan nation, and that before around 1960, violence [along] ethnic lines was uncommon and mass murder of the sort seen in 1994 was unheard of." (Wrage, "Genocide in Rwanda: Draft Case Study for Teaching Ethics and International Affairs," unpublished paper, 2000.)

Whatever communal cleavages existed were sharply heightened by Belgian colonial policy. As Gérard Prunier notes, "Using physical characteristics as a guide -- the Tutsi were generally tall, thin, and more 'European' in their appearance than the shorter, stockier Hutu -- the colonizers decided that the Tutsi and the Hutu were two different races. According to the racial theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Tutsi, with their more 'European' appearance, were deemed the 'master race' ... By 1930 Belgium's Rwandan auxiliaries were almost entirely Tutsi, a status that earned them the durable hatred of the Hutu." (Prunier, "Rwanda's Struggle to Recover from Genocide," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99.) It was also the Belgians who (in 1933) instituted the identity-card system that designated every Rwandan as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa (the last of these is an aboriginal group that in 1990 comprised about 1 percent of the Rwandan population). The identity cards were retained into the post-independence era, and provided crucial assistance to the architects of genocide as they sought to isolate their Tutsi victims.

As Africa moved towards decolonization after World War II, it was the better-educated and more prosperous Tutsis who led the struggle for independence. Accordingly, the Belgians switched their allegiance to the Hutus. Vengeful Hutu elements murdered about 15,000 Tutsis between 1959 and 1962, and more than 100,000 Tutsis fled to neighbouring countries, notably Uganda and Burundi. Tutsis remaining in Rwanda were stripped of much of their wealth and status under the regime of Juvénal Habyarimana, installed in 1973. An estimated one million Tutsis fled the country (it is in part this massive outflow that makes the proportion of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 so difficult to determine). After 1986, Tutsis in Uganda formed a guerrilla organization, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which aimed to invade Rwanda and overthrow the Habyarimana regime.

In 1990, the RPF launched its invasion, occupying zones in the northeast of Rwanda. In August 1993, at the Tanzanian town of Arusha, Habyarimana finally accepted an internationally-mediated peace treaty which granted the RPF a share of political power and a military presence in the capital, Kigali. Some 5,000 U.N. peacekeepers (UNAMIR, the United Nations Assistance Mission to Rwanda) were dispatched to bolster the accord. "But Hutu extremists in [Habyarimana's] government did not accept the peace agreement," writes Prunier. "Some of these extremists, who were high-level government officials and military personnel, had begun devising their own solution to the 'Tutsi problem' as early as 1992. Habyarimana's controversial decision to make peace with the RPF won others over to their side, including opposition leaders. Many of those involved in planning the 1994 genocide saw themselves as patriots, defending their country against outside aggression. Moderate Hutus who supported peace with the RPF also became their targets." (Prunier, "Rwanda's Struggle ...") This was the so-called "Hutu Power" movement that organized and supervised the holocaust of April-July 1994.'

rebornFixer

Byrnzie wrote:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html
'The roots of Rwanda's genocide lie in its colonial experience. First occupied and colonized by the Germans (1894-1916), during World War I the country was taken over by the Belgians, who ruled until independence in 1962. Utilizing the classic strategy of "divide and rule," the Belgians granted preferential status to the Tutsi minority (constituting somewhere between 8 and 14 percent of the population at the time of the 1994 genocide). In pre-colonial Rwanda, the Tutsis had dominated the small Rwandan aristocracy, but ethnic divisions between them and the majority Hutus (at least 85 percent of the population in 1999) were always fluid, and the two populations cannot be considered distinct "tribes." Nor was inter-communal conflict rife. As Stephen D. Wrage states, "It is often remarked that the violence between Hutus and Tutsis goes back to time immemorial and can never be averted, but Belgian records show that in fact there was a strong sense among Rwandans ... of belonging to a Rwandan nation, and that before around 1960, violence [along] ethnic lines was uncommon and mass murder of the sort seen in 1994 was unheard of." (Wrage, "Genocide in Rwanda: Draft Case Study for Teaching Ethics and International Affairs," unpublished paper, 2000.)

Whatever communal cleavages existed were sharply heightened by Belgian colonial policy. As Gérard Prunier notes, "Using physical characteristics as a guide -- the Tutsi were generally tall, thin, and more 'European' in their appearance than the shorter, stockier Hutu -- the colonizers decided that the Tutsi and the Hutu were two different races. According to the racial theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Tutsi, with their more 'European' appearance, were deemed the 'master race' ... By 1930 Belgium's Rwandan auxiliaries were almost entirely Tutsi, a status that earned them the durable hatred of the Hutu." (Prunier, "Rwanda's Struggle to Recover from Genocide," Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99.) It was also the Belgians who (in 1933) instituted the identity-card system that designated every Rwandan as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa (the last of these is an aboriginal group that in 1990 comprised about 1 percent of the Rwandan population). The identity cards were retained into the post-independence era, and provided crucial assistance to the architects of genocide as they sought to isolate their Tutsi victims.

As Africa moved towards decolonization after World War II, it was the better-educated and more prosperous Tutsis who led the struggle for independence. Accordingly, the Belgians switched their allegiance to the Hutus. Vengeful Hutu elements murdered about 15,000 Tutsis between 1959 and 1962, and more than 100,000 Tutsis fled to neighbouring countries, notably Uganda and Burundi. Tutsis remaining in Rwanda were stripped of much of their wealth and status under the regime of Juvénal Habyarimana, installed in 1973. An estimated one million Tutsis fled the country (it is in part this massive outflow that makes the proportion of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 so difficult to determine). After 1986, Tutsis in Uganda formed a guerrilla organization, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which aimed to invade Rwanda and overthrow the Habyarimana regime.

In 1990, the RPF launched its invasion, occupying zones in the northeast of Rwanda. In August 1993, at the Tanzanian town of Arusha, Habyarimana finally accepted an internationally-mediated peace treaty which granted the RPF a share of political power and a military presence in the capital, Kigali. Some 5,000 U.N. peacekeepers (UNAMIR, the United Nations Assistance Mission to Rwanda) were dispatched to bolster the accord. "But Hutu extremists in [Habyarimana's] government did not accept the peace agreement," writes Prunier. "Some of these extremists, who were high-level government officials and military personnel, had begun devising their own solution to the 'Tutsi problem' as early as 1992. Habyarimana's controversial decision to make peace with the RPF won others over to their side, including opposition leaders. Many of those involved in planning the 1994 genocide saw themselves as patriots, defending their country against outside aggression. Moderate Hutus who supported peace with the RPF also became their targets." (Prunier, "Rwanda's Struggle ...") This was the so-called "Hutu Power" movement that organized and supervised the holocaust of April-July 1994.'

I stand corrected. Incidentally, those interested should read Romeo Dallaire's book. I have just started it.

Byrnzie

rebornFixer wrote:

I stand corrected. Incidentally, those interested should read Romeo Dallaire's book. I have just started it.

I have a copy of this one at home which I didn't get around to reading: http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomor ... 579&sr=1-1

I plan to read it when I get back next year.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

Byrnzie wrote:

MrSmith wrote:

and i dont have to twist anything to expose you. you are a mini George Bush.

And you are an annoying, smarmy little fuck.

im not little!

right back at ya you fraud!

call me all the names you want, but find one post that you've made in the years you've been here that would show me you are anything other than a contrarian. you are a sheep with a different shepherd, but a sheep none the less. i bet at this point it would physically hurt you to admit the US has done a few things right (as i have said time and time again what the US has done wrong), and you would probably die before you said religion, especially christianity, had any positive impact.

prove me wrong.