The Genocide in Rwanda

[MVS]

Small 'img', please.

Fucker...

[Damian79]

You try it. Using google's back up pics seems impossible for me.

[MVS]

I meant pre-edit.

And don't you act like it didn't happen! I saw it. We both know.

[Damian79]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[The_Meach]

Frontline pwns.

My brother had this on when I came home the other night. I couldn't bear watching.

Want to make a difference? Join the Peace Corps, or go to school and become a journalist or otherwise donate your time. At the most basic level you've already started making a difference by taking an interest and becoming more aware of what's happening in the world. You've outgrown apathy. Good. Action is next...

[arjue]

I'd like to make a difference, but in all honesty I'm simply to selfish to dedicate my time to it, so I think I might just donate money to a charity of some sort.

JM: America's iraqi fiasco doesn't measure up to alot of the fucked up shit going on elsewhere (look at MVS' list). Besides, America has done MUCH worse in the past.

[frostwolf ex]

ok I will open the can of worms then. the start of the story begins, rightly in my opinion, by saying that american and the west stood by and did nothing. Now with the iraq situation, a lot of people have said that we had to step in because hussien was an evil murder, no argument there fromme, though i wonder about the proportion of the action we needed to take. others point to the un as the basis for global safety,and chastise america for not waiting for the un to act. so here is the question, why didnt the un act, not with proclaimations or condembantions, because im sure there were rafts of them flying about, and they did noting to abate the salughter, but with surpressing multinational forces. aAe the western nations cowards for sitting back on our haunches and letting this murder go on? Why didnt the enlightened states of europe step in? is this really just moral masturbation,saying how much every human life deserves rights, but failing to step in and protect it when it is threatened? we slam americans for acting unilateraly, but why doesent anyone else stop obvious atrocities like this? unsurpirisingly, i expext to see ali here.

one more question, we have mentioned the peace corps and the red cross, and journalists, but are they really effective group do deal with situations like this? cameras and medicine are good, but when random rebels are shooting everywhere, i dont see a journalist or a medic being as effective as a well armed military unit stopping him. really its more moral masturbation, we like these nonviolent groups,and they do do good, but only on the heels of a powerful military that protects them and clears out the bulk of the opposing military forces. otherwise they are just more people to rob and shoot.

[Damian79]

Oh please, you have to be kidding. The mere idea that the US went to war because Saddam was killing his own people/because he was a murderer is laughable. Wake up to the real world. It is all about the almighty dollar, if there is no money in it for the country, there is no way that country is going to do shit about it.

[frostwolf ex]

Oh please, you have to be kidding. The mere idea that the US went to war because Saddam was killing his own people/because he was a murderer is laughable. Wake up to the real world. It is all about the almighty dollar, if there is no money in it for the country, there is no way that country is going to do shit about it.

yadda yadda. spare me the partisian bullshit, as you recall, the fight was originally started by saddams refusal to allow weapons inspectors into his palaces and "private" facilities, it snowballed from there. but you are not answering the questions i asked! If bush is evil and the un and european allies are good, then how could they sit back and allow this genocide to happen. inaction lead to death, and modern armies could have routed a bunch of ragtag rebels and child soldiers, but they didnt, so the question remains, what moral authority does the un have when they failed to act?

[Damian79]

yadda yadda. spare me the partisian bullshit, as you recall, the fight was originally started by saddams refusal to allow weapons inspectors into his palaces and "private" facilities, it snowballed from there. but you are not answering the questions i asked! If bush is evil and the un and european allies are good, then how could they sit back and allow this genocide to happen. inaction lead to death, and modern armies could have routed a bunch of ragtag rebels and child soldiers, but they didnt, so the question remains, what moral authority does the un have when they failed to act?

You missed my point. I am saying that ALL governments are self serving bunch of pricks. As for genocide, there wasn't even an attempt at that. It was dictatorship with an iron fist plain and simple. He simply killed those who got in his way.

And FYI the war started when the Americans were led to believe that there was an imminent threat to their country based on weapons inspectors findings. Even hanz Blix or whatever admitted that the claims were exaggerated.

And you have no idea how effective child soldiers are in guerilla warfare. It is a proven fact that adult soldiers hesitate to kill child soldiers and children make the best brain washable soldiers. It is the key reason why these terrorists survive even though they are outnumbered by the opposing forces.