The Genocide in Rwanda

[QUOTE=Almaci]I clicked it, now that is one thing that translates complex elements into soundbites.
not much use as every single one of those events had a history and Butler isnt exactly regarded too highly anymore.
[QUOTE]

ah, the old ali favorite "i dont agree with the guy's conclusions, so we will just ignore him". i mentioned the date of compliance in my post too , and if you recall, the compliance was on the heels of years of denials and a steady escalation of the conflict.it had all the sincerity of a child offering to do his homework as the assignment is beign collected. and, ifyou still recal my post, i said the situation was started by the noncomplaince, nowhere does that state that it was the exclusive cause, merely that it was what caused the snowballing to the eventual conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

Not to mention media these days generally twist the truth a little to get the most response. I think they learn that in Basic Journalism 101. :p

---

edit: i thought this was ali, apologies to all involved but still :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

sorry, but dont drink alcohol at all, so not drunk, though i dont intend on asking for the difference between a port and a remake again. and no, you misread my question entirely, if you read it you saw that i DID question the proportion of the reaction of the us. but the question that was asked was about what was the correct responce since the us was "obviously" overstepping by intervening in iraq, but europe,and canada, and those who have so much to say, were fine for not lifting a finger in this case. you have given me a nice cynical answer about how everything we do is for self interest, i would love to hear how that applied to bosnia,where the us pledged troops to maintain the peace and gained no oil, land, or cash in return, but i was asking for something with a little more thought in it about what really constitutes appropriate response and who should bear the responsibility of maintaining security in the world, less about any specific instance and more in the broader sense. It was mostly a question for ali but whatsoever.

---

Calm down, I was just making a little joke because of all the spelling mistakes you made in that post.

As for your initial post, it was two questions. One about the US's responsibility, the second being how much force is needed to resolve certain issues.

You were saying how the US did the right thing by intervening, but you didn't do it to stop "t3h merderer", but because the US was led to believe that Iraq was related to the 9/11 event. If that didn't occur, would the invasion still have had as much support, or would it have even been been considered?

There was a lot of media sensationalism not to mention the WMD bs. And it wasn't like Iraq wasn't the only one being stubborn about the inspections:

Quote:

---

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

---

EDIT: Bosnia, what was the issue again? I thought Russia was at was with it? So many damn wars lately, hard to keep track of them all. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Damian79

You were saying how the US did the right thing by intervening, but you didn't do it to stop "t3h merderer", but because the US was led to believe that Iraq was related to the 9/11 event. If that didn't occur, would the invasion still have had as much support, or would it have even been been considered?

There was a lot of media sensationalism not to mention the WMD bs. And it wasn't like Iraq wasn't the only one being stubborn about the inspections:



As for Bosnia, Russia is not an ally of the US, the less land and power Russia has the better. But we aren't going to side track there aswell are we?

---

actually, no, i dont think the 9/11 link was ever believed strongly. when you get into the reasons for americans supporting the war, there was support long before wmd's were even mentioned, it had a bit to do with the american psyche, and the long standing grudge of the lack of finished business in the original gulf war. you would find that most americans neither beleived, nor cared about the nonexistant 9/11 link, most were satisfied with that beign afghanastan's/taliban/bin ladin's deal, nor even the wmd's really. it has been thought that compounded with perot and the sagging economy relative to japan at the time, bush senior was voted out on his refusal to finish the gulf war I so to americans we really just wanted the guy.
and contiuing the bosinia thing for one more run..i think your history is a little skewed. by that time america and russia werent as close as they are now, but we were hardly enemies at the time, furthermore russia had no land at stake here, the russians sympathised more with the serbs, whereas us sympathised with the croats, but i fail to see the animosity that would be a sufficient motivator in that case.

and sorry about the spelling, some times i respond before I proofread, I try to catch most of the stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

actually, no, i dont think the 9/11 link was ever believed strongly. when you get into the reasons for americans supporting the war, there was support long before wmd's were even mentioned, it had a bit to do with the american psyche, and the long standing grudge of the lack of finished business in the original gulf war. you would find that most americans neither beleived, nor cared about the nonexistant 9/11 link, most were satisfied with that beign afghanastan's/taliban/bin ladin's deal, nor even the wmd's really. it has been thought that compounded with perot and the sagging economy relative to japan at the time, bush senior was voted out on his refusal to finish the gulf war I so to americans we really just wanted the guy.

---

And this is the part that is hard to prove one way or the other as it is hard to find polls for this thing. We could argue on tangents all we want here, but the best we can do here is to agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

and contiuing the bosinia thing for one more run..i think your history is a little skewed. by that time america and russia werent as close as they are now, but we were hardly enemies at the time, furthermore russia had no land at stake here, the russians sympathised more with the serbs, whereas us sympathised with the croats, but i fail to see the animosity that would be a sufficient motivator in that case.

---

My history isn't skewed more than being ridiculously hazy on that bit. All I remember on that is that most other countries including the UN got involved. But as I said hazy.

Quote:

---

and sorry about the spelling, some times i respond before I proofread, I try to catch most of the stuff.

---

No prob, it was a joke anyway. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM

No shit sherlock. I'm registered independent & I'm of the opinion that both parties are fundamentally corrupt. Your Republican Vs. Democratic bullshit doesn't mean a thing to me.

---

Oh, so you're just a fence-riding pussy then. Understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

actually, no, i dont think the 9/11 link was ever believed strongly. when you get into the reasons for americans supporting the war, there was support long before wmd's were even mentioned...

---

There would never have been the kind of support the PNAC crowd needed to go into Iraq if it wasn't for 9/11 and the "war on terror". The WMD lie was just icing on the cake. This administration had been trying to link Al Qaeda to Iraq since the day the WTC collapsed, and they continually evoked 9/11 to garner support for their war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

The mess africa is in is one that has been historically created by the US and Europe so it is our duty to make amends and do whatever we can to rectify it.
the atrocities that happen there today happen becouse that is the legacy we have left the continent with.

---

What about the mess India is in? How about Hong Kong, or much of South America, or many parts of Oceania?

What is it about the healthy and successful former colonies (like India) that separates them from a former colony like the Belgian Congo?

It's the way in which they divorced themselves from their colonial past. Former colonies which are successful now are ones which welcomed the benefits that being colonized provided them, while forging a new native identity.

The 3rd world former colonies are the ones which, wrapped up in bullshit leftist anti-colonialism, have spent the last 100 years moving backwards in time, destroying their colonial past and themselves, in the process.

You really think that the average South African is happier now than they were 20 years ago? No - but the situation of most people in South Africa was unacceptable, too. South Africa's colonial culture was valuable, and could have existed apart from apartheid - the solution was to destroy apartheid without eradicating all of the advances that South African colonists had brought to the country.

The rest of Africa was a harder situation, since the mix of Europeans that colonized Africa were significantly more brutal to Africans than, say, the British were to Indians.

Still, despite the depravities of the Dutch, the French, etc, in the country, the African colonies did advance during the colonial period, there were changes for the better. Freedom should've been achieved without discarding all of the benefits of colonialism.

Instead of taking a reasoned, thoughtful approach to the evolution of their country, anti-colonialist forces tried to make their countries as if the colonists had never come - and as a result, they got the dirty, worthless, Dark-Age countries they wanted. Anti-colonialism today provides an excuse for the colonized, a way for them to ignore their problems without feeling a need to find a solution.

Fuck all that Wretched of the Earth bullshit. If the world's decolonizers attempted to follow the US antebellum model, the lives of Africans would be much better than they are today.

The problem was not your having colonized them - it was inevitable, first off, and, yeah, it would've been better had the British done it, but, eh, water under the bridge.

I think you guys, the French, the Belgians, failed them when you ran as soon as they started rebelling, and then later accepted guilt for what the natives proceeded to do with their countries.

I get the feeling you know precious little about what actually went on in some of those countries and what still goes on to this day in some of em.

Oh BTW France has colonies left, places that decided that life under French rule was better then independance, check up on it sometime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

I get the feeling you know precious little about what actually went on in some of those countries and what still goes on to this day in some of em.

---

There yuo go with teh personal insults again

Quote:

---

Oh BTW France has colonies left, places that decided that life under French rule was better then independance, check up on it sometime.

---

Yeah, that colony that had a rebellion France put down by moving troops in (without UN approval) while France was bitching about the US and Iraq? I remember that.

Since when do anti-colonialism and "bullshit leftism" necessarily beget each other?