>> ^imstellar28:
So.....you're not going to respond to that question?


I see that I need to draw you a picture as always.

You stated yourself that this test is an imperfect measurement of a person's political stance since it asks a few narrow questions, I mentioned Gandhi because he happened to fall within the same area as my score. It doesn't automatically mean that our views are similar in nature uniformly across all issues.

My stance on interventionism (both hard and soft) is intellectually based as it has not been proven to have been applied in any conflict so far bar some UN peace keeping operations which forced conflicting parties to negotiate, something that has been said could have prevented the Rwandan genocide had the UN presented a large military preseence and excuted its mandate of nullifying combative arms and forced the application of the peace accords both sides agreed to before the presidents death, more on this can be read in L.Gen Romeo Dallire's "Shake Hands With The Devil" an account of his command of UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda at the time. Instead we saw the international world sit back and watch a genocide of unimaginable proportions occur, both France and the US had forces it could have deployed.

I have stated that American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a disaster for this argument for the next 100 years. But its silly to question someones opinion on it, I think its an interesting proposition while at the same time acknowledging that it's most probably impossible to execute on a international scale without interfering on national sovereignty, as much as the Iraq war has created problems no one can really state that it would have been better to simply let Saddam stay in power and hope things get better for Iraqis by doing nothing.

Similarly I can point out that previously you have stated that all populations must abide to a certain rule set that you defined regardless of their own democratic or cultural based choices. How do you rationalize that with your belief that people should be allowed to decide things for themselves?

Global inaction in Rwanda is the shame of my entire generation. All the major powers in the world had troops and aircraft on the ground in Rwanda promptly after things went bad to evacuate their nationals. They then just as quickly flew them all out and never returned and declared it would be too difficult logistically to respond in time to stop the genocide. The UN went so far as to evacuate the majority of their peace keepers, leaving all of 400 men to be powerless witnesses to the massacre.

Even after the genocide had occurred the Belgian government started court martial proceedings against their highest ranking officer that had been stationed in Rwanda during the genocide to stop it because 10 Belgian soldiers had died under his command. The Belgian government was more upset about it's own 10 people being put in harms way than trying to stop the 800,000 Rwandans butchered in the genocide. Before blaming Belgium alone though, that fear of seeing dead troops was the same thing that kept ALL nations of the world from doing anything to stop the genocide. It is the shame of every last person on this planet that did not stand up and demand their country do something. My only excuse is that I was still in my teens, I just hope I know better now.

"My guess is that he'll get arrested if he's too specific. Or maybe his plane will go down. The CIA has gotten pretty good at that" - rougy


1.
Beverly Eckert was on board the crashed Buffalo plane.
Google her name.

She met Obama last week with other relatives of 9/11 victims and the bombing of the USS Cole, to discuss the new administration's fight against terror.

In 2003 she was published in USA Today, saying:

"I've chosen to go to court rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compensation fund. Instead, I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited."




2.
Historian Alison Des Forges was also on board the crashed Buffalo plane.
Google her name.

Des Forges appeared as an expert witness in 11 trials for genocide at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. We just had a genocide in the middle east.



Everyone owes it to themselves to spend 10 minutes on google learning about who these people were, THEN watch Jesse Ventura in this clip.


Jesse Ventura should be hailed as a real life American Fucking Hero.

Someone outta *promote this in light of recent events.

Stop giving the village idiot a platform for her hate-filled bullshit. She's like the Hutu talk radio guys in Hotel Rwanda.

>> ^volumptuous:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks

No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.

Actually, it applies to people like you who cheer on the slaughter of innocent people, but never put your own neck on the line.
see:QM


Yeah, I really was cheering for more blood with my post:

And for the millionth time, yes condemn Israel for civilian casualties, but for the love of humanity don't abdicate Hamas of responsibility for it as well. The world needs to condemn BOTH the ones using human shields AND the ones firing at them anyways.


If you want to defend Hamas by laying all casualties on Israel alone you are still defending half the killers and the shame is yours.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks

No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.


Actually, it applies to people like you who cheer on the slaughter of innocent people, but never put your own neck on the line.

see:QM

And if you'd like to talk about Rwanda, see John McCain 1993:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8TFKXHiefs

>> ^volumptuous:
Chicken Hawks


No, that goes to Clinton for his refusal to stop the Genocide in Rwanda for fear that American soldiers might die like they did in Somalia.

I don't think it's about the dollar amount, it's about there being no other country that would sell them jets etc.
...
I don't think even Russia would sell them MIGs. Soooo.... they really couldn't invade Gaza without US support.


Bullshit. Israel's first purchase of jet fighters where a Messerschmitt variation from Czechoslovakia. Saddam had no troubles buying any and every piece of hardware he wanted from tanks and jets from the Soviets all the way up to VX gas and a nuclear reactor from the French. Rwanda's RGF had a study supply of every form of military hardware they could use while they were busily executing the worst genocide seen for generations. Even the video itself declares that 1/4 of the American aid is spent on ISRAELI made weapons!

Arms dealers are loyal to money and nothing else. You don't seem to have a clue what your talking about on this.

You condemn the actions of Hamas without ever looking at why terrorism has become the last resort of certain political groups in Palestine. Maybe it's because Israel doesn't really care about striving for a Palestinian state and peace.


I'll assume you are addressing me, and yes I am entirely comfortable condemning Hamas irregardless of how or why they came into being. I am proud to condemn any group encouraging the suicide bombing of civilians and the recruitment of children for same.

I'm sorry, but I really feel as though there is the misconception that condemning Hamas as the monsters that they are is somehow an endorsement of any and all Israeli tactics against Hamas, it isn't!

This video just once again shows the uncomfortable reality of the situation. Hamas militants committed to the destruction of Israel are launching rocket and mortar attacks against Israeil civilians from the cover of school children. Israel in it's turn bombs the school killing more children than Hamas rocket's ever have. But what in the hell is the answer to this cycle? Those same children are being recruited and trained by Hamas to blow themselves up.

Hamas needs to be stopped, but not for the sake of Israel, because they are piss poor at killing Israelis. They need to be stopped because they are doing a damn sight better job of killing Palestinian civilians, either directly to consolidate their control and power and through active recruitment for suicide bombings, or indirectly by using them as human shields. And let me be clear, I don't excuse Israel for killing those human shields by accusing Hamas, both are guilty for the casualties.

But the question stands, what is the real solution? Leaving Hamas alone to build up has provenly shown that they simply kill moderate Palestinians to consolidate their internal support and continue to launch more rockets at Israel the more chance they are given to build up.


Maybe it's because Israel doesn't really care about striving for a Palestinian state and peace.

Show me any nation in the entirety of the world that gives two shits about any other beyond the impact on it's own self-interest. I don't expect Israel to care about a Palestinian state beyond the benefits a stable independent Palestine would provide them. I would obviously hope and urge them to care, and I even condemn them for not. But after the world(every single nation on the planet, without exception) completely ignored the genocide of Rwanda, I no longer have any expectation of nations to care for any interests but their own. It makes me sad,angry and emotions I can't really describe, but I just can't deny that is reality.

>> ^MINK:
but dude, you're still talking like Mission is Accomplished.
and you didn't respond to the first part, about why iraq?


I've responded to 'why Iraq' repeatedly. It's because of just how truly horrific Saddam's rule was. Genocide is bad, m'kay?

Why not Rwanda, the Congo Darfur, Sudan, Somalia and on and on? Well, I'd love to see them helping any or all of those regions as well, but if America can only be bothered to remove Saddam I'll take it too.

From America's perspective it's own benefit no doubt plays a major, and maybe even sole, role in it's reasons for choosing Iraq over the many other disaster zones in the world. I can't know, and only care in so much as it affects Iraqi's. I'm still glad that Saddam is gone and the Kurdish people can now live their lives without living as fugitives with a permanent death sentence over their and their children's heads.

You wouldn't argue America has no business in Rwanda because they weren't helping Sudan, would you? So I'll turn your question around in the context of defending people from known genocidal government rule, 'What's so special about Iraq'?

For extra credit, why isn't the entire remainder of this violence forsaken planet doing anything about Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, Sudan, Somalia and on and on? Do we really want to just watch as genocide occurs because we dare not intervene?

>> ^Farhad2000:
Personally I don't think Iraq war was ever conducted for any altruistic reasons because if it was it means one life is valued more then the other, I think the largest example of international do nothingness is the 800,000 killed during the Rwandan genocide.
Somehow Iraq is okay to invade to liberate, Bosnia is okay to invade to liberate but not Darfur and not Rwanda.


I agree 100% with this. I fought against the Iraq war for this and many other reasons. At one point as my other reasons got knocked off I fought it for SOLELY this reason. If the American's couldn't be bothered to save nearly a million Rwandans, then why should anyone take humanitarian issues as a reason America would intervene in Iraq.

Then I remembered my entire argument was based on wishing America HAD gone into Rwanda. I can hardly say that I don't want America in Iraq if I believe removing Saddam will serve a great humanitarian cause, just like the one in Rwanda they(and the entire rest of the world) failed to serve.

I only care about America's motive in removing Saddam when it starts to adversely affect Iraqi's. The overall invasion and removal of Saddam ended a reign of terror the likes of which the world rarely sees and unimaginably worse than most realize.

Ah the Kurds, I never knew that concentration camps existed, it seems kinda of odd to me. I had thought that intervention with Kurdish affairs ended with Operation Provide Comfort.

Even then I would not agree to the grounds for war in 2003. I would have agreed to them in 1991, when there was a strong international coalition and strong legal and moral pretense with the Iraqi use of chemical and biological weapons against its own people, Iran and the Kurds, as well as the invasion of Kuwait. But its hard to say something like that, knowing that the US bankrolled the Iran Iraq war, that it propped up Saddam Hussein after the CIA blowback from installing the Shah in Iran and the subsequent Islamic revolution. It's hard to support the American effort knowing that their meddling in middle eastern affairs created the very problems they seem to address years later, the aptly called "hes a son of a bitch but our son of a bitch" foreign policy of propping up dictators and despotic rulers, this is not even starting to talk about the ISI, Afghanistan the Mujahedeen and the formation of Al Qaeda.

Personally I think the largest example of international do nothingness is the 800,000 killed during the Rwandan genocide. Somehow Iraq is okay to invade to liberate, Bosnia is okay to invade to liberate but not Darfur and not Rwanda. The UN simply sat and watched a country collapse into internal genocide.

>> ^jerryku:
>> ^bcglorf:
A lot of the same monsters in the Congo that are killing tutsi's right now are the ones that killed almost 800,000 in Rwanda. Go see more of what that was like here.
Insanity doesn't even begin to describe it, and the whole cursed world still can't be bothered to do anything about it.

Yep, according to some accounts, about 6 million people have died between '94 and today. I wouldn't say nothing has been done though. From what I've read, France and the US have actually had a bit of an impact on the central African situation. There has been evidence that the 1994 Rwandan genocide was sparked by the assassination of Rwanda's president. The act was carried out by American allies, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The leader of the RPF (and now de facto leader of Rwanda) is Paul Kagame, who was trained in Texas. I also read that in 1996, a US Congressional inquiry discovered that President Clinton had secretly been sending military aid to Kagame's forces as they were overthrowing Kabila in Zaire.
I would be surprised if Bush was totally ignoring central Africa, especially considering Kagame's ties to America. I believe Kagame was first being groomed by Bush Sr.'s administration, too. We probably just don't know what actions are being taken.


Have you read about what all happened in Rwanda? You can place some blame on Kagame and the RPF if you want to, but they where ultimately the ONLY thing that stopped the horrific genocide that was going on.

The RPF's stated de facto purpose in fighting in Rwanda was to protect the Tutsi minority, and it would appear as though that protection was needed. Kagame and the RPF may well have done a lot to antagonize the situation for their benefit, but at the end of the day, they weren't the blood thirsty demons raping and murdering nearly a million people, they were the ones fighting those demons.

Oh, and you can talk about Bush working with Kagame, but don't leave out that it was Clinton who was president when 800,000 were being killed in Rwanda and Clinton did NOTHING! I would take Bush senior arming and supporting Kagame over the genocide that happened any day. What human being wouldn't give their own life to go back in time and make that deal?

Bush has, from day 1, been an incompetent, arrogant, douchebag of a failure. Only now he is beginning to reach the popularity level he has earned, which would be No Approval as someone in the most powerful position in the world. The best thing you can say about Bush, is that the GOP proved they could do even worse when they picked Sarah Palin for VP.

Normally, I would argue for a verbal attack as the preferred method for journalists vs politicians, but alas, the whole staged nature of the Bush admins press events rarely allows for the opportunity to get the uncomfortable questions across. Also, when shocking, unbelievable details about this administrations lies and incompetence are actually released, the media seems to ignore it. A couple of months ago, it was established, beyond doubt, in an official report, that the Bush administration LIED in order to start the war. Noone noticed. WHAT??!! In most countries, this would be grounds for immediate disbanding of the sitting regime. In the Netherlands, for instance, they sacked the whole bunch when their failure to prevent the genocide in Rwanda was uncovered.

By throwing this shoe, the journalist got the full attention of the media, with a simple , relatively harmless gesture, he showed the world what we all think of the douchebag in chief, and he showed him all the respect he deserves.

Well done.

>> ^bcglorf:
A lot of the same monsters in the Congo that are killing tutsi's right now are the ones that killed almost 800,000 in Rwanda. Go see more of what that was like here.
Insanity doesn't even begin to describe it, and the whole cursed world still can't be bothered to do anything about it.


Yep, according to some accounts, about 6 million people have died between '94 and today. I wouldn't say nothing has been done though. From what I've read, France and the US have actually had a bit of an impact on the central African situation. There has been evidence that the 1994 Rwandan genocide was sparked by the assassination of Rwanda's president. The act was carried out by American allies, the Rwandan Patriotic Front. The leader of the RPF (and now de facto leader of Rwanda) is Paul Kagame, who was trained in Texas. I also read that in 1996, a US Congressional inquiry discovered that President Clinton had secretly been sending military aid to Kagame's forces as they were overthrowing Kabila in Zaire.

I would be surprised if Bush was totally ignoring central Africa, especially considering Kagame's ties to America. I believe Kagame was first being groomed by Bush Sr.'s administration, too. We probably just don't know what actions are being taken.