community?
Who appointed the US as the gatekeeper?
It's the fact that we could have gone in and help. Instead we just looked
away.
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug White
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: Rwandan Genocides
What a bunch of BS - Why in the world doesn't the finger point where it
belongs,
that is to the criminals in Ruwanda that are doing the genocide?
I get so sick and tired of the "God made me do it" syndrome.
----- Original Message -----
From: Angel Stewart
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 3:04 PM
Subject: Rwandan Genocides
Well. If it was anywhere that was 'morally' correct to invade, protect,
and do some nation building it was here.
But of course, no oil. No strategic importance. no assistance.
HYPERLINK
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4668624/"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/466862
4/
"KIGALI, Rwanda - Western powers bear "criminal responsibility" for
Rwanda's 1994 genocide because they did not care enough to stop it, the
commander of the beleaguered U.N. peacekeeping force at the time said on
Tuesday.
The international community didn't give one damn for Rwandans because
Rwanda was a country of no strategic importance," Canadian General Romeo
Dallaire told a conference in Kigali marking the 10th anniversary of the
slaughter.
"It's up to Rwanda not to let others forget they are criminally
responsible for the genocide," he said, singling out France, Britain and
the United States. "The genocide was brutal, criminal and disgusting and
continued for 100 days under the eyes of the international community."
The retired Canadian soldier has been deeply traumatized by his
mission's failure to prevent the deaths of some 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu
moderates, butchered by Hutu extremists who often killed with machetes
and spiked clubs.
Rwanda's genocide began on the night of April 6, 1994, after the
shooting down of a plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents,
who both died in the crash near Kigali.
Dallaire battled for a more robust U.N. peacekeeping mission with a
mandate to stop the killings, but Security Council members voted instead
to slash his force from 2,500 troops to 450 poorly trained and
ill-equipped men."
It would be interesting to hear from people who constantly profess that
America is before all else a Morally upright country-who's interest in
International affairs is first and foremost moral. Who claim that
America's charge into Iraq was because of a moral obligation to the
Iraqi people-it would be interesting to hear why action was not taken in
Rwanda. Where there was even *less* of a risk to American lives by
chemical or biological attack.
To be honest, back in 1994 I was not as interested in world affairs as I
am now, so I don't even have a firm grip on what happened in 1994 or why
:)
-Gel
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
