A guy I know back in Canada was with the peacekeeping forces in Rwanda at
the time. He thought that the genocide could have been prevented if the UN
forces that were already there and charged with keeping the peace had been
given the authority to do so. But because of the UN hindrance, this
country's indifference and France's collusion, 800,000 people died.

larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:31 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Rwandan Genocides
>
>
> Thanks Larry.
>
> I rest my case!
>
> ======================================
> Stop spam on your domain, Anti-spam solutions
> http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
> For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
> ======================================
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Lyons, Larry
>   To: CF-Community
>   Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:00 AM
>   Subject: RE: Rwandan Genocides
>
>
>   Actually the French were in Rwanda at the time. The role
> they played was
>   almost criminal. More on that shortly.
>
>   The UN was already in Rwanda, there were UN Peace Keepers
> from Poland,
>   Canada, and Pakistan in place. Unfortunately the United
> States UN ambassador
>   blocked several measures to widen the scope of the
> Peacekeeping forces that
>   were in Rwanda. The result was the Peacekeepers were
> essentially required to
>   sit around while the genocide continued. They had neither
> the forces nor the
>   mandate to intervene.
>
>   The French involvement was very different, at the very
> least it aided and
>   abetted the genocide. France supplied the Hutu government
> of Rwanda with
>   arms to its military. Secondly France provided providing
> troops to fight the
>   Tutsi rebel forces that was opposed to the government. The
> Hutu government
>   used this military aid to devote more troops to killing
> Tutsi civilians and
>   any Hutus that tried to stop the massacre.
>
>   larry
>
>   > -----Original Message-----
>   > From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 10:50 PM
>   > To: CF-Community
>   > Subject: Re: Rwandan Genocides
>   >
>   >
>   > That would be like substituting a misdemeanor for a felony.
>   >
>   > Had we not gone into Iraq, what would have happened to
>   > Vice-President Cheney's "shadow government?"  How would
>   > Halliburton make all that money?  and ad infinitum.  Why
>   > didn't we go into Saudi Arabia, or Syria the REAL sources of
>   > the terrorists and their financing?  Not to mention Egypt
> and Iran.
>   >
>   > The issue was not saving people, it was saving face for the
>   > Ex-former Pres bush & minions who still had egg on their faces.
>   >
>   > The French have always had interests in Africa, why did they
>   > not go in?  Why didn't China go in? Why didn't Rwanda's
>   > neighbors go in?
>   >
>   > So in your mind the whole burden should be shouldered by the
>   > US?  or is this a back-door way of saying that you agree with
>   > me that the Iraq deal was a farce to begin with, and that the
>   > incumbent administration should be held criminally
>   > responsible for their misrepresentations, lies and
>   > miscellaneous cheating?
>   >
>   > But hypocrisy it is not - the whole deal smells much
> fouler than that.
>   >   Fair Enough.
>   >   So substitute "Criminally Negligent" for "Criminally
> responsible".
>   >
>   >
>   >   Now tell me that it isn't hypocritical of the US to not go
>   > into Rwanda,
>   >   and to openly state that 800,000 people being murdered is of no
>   >   consequence to the US because Rwanda has no strategic value
>   > to the US,
>   >   but charge into Iraq( unilaterally mind you) and state one
>   > of its goals
>   >   as 'freeing'/'saving' the Iraqi people.
>   >
>   >
>   >   If the issue was with saving people, then those 800,000
>   > would not have
>   >   died. But the issue, quite clearly, is whether or not the
>   > location and
>   >   its stability is of strategic importance to the US.
>   >   I'm not even getting into whether this is right or wrong,
>   > but I can't
>   >   understand why so many sweep this simple fact of US Foreign
>   > Policy under
>   >   the table while describing the US's actions as almost
>   > altruistic when it
>   >   is most certainly not.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to