We should have intervened in Rwanda???

[kyzr]

I keep hearing the Left whining about how Clinton screwed-up by not intervening in the Rwanda civil war, you remember, when the Hutus and Tutsis were battling.

I want to take a poll to see who, if it happens in the future, would send US troops in to stop the slaughter in a country that has no strategic US interests, like Rwanda.

The poll will assume that the voters have a close relative that would be sent into the war zone.

 

[snjmom]

I believe it is a strategic National Interest to prevent and punish genocide.

That's a war I would have signed up for.

 

[spectrumc01]

I can see intervening in ruwanda if it is part of a policy that says genocide is wrong and we will do what we have to to stop it. This policy must be applied fairly and evenly to everyone facing genocide in order for it to work. Stopping the Genocide from happening in Libya and allowing the first Ruwandan genocide to happen was pure hypocracy. We need some consistancy in our foriegn policy so we can be trusted in our dealings with other nations.

 

[kyzr]

I believe it is a strategic National Interest to prevent and punish genocide.

That's a war I would have signed up for.

Why would you want to go to Rwanda instead of just sending weapons? If we took a poll of those in the military seeing who would want to volunteer, there wouldn't be many.

The best arguments IMHO are "we are NOT the world's policemen", and "we simply don't have the resources to get involved in every civil war". You can call every civil war a "genocide" from the losers perspective.

We disagree.

 

[kyzr]

I can see intervening in Rwanda if it is part of a policy that says genocide is wrong and we will do what we have to to stop it. This policy must be applied fairly and evenly to everyone facing genocide in order for it to work. Stopping the genocide from happening in Libya and allowing the first Rwandan genocide to happen was pure hypocrisy. We need some consistency in our foreign policy so we can be trusted in our dealings with other nations.

There is some consistency as follows.
1. Ghadaffy is a murderer and terrorist that we want to get rid of and prosecute. He is not an old friend like Mubarak.
2. Kosovo was a NATO operation supported by our NATO allies. That was a vital US interest.
3. There are uprisings in Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, even in Saudi Arabia. We simply can't send troops everywhere.
4. There was a major genocide in Indonesia, where Suharto killed millions, that would have been a major war if we got involved.

IMHO we need to pick our interventions carefully.

 

[spectrumc01]

I can see intervening in Rwanda if it is part of a policy that says genocide is wrong and we will do what we have to to stop it. This policy must be applied fairly and evenly to everyone facing genocide in order for it to work. Stopping the genocide from happening in Libya and allowing the first Rwandan genocide to happen was pure hypocrisy. We need some consistency in our foreign policy so we can be trusted in our dealings with other nations.

There is some consistency as follows.
1. Ghadaffy is a murderer and terrorist that we want to get rid of and prosecute. He is not an old friend like Mubarak.
2. Kosovo was a NATO operation supported by our NATO allies. That was a vital US interest.
3. There are uprisings in Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Bahrain, even in Saudi Arabia. We simply can't send troops everywhere.
4. There was a major genocide in Indonesia, where Suharto killed millions, that would have been a major war if we got involved.

IMHO we need to pick our interventions carefully.

I fine with it either way, if it is a moral descision against genocide or if it is in our intrests to intervene. Lets just call it what it is and stay consistant.

 

[Sunni Man]

People need to read the US Constitution.

It only talks about defending our nation.

There is nothing in it about intervening in other wars are stopping genocide.

The last constitutional war that America fought was WWII

That was because both Germany and Japan declared war on America.

 

[kyzr]

Fair enough. I just get pissed when I hear the Left whining about not stopping some civil war where we have no vital interest, using a military they loathe, with soldiers that they would never be one of?!

Not worth one US soldier's life.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fair enough. I just get pissed when I hear the Left whining about not stopping some civil war where we have no vital interest, using a military they loathe, with soldiers that they would never be one of?!

Not worth one US soldier's life.

I'm a liberal. I'm a veteran. No, we should not have intervened in Rwanda. So fuck off.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Did anyone in Rwanda jerk G Soros chain and make him look foolish and willing to support his open border incentive then screw him over?
No?
Then no.

 

[Polk]

No, I do not believe we should have intervened in Rwanda, though we probably could have done more in terms of sanctions, etc.

 

[mudwhistle]

I can see intervening in ruwanda if it is part of a policy that says genocide is wrong and we will do what we have to to stop it. This policy must be applied fairly and evenly to everyone facing genocide in order for it to work. Stopping the Genocide from happening in Libya and allowing the first Ruwandan genocide to happen was pure hypocracy. We need some consistancy in our foriegn policy so we can be trusted in our dealings with other nations.

Look what happens when we stick our nose into everybody's business.

We try to save lives and they crucify us.

I say screw it. Take care of this country. Let them kill each other. It's not worth the expense nor the hassle.

 

[mudwhistle]

No, I do not believe we should have intervened in Rwanda, though we probably could have done more in terms of sanctions, etc.

Silly sanctions are not gonna stop one tribe from hacking another tribe to pieces with machetes.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

No, I do not believe we should have intervened in Rwanda, though we probably could have done more in terms of sanctions, etc.

Silly sanctions are not gonna stop one tribe from hacking another tribe to pieces with machetes.

Yeah we could have stopped the exportation of CO2 and stopped climate change.

 

[snjmom]

Why would you want to go to Rwanda instead of just sending weapons?

The sending weapons is part of why there is so much clusterfuckery going on. The american ideals of individual rights, equality under the law, the regular rotation out of office of leaders and the concept that governments are to ensure the rights of the people, not the whims of the current despot are the necessary follow up to the military action. I don't think we need to weigh in on either side, just use our strength to stop the violence long enough to effect the political transition that allows for non-violent transfers of power.

As the good rev said. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

 

[Polk]

No, I do not believe we should have intervened in Rwanda, though we probably could have done more in terms of sanctions, etc.

Silly sanctions are not gonna stop one tribe from hacking another tribe to pieces with machetes.

Pretty sure not selling the Hutu machine guns would have reduced the supply of machine guns and not buying their goods would have result in less cash by weapons elsewhere.

 

[LilOlLady]

and Uganda, Ivory Coast, Sudan, Congo, Darfur as we did in Bosnia, and should have dealt with Qaddafi long ago.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No.