rwandan genocide- UN cowards

the rwandan genocide was one of the biggest act of cowardice a human could ever see.

the rwandan genocide lasted only 100 days; those 100 days enough to kill almost 1 million people.

the hutsu's of rwanda started a mass murder campaign against the tutsi's, who during colonial times were the only ones allowed to get education or goverment jobs by colonialists (the belgian). the tutsi are taller, lighter skinned and narrow nosed compared to their hutsu counterparts which made them favorable to the white colonialists.

the US and many western countries refused to call it a genocide from the very beggining. USA was probably embarassed by its failure to drive out rebels in the somali capital and wanted no part in further peace making (going to war in hopes of creating peace). but that was no reason for their actions. foreign countries came and evacuated all there citizens under military convoy, its true that the rwanda's had no need to be taken to other countries but the military convoy could've at least taken them to camps behind rebel lines (the rebels were tutsi's) where all tutsi's would be safe. i think the west paid more attention to kurt kobain's death than any of these events.

the UN peacekeepers were not allowed to intervene, which basically meant they weren't allowed to activly protect anyone except themselves. the UN only provided some assistance because sometimes the Hutsu soldiers respected their UN badge and took no action.most UN peacekeepers were actually withdrawn after the massacre of 10 belgian peace keepers and the tsuti's were practically left to survive on their own.

end result: 1 million people dead. about 77% of the tsutsi population has been killed --- all this in 100 days.

how did the genocide stop?

tsutsi rebels were succesfully able to defeat the hutsu militias and the army which were commiting this genocide --- all this in 100 days --- with no foreign assistance

what would have happened without the rebel saviours?

tsutsi' would've probably been not totally but almost entirely wiped out by day 150

who (exluding rwandan's) to blame for this (not in numerical order)?

1. kofi annan. kofi annan was the head of peacekeeping forces at that time and he neglected to pay much attention for this.and instead concentrating more efforts campaigning for the secretary general position

2. the US and the un. the west wasn't allowed to intervene since the UN only accepts intervention in the situation of a genocide, but since the us refused to call it a genocide, that influenced the UN alot into getting convinced it wasn't a genocide. although the UN isn't dependent on votes for this judgement, the US as you know is a big influence. kofi could have convinced the secretary general to do something but nothing was done.

3. georges ruggiu. he was a belgian radio announcer in rwanda. through the radio he sent verbal hate messages aimed at tutsi's and also voraciously encouraged hutu's to kill all the tutsi's.

4. europe- most european countries were complacent in codemning the hutus' action

You are right, the Rwandan genocide is horrible however lets not forget the other human rights violations in China (#1 in the world in human rights violations), Iran (#2 in human rights violations), North Korea (where the majority of the people are starving and there is no electricity in most of North Korea) or any of the numerous places in the world where attrocities are taking place.

If you think the Rwandan genocide is bad then I suggest you study the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the mass executions and genocide in Iran as well as Stalin's purges. You will think the Rwandan genocide is nothing compared to these actions.

It is sad that the Western world ignores these facts and the odds are that since most of the Western countries are greedy their governments will do nothing about it.

It is not just the United Nation's fault for not acting, it is the fault of the governments of the West.

Nice to see the people who were chopping other people to peaces get off free in your description there. Yay for personal responsibility!duxup

I'm going to have to agree and take that a step further.

The west HAS tried in recent years to help Africa. We send you epic amounts of money and aid. And, NO, we WON'T send you more. Africa has the fiscal responsibility of a 3 year old toddler. Yeah, I made a generalisation there, get bent if you don't like it.

What do you WANT us to do? Get up and send all our armies to separate every single tribe from one another so your genocidal tendancies don't come to fruition? NO ONE has the money to do that, not even America.

The reality is, there isn't much anyone can do. Until Africa wants peace, it won't get peace. We can remove all your foreign debt (which I think we probably should do), and send aid until the sun comes down, but that won't change until you get off your own asses and change yourselves.

Because lets get this straight. Europe went through a millenium of hard-fought social and economical change to reach where we did, and fought wars which put rawanda to shame. Africa cannot expect to be lifted out of the stoneage in a few short decades. It will take centuries for Africa to catch up. All the technology is available. What the christ are you waiting for?

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

I think the borders in Africa should be rearanged, so certain tribes that pretty much hate each other arnt breathing down eachothers throat.

TC, you do realize that the countries that make up the UN could have acted on their own.

They all chose not to.

Every country failed.

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

Why blame the USA? Wasn't it the Beligans who created the division between the two peoples in rwanda during colonial times? Didn't the French supply the Hutu army? Why does the US have to police the world all the time? DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELFS! Really, if the world (especially Europe) doesn't take action, who will? the US can't carry the weight of the world, after all, only a few years before US troops were virtually massacured in Black Hawk Downpeter1191

Agreed. Belgians suck.

French suck.

And everone sucks for watching it happen in real time and not lifting a finger to stop the millions of innocents slaughtered.

[QUOTE="duxup"]

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

Dreams-Visions

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

So you think they should have rolled the military into a mountainous juggle nation?

I'm sure negotiating with the neighbors for permission to cross their borders and evacuating millions of people would have been fast. :roll:

Anybody see the movie: Hotel Rwanda? One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I know it is a film, but if the real sitiation is anywhere near what the film depicted, *shudders.*wslacker2

It's a true story. Pretty much everything happened more or less.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

So you think they should have rolled the military into a mountainous juggle nation?

I'm sure negotiating with the neighbors for permission to cross their borders and evacuating millions of people would have been fast. :roll:

this isn't a debate you can win. I wouldn't take this one on.

The world could have intervened. The wold should have intervened. we did not on purpose. the end.

[QUOTE="wslacker2"]Anybody see the movie: Hotel Rwanda? One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I know it is a film, but if the real sitiation is anywhere near what the film depicted, *shudders.*AtrumRegina

It's a true story. Pretty much everything happened more or less.

[QUOTE="AtrumRegina"]

[QUOTE="wslacker2"]Anybody see the movie: Hotel Rwanda? One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I know it is a film, but if the real sitiation is anywhere near what the film depicted, *shudders.*Dreams-Visions

It's a true story. Pretty much everything happened more or less.

I believe you've met him i think your that guy with the really nice car in that 1 pic :P middle class men like me dont get to meet people like that :lol:

And the Armenian Genocide :cry:armen925

I read a book about that . Wow it's so sad ... But you know what's more sad . Ukrainian famine or Holodomor. Between 7 and 20 million peopel died then ( exact number unknown) . Heres the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="AtrumRegina"]

[QUOTE="wslacker2"]Anybody see the movie: Hotel Rwanda? One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I know it is a film, but if the real sitiation is anywhere near what the film depicted, *shudders.*armen925

It's a true story. Pretty much everything happened more or less.

I believe you've met him i think your that guy with the really nice car in that 1 pic :P middle class men like me dont get to meet people like that :lol:

We're all aware of Darfur...........right?............This stuff is going on right now.............I mean............Look at the Middle East............They've had things like this since the dawn of time...............You should know that the UN is dead useless when it comes to matter's like these..............Look into what has happened in the past with them and you'll be horrified at what they've done.paulbunker85

if we want it done, we'll have to do it ourselves. if we care about humanity, anyway.

we'd want someone to save us from slaughter if they had the capacity to do so.

that being said, we do try to get supplies and resources in.

And the Armenian Genocide :cry:armen925

[QUOTE="armen925"]And the Armenian Genocide :cry:AtrumRegina

I read a book about that . Wow it's so sad ... But you know what's more sad . Ukrainian famine or Holodomor. Between 7 and 20 million peopel died then ( exact number unknown) . Heres the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

Dreams-Visions

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

So you think they should have rolled the military into a mountainous juggle nation?

I'm sure negotiating with the neighbors for permission to cross their borders and evacuating millions of people would have been fast. :roll:

this isn't a debate you can win. I wouldn't take this one on.

The world could have intervened. The wold should have intervened. we did not on purpose. the end.

You really think we could have gotten those people out? That's a lot of people, no way, no chance.

Quick, blame this on the US and the UN!!! Don't blame the rwandans responsible for these and other autrocities!

No, blame the US, they are evil evil people and should help! But once they go in to help we should tell them to mind their own buisness and stay out of other countries!

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

So you think they should have rolled the military into a mountainous juggle nation?

I'm sure negotiating with the neighbors for permission to cross their borders and evacuating millions of people would have been fast. :roll:

this isn't a debate you can win. I wouldn't take this one on.

The world could have intervened. The wold should have intervened. we did not on purpose. the end.

You really think we could have gotten those people out? That's a lot of people, no way, no chance.

we could have a decent sized force turn away the killers, giving us more than enough time.

and if we = a coalition of willing nations who also refuse to stand idly by, the effort would go even faster. if you don't think we could find ways to move a million people in 30 days, I've got an ocean for sale I can offer to you.

good discount :)

seriously, even if it meant giving them safe walking passage or secure camp until the madness calmed down, we could have done it.

I watched "Hotel Rwanda" in history. Interesting event.CruxisXIII

Quick, blame this on the US and the UN!!! Don't blame the rwandans responsible for these and other autrocities!

No, blame the US, they are evil evil people and should help! But once they go in to help we should tell them to mind their own buisness and stay out of other countries!

hokies1313

if we = a legit effort, abso-dam-lutely.

we could have a decent sized force turn away the killers, giving us more than enough time.

and if we = a coalition of willing nations who also refuse to stand idly by, the effort would go even faster. if you don't think we could find ways to move a million people in 30 days, I've got an ocean for sale I can offer to you.

good discount :)

seriously, even if it meant giving them safe walking passage or secure camp until the madness calmed down, we could have done it.

Dreams-Visions

So on top of thinking you can actually get people out of the middle of a land locked nation on a continent with limited transportation... riiiight

You also want to get involved in the conflict in a jungle filledmountain nation. You know where some of those folks came from who killed people in Rwanda right? Those neighboring countries. I'm sure they would have been happy for you to fire up a war there.

It's all a nice idea, but it's all a pipe dream if you think it A. Could be acomlished. B. You think you'd just stop it and it would never start up again the moment you left...

People seem to think the UN has it's own private army or something....

the troops the UN hasavailable entirely depend on it's member countries. Therefore it is tied down by the will of it's member countries.

Plus this one UN diplomat told us about how the dozen desert choppers they have in Sudan now, dont come from the 190-odd choppers the US have, but from Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

And yet everybody keeps crying about Zimbabwe, when it's not half as severe as Sudan.

Anybody see the movie: Hotel Rwanda? One of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen. I know it is a film, but if the real sitiation is anywhere near what the film depicted, *shudders.*wslacker2

the film was actually based on a true story. go to wiki to the hotel rwanda link and you'll probably see the names of the real people involved. the main character in real life was actually awarded the medal of freedom by the US.

People seem to think the UN has it's own private army or something....

the troops the UN hasavailable entirely depend on it's member countries. Therefore it is tied down by the will of it's member countries.

Plus this one UN diplomat told us about how the dozen desert choppers they have in Sudan now, dont come from the 190-odd choppers the US have, but from Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

And yet everybody keeps crying about Zimbabwe, when it's not half as severe as Sudan.

atejas

Quick, blame this on the US and the UN!!! Don't blame the rwandans responsible for these and other autrocities!

No, blame the US, they are evil evil people and should help! But once they go in to help we should tell them to mind their own buisness and stay out of other countries!

hokies1313

if you aren't dyslexic, reread my message and you'll clearly see (except rwandans) which if that is hard to you translates into only foreigners listed

You are right, the Rwandan genocide is horrible however lets not forget the other human rights violations in China (#1 in the world in human rights violations), Iran (#2 in human rights violations), North Korea (where the majority of the people are starving and there is no electricity in most of North Korea) or any of the numerous places in the world where attrocities are taking place.

If you think the Rwandan genocide is bad then I suggest you study the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the mass executions and genocide in Iran as well as Stalin's purges. You will think the Rwandan genocide is nothing compared to these actions.

It is sad that the Western world ignores these facts and the odds are that since most of the Western countries are greedy their governments will do nothing about it.

It is not just the United Nation's fault for not acting, it is the fault of the governments of the West.

darabonak

but it took years not 100 days. and it didn't close to extinct 77% of a really beutiful ethnic group

[QUOTE="duxup"]Nice to see the people who were chopping other people to peaces get off free in your description there. Yay for personal responsibility!RKfromDownunder

I'm going to have to agree and take that a step further.

The west HAS tried in recent years to help Africa. We send you epic amounts of money and aid. And, NO, we WON'T send you more. Africa has the fiscal responsibility of a 3 year old toddler. Yeah, I made a generalisation there, get bent if you don't like it.

What do you WANT us to do? Get up and send all our armies to separate every single tribe from one another so your genocidal tendancies don't come to fruition? NO ONE has the money to do that, not even America.

The reality is, there isn't much anyone can do. Until Africa wants peace, it won't get peace. We can remove all your foreign debt (which I think we probably should do), and send aid until the sun comes down, but that won't change until you get off your own asses and change yourselves.

Because lets get this straight. Europe went through a millenium of hard-fought social and economical change to reach where we did, and fought wars which put rawanda to shame. Africa cannot expect to be lifted out of the stoneage in a few short decades. It will take centuries for Africa to catch up. All the technology is available. What the christ are you waiting for?

i'm sorry but you're simply stupid. africa since you're ignorant is not in the stone age. there is electricity, there are building, there is internet. you know in the stoneage there wasn't electricity. your sarcastic clame deserves a sarcastic answer

Why blame the USA? Wasn't it the Beligans who created the division between the two peoples in rwanda during colonial times? Didn't the French supply the Hutu army? Why does the US have to police the world all the time? DO SOMETHING FOR YOURSELFS! Really, if the world (especially Europe) doesn't take action, who will? the US can't carry the weight of the world, after all, only a few years before US troops were virtually massacured in Black Hawk Downpeter1191

so tell me why bill clinton later regretted his actions. bill clinton said if he had sent 5000 us troops just for peace keeping they could've saved 500,000 people

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

do you know that there is a city. did you know there were un peacekeepers who were evacuated from rwanda when the genocide started. it is an inacessible place. jeez the ignorance

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="duxup"]

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

and keep in mind most people weren't killed by gunfire. they were killed with machetes. if any legit nation had brought in a military presence to protect the civilians and evacuate them while showing the tootises what the angry end of an M-4 feels like, I think history would have rememberd those days very differently.

But make no mistake, there were things that could have been done that we as a nation (US) avoided intentionally. By refusing to call it a "genocide".

So you think they should have rolled the military into a mountainous juggle nation?

I'm sure negotiating with the neighbors for permission to cross their borders and evacuating millions of people would have been fast. :roll:

dude you are really ignorant. you know that there are planes we can fly into an airport. do you know that you can drive to rwanda from the borders of peaceful tanzania. there is a city there and there are roads if you don't know

Even if the US & / or UN wanted to do something... what would they do?

Suddenly people start killing each other in a VERY remote part of the world. To top it off it is a mountainous nation with a lot of jungle.

Exactly what would the UN and/or US do?

duxup

A barrel-roll.

We're all aware of Darfur...........right?............This stuff is going on right now.............I mean............Look at the Middle East............They've had things like this since the dawn of time...............You should know that the UN is dead useless when it comes to matter's like these..............Look into what has happened in the past with them and you'll be horrified at what they've done.paulbunker85

UN have actually done somethings in darfur. remember that UN troops aren't allowed to engage in fire unless a threat is posed against them or other civillians. in rwanda they were also not ordered to protect any civillian. in darfur which the UN calls a genocide, the civillians are given protection in refugee camps. so UN troops never fight, they defend.

[QUOTE="atejas"]

People seem to think the UN has it's own private army or something....

the troops the UN hasavailable entirely depend on it's member countries. Therefore it is tied down by the will of it's member countries.

Plus this one UN diplomat told us about how the dozen desert choppers they have in Sudan now, dont come from the 190-odd choppers the US have, but from Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

And yet everybody keeps crying about Zimbabwe, when it's not half as severe as Sudan.

comissario

Quick, blame this on the US and the UN!!! Don't blame the rwandans responsible for these and other autrocities!

No, blame the US, they are evil evil people and should help! But once they go in to help we should tell them to mind their own buisness and stay out of other countries!

hokies1313

if you aren't dyslexic, reread my message and you'll clearly see (except rwandans) which if that is hard to you translates into only foreigners listed

Gaaah! Danm GS keeps putting empty quotes for messages!.

Most of the member countries are equally to blame for ignoring Sudan, the US example was just one that I heard from the diplomat.