How would you feel if 1,000,000 people lost their lives in 100 days?

Question

During the Clinton administration in 1994 April 6th through mid July 1,071,000 people where killed in Rwanda.Can't say the Clinton administraion didn't know. Who is responsible for their lives being lost. Shame on America for not coming to the aid of Rwanda.How would America feel if it lost 1,000,000 lives in one hundred days. Would you complain about the president? Would you act all spiritual like people did during 9/11?What would you do?

Answer 1

Well you need to look at it from our point of view, just a few months before the incident we pulled out of Somalia and American public opinion was against another goodwill mission to Africa, im not justifying out actions, im eplaining why it happened how it did. In hindsight alot of americans do ask that very same question you are asking us, we didnt do anything because the UN had a peacekieeping force there, yet they could not stop the genocide because of UN mandates. No doubt that Amerca would be truly devastated by the loss of that many people, but i dont think the time frame makes as big os dfference as you claim, as we look around the world we also see a country where 18 times that many people were killed over the course of 2 decades, yet the world is against that action, i of course am talking about iraq. Im not justifying the war, but i am making a comparison. If we would have gone into Rwanda we would have stayed there abd set up a democracy like we ar in Iraq right now. The government floundered and we would have stayed there and maintained a police action. But America wasnt willing to do that at the time. But why all the lashing out at america, there were plenty of other countries with the means to do something, yet didnt. The French were the only country to try to save people by making a zone where people were safe from the killings. The Belgians already had troops there, but pulled them out when the killing began. America was not the only one who made a mistake there. I know about this subject because i wrote an article about the UN's and America's mistakes in Rwanda, anybody wishing to read it need only email me. Its just my name @yahoo.com

Answer 2

You've got to be kidding, right?

For argument's sake, you're trying to compare the shock of one million people killed over 100 days (avg. 1000 per day) to 3000 people killed in less then 2 hours?

Death is death.

In the grand scheme of things, war is just another of the many mechanisms that thin the human herd. Half the people in Rwanda live below the poverty level. 10% are starving to death! They can barely farm enough land to stay alive! The country takes from the world economy and contributes nothing. When a geographic area is incapable of supporting the populace, that is an indication that it shouldn't even exist to begin with. Anyway, who cares? The worlds population is growing so fast that it took less then three months to replace the people that died in Rwanda.

The best thing we can do is allow events like this. At least they slow down the most dangerous problem we face - population growth. At current rates, world population will double within 50-75 years. Just what we need, another 6000 Rwandas.

What is going to happen when the strain of 12 billion people is put on the ecosystem? (which is already too great as evidenced by the melting Greenland and Antarctic ice shelfs.) Sea levels are predicted to rise as much as 20 feet by the end of the century due to global climate shift - a scientific reality which only a few idiots (like Bush) continue to deny.

America's main responsibility to the world right now is not to keep Africans from killing each other, it's to stop the wholesale raping of the planet (mostly by us!) As long as we keep consuming 20 times the resources of the rest of the world, gross inequities will increase, wars will increase, and life (or death) will only get worse for Rwanda, and every other third world nation. That is what NO presidential administration seems to understand, or even cares to.

Answer 3

That is a great shame, it is also a shame that people in Sudan are in the midst of such atrocities as well, it is also a shame that the people of Tibet are being oppressed by China, it is also a shame that such massacres to a lesser degree take place in Uganda and Congo, it is also a shame that hundreds of people die every week in Iraq, it is also a shame hundreds of people die a week in Sri Lanka, 1,000,000 lives in 100 days is horrible, but if you knew more about the world, you would realize it is nearly impossible for us over here in America to go around and be every nation's hero, no matter who the president is, it would be nice if it were, and it no way let's the Clinton administration off the hook, but it does'nt really let anyone else of the hook either, in the days of the 1st and 2nd Bush administration, they did nothing about all the atrocities which are just about on the same scale as Rwanda such as Sudan and yet I am not ignorant enough to blame the Bush administration even though I think it is one of the most incompetent and failed administrations in the history of the United States. That's the thing with Republicans, they will pull anything out of their butts to prove a point, no matter how hippocritical or ignorant.

Answer 4

Rwanda was a tragedy. I don't understand how we the USA just stood by and let all those innocent people be slaughtered. It was a travesty. Question, who can they complain to? Apparently no one, it was disgusting what happened there and most leaders of the World stood by and let it happen. It wasn't the just the Clinton administration alone it was the whole world that watched and let this happen. Were they wishing it would just go away? Probably, did it work NO. A million people died and for what? A long ago lost war. I have no reasoning for it, nor an answer. We live on this earth together we need to get along. I felt terrible for what happened and quite ashamed of our government for not helping. Would I complain...HELL YA. I am glad I am an American. I just can't even imagine living that life, fear all around. Terrible.

Answer 5

Oh yeah, Clinton sucks. That's the perfect excuse to why Bush is staying out of Somalia and Sudan. Problem: if Clinton decided to pick off random citizens with a .44 Caliber, does that give Bush the ability to? Just because Clinton didn't do anything doesn't give Bush the excuse to have the same lack of action. I hold both resposnible for their faults, and you should too. So the same answer for Clinton applies for Bush. The same critique applies for Bush on the kidnapping, raping, traffiking, and murdering of Sudanese children as to Clinton on his efforts, or lack thereof, to stop the Rwanda genocide.

Answer 6

That's the power of media. A million lives lost in 100 days in Rwanda merely resulted in a mid-section report in 100 publications. A similar event would resulted in headlines for the entire week in 10,000 publications. I'm sure if the country provide as much coverage, it would have caused more reaction among the people, however, the relevance of the report would be questionable since Rwanda is thousand of miles away from America. Besides, would Rwanda really want the help of America's aid? In addition, there'd be nothing America could gain then, do they?

Answer 7

This is a lamentable tragedy, and inexcusable. This statement is coming from someone who would rather have Clinton in office, than George Bush. Clinton and his administration should not be forgiven for overlooking one of the greatest acts of genocide of the past century. Any honest liberal will perfectly concede to this fact.

I don’t believe we should make excuses for that behavior, but I believe that part of the reason Clinton did not deploy forces to assist the Rwandan people, has a lot to do with a conservative congress, who did not allow for the use of our troops for aims that were moral and humanitarian. Keep in mind that Clinton tried to utilize the military to aid the defenseless in both Kosovo and Somolia, where no monetary gain could be garnered, and the Republican controlled Congress offered resistance in both causes.

Republicans only seem to condone the use of military force when profit or strategic incentives can be reaped from the endeavor. The act of saving people in the process or liberating them from tyranny is merely a veneer of respectability that they use to get people to look the other way as they profit off of the wars they incite.

Its interesting that a similar situation is also going on in Darfur, and instead of addressing this real time genocide, Bush is concentrating the bulk of his efforts on Iraq because of the future monetary and strategic benefits it can give us. For it already has been established not to be a terrorist threat or a place for the production of WMDs. So on top of ignoring a humanitarian crisis he is also instrumental in creating another one under false pretenses.

Given all of this who is in greater dereliction of duty as leader of the free world – Clinton or Bush? Neither is perfect or should be considered noble men, but at least Clinton tried to do the moral thing. Bush isn’t even putting up an effort to do the right thing.

Answer 8

Easy answer to that one. If you don't want to look like an idiot, do your research before talking such nonsense!

Clinton wanted to intervene. The Republican Party started badmouthing him for it to the point that several Democrats voted with the Republicans against intervention. As it was, Congress decided against an intervention, not Clinton. And hot on the tail of this victory for the Republican Party, they managed to take control of Congress. Many of the things that right-wing pundits like to criticize Clinton for were things that the new Republican controlled Congress did against what Clinton wanted...and of course, Clinton gets blamed.

Answer 9

I feel that it's in the past and there's better things for us to worry about right now. Like what we're not doing currently in the world (i.e. helping out the invisible children) and what we are doing, like we are in Iraq, when really, there's no reason for us to be there anymore. You'll never get Israel and the other countries to stop fighting and you can NEVER put and end to terrorism. Terrorism just takes one person who will harm others just becuase they see something differently, and see others as wrong.

Answer 10

More than that number are losing their lives in less than 100days all the time, primarily due to starvation and the sick ness of poverty. There is litle that an individual can do but collectively we could eliminate poverty totally. No one dares to question the corrupt governments of the self righteous west.