Can someone please tell me why the US didn't step in to save lives...?

Question

I recently found out I have very little time left in my life. With sure dearh I have found myself thinking of things that I am ashamed to say didn't catch my attention when it happened. So I'm hoping someone can please tell me why in the hell the strongest country in the world, the US, didn't step in a save many of the lives that were taken during the genocide in Rawanda. We certainly don't mind going into a country and blowing it up, killing many inncent people, women, and kids are under the pretense of keeping us free. So how could we have dropped the ball so badly during the genocide...can someone please explain this to me?

Answer 1

You know, there were a lot of people in the U.S. Armed Forces (myself included) that would have jumped at the chance to go in to Rwanda and put a stop to the genocide. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe the reason we did not get involved is the U.S. has a long-standing policy of not getting involved in civil wars like the one in Rwanda unless we're asked for help. The governments of Bosnia and Kosovo requested U.S. aid, including military aid, in the mid-1990's when their civil war was raging with Serbia and Herzegovina and we responded. There was no such request made by the Rwandan government.

P.S.: I'm very sorry to hear that your days left here on Earth are few in number. Don't know if you believe in God, but I hope and pray that He will be with you and comfort you in your last days.

P.P.S.: Please DO NOT believe everything the mainstream media is trying to sell you. It's almost entirely a tissue of lies. There WERE stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction recovered in Iraq, we DID capture or kill hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives (I have colleagues in all the branches of the service that have seen the WMD stockpiles and the captured/killed al-Qaeda operatives with their own eyes), and the assertion that our military members are killing innocent men, women and children is an out-and-out falsehood -- it's the terrorists and the factions that are fighting for power that are killing innocent civilians. Our troops are doing everything humanly possible to keep the number of injured/killed non-combatants to a minimum.

Answer 2

Rwanda has been in civil war for one reason or another for decades. History tells us that one tribe doesn't like the other or a particular dictator was not in favor with the people. No matter what the reason, the type of murder (genocide) that has happened and, likely continues is a disease of ignorant people and should be stopped at all costs.

The reason for the lack of interest in the troubled country is any ones guess. Considering the head of the United Nations, Cofee Annan (sp?), who is African or least a descendant, has done nothing but provide a token force to the area. That fact alone speaks volumes on what the international community thinks of Rwanda! And, as you know, the US was involved in a terrible situation in Somalia (Black Hawk Down infamy), which resulted in Clinton simply getting out of the country. I can't help but think, our government considers any involvement in African civil war is a waste of time and ultimately is detrimental to us.

Considering the above sliver of events that I'm aware of, it's no wonder nothing has or is being initiated to help those people. A similar situation was occuring in Iraq. Conservative estimates link Saddam to 4-5 hundred thousand murders (genocide) but, we invaded that country for other reasons.

A popular idea through out governments of the world: Civil unrest, as a rule, should be handled by the people of that country. Both, democracies and fair minded nations tend to follow this unwritten mandate.

You are absolutely right about dropping the ball! The governments of the world are probably saying: Whose ball is it and whose should it be? Don't blame yourself for not being aware and know this, the United States, although powerful, is one of a handful of countries that could have gone into Rwanda to stop the genocide. The most logical would have been France, followed by the United Kingdom.

Answer 3

There was absolutely nothing to be gained in Rawanda. It's time that people loose this naive Willsonian idealism, that US always does whats the best and is so altruistic and cares about interests other then it's own. If you are interested, have a look at the historical involvment of US in Cambodia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Afganistan and Middle East.

To be fair to US, In the Rawanda, it wasn't enterily it's fault. At the time, UN peace keeping force was in the area led by Gen Romeo Dallaire's. He called for more troops to the UN and but no on listened. When genocide came about, he was able to save the lives of a couple of tousand, but he felt personaly responsible nonetheless. He resigned and had mental break down. He wrote a book 'shake hands with a devil' which i think has been made into a film.

Answer 4

Can't explain anything Clinton did or in this case didn't do.
The link to 100 days of slaughter gives you the nice press quotes of Clinton's but no action is taken, until his administration ask the Rwanda ambassador to Washington in July to leave...................

In April 7, 1994, the Hutu majority in Rwanda organized and implemented the mass slaughter of the Tutsi minority. In just 100 days, 800,000 Tutsi were slaughtered.

On July 16, the Clinton administration expelled the Rwandese ambassador to Washington. "The United States," said President Clinton, "cannot allow representatives of a regime that supports genocidal massacres to re main on our soil." Taken in April, the gesture and the words might have had meaning; in July they reeked of opportunism and hollow moralizing. The U.S. had broken a solemn covenant under taken nearly a half century ago that never again would the civilized world al low genocide to occur.

Throughout this protracted episode of dithering and caution, the State Department was in tune with U.S. public opinion-at least as it was represented by the mainstream media. An April 13 Newsday editorial asked, "What is to be done?" and recommended "nothing." The New York Times was scarcely more subtle: "No member of the United Nations with an army strong enough to make a difference is willing to risk centuries-old history of tribal warfare and deep distrust of outside intervention." Later, in support of the administration's position, the Times wrote: "...to enter this conflict without a defined mission or a plausible military plan risks a repetition of the debacle in Somalia."

Answer 5

For one , Clinton pretended he knew nothing about what was happening.. Meanwhile he had American soldiers and any UN peacekeepers removed. Its strange how you interpret this act of genocide different from the genocide Saddam practiced against his people... The US steps in and are accused of "blowing up women and children" regardless of the truth.. That being insurgents, not American soldiers , are using themselves as suicide bombers killing civilians by putting themselves in populated areas.. Hmmm, now you may think "if we weren't there it wouldn't be happening"... Well maybe the insurgents wouldn't be there , but Saddam would and he had estimates of over a million killed.. sounds like genocide to me.... If you really want to know Clinton's reasoning , here is a link to the unclassified documents concerning the US non-involvement... I promise , it will make you angrier and maybe , just maybe , appreciate what are troops are really accomplishing in Iraq...
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html

Answer 6

Why should it be the US who does all the stepping in? Why not China, Russia, or even North Korea? All of their armies are bigger than ours. We could have turned the entire country into a glass parking lot. Is that what you want the US to do?

If it's the job of the US to do everything what purpose does the UN serve? Shouldn't it be the UN that steps in in places like Rhuanda, Somolia, Sudan, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Why are you getting mad at one thing the US does then getting mad because the US doesn't do something else? The US wasn't the ones dong the genocide thing. Who would you have had us bomb? We do have smart bombs that can hit almost anything anywhere. Where do you want them?

Answer 7

Greetings,

My sincere sympathy about your news. First, let me say that whether or not you are religious or not Jesus loves you and that he died for your sins. If you believe in him and ask Him into your life He will meet you in your hardest hour and comfort you with a peace that is not of this world. If we humble ourselves and ask like a child He will give you all that you could ask for...and more.


As for Rawanda, no one knows for certain, but my speculation is that our country had no political or economic interest and unfortunately, did not desire to be the police man of the world at that time. It is horrible, but our country in history committed its own genocide with the native americans in the manifest destiny.

Answer 8

How come we always have to be the "good guys"....It seems like we are in a lose-lose situation. Every time someone needs some help with anything the US is the first country they turn to. But when we do go over to help out other countries every one is saying...hey why cant the US just mind there own business, why do they have to get envolved in everyone elses problems

Answer 9

Because we do not go to war merely because you want us to.

Besides - if we had gone into Rwanda you would be accusing us of: "going into a country and blowing it up, killing many inncent people, women, and kids are under the pretense of keeping us free."

Answer 10

You have to ask, what's in it for us?? At least we are consistent if you read our history. We turned Jews away during WWII and sent them back to places like Auschwitz. It's all about votes and money and the voters want it that way even though the country is now 9 trillion dollars in debt.