maybe it is a bit simplistic, but iv been researched for about 2 hours and i can't find an answer!! something other than.. they didn't know about it because it's reported in many places that they were told. So was it something to do with power, or lack of resources, or they didn't believe it... there were after all media reports going out.
Thanks for any help.
2006-12-05 09:13:22 · 11 answers · asked by yellowbelly821 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
- someone said.. why did it all start and where did rwanda get all the money to keep the way going. it started because of the long term rivalry between the hutus and minority tutsis: tutsis had been the traditional elite and hutus resented it, various governments that had been in power had favoured one or the other group. So then somehow the presidents plane got shot down and he died and so the prime minister organised all the hutus to start killing the tutsis. it was not a war!! it was one gorup of people going around and killing anyone hus identity card said they were tutsis. they did it with farming tools and macheties.. nobody had to finance it, they jus used the 'hatred' and resentment the people alreayd had and magnified it enormously.
thanks for all your answers anyway =)
2006-12-06 03:29:06 · update #1
When western governments intervene in some third world crisis, some people scream bloody murder, if they don't intervene a similar group also screams bloody murder. So, it's dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
It is no wonder that they just do what they feel is in their best interests and sod public opinion
2006-12-05 20:31:53 · answer #1 · answered by mick t 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Questions:...why did it all start? And whereon earth did Rwanda get the money and supply of weapons to keep the war going?
I guess many countries and their leaders stood to gain from the war. And also were afraid of being blackmailed by Rwandan's involved.
And not enough news was going out to the citizens of the west, they were not kept informed. Censorship plays a vital role in war times.
Also, most countries and organizations would have been criticised had they offered to help. For offering to help, the ways they helped and the outcome of helping. This intern would have reflected on their own image. Not good for them economically.
Organisations may have felt that they stood to gain nothing by stopping it.
2006-12-05 21:29:00 · answer #2 · answered by Tashamster 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ah convinced the Kurds no oil pastimes there? Conservatives did not care about the Kurds till oil change into lower than danger. evidence: Rummy shaking palms with Saddam in 1983. In 1988 the US administration blamed Iran for the Halabja massacre of Kurds and stated Saddam change right into a rigidity for stability contained in the area.
2016-11-23 18:42:58 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only answer i can think is they are seen as important as anyone else. i have always wondered that.
The Rwandan Genocide stands out as significant, not only because of the sheer number of people murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of how inadequately the United Nations (particularly, its Western members such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom) responded. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, most first-world countries including France, Belgium, the United States declined to intervene or speak out against the planned massacres. Canada continued to lead the United Nations Peace Keeping force in Rwandan territory.
2006-12-05 09:18:46 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Canada was the only western country involved to the bitter end. If you interested in the history of it all, look up the name Romeo Dallaire. He was the head of the UN peacekeeping force which before the end of the massacre was down to 500 soldiers (unarmed essentially) he was repeatedly turned down when he requested more troops. He is directly credited with saving 20,000 lives. He came back broken and beaten, even attempting suicide. He is now recovered and a Canadian Senator. I suggest reading his book Shake Hands with the Devil
2006-12-05 09:31:34 · answer #5 · answered by Cherry_Blossom 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are no resources in Rwanda and therefore it was not worth fighting to stop the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. Darfur is an example of a genocide that is currently happening and the West has done nothing to stop the killing. This is why I hate when people say we went into Iraq to stop a corrupt regime. There are many more corrupt regimes that are engaged in far worse atrocities but we do nothing, why. No oil or any other resource in the country.
2006-12-05 09:18:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Where is Rwanda ? What was its former name? The people
wanted independence they got it. Now whats the problem Have
you got oil ? No ? America, UK and UN are not interested.
Maybe China ? But they never want to meddle with other
countries affairs. In any case get out while you can and good
luck.
2006-12-05 16:15:48 · answer #7 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Much more difficult to do that Iraq, and less reason to do it. Supply lines would be very long, troops would have had to go in, kick ***, and take names, and there would have been howls about replacing one set of killings with another, and no nation had much in the way of national interests to justify sending troops. So just how would YOU have stopped it?
2006-12-05 11:42:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no oil in Rwanda
2006-12-05 09:56:09 · answer #9 · answered by Gin & Tonic 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
France was involved. 42 Christian nuns were involved ( first hand ) and the Vatici also was involved.
2006-12-05 09:18:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋