In this context, is it true that the US has no friends, only interests?
2007-11-01 05:08:49 · 14 answers · asked by tattoocandlehead 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
vote_usa, I watched the Frontline special yesterday, and now I can't stop thinking about it. It made me so angry, and I hate this feeling of helplessness.
I like the person who said the UN is impotent, that was my feeling exactly.
2007-11-01 06:16:03 · update #1
Bill Clinton didn't see any political advantage to getting involved. As was stated above, it should have been handled by the UN but since the UN is so impotent, they did nothing but point fingers later at countries like the US and whine about how we don;t do enough for poor Africa!
2007-11-01 05:14:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Because we made a wise decision for once. Remember this was just after the debacle in Somalia where we intervened to stop genocide there. Look at what a disaster that turned out to be. Why go around the world looking to take sides in a civil war? What national interest could possibly be served by doing that?
2007-11-01 05:18:29 · answer #2 · answered by jeffrcal 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We would have, but Clinton would not call it genocide. IN all the video of the issue, he REFUSED to call it genocide, over and over, untill the event was over. He said he would send in some light forces to stop it, but he didnt.
I guess hacking 1,000,000 (1 million) women men and children to bits with machettes and axes in only 30 days isnt genocide enough.
The funny thing is we would have only needed ot send in 3 or 4 choppers, or a few tanks. Look what the unarmed peacekeepers were able to do. Imagine if the UN sent reinforcements, or we helped. Instead USA and the UN voted to withdraw 90% of UN Forces.
Rwandan killers refused to touch foreigners. Therefore sending soldiers there would NOT have put them in harms way.
There was a great show on PBS about the isue, yo ucan watch it online. Some of the most EERIE video I have ever seen. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ghosts/
Again, this is REAL FOOTAGE and documentry about a UN Peacekeeper TRYING to get help!
Instead clinton decided to join a war against Christians to steal land from Serbians for Muslims. And called Serbs killing 20 Muslim soldiers "genocide" instead.
*I have a feeling there is a deeper story there. Be it it was a mass extermination of AIDS victems, a LAND GRAB promised to a corrupt african leader in trade for resource deals, who knows.
*Look at people making a fuss now about Darfur. Darfur is LAUGHABLE compared to the 30 day 1 million person massacre in rwanda.
2007-11-01 05:15:39 · answer #3 · answered by vote_usa_first 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
We have allies and nations with which we have common interests. However, the only thing that not going into Rwanda during the 90's, which would have been under the Clinton administration, proves was that it either (a) was not in our interests to do so, (b) would cost too much in lives and resources to make it worthwhile, or (c) our presence would not help the situation.
2007-11-01 05:18:09 · answer #4 · answered by Pythagoras 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When it comes to third world countries and Muslim countries America only has convenient allies and disposable friends. Why didn't the US intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda? Maybe because they didn't have any economic value to America so our government made up some dimplomatic excuse as to why we didn't go in. Our government has always been selective on the assistance and interventions it provides throughout the world. If it does decided to intervent then it usually means there is something interesting in the place and America has a hidden agenda behind the stated peace keeping mission plan to exploit something or implement something.
2007-11-01 05:14:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No oil in Rwanda. Too busy breaking down former Yugoslavia, and experimenting the destruction of Serbia (mini experimental scale of Russia).
2007-11-01 05:25:22 · answer #6 · answered by divljidzo 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, if only Clinton would have sent troops to Rwanda like bush has done in Darfur the world would be a better place.
2007-11-01 05:15:04 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Actually, this terror was caused by the diamond industry. Can Africans ever be self ruling if non-African powers keep interfering, even for a good cause?
2007-11-01 05:20:18 · answer #8 · answered by peter s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Give the points to Elements.
2007-11-01 05:20:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why aren't we in Dafur right now....?
Unfortunately morality no longer governs foreign policy, only the interests of national security & capitalism....
2007-11-01 05:16:22 · answer #10 · answered by Diamond24 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋