Did Clinton take reasonable measures in Rwanda?

At least 10 million and maybe more than 20 million Christians have been the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' in Africa over the last 20 years.

That is why the 'Christians' in Yugoslavia thought that they would get away with cleansing muslims. Yes, I believe that we should not have let that happen.

But, the greater tragedy is that islam believes that (1) we are the police protectors (2) we will not protect Christians and (3) we will protect them so that they can keep killing us. . .

Ethiopia
Rwanda
Somalia
Eritrea
Egypt
Nigeria
Morocco
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia

If it is a country under islam or around it - Christianity is persecuted.

do we forget the persecution of Christians in Israel? Bethlehem is now a muslim city. It was an historic Christian city. Even though Christians have been cleansed in Israel for 1800 years . . . by the Jews and by the muslims (a conservative estimate would be 50 thousand martyred*).

I just keep praying for our brothers . . . and our sisters . . . that if they die for the Cross, God will glorify His name through their deaths for the faith.

* data based upon an article by the Jewish publisher of Biblical Archaeological Review cir 1996.

 

Two reasons the genocide in Rwanda was ignored:

1. No needed valuable resources in Rwanda.

2. It was Negroes being slaughtered.

Clinton has not and will not acknowledge just how culpable he was. But he wasn't the only one. It was a massive failure by the U.N. for the same two reasons.

 

The question should not be why didn't we do anything about Rwanda, as bad as it was. We should be questioning why the current administration refused to call the current situation in Sudan what it really is, GENOCIDE. Carpo, it is rare that we agree, but unfortunately in this case you are right. :tear:

 

The U.S. ,under the current Administration, has long held the view that the killing in Sudan is genocide. The U.N was uncooperative in approving the sanctions the U.S had repeatedly asked for until lately.

Your question is now answered.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8364-2004Sep9.html

http://www.nysun.com/article/31613

U.N. Okays Sanctions in Sudan

EXCERPT

The council's economic sanctions against a Khartoum air force officer, a Janjaweed sheik, and two rebel leaders marked the first punitive measures taken against anyone involved in the ongoing atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region that have left hundreds of thousands dead and millions homeless, and which America considers genocide.

China and Russia expressed reservations about the measures, but both countries refrained from vetoing the American-proposed resolution. Both, along with Qatar, abstained from the vote, while the rest of the 15 council members supported the action.

 

Talk about revisionism. The Darfur conflict did not start until early 2003. Sudan and Rwanda are two different countries, btw.

Carpo,
Note I used the word "refused", (past tense). I know that they have since declared genocide, although it took until September of 2004 to do so, after thousands of lives had been slaughtered, and hundreds of thousands fleeing to Chad. China was the major UN hold-up. They have a major stake in Sudanese oil.

 

I do not need to go back and read the links, I am fairly well versed in the atrocities that took place in Rwanda. My initial post asked why talk about Rwanda when genocide is CURRENTLY happening in Darfur, Sudan. The Clinton administration could not declare genocide in DARFUR, SUDAN because the conflict did not start until the middle of Bush's 1st term.

Maybe you should go back and read my posts instead of telling me to read the links.

 

If the point of this thread is to do nothing but bash Clinton's handling of Rwanda, then I agree. We should have tried to do more, although as history has proven, African countries are not as valuable to our national priorities. In that same vein I will also criticize the current adminstration on it's handling of Darfur, Sudan. Omar Hassan al-Bashir is 10 times the tyrant Hussein was. His janjaweed are more brutal. The NIF, (National Islamic Front), regime is engaging in the systematic destruction of the Christians and ethnic African tribal groups at an alarming rate.

 

"...refused to call the current situation..."

Your mixing of what you say is "past tense" with what is obviously present tense must be what led to my confusion. Perhaps a modifier such as "had refused" would more clearly indicate past tense.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

Sorry about that, I see what happened now. Oops

 

Thank you for your post. It is refreshing to see someone who knows historical facts regarding the fall of African countries (like dominoes) to islam and cares about our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks again.

 

Sudan has had genocide going on - Christians being killed by muslims for several decades. The US Government and the world have ignored the genocide occurring there until oil was discovered. Then all of a sudden, it mattered.

 

I agree. Everyone turns a blind eye until it serves their purpose. The current Darfur situation started in early 2003, but we, (US), would not admit genocide was taking place until September 9, 2004. Ironically enough after it was found that the Sudanese government was a major supplier of Chinese oil. Most of the African countries have had some sort of ethnic cleansing take place at one point or another after decolonization.

 

Nice dodge. Now, what did Bush do?

 

Nearly NOTHING is uni-causal in international relations or ever good or evil in clarion stark contrast.

Chuck Colson, who I often disagree with but always respect and hear out whenever I can, charges that the lack of action in Rwanda, concurrent with action in Bosnia, is due to what he characterizes as an unconscious psychology in favor of white Europeans over Blacks. Rwandans do not look like white Americans but Bosnians do, Colson says, so the Clinotn administration never acted. Colson is clearly on to something here, in my view, but his assertion still points to a uni-causal theory of causality for non-interventon, which is very misguided in my view.

In fact, Colson should know better, though the fact that he was not entrusted with many international relations matters during his White House tenure may be very telling.

Fact is, international relations decisions are always based upon a complex of confilcting factors and concerns, each imperfectly seen. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. For those conditioned by any form of simplistic black and white thinking, this can make such matters difficult to fully grasp.

-----------------------------

 

The delay was not so much a matter of recognizing it as it was proving it.

A declaration of "genocide" in the UN carries with it certain responsibilities. One is to be sure it's true.

Even with all the time we spent investigating it and gathering evidence before the actual declaration, that was not enough to sway enough countries to have the U.N. make the declaration and take steps against it, for a long time.

Your cynicism concerning the delay being related to oil is not backed up by the facts.

 

Clinton waited for a long time before intervening in Bosnia also. In fact, he didn't intervene directly. What he did was relax the arms embargo that let the Bosnians get heavy weapons to match the Serb ones.

The Bosnians were a majority in Bosnia, and once they obtained suitable weapons, the Serbs were much more agreeable to discuss peace. The primary weapon Clinton used against the Serbs was the threat of violence.

That being said, Clinton should have acted more decisively in the case of Rwanda, which was certainly his greatest failure in international relations.