The Politics of Hotel Rwanda - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

daswig · 03-06-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Daswig,

Do you think the UN or something like that is an impossibility?

What about disbanding it and starting from scratch?

The UN, like the League of Nations, gets high marks for theoretically noble goals, but extremely low marks for implementation and actual deeds. It's better to not have such an organization than to have an organization that repeatedly fails in it's goals and leads to the slaughter of those it supposedly is protecting. If there is no such organization, then people will not bet their lives on it and lose. I'm reminded of the Dutch "peacekeepers" in Srebrenica who placed thousands of Bosnian Muslims under their "protection" in a camp, and ended up running away to leave them pre-packaged for slaughter. The UN served as the mechanism for their massacre.

roachboy · 03-06-2005, 07:20 PM

just wondering how this can possibly be a discussion of rwanda and not want to take into account any of the particular circumstances that either enabled the genocide or drove it?

of the two mid-level contexts manx talked about: the international arms trade is obviously a big deal--the united states is the worlds largest arms exporter by a mulitlpe of ten.

as for the word colonialism--there are enough smeantic problems raised by using the word that it seems pointless to try to sort them here. neocolonialism more. different structure of domination.

france (one of those nation-states so dear to american rightwingers) played a pivotal role in all this--they knew what was coming but radically underestimated it--unlilke bush, they were not interested in looking for pretexts, true or false, for war--they were caught off guard. ia am sure the conservatives here will argue that cowboy george would not have been, but that is speculation and refuting it is a waste of time.

the main driver was the radio--radio broadcasts were fundamental to ordering, controlling the pace of, and providing a rationalization for genocide.

look here for example:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/m.../rwanda-h.html

the role of mass media in rwanda--which used nationalist and militarist slogans to trigger genocide--should give folk in the states pause. it is not only folk in rwanda who allow radio or television to structure the ways in which they hate people different from themselves.

boatin · 03-06-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It's outlived it's usefulness, and nobody, and I mean NOBODY, with a lick of sense would give them one IOTA of power, since they've proved over and over again to be either completely incompetent or genuinely evil.

So because I think the UN is worth fixing, can I conclude that I don't have a lick of sense?

I would hope that you would be a little more careful writing such inflammatory nonesense. This community isn't supposed to always agree with each other, but it IS supposed to respect each other.

To throw out opinions such as the one above clearly doesn't do that. It doesn't add to the discussion, nor does it make anyone that might disagree with you interested in discussing the issue. My prediction is that it either makes those with differing opinions mad (which doesn't help the debate), or it makes them close the thread and go elsewhere.

Needless to say, it isn't nice and it doesn't help.

Have a nice day.

retsuki03 · 03-06-2005, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

It does not "ultimately come down to" individual responsibility.

For me it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Assuredly, the mobs that commited the attrocities should not have commited the attrocities. No one is disputing that fact.

Good, then the blame is on the mobs. I am glad we agree on something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

But neither does it excuse, in any way, the West from constantly and consistently creating the situations that bring about such mob mentality.

That may be true. But your constant "blame the west" mantra often turns me off to your posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Your example was just an arbitrary example of responsibility. If you want an example that in some fashion is more closely related to the subject:

Let's say the government picks your neighbor to tell you what to do and the government gives nice things to your neighbor and lets your neighbor decide what (or if) he should pass anything along to you. Then one day, the government decides that it doesn't want to give anything to anyone anymore, and in the process of packing its bags, puts you in charge of your neighbor who had been hoarding and treating you like shit. And then, another government comes along and puts a gun in your hand. Now mutliply yourself by hundreds of thousands.

Your example is a better characterization, but I think they have the same meaning as far as responsibilty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I don't know you from Adam - but I do know we can't expect anything close to every person in your situation in that scenario to not seek revenge. But when you say "responsibility" is the ultimate issue, that is exactly the expectation you are suggesting we have.

Expecting humans to not run around and kill each other is too much, I know. But I don't expect that. I would, however, say that NOT running around and killing each other is more responsible behavior. The way you decribe this, one would think the "west" was pulling the trigger. I stand by what I said before. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual person. I acknowledge that the boogeyman, I mean west, could have help create this situation, BUT that does not in anyway absolve the murderers.

I think our views could be summed up as:
Manx: I BLAME THE WEST! (and capitalism!)
Me: I blame the people who did the killing.

I am glad we can agree to disagree.

Manx · 03-06-2005, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

That may be true. But your constant "blame the west" mantra often turns me off to your posts.

That's the crux of your post since you added nothing else to your previous one - so I'll just address that briefly:

Somehow I'm able to handle your constant "excuse the west" mantra, so if you want to engage in discussion you're going to have to deal with whatever you perceive my mantra to be. Or maybe you're not interested in discussion.

retsuki03 · 03-07-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

That's the crux of your post since you added nothing else to your previous one - so I'll just address that briefly:

Somehow I'm able to handle your constant "excuse the west" mantra, so if you want to engage in discussion you're going to have to deal with whatever you perceive my mantra to be. Or maybe you're not interested in discussion.

No so much with you because I don't think most your views are rooted in reality.

I hardly have a mantra of "excuse the west." The "crux" of my post was that regardless of the involvement of the west, that does not in anyway absolve the murderers. And to think, I even put it in bold for you.

Killconey · 03-07-2005, 01:48 AM

Does anyone else think that it is amazing that while everyone here is willing to research and argue points about who is responsible for genocide, no one really wants to stand up and say, "We should really do something about it."

I can understand if you think that genocide in other nations is none of our business and that is why you are silent, but many posters here are clearly sympathetic with the plight of the oppressed. Has anyone written their Senators? Informed a real-live (aka non TFP) community about what is going on so that they can also get involved? Donated to Amnesty International?

I will agree that the United Nations, United States and yes, even the West has dropped the ball on this issue and many others like it. Is anyone interested in picking the ball back up?

Manx · 03-07-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

The "crux" of my post was that regardless of the involvement of the west, that does not in anyway absolve the murderers. And to think, I even put it in bold for you.

And I never denied that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Assuredly, the mobs that commited the attrocities should not have commited the attrocities. No one is disputing that fact.

But since you're not interested in a discussion with me, it is not suprising that you are unable to comprehend the points I have made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

No so much with you

Then stop responding to my posts. TFP is for discussion, not petty arguments.

sob · 03-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Your discussion was nothing to begin with - so I am not suprised you have such derision for my perspective....rant, rant, rant....
Hardly silly at all. One need only open the newspaper to see it happening live in Iraq. But I have no doubt that your imagined facts disagree with that reality as well.

It appears that you consider attempting to turn a country over to its citizens as a form of "colonization."

We should therefore stay away from Rwanda, lest we be accused of trying to "colonize it."

However, nothing is preventing you from going there to offer your assistance, since you feel so strongly about it.

I won't hold my breath.

Manx · 03-07-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob

It appears that you consider attempting to turn a country over to its citizens as a form of "colonization."

Not at all. I would first have to fool myself into believing the marketing of the U.S. gov't that their actions and intent are meant to turn Iraq over to its citizens.

How about if you go and "defend" Iraq, since you feel so strongly about it.

I won't hold my breath.

flstf · 03-07-2005, 05:28 PM

I have read all the posts in this thread in order to learn something about the Rwanda confilict. The statement that the U.S. is the largest arms supplier in the world has been brought up several times so I did some searches in order to find out what we supplied there. Apparently the U.S. was not heavily involved in selling arms to Rwanda but rather they came from France, Egypt and South Africa mostly.

Quote:

Arming Rwanda
The influx of weapons from foreign sources to the Rwandese government as well as to the RPF contributed significantly to the civil war during 1990-1994, as well as to the massacres in 1994. Some foreign governments and other suppliers were ready to supply arms.

The major sources for this Annex on the supply of arms to Rwanda are the Human Rights Watch/ Arms Project, which issued a comprehensive report on Rwanda in January 1994 and a complementary report in May 1995, and the Human Rights Watch report of December 1994. The reports substantiate their findings with different kinds of evidence. The content of these reports has been discussed with a number of respected researchers, who themselves have found evidence supporting most of the findings therein.

Rwanda government

When the war began in 1990, Rwanda had an army of some 5,000 men (Prunier, 1995). They were equipped with light arms, including Belgian-made FAL, German-made G-3 and Kalashnikov automatic rifles manufactured by China or countries of the former Eastern Bloc. The army's weaponry included eight 81mm mortars, six 57mm anti-tank guns, French-made 83mm Blindicide rocket launchers, 12 AML-60 armoured cars and 16 M-3 armoured personnel carriers (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1990).

During the war, the Rwandese armed forces expanded, and the arsenal of weaponry increased and became more sophisticated. France, Egypt and South Africa supplied the majority of the weapons. According to the Human Rights Watch/Arms Project, Egypt was the key arms supplier and France the major military supporter.

A major weapons deal was made in March 1992 when Egypt sold US$6 million worth of arms to Rwanda. The deal was guaranteed by the French bank, Crédit Lyonnais. It included a wide range of light arms, infantry support weapons and ammunition.

France has played an important role in arming and supporting Rwanda. Apart from equipment such as mortars, light artillery, guns, armoured vehicles and even helicopters, France also provided spare parts, technical assistance and military training. The Arms Project has further documented rather large arms supplies coming from South Africa (light arms, machine-guns, grenade launchers and ammunition, valued at US$5.9 million), and US$2.3 million worth of military equipment sold by the US to Rwanda.

Belgium was traditionally Rwanda's main supplier of assistance and training. However, after the civil war started in October 1990, Belgium withdrew. France, in contrast, continued its military role, and provided weapons, munitions and advisors. France furthermore deployed troops in Rwanda.

The weapons obtained by the Rwandese government did not go only to the army. Already in 1991, a programme was started by the government to distribute a gun for every unit of 10 households.

At the beginning of the war, France sent 300 soldiers to Rwanda. Part of this force was later withdrawn, but 170 soldiers remained stationed in the country. Immediately after the RPF launched its offensive on 8 February 1993, the number of French soldiers increased to some 670. Two companies were deployed on the main roads north of the capital, and two were posted in strategic positions in Kigali, including the airport.

While the French insisted that their troops were deployed for the purpose of protecting French nationals only, the Arms Project has witnessed first hand French military activities tantamount to direct participation in the war, e.g. French soldiers manning checkpoints just north of Kigali. In addition to combat troops, France sent military advisors to provide training in, among other things, combat skills and commando operations, to Rwandese troops.

In December 1993, following deployment of the UN forces, all French troops were withdrawn.
Arming Rwanda

daswig · 03-07-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

So because I think the UN is worth fixing, can I conclude that I don't have a lick of sense?

In light of recent UN stupidity (the various massacres it enabled, the human rights violations by it's "peacekeepers", it's total ineffectiveness in preventing war (which is why it was created), the rampant cronyism and corruption that is apparently systemic there) what power would you give to the UN? The organization is fundamentally flawed, and I don't see any way it can be fixed. I am, however, open to suggestions.

03-06-2005, 07:20 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	just wondering how this can possibly be a discussion of rwanda and not want to take into account any of the particular circumstances that either enabled the genocide or drove it? of the two mid-level contexts manx talked about: the international arms trade is obviously a big deal--the united states is the worlds largest arms exporter by a mulitlpe of ten. as for the word colonialism--there are enough smeantic problems raised by using the word that it seems pointless to try to sort them here. neocolonialism more. different structure of domination. france (one of those nation-states so dear to american rightwingers) played a pivotal role in all this--they knew what was coming but radically underestimated it--unlilke bush, they were not interested in looking for pretexts, true or false, for war--they were caught off guard. ia am sure the conservatives here will argue that cowboy george would not have been, but that is speculation and refuting it is a waste of time. the main driver was the radio--radio broadcasts were fundamental to ordering, controlling the pace of, and providing a rationalization for genocide. look here for example: http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/m.../rwanda-h.html the role of mass media in rwanda--which used nationalist and militarist slogans to trigger genocide--should give folk in the states pause. it is not only folk in rwanda who allow radio or television to structure the ways in which they hate people different from themselves. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-07-2005, 01:48 AM	#47 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	Does anyone else think that it is amazing that while everyone here is willing to research and argue points about who is responsible for genocide, no one really wants to stand up and say, "We should really do something about it." I can understand if you think that genocide in other nations is none of our business and that is why you are silent, but many posters here are clearly sympathetic with the plight of the oppressed. Has anyone written their Senators? Informed a real-live (aka non TFP) community about what is going on so that they can also get involved? Donated to Amnesty International? I will agree that the United Nations, United States and yes, even the West has dropped the ball on this issue and many others like it. Is anyone interested in picking the ball back up? __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.