http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/13/sbm.dallaire.profile/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Kofi Annan, then head of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations, was concerned about the safety of Dallaire's limited U.N. force. Annan's office told Dallaire: "We cannot agree to the operation contemplated(More troops to prevent genocide) ... as it clearly goes beyond the mandate."

He was right. Rwanda was a powder keg just waiting to explode; it went far beyond the official story of Hutu versus Tutsi. We were correct in not interfering.

Well, many of us older readers know of your genocidal tendencies.

I did not expect you to reconsider that. 2 million Africans dead in ethnic cleansing is a good thing to you. I know that.


Gawd, you must shudder now, when all the Hollywood Liberals like George Clooney want to help out in The Sudan.

Now you're beginning to sound like a typical American.

ore interested in self-righteously attacking, after the fact, anything labeled as genocide, than in preventing the circumstances that led to it.

Not only did we do nothing while it was happening, we did nothing to keep it from happening the first place. In fact our general foreign policy towards Africa encourages it.

This was not a simple racial ethnic cleansing, it was an extension of civil war, triggered by resource depletion, which was triggered by overbreeding. Labeling it "genocide," and proclaiming that we therefore must stop it at the last minute, would have done little to change the underlying problem.

Gawd, you must shudder now, when all the Hollywood Liberals like George Clooney want to help out in The Sudan.What is he going to do, raise money to give them food and medicine? (That's just a guess, tell me if I'm wrong.)

Do you really think that's what they need?

For the last 8 years, they needed peacekeepers with machine guns shooting Islamic Jangaweeds on camels.

But the UN has been unequivocal. Genocide is more peaceful than war. Thus genocide is superior to war, for the UN.

Letting one side, with unilateral weapon superiority, even to the extent of Hutus killing with machetes Tutsis with nothing, slaughter the other is far better than letting people defend themselves.

But the UN has been unequivocal. Genocide is more peaceful than war. Thus genocide is superior to war, for the UN.I see, so creating an even bigger conflict while not solving any of the underlying problems is your idea of progress.

Well, I believe that people have an undeniable right to protect themselves, from those who want to rape, mutilate, and kill them.

If there are people preventing them from doing so, then they are just as culpable as those committing the genocide.




So, yes, if the Tutis were allowed to arm themselves, to protect themselves from the Hutus. That would be a good thing. Even if the total number, between both combined, was larger than the 2 million slaughtered.

If the Sudanese farmers were able to defend themselves with equal weapons to the Jangaweeds, yes, that would be better than unarmed genocide.


edit, godwin
edit again, I wonder. I wonder how your arguments for genocide as a means of global population control and reduction play out with your SF Liberal friends you hang out with and socialize with. I do wonder that.

Now you're beginning to sound like a typical American. There are many things I would think that you would use to describe me, typical American would be one of the last..

ore interested in self-righteously attacking, after the fact, anything labeled as genocide, than in preventing the circumstances that led to it.
Nothing after the fact. I was aware of Rwanda while it was happening. And it was genocide. Enforced by the UN.

Not only did we do nothing while it was happening, we did nothing to keep it from happening the first place. In fact our general foreign policy towards Africa encourages it. I am not talking about 'we'. I am discussing the UN. And THEIR policy of genocide before war.

This was not a simple racial ethnic cleansing, it was an extension of civil war, triggered by resource depletion, which was triggered by overbreeding. Labeling it "genocide," and proclaiming that we therefore must stop it at the last minute, would have done little to change the underlying problem. Killing one racial group by another, in almost total, is genocide. I can label that genocide if I wish. But mostly because, that is,,,,what,,,it ,,,f cking,,,is.

Just because the Germans did not finish off ALL of the European Jews, does not mean that it was less of a genocide.

They were both attempting to kill off a gene stock. That is genocide. What rationales one comes up for that genocide makes little difference.



I appreciate your honesty though, that world overpopulation SHOULD be put in check by random acts of genocide. Pragmatically, and rationally, you are correct.

It sure beats us actively killing third world peoples directly ourselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7763397.stm


This must bring smiles.

Well, I believe that people have an undeniable right to protect themselves, from those who want to rape, mutilate, and kill them.

So, yes, if the Tutis were allowed to arm themselves, to protect themselves from the Hutus. That would be a good thing. Even if the total number, between both combined, was larger than the 2 million slaughtered.You say that as though the Tutsis were some innocent minority minding their own business, when the Hutus suddenly decided to hack them to bits with machetes.

Actually, after the Belgians came and made them the upper class (because of their typically lighter skin, which obviously meant racial superiority), Tutsi were considered the oppressors, as Belgian intermediaries. And the two groups killed one another in large numbers over the decades, vying for power until the Tutsi lost and most fled to neighboring countries.

The "genocide" consisted not only of Hutu killing Tutsi, but also other Hutu, and Twa, another minority group. It was also Tutsi forces that ended the violence, and naturally they took their revenge, too.

In short, each side had a lot of blood on their hands, the violence wasn't so much genocide as it was a free-for-all civil war. And don't think it's over; as long as the circumstances that gave rise to it continue to exist, it will surge again in the future.If the Sudanese farmers were able to defend themselves with equal weapons to the Jangaweeds, yes, that would be better than unarmed genocide.So it's better for more people to die more horribly, with more destruction, just to satisfy your absurd notion that war should be like a dodgeball game. (Didn't you ridicule people who thought that, just a few months ago?)

edit again, I wonder. I wonder how your arguments for genocide as a means of global population control and reduction play out with your SF Liberal friends you hang out with and socialize with. I do wonder that.Since when does explaining an effect amount to justifying it?

Let's be clear: we both agree that genocide is bad, a thing to be avoided. And I don't want it to be used as a method of global population control (not that it has any significant effect on global population anyway). Population control is best achieved through improving women's rights and providing for family planning for the masses.

I am saying that we have to look at the causes of genocide, not just to sit idly by and then rush troops in at the last minute when it's too late. Or even worse, what you say, let it happen, so long as the sides are about even.

They were both attempting to kill off a gene stock. That is genocide.No, they weren't. Your attempts to Nazify a totally different scenario are ridiculous, for the reasons I explained.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7763397.stm

This must bring smiles.What causes cholera?

Why don't we have cholera epidemics?

I am saying that we have to look at the causes of genocide, not just to sit idly by and then rush troops in at the last minute when it's too late.
Xenophobia and hate. Natural human motivations.

These genocides take years, have taken years. What do you mean last minute.


Or even worse, what you say, let it happen, so long as the sides are about even.
People have a right to defend themselves. And if by proxy have someone else protect them if they like. The UN thwarts that.

It thwarted that in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and The Sudan. And genocide was the result. It is not like we don't know how it happens, silly. We have a perfected blueprint which is available to anyone. These were all predictable and preventable. But the UN stood in the way with sanctions and embargoes.

What causes cholera? Vibrio cholerae. A motile bacteria.

Why don't we have cholera epidemics? We don't *sh1t in our drinking water?

Xenophobia and hate. Natural human motivations.Then why don't we have regular genocides in America? Are we immune from xenophobia and hate?

The violence in Rwanda was not caused by xenophobia, or hate. In fact the parties involved traditionally lived side by side, occupying different economic sectors, until the Belgians came. Even recently, just before the latest violence, they lived in integrated communities and mixed families.

It was caused by people breeding beyond their means to support themselves, which led to extreme poverty and starvation, which led to desperation, which led to war.

Of course, the media likes to portray it as simple race-based violence, because that fetches higher advertising dollars. Who wants to hear about another poor African country with starving kids killing each other for food?These genocides take years, have taken years. What do you mean last minute.The "genocide" in Rwanda that you refer to lasted 100 days.These were all predictable and preventable. But the UN stood in the way with sanctions and embargoes.Yes, they were preventable. But not by sending troops in the eleventh hour to try to mediate a hopeless situation.

People have a right to defend themselves. And if by proxy have someone else protect them if they like. The UN thwarts that.I thought you supported the Iraq war (the actual war part, not the idiotic post-2003 reconstruction/policing), which was totally one-sided. A tiny backwards country crushed within a few months by the world's most powerful nation and most advanced military.

Are you saying that Russia or China should've stepped in, and given Saddam Hussein nuclear weapons, to even it up and make it a fair gentlemanly fight? That that would've been better for the world?

Or maybe you would have preferred us attacking Russia or China directly. It would have meant utter devastation on a global scale, instead of just a minor regional conflict, but hey, at least it would've been fair.

We don't *sh1t in our drinking water?And why don't we? Why do they?

Our idiotic foreign policy towards these countries encourages the spread of poverty, disease, and war. It's like pouring gasoline on the fire while simultaneously shutting off the fire hose.

I think Americans are more worried about being self-righteous, and having people like them, than about actually helping the world and impoverished countries.

The "genocide" in Rwanda that you refer to lasted 100 days.

The first Gulf War lasted 100 hours.


Why is genocide in quotes?

Why is genocide in quotes?Because "genocide" is just the media's spin, in attempt to Nazify a very un-Nazi-like situation and get people interested.

It can be more accurately and objectively described as a civil war, partly caused by ethnic tensions and mostly caused by overbreeding and resource depletion.

After all, there were Hutus killed Hutus, en masse, especially in Northwestern Rwanda. What would you call that? Autogenocide? Suigenocide?

The violence would still have happened, even if all the Tutsis had fled Rwanda years before. And without any real change, it will continue to happen in the future, rest assured.

I normally don't praise the UN, but in this case, they, we, and the rest of the world did the right thing by sitting back and letting this whole thing play out.

If "genocide" horrifies you, now is the time you can do something to prevent the next cycle. Of course, you won't, the world won't, it will happen again, and we'll continue this cycle indefinitely until people wake up and realize what's really going on. Or even worse, until we are in the middle of the genocide, and Rwanda becomes the global norm.

Well, I am completely able to determine what genocide is without you telling me what it isn't, or the media what it is.

And I have resisted 'NAZI'fying' it as much as possible.

Numbers 31, of the Old Testament, details genocide perpetrated by the Hebrews on the Medianites. Rape, murder, theft, pedophilia, and sex slavery by the Jews, commanded by their god, Moses, and his priest. A complete wipe out of 5 nations of poor peasant unarmed agrarians who just happened to worship mountain and fertility goddesses and gods.

I don't consider the Bible a historical text, by any means, but for something like this to make it, and stay in their books and scripture, it is more than likely to have happened. The Jews were much more efficient, by their own accord and record, in committing that genocide, than the Nazis...they got everybody.

A complete wipe out of 5 nations of poor peasant unarmed agrarians who just happened to worship mountain and fertility goddesses and gods.So by your definition, conquering a nation is genocide, if you do a good job of it, or at least say that you did a good job of it. Because that's all that was, if it ever happened at all (so many of the plausible, quasi-historical-sounding accounts in the Judeo-Christian myth, like the so-called exodus, are totally fictional).

Did we commit genocide by conquering Iraq, since we were targeting only Arabs and Muslims, and wiped out a crapload of them?

No, that is not my definition.

If it were, I would have said so.

No, that is not my definition.Then what is your definition?

Because as far as I can tell, you've watered the term down to the point where it means "any large scale, organized killing that I don't approve of."

In which case why bother with the term at all; throw it out, and use "war".