Rwanda?? did it have to happen?

America if we just would've sent troops would've ended the Genocide alot quicker and we would have future allies, If Bush would've been president then He would've done something but we got stuck with Clinton :angry: I saw that not much help came from Europe and none from America.

 

I'm not bashing Bush or America (just to get that straight first!), but they did not interfere in the Sudan when that turned into a genocidal bloodbath, so I doubt that Bush would have reacted any differently to Clinton over Rwanda.

Both episodes frankly show the developed world in a very bad light, as nobody was really prepared to actually do anything to help.

 

no driving intrest

neither the US nor the UK have any real reason to act. if anything after clinton's last effort they have even less than no reason. nothing to be gained, much to be lost. lets face it no mater how many people get killed or starved its a bear trap for anybody that tries to stop it. just another perfect mission for the Useless Nations that they cannot handle.

 

after americans watched dead g.i.s naked bodies dragged thru mogudishu,their appetite for african adventures was greatly diminished.it became ..why are we over there again...?
africans are killing?starving...well listen yall,,good luck with that...

 

I wonder if it happened now if we would do anything diffrent?

 

there was ( is ) a lot of bad blood between the utus and tutsis ,
that was the second last of a chain of massacres ,
in neighboring burundi in the 70ies the tutsis chopped of all the utus who
could read , hardly made page three in europe.
after the rwanda massacres ,the tutsis hunted the refugies in the congo
jungle like cattle .tens of thousands got butchered .

 

the only way to insure freedom from slavery or massacre is with a force equal to or greater than your would be oppresor...the world has been this way since before neandertal looked across the river at our greedy and rapacious ancestors...the armenians,jews and bosnians can all attest to the cost of being unarmed in the world....
i recently saw a movie[the constant gardener]...ralf feines a british diplomat finds himself in a sudanese refugee camp...black muslim horsemen ride into the camp shooting ak47s from horseback ,dismounting only to rob and rape...feines and the other westerners escape on an airplane ,barely...sudanese children are refused entry to the plane[sry,company policy..]...we spend hundreds of millions on food and medical aid...but of course we wont spend a penny on the one thing the fleeing wretches really need,arms and rudimentry training..a few retired officers and nco.s from any western country and 200 moisin nagnants[big 5 sporting goods...$79 each]would fix those mounted raiders good ,or at least they would never ride into that camp again...of course we wont arm them ...arms are bad..,we will simply build another camp further south...for those sudanese that are really good at running and hideing..

 

You know what happens when you give another faction arms in Africa, they will fight. The misery there is not all about armed bands raiding a helpless populace, it is mostly about groups of rebels and irregulars with guns fighting each other. Giving the population weapons to defend themselves with would result in a lot more slaughter.

Proto-human beings had no (known) concept of slavery by the way, or of freedom. The entire concept of freedom from slavery as an ideal one must attain is fairly recent anyway, not more than a few centuries old. In the Roman world for example, the leaders of slave rebellions habitually turned their old masters into slaves, not wanting to dissolve the whole institution at all. They simply didn't think of slavery as anything strange or unnatural.

Having "a force greater than your would-be oppressor" sounds like a good solution to slavery and massacre, but it is not so easily achieved as you say it is. Just giving people guns does not make them a force. In the case of nomad raiders all you need to do to protect yourself is dig a ditch and build a pallissade around your camp, the horsed men will be unable to touch you.

 

Although the system of slavery was seen as perfectly natural, being a slave was often viewed as rather unfortunate, and seeking freedom from slavery was rather common - hence all those slave rebellions...

 

Obviously. Few people want to be a slave. That is not the same thing as stating a sort of universal law that people will free themselves of slavery, like the Enlightenment liberals would have you believe.

 

a ditch and palisade wont stop anyone for twenty minutes unless there are defenders behind the palisade hurling missles..fortifications are merely to impede an attacker and make him fight at a disadvantage,never ever was a fort expected to be a complete defence in itself. its true that handing out guns does not make a fighting force,thats why i stipulated the retired western soldiers...however,even a badly trained and poorly armed force is better than no force at all.the israelies were a pretty rag tag force in 1948 yet still they managed to prevail.and as you point out with jews and arabs both being armed ,they do shoot and kill each other from time to time.....i think roel ,if you ask the israelies they would much prefer occasional gun battles with their niehbors to haveing thier entire population frog marched into the showers of treblinka...theve been down that road before...of course the british and the world at large did its very best to keep any weapons from reaching the tiny jewish state...because as we all know guns cause violence and thats bad ,,,unless your a tutsi or a kurd....or a jew.

 

Yes it was, for example the Chinese Wall. Do you honestly believe the Chinese expected to defend every stretch of wall and every tower on that 6000-kilometer wall? Truth is, they did not. They intended for the wall itself, guarded only by sentries, to ensure that any invaders would either be deterred or trapped on their way back out. Other examples include all long walls built in ancient Greece (and there are many), even though Greek city states did not maintain standing armies (except Sparta). A pallisade is in fact not even a defensive position; it's merely a wall against enemy raiders and it can't be defended properly like a stone wall can. A cavalry raiding force cannot afford to get tied down for twenty minutes so a pallissade and ditch will stop them from raiding your camp. No shots need be fired. If the wall does not deter them by itself, a mere few sentries will do the trick, because a cavalry raiding force when dismounted is no force at all.

That is an entirely different matter. In 1948 Israel was a nation-state trying to assert itself, with many enemies trying to destroy them. Not quite the same as a refugee camp threatened by raiders, is it?

What do you think a bunch of Sudanese refugees will do if you give them guns? Retaliate. What do you think their tormentors will do after that?

 

Essentially the old cycle of violence begetting violence.

In an ideal world, (depending on your ideals and your level of trust in humanity) either everybody or nobody would have guns, which would in theory stop anybody from mounting armed raids on anybody.

Really, after 50 years of wars/civil wars/ethnic cleansing/spending money on guns not food/etc the last thing Africa needs is more guns.

More loyal & effective soldiers able to act as an effective police force, certainly. But putting more guns in the hands of ordinary people? Do you want to make it worse?

 

My brother said if Rwanda would've had Oil every one would go but since its not no one could give a sh*t.......

 

Your brother is most probably right

 

the purpose of any wall or palisade is that it can be thinly defended...not undefended...the chinese sentries watched the wall ,like the romans watching hadrians wall ....alarm !we are being attacked by a large force in sector x!..garrison troops are dispatched to the hot spot at once...an undefended palisade will cause the horse raiders a short inconvenience....they will dismount ,breach the wall and continue their rape and murder with renewed vigour.twenty trained sudanese riflemen could make the wall functional .a hundred men waiting on the horsemens path of egress could make a real and lasting change to the status quo...for gods sake ,lets arm them and train them and keep us/british boots out of sudan.

 

And then when they, as an armed force, decide to start asserting themselves a bit more, and maybe taking the odd bit of revenge for how they have been treated...

 

Even undefended, a wall can stop an army. There are instances in Greek history where a wall stopped an army merely because they knew the enemy army was nearby, and trying to cross the wall would tie them down long enough to be overrun. This type of thing goes particularly for mounted armies, built for speed, who cannot afford to even dismount their horses because it will render them completely defenceless. The very risk that there might be as many as a single soldier on the wall, even if there is none, will make that horsed army turn back.

 

Actually, I think I'm with majorwoody on this. If the raiders discover that the pallisade is undefended, then all they need to do is make a hole in it (the gateway would be ideal) and the wall is completely neutralised.

This would not take much effort, unless it is a really really big wall, so it would barely hinder their mobility (enemy coming? pick up your spade, mount your horse and ride off).

It is not unlike barbed wire in WW1, or the minefield in WW2 - it is an obstacle that will slow down an enemy, but unless you protect it with troops then you might as well not bother.

Yes, the wall will have an initial deterrant value, but as soon as the raidsers realise that actualy there are no armed men (or women ) defending it, all value goes, fast. It could then backfire, as if the raiders get in, then you are trapped by your own pallisade and they can kill or capture the whole camp.

 

It's interesting reading about walls and palissades but the don't help much against enemy blastig around with RPG's, AK's and artillery .