[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by theolein:
I think the day you'ld really be ashamed Simey, is the day that God is going to come down from heaven and admit that he didn't actually want the job in the first place.

Your quote about Clinton apologising to the people of Rwanda is quite absurd. The year before the massacres started, in 1993, the US lost 18 soldiers in that mission in Mogadishu in Somalia. I somehow doubt that your country's people would have approved a large (because anything short of large would not have had any chance of working) military mission to Rwanda. If I remember correctly, the images of that dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu were then still very much present in the minds of the American public.

The comment about Clinton going to Rwanda to apologize is based on footage of him doing it that I saw in an excellent Frontline documentary on the subject. I don't recall the exact date that he flew there, but it was a few months after the massacre. It was a quick in-and-out trip and he delivered the apology on the tarmac of the airport.

As for the sense of shame I feel at the reaction of my country, sorry, but it is a little arrogant of you to presume to read my heart. You are right about the domestic political reasons for the US looking the other way, but it doesn't alter the morality of the act. As has been pointed out elsewhere, it was a deliberate decision not to help. The White House even referred to genocide as "individual acts of genocide" in order to prevent the terms of the Genocide COnvention from being triggered. This is equivilent to arguing what the word "is" means.

As has also been pointed out, the UN doesn't come out of this smelling any sweeter. France does though. It deserves credit for sending in troops (albeit rather belatedly). France gets somewhat less credit for the fact that their operation had the effect of shielding the genocideers. But at least most of the killing stopped.

I mentioned Germany only because of Morpheus' tendency to see every international event as involving the US, but nobody else. Since he is German, I pointed out that his country did zip as well. If he had been writing from Spain, I would have pointed out that the Spanish didn't send troops to stop the killing either.

[theolein]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
No one had had any experience of Somali clan structures by then, and as they are doing today in Iraq they automatically assumed that the Somalis would welcome "democracy".

Not really equivalent. For one Iraq was much more stable and much more educated than Somalia. For an other in Somalia we were in with fairly limited goals - capturing a warlord and distributing food aid. Also there was a massive civil war with many sides. In Iraq you basically have only two sides.

Further the Somali situation really was a matter of not having the hardware. The Pakistani did have heavy armor. The general on the ground was being told to find Aristide without the proper equipment because Clinton didn't want to send the message he felt extra equipment would give. Which was fine. But in that case he should have told the general to stop going after Aristide like he was.

The problem really was mission creep, a lack of support, and then not knowing what to do about the humanitarian crisis.

However Somalia was important in that it was the straw that broke the camel's back in the US with respect to George Bush's "New World Order." The somewhat naive view of nation building was never taken the same. Unfortanately that also affected Ruwanda where we could have done something but fear of Somalia (and public opinion) kept us from doing anything. Part of the reason the UN did nothing was pressure from Clinton.

Horrible.

But I honestly think most of Africa has to be considered different from nations like Iraq, Iran or so forth that are more advanced. Some level of stability and education is needed before democracy can really work.

The clan warlord the US was after, was called Mohammed Aidid, defintely not Aristide, even they may both be black and not from Watts County, LA. Jean-Baptiste Aristide is a political leader in Haiti, one who came to power after Baby-Doc Duvalier was dethroned.

The US ded definitely NOT go into Somalia with the mission of capturing Aidid. That came later when it proved impossible to end the fighting and after the Pakistani patrol had been slaughtered. The Pakistani patrol was not in armoured cars. The Pakistani and Malaysian contingents both had armoured cars, the Malaysians were the ones who got the US soldiers out of the ambush with their armoured cars.

I found your comment on Africa needing education a bit ironic, considering that you didn't know the difference between Aristide and Aidid. No offense though.

[theolein]

Originally posted by typoon:
You also forget who was in Power in 1998. The Man who got 18 Special forces soldiers killed because he didn't give them the proper Hardware for the Mission.

It seems that both Europeans and Americans in this case have no sense of time, history, or geography.

Morpheus X claims that the killings in Rwanda were in 1998 and that 2 million people were killed.

typoon then goes along and rants at the man in power in 1998.

1994. And yes, it does make a difference, quite a big one in this case.

[clarkgoble]

The pressure from Clinton for the reason why the UN didn't do anything was the same reason Clinton didn't want to give the troops the proper equipment to do the job. He Loaths the Military and because he feels that the Military the new World Meals on wheels instead of a fighting force.

I'm not Clinton lover, but it was a bit more complex. The public was already concerned about "mission creep" in Somalia. There had been some significant changes from the initial mission by Bush. Further Clinton's main flaw wasn't just a distrust of the military but an overarching desire to be popular. He knew that if he sent in heavy machines it'd be controversial.

At the same time though he was, behind the scenes, negotiating a different approach. The flaw was that he didn't let the general on the ground in on that information. But that was primarily why the machinery wasn't given.

With regards to Ruwanda I think his actions in the UN were undefensible. I can understand his not wanting to send US troops in due to public worries about an other Somalia. Heck, I can even understand not wanting to send troops in for more "real politic" reasons. However to more or less keep the UN from doing it was almost unforgiveable. I'm shocked this isn't discussed more.

I honestly can't understand why Africans love Clinton, who did such horrible things to Africa and gave them basically no help but Bush, who has tried to be far more involved in Africa is constantly attacked. Even keeping in mind the Iraq situation it is amazing to me.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


I mentioned Germany only because of Morpheus' tendency to see every international event as involving the US, but nobody else. Since he is German, I pointed out that his country did zip as well. If he had been writing from Spain, I would have pointed out that the Spanish didn't send troops to stop the killing either.

First of all i am not German and secondly i am only trying to point out that this useless war is not because of chairity or a selfless War to "free" the iraqi people and to bring them democracy like Bush is saying. This War is only because of oil interests. America almost never did anything out of selfless reasons and the example of Rwanda/Uganda is just one of the facts that are proving that. If you really believe in the declaration of independents the basis of your democracy than this declaration is not only true for american people but also for the rest of the world and as last remaining superpower (and now i am using a sentence out of "Spiderman"(LOL): "With great power comes great responsibility!") with the ambition to play world police you should not only act when its in your interest but always when people are in danger. If you only do it when you gain something from it than you dont really mean it and your claim to do something to help the people(in this case the people of iraq) is just a disguise for your real goal, to achieve a selfish political goal. In this case to gain control over iraqi and its oil!

And i already said that the world community failed in Rwanda but even though the UN failed in Rwanda and certainly in other conflicts as well, it still remains the only legal world organisation to achieve world peace. The UN is an attempt to get every country in this world together into one Organisation and to work out together the conflict that accure and of course its a difficult approach and there will be a lot of setbacks in the furure like there were in the past but to finally get this world together we have to try to solve the problems together. There was no danger coming from Iraq, there was no emergency situation. Saddam was already giving in to the demands of the UN, slowly sure but there was progress. The UN is trying to keep up the dialogue between every country in this world. The UN sets up rules every country has to follow and of course countries like Iraq break those rules again and again but where is your moral superiority as a free democratic country when you start breaking these rules yourself? Whats the difference between us(free democratic countries) and them(dictatorial counties and terror organisations) when we start breaking those rules too?

Pre-emptive strikes will not make this world a safer place. And its already showing that the terrorists of 11/9 won because they forced a free democratic country like the US to break the international law. To be aggressors! To violate human rights. The same human rights the declaration of independence was trying to protect. You cant just attack a country only because you suspect them to have plans to attack you! Evidence! You cant just shoot someone only because you suspect he might try to kill you. Imagine everyone in the US would start shooting their neighbors only because they suspect them to maybe have plans to kill them only because you know they hate you. Chaos! And that will happen in the world too!

Your are right about Germany not doing enough about international conflicts like most other European countries but you forget that Germany itself, like most European countries are not capable to give that help. We are now slowly growing together. The process to unite Europe has just started and it will take some time before the United States of Europe will be achieved but until than the USA as the strongest nation has the responsibility not to be aggressors but to be a country that stands for peace and justice.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Morpheus X, that's your point of view. Thanks for sharing. I disagree with practically every line you wrote, but hey, that happens.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by theolein:
It seems that both Europeans and Americans in this case have no sense of time, history, or geography.

Morpheus X claims that the killings in Rwanda were in 1998 and that 2 million people were killed.

typoon then goes along and rants at the man in power in 1998.

1994. And yes, it does make a difference, quite a big one in this case.

I mixed up the time because the search results google was showing were articles made in 1998 but i dont see any difference...1998 or 1994 its a disgrace that the world community was not acting...

[theolein]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The pressure from Clinton for the reason why the UN didn't do anything was the same reason Clinton didn't want to give the troops the proper equipment to do the job. He Loaths the Military and because he feels that the Military the new World Meals on wheels instead of a fighting force.

I'm not Clinton lover, but it was a bit more complex. The public was already concerned about "mission creep" in Somalia. There had been some significant changes from the initial mission by Bush. Further Clinton's main flaw wasn't just a distrust of the military but an overarching desire to be popular. He knew that if he sent in heavy machines it'd be controversial.

At the same time though he was, behind the scenes, negotiating a different approach. The flaw was that he didn't let the general on the ground in on that information. But that was primarily why the machinery wasn't given.

With regards to Ruwanda I think his actions in the UN were undefensible. I can understand his not wanting to send US troops in due to public worries about an other Somalia. Heck, I can even understand not wanting to send troops in for more "real politic" reasons. However to more or less keep the UN from doing it was almost unforgiveable. I'm shocked this isn't discussed more.

I honestly can't understand why Africans love Clinton, who did such horrible things to Africa and gave them basically no help but Bush, who has tried to be far more involved in Africa is constantly attacked. Even keeping in mind the Iraq situation it is amazing to me.

The only African I know who likes Clinton is me. The reasons I like him are due to
a: his personality, and
b: the fact that he helped out in Bosnia and Kosovo, two wars in which there were no shady deals or financial interests.

I would beg of you to show us your source of information as to how Bush is helping Africa. I think I've got knews for you. Bush is reviled in the part of Africa I come from, throughout the country.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
I mixed up the time because the search results google was showing were articles made in 1998 but i dont see any difference...1998 or 1994 its a disgrace that the world community was not acting...

It makes a difference in that it came just after the desater in Somalia. That is the main reason why there was no US help there.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by theolein:
It makes a difference in that it came just after the desater in Somalia. That is the main reason why there was no US help there.

Maybe you are right but i just wanted to make a point showing that the US are not in this War to free the iraqi out of selfless motives like Bush is claiming. There are enough examples showing another picture. Maybe the wrong example but still they and others could have done more and if its really their claim to free and help people this could have been one of many situation to prove me wrong.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Morpheus X, that's your point of view. Thanks for sharing. I disagree with practically every line you wrote, but hey, that happens.

Well to be really honest with you: If i would really care i would have been really hurt but than again i dont care!

[clarkgoble]

I would beg of you to show us your source of information as to how Bush is helping Africa. I think I've got knews for you. Bush is reviled in the part of Africa I come from, throughout the country.

I know Bush is reviled. However Bush is doing a lot for AIDS that Clinton never did.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_mason.asp

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I would beg of you to show us your source of information as to how Bush is helping Africa. I think I've got knews for you. Bush is reviled in the part of Africa I come from, throughout the country.

I know Bush is reviled. However Bush is doing a lot for AIDS that Clinton never did.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_mason.asp

Well try to type "Clinton AIDS help" into your google searchfield....

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Well to be really honest with you: If i would really care i would have been really hurt but than again i dont care!

I wasn't trying to hurt you. I just didn't want you to think that you had written such a long post addressed to me without me reading it.

At the same time, I didn't really have the time to address all of your points (at any rate, those that aren't just assertions about which I simply have another view). And in fact, I'm still not going to because much of it just goes over ground we have already covered. But it was still well said, even if I don't agree with you.

[clarkgoble]

Well try to type "Clinton AIDS help" into your google searchfield....

Well he signed a law reauthoriizng a law passed in 1990... (First hit)

The others (I didn't read them all) had Clinton talking a lot but not appearing to do much. There's no doubt Clinton is a masterful speaker. I think that's why Africa loves them. They hear his words.

Now if you have *specific* articles to what he *did* it'd probably advance the discussion more than a nebulous "do a google search..."

Here's an article that discusses a little Bush vs. Clinton.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7349

"Commentators across the political spectrum concede that Bush's plan marks a dramatic break with the policies of former President Clinton, and even of Bush a year ago. In 1999, Clinton had overseen an increase from $125 million to just $225 million in international AIDS funds."

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wasn't trying to hurt you. I just didn't want you to think that you had written such a long post addressed to me without me reading it.

At the same time, I didn't really have the time to address all of your points (at any rate, those that aren't just assertions about which I simply have another view). And in fact, I'm still not going to because much of it just goes over ground we have already covered. But it was still well said, even if I don't agree with you.

Well, i think its ok to have different opinions makes the world more interesting and because everybody has the right to have his own opinion.

To say it in the words of Kant(i think that was him):" I absoluty disagree with you but i will fight til the end for your right to have that opinion"--->ok a very free translation of what he said but i did my best.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Well try to type "Clinton AIDS help" into your google searchfield....

Well he signed a law reauthoriizng a law passed in 1990... (First hit)

The others (I didn't read them all) had Clinton talking a lot but not appearing to do much. There's no doubt Clinton is a masterful speaker. I think that's why Africa loves them. They hear his words.

Now if you have *specific* articles to what he *did* it'd probably advance the discussion more than a nebulous "do a google search..."

Here's an article that discusses a little Bush vs. Clinton.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7349

"Commentators across the political spectrum concede that Bush's plan marks a dramatic break with the policies of former President Clinton, and even of Bush a year ago. In 1999, Clinton had overseen an increase from $125 million to just $225 million in international AIDS funds."

http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/...213022003.html

[theolein]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I would beg of you to show us your source of information as to how Bush is helping Africa. I think I've got knews for you. Bush is reviled in the part of Africa I come from, throughout the country.

I know Bush is reviled. However Bush is doing a lot for AIDS that Clinton never did.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_mason.asp

Como eso hombre?

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2000/LT000503.html

[clarkgoble]

Como eso hombre?

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2000/LT000503.html


i.e. he waits until the end of his presidency does a little bit with the expectation that it will be overturned. Bush in turn not only doesn't overturn it but does considerably more than Clinton ever offered.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles...w213022003.html

You gave the above with no commentary. I assume you read it. I'm not sure of what you're trying to argue with it. Pro-Bush? After all it is Clinton praising Bush's efforts.

There's no doubt Clinton has given great speaches on AIDS. Clinton talks an amazing talk. However in terms of action Bush has done considerably more.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Como eso hombre?

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2000/LT000503.html


You gave the above with no commentary. I assume you read it. I'm not sure of what you're trying to argue with it. Pro-Bush? After all it is Clinton praising Bush's efforts.

There's no doubt Clinton has given great speaches on AIDS. Clinton talks an amazing talk. However in terms of action Bush has done considerably more.

You should read the part Clinton called for attention:

"Clinton praised an initiative announced last month by President George W. Bush to provide 15 billion dollars (14 billion euros) over five years to fight the deadly disease. He regretted, however, that only 10 percent of that amount would be passed on to the Global Fund against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. "

and than read this:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...mp;ItemID=2964

So much to Bushs AIDS policy!

[theolein]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Well try to type "Clinton AIDS help" into your google searchfield....

Well he signed a law reauthoriizng a law passed in 1990... (First hit)

The others (I didn't read them all) had Clinton talking a lot but not appearing to do much. There's no doubt Clinton is a masterful speaker. I think that's why Africa loves them. They hear his words.

Now if you have *specific* articles to what he *did* it'd probably advance the discussion more than a nebulous "do a google search..."

Here's an article that discusses a little Bush vs. Clinton.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7349

"Commentators across the political spectrum concede that Bush's plan marks a dramatic break with the policies of former President Clinton, and even of Bush a year ago. In 1999, Clinton had overseen an increase from $125 million to just $225 million in international AIDS funds."

Well if you read what your link says, you'll notice the following:

Commentators across the political spectrum concede that Bush's plan marks a dramatic break with the policies of former President Clinton, and even of Bush a year ago. In 1999, Clinton had overseen an increase from $125 million to just $225 million in international AIDS funds. And when Bush took office he confirmed the fears of many by recommending abstinence-only programs and cutting off aid to international health agencies that provided information about abortion. Predictably, this very issue is now bogging down legislation in partisan debates.

The end of January 2003? In the middle of the whole UN inspectors/Iraq international debate? This was at the same time that the vote in the UNSC was coming up and some members of the security council were from sub-saharan Africa, including Angola and Cameroon were being started to be courted by all sides to vote for them. Considering Bush's previous record on AIDS prior to that I somehow doubt this was done out of good will.

[clarkgoble]

I somehow doubt this was done out of good will.

i.e. you can't argue that he isn't doing more. So your only choice now is to impune the motives.

When all is said and done what counts is what's done.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I somehow doubt this was done out of good will.

i.e. you can't argue that he isn't doing more. So your only choice now is to impune the motives.

When all is said and done what counts is what's done.

Please read the link i gave you!

[clarkgoble]

He regretted, however, that only 10 percent of that amount would be passed on to the Global Fund

i.e. you don't like the relief organization it is going to. Yet you seem to imply that if it doesn't go to the Global Fund that it somehow isn't being spent on AIDS. That's like saying you aren't really helping kids if you donate to an organization other than UNICEF.

Also to the previous poster: in June of 2002 he proposed increasing AIDS spending by $500 million.

http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200206191229.shtml


Here's something else you might be interested in.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_mason.asp


Please read the link i gave you!

I did. You missed my point. If you can only impune the *motives* then you are in a sense agreeing that Bush is doing more. You are trying to change the discussion from what is done to why it was done. Further you appear to be assuming a simplicity of motives (i.e. it was only done as a political payoff)

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
He regretted, however, that only 10 percent of that amount would be passed on to the Global Fund

i.e. you don't like the relief organization it is going to. Yet you seem to imply that if it doesn't go to the Global Fund that it somehow isn't being spent on AIDS. That's like saying you aren't really helping kids if you donate to an organization other than UNICEF.

Also to the previous poster: in June of 2002 he proposed increasing AIDS spending by $500 million.

http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200206191229.shtml


Here's something else you might be interested in.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/887/887_mason.asp

I already read those links but you didnt obviously read mine:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...mp;ItemID=2964

[clarkgoble]

Why don't you spell out your point, since clearly I'm not making the same inferrences from the text that you are.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
I already read those links but you didnt obviously read mine:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...mp;ItemID=2964

From the article:

The Global Fund, meanwhile, has declared bankruptcy as of last Friday.

If they've got about $1 billion coming in over the next 5 years just from the US, and still went bankrupt, perhaps it's a good thing our money is going to other organizations. The article goes off on USAID quite a bit without ever mentioning how much money they will receive under the plan.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Why don't you spell out your point, since clearly I'm not making the same inferrences from the text that you are.

I just wanted to point out even so 15 Billion Dollar sounds nice the truth is a lot darker as you can read in the article. Typical republican tactics claiming to help but when you read between the lines it shows they are actually not doing anything better than Clinton did.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
i am only trying to point out that this useless war is not because of chairity or a selfless War to "free" the iraqi people and to bring them democracy like Bush is saying. This War is only because of oil interests.

I think you have it backwards. Look who has the most to gain from the US not going into iraq (besides saddam of course)

http://usainreview.com/1_21_Security_Council.htm

[theolein]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I somehow doubt this was done out of good will.

i.e. you can't argue that he isn't doing more. So your only choice now is to impune the motives.

When all is said and done what counts is what's done.

No, I can't argue that he isn't doing more. We'll see. The test will be if this is a repeat action don't you think?