 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
False. |
Then why the slaughter? Totally unprovoked? I think not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Obviously the Nazis were provoked into killing the Jews by previous oppression from Jews then, right?
Ethnic hatred need not have such a cause. |
The Nazis believed so, or so I understand they did.
If you live in a society where your ethnic background seems a hindrance to advancement, wheras other backgrounds seem more favoured, resentment and violence will follow.
Notice the use of the word "seem" in that sentance before you write me off...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
So now you've moved from the Tutsi's actually having oppressed the Hutus into maybe it seemed that way to the Hutus? |
Are you saying that both communities lived in peace and tranquility until one side decided to totally obliterate the other?
Because I don't think it quite started like that.
I believe it was inevitable. I believe the roots are many years old. And the idea that the "international community" can prevent such episodes is untrue.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That is quite a difference when it comes to your snide remarks towards che, n'est-ce pas? |
I resent being told what to think and when to feel guilty about events over which I had no input, or indeed interest.
Those that believe in revolution without bloodshed, however, should study R'wanda and try to understand why their idelogies are FALSE.
What do expect me to do? Give him a cookie?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruddy
Are you saying that both communities lived in peace and tranquility until one side decided to totally obliterate the other? |
Don't recall I did...where did this strawman come from?
Of course it goes back for ages. But that doesn't mean it was an equal ***-for-tat in which one side had been oppressing the other and then the former oppressors uprose to get revenge. That's not what happened in Rwanda at all. Have you read the history of the country, by any chance? You do realize the Hutus had been in power for decades, right? Spiffor mentioned this above, in fact...
Regardless, your claim that the international community could have done nothing to prevent the genocide rings false, in my opinion. Sounds like a cop out to avoid the guilt you claim you don't want to feel. Nothing is inevitable, and when people stand aside and shrug their shoulders when people systematically slaughter millions, that's not right.
I don't think you should feel personally guilty (I certainly don't), but I think another look at the world's lack of action here is appropriate, and that we should be doing more to stop these kinds of things.
quote:
Those that believe in revolution without bloodshed, however, should study R'wanda and try to understand why their idelogies are FALSE.
What do expect me to do? Give him a cookie? |
I expect you not to bait him with an irrelevant strawman. This had nothing to do with a revolution, it was genocide by those in power. Where is all this anti-revolutionary harping coming from, when it's irrelevant to the topic?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Regardless, your claim that the international community could have done nothing to prevent the genocide rings false, in my opinion. Sounds like a cop out to avoid the guilt you claim you don't want to feel. Nothing is inevitable, and when people stand aside and shrug their shoulders when people systematically slaughter millions, that's not right. |
AGREED. The thrust of Che's argument seems to be that orgs like the UN should wait for the bullets to start flying before doing anything.
For me, this sort of intervention is the last resort - and means the UN has already failed.
Rather than trying to prevent war, I think the UN should be geared towards eliminating the precursor of genocide - injustice.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I don't think you should feel personally guilty (I certainly don't), but I think another look at the world's lack of action here is appropriate, and that we should be doing more to stop these kinds of things. |
Such as? I say boycott goods made by those companies that thrive on regional conflicts and injustice.
However, most people will not unless their conscience is pricked at the least.
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I expect you not to bait him with an irrelevant strawman. This had nothing to do with a revolution, it was genocide by those in power. Where is all this anti-revolutionary harping coming from, when it's irrelevant to the topic? |
If people attempt to send me on a guilt trip, then they can expect a verbal kicking. Don't you think the genocide was sold as a "year zero" thing? "Let's have a new country - one without Hutu's / Tsutsis / Jews / Arabs / Christians / Texans".
Sounds like a revolution to me - and what is Che's ideology?
It's not evolutionary like mine. Stick an r in front.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VJ
Myanmar, not Burma. |
Wasn't it the murderous dictatorial generals who decided to change the name from Burma to Myanmar? If so, I'll use Burma.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
While it would be laudable if the international community was willing and prepared to step in to prevent genocides, the self-interests of the individual nation states will usually delay action too long for intervention to be effective.
As for the UN preventing "injustice" as one poster commented, how do you define that ?? While I will assume that almsot all societies would condemn genocide, I don't believe that you would ever get near unanimity on what constitutes an injustice .. .
There are also issues with national sovereignty. When does the actions of a state or a portion of its poulace cross the line such that violation of that sovereignty is warranted??
Who gets to make that decision?? What are the criteria? How many lives is an intervenor willing to lose?? If you know going in that you are likely to lose 1 American or French or British or Canadian for every 5 civilians that you save, is that worthwhile? In the case of conflicts that number centuries, when do you leave?? Stopping the killing is one thing . . . how do you prevent its resumption.
Edited for spelling and punctuation
Last edited by Flubber on 07-04-2004 at 22:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Geez -- there's too many cold-hearted, excessively rational Dr. Spocks on Apolyton who debate whether we should intervene against crimes against humanity. |
I don't know if I was one of your Mr Spocks but I'll ask you
If China began a genocide against some minority within their borders what would you do?? Intervention would kill more people than the genocide.
I don't debate whether people SHOULD intervene . . . obviously nations should attempt to prevent genocide.
But before committing your own people ( with some deaths) I don't think its unfair or excessively rational to ask
1. Is it within our capabilities to end this?
2. At what cost ( in lives)??
I also don't think its unfair to ask the question as to who gets to decide when an act is a genocide or a crime against humanity. What you view as a massacre, others may view as a pitched battle in a war
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2004 20:38
|