Thanks for that scintillating input, Stoid. You work hard on that?
Boris, my dear, offering me dirty pictures to look at as some kind of comfort is like offering some ice cream to someone who works at 31 Flavors.
Elvis: Listen, I had to slap you down once already for your continued attacks on me because I’m Canadian, and therefore apparently don’t have a right to an opinion on American subjects.
Time for you to wake up and look around - this is an INTERNATIONAL community on the Straight Dope. And American policies affect all of us. We have a right to speak, without snotty people like you constantly haranguing us.
Have you noticed how many Europeans on this board are on your side regarding Bush? I haven’t seen you attacking them for their lack of American credentials. Therefore, I must assume that this is just another form of ad-hominem attack, leveled at me not because I’m Canadian, but because you don’t like my opinions and don’t have substantive rebuttals to what I’m saying.
To answer your question, my understanding was that in this case Chretien actually tried to do something right. Canada was advocating military action, and had pledged 1500 soldiers to go to Rwanda. The issue eventually died in the security council, by all accounts largely due to the protestations of Madelaine Albright.
See? Even Canadian officials sometimes have a right to speak about American policies. Oh, and he’s no right-wing nutbar - Stephen Lewis was Canada’s Ambassador to the U.N., deputy director of UNICEF, and is now the U.N. special envoy to Africa.
Now go away and play nicely with your friends. It’s a lovely fall day outside.
Sam, your attempt to pin the blame for Rwanda on Bill Clinton is the most puerile drivel you have ever slobbered onto a page! Africa is a basket case of snakes, horror and disease. If ever there was a situation to drive good men to despair, it is Africa. American intervention is about the only calamity they have escaped.
At least in Bosnia there are roads, infrastructures, radio stations, etc. For the first time in memory, American soldiers were sent to protect the helpless, and I, for one, applaud the effort.
Where where you planning on landing these troops? Nigeria? Planning on parachuting them into the Godforsaken bush without logisitical support? They would have been swamped immediatley by the starving and desperate who would have sold thier children for a days worth of Meals Ready to Eat.
He had the courage to do what he could, against backstabbing opposition. Did I miss something in the news reports, something about Canadians boldly launching thier soldiers into Malaria World?
A disgraceful display, Sam. Shame, sir! Shame!
I don’t think it’s wrong to blame the US for not doing more in Rwanda, especially if the statements by Stephen Lewis above are correct. It is silly, however, to blame Clinton specifically since he was more or less following a long-standing bipartisan consensus. The GOP would have been all over him if he had sent American troops especially if some of them were killed.
What the hell are you on about? Canadians were FURIOUS with the U.S. over this. Did you see the quote above from Stephen Lewis?
As for Canada and our ‘boldness’, when it comes to peacekeeping Canada holds a backseat to NO ONE. We provide more peacekeeping troops per capita than any other country in the world. In fact, Canada has sent troops on more peacekeeping missions than anyone in the world.
http://www.edu.pe.ca/montaguehigh/grass/socialstudies/peacekeeping/missions.htm
Well yes, I guess you did. Allow me to quote from the New York Times:
Cite: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/canadian.htm
For shame, indeed. You should learn more about the issues before telling me that I’m disgraceful or shameful. Shame on you.
You seem to think that the Rwanda situation was just out of the control of the U.S. or the U.N. To the contrary, part of the reason for the genocide was that the Tutsi people were PROMISED military protection by the U.S. and the U.N. Those commitments were reneged on. Canada, much to its credit, was screaming about as loudly as is possible that a disaster was about to unfold.
To the shame of the United States, the mission was primarily thwarted by Madelaine Albright.
Oh, and guess who agrees with me that the Clinton administration shares much of the blame for what happened in Rwanda? Bill Clinton does. This is what he said in 1998:
Cite: Clinton says the U.S. and the world failed Rwandans - New York Times, 1998
ElvisL1ves: Happy now? We’ve brought Canada into the discussion.
Anything is “eminently doable at a relatively low cost” in the abstract. I was going to add to my original post, the question of where our base of operations and resupply would be for such an operation, but elucidator has done it for me.
How many troops would it have taken? How long does it take to move that size force from wherever they are to central Africa? Would they have gone in “preemptively” or only after the killing started? I.e. would the troops have gone into a relatively peaceful situation to maintain order, or into a civil war that had already begun in order to impose order? Were operational plans all prepared for such an operation, or would the military staff have had to burn the midnight oil, and how long would the planning take? How long to assemble the necessary transport and supplies? And, or course, how would we have decided that the mission had been accomplished and we could leave?
I don’t have much opportunity to see Bill, if you do then you are one up, at least. When you saw him did he mention whether he had run a military intervention past the Joint Chiefs? Or ditto with any Congressional leaders?
CyberPundit: That is a very valid criticism. In fact, in one of the Presidential debates I seem to remember that George Bush said that he would have done the same thing in Rwanda as Clinton did. And guaranteed, the Republicans would have climbed all over the Clinton administration. There is plenty of blame to go around.
*Originally posted by Stoid *
**Boris, my dear, offering me dirty pictures to look at as some kind of comfort is like offering some ice cream to someone who works at 31 Flavors. **
Well, sure, but not many pictures of nekkid Texans, 'cause we’re a shy and self-effacing lot, by and large.
Or, as the virgin cowboy said “I’m a stranger to these parts, ma’am.”
The other punch line is “Yeah, but you picked the ugly one!”
Do you know how many troops were needed in Rwanda? ONE DIVISION. That’s all. Canada was willing to lead it. Canada was prepared to provide a disproportionate number of troops. It would have been a UN operation, so the U.S. would have only have had to provide maybe a couple of thousand troops. A drop in the bucket.
Remember, they weren’t invading a country, or defending against armored divisions. They were supposed to protect frightened men, women, and children against mobs armed with machetes and picks. The cost of the operation would have been trivial.
COOL BEANS! The speech is on CSPAN now.
Superb speech. Inspirational message. I think I actually miss Bill Clinton.
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Do you know how many troops were needed in Rwanda? ONE DIVISION. That’s all. Canada was willing to lead it. Canada was prepared to provide a disproportionate number of troops. It would have been a UN operation, so the U.S. would have only have had to provide maybe a couple of thousand troops. A drop in the bucket.Remember, they weren’t invading a country, or defending against armored divisions. They were supposed to protect frightened men, women, and children against mobs armed with machetes and picks. The cost of the operation would have been trivial. **
Sure. If you say so it must be true.
By the way, in the dash across Germany at the end of WWII the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Armored division occupied about 70 miles of road according to historian Cornelius Ryan in The Last Battle
What’s your point?
My comment about needing one division is not conjecture on my part - it was the Canadian plan of action. I posted cites to it. From what I can tell, it was about right. Like I said, they were keeping the peace from a mob, not fighting an army.
What’s your point?
My comment about needing one division is not conjecture on my part - it was the Canadian plan of action. I posted cites to it. From what I can tell, it was about right. Like I said, they were keeping the peace from a mob, not fighting an army.
The dodging and obfuscation from Clinton fans is amazing. The screwup in Rwanda is a matter of public record. Partisan politics at its very worst; a Clinton or Bush fan is little different from a fan of a handsome quarterback, all drooling adoration and no brains.
Clinton talks a good game. As President, he did almost nothing particularly impressive. He’s a smart man but a moral coward of the first order (Four words that prove his cowardice: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) whose only interest was acquiring and exercising personal power. He betrayed pretty much every interest that got him elected, coasted, and solved not a single problem, and yet people seem to think he was some sort of leader. Amazing.
Bush is a crappy President too, but for different reasons. I can’t believe any intelligent person would be fooled by either, but some people are suckers for a nice suit and a frowny face.
*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**What’s your point?My comment about needing one division is not conjecture on my part - it was the Canadian plan of action. I posted cites to it. From what I can tell, it was about right. Like I said, they were keeping the peace from a mob, not fighting an army. **
My point was that a division is a large unit that requires a lot of logistics. Several people here seem to be unaware of that. “We only needed to send a division” sounds so simple that any child could do it.
If the Canadians had a plan of action and it was so simple and inexpensive why didn’t they do the job? Surely even Clinton would have helped them get UN support.
This whole thing about Rwanda is a result of your hijack post which, as RedFury noted, criticized Clinton for intervening in Serbia and not intervening in Rwanda. It sounded like an implication that Clinton shouldn’t have made that particular speech because he didn’t jump into Rwanda.
Quote:
“Let’s also remember that his own administration went against the security council to intervene in Serbia. And his administration disgracefully left 800,000 people in Rwanda to be hacked to death with machetes and picks. I’m still shocked that that disaster didn’t leave more of a taint on the Clinton administration.”
So what was the point of this off topic comment?
RickJay
Bush is a crappy President too, but for different reasons. I can’t believe any intelligent person would be fooled by either, but some people are suckers for a nice suit and a frowny face.
Fooled? I wouldn’t characterize my feelings for the person that holds this office this way. I have to say that I am a “fan”. I see the flaws that are most obvious. However, I respect the efforts and sacrifices that are made by those that are elected to serve.
Each of these men bring both strengths and weaknesses to the office. This is fact.
Can we get off the Rwanda red herring?
Clinton sent troops to Haiti, the Republicans screamed bloody murder. Clinton sent troops to the Balkans, Republicans screamed bloody murder. Clinton fired missiles at Osama bin Laden, Republicans screamed “Wag the dog!”
Now how do you suppose Republicans (then the majority in both houses of Congress) would have reacted if Clinton had sent troops to Rwanda?
Politics is indeed the art of the possible.
My error on one point. In '94, the Democrats still hald the House (barely). It was an election year, and Democrats were rightly nervous. (You remember the “Contract with America.”)
Clinton would have had no support from either Republicans in Congress or from Democrats trying to hang onto their seats.