Forgive me for posting on such a touchy subject but I'm really curious about this specific subject.

I watched that film called "Hotel Rwanda" a week ago and all I can say that it stirred some emotions. One of the most strongest emotions I felt was anger. I was angry at the western countries for not doing enough to help those refugees. I'm wondering why couldn't the U.N airlift those refugees in the hotel to somewhere safe. Im wondering why could'nt more soldiers and U.N peace keepers be sent to Rwanda (it seems clearly evident in the film that the Hutu's were "scared" of the western forces for the time they were there. I have not at all researched this subject properly. I'm actually researching some right now. But so far I only have the film to go back on. Maybe I have written this thread in a wrong and sarcastic manner. I can assure you that I have not intended to do any of that.

But I just want to try and understand the situation. I hope someone can answer my wondering queries. Or maybe if they could refer me to a website. I'm also looking around for a website also. I am no avid historian, its just that this subject is intresting and if anyone can explain or point me in the right direction that would be great 

                             Your Friend, Ace
           

With anyone but the dutch and US bombers turning back before they even got in range of bombing the artillery there... we were not the only ones responsible

Quote:

Nobody is pointing a finger at the US. This is a job for the UN which appears increasingly toothless nowadays & takes an eternity to come to a decision. I haven't seen this film & although I recall it happening I admit to not knowing as much about these horrific events as I should. The facts are that an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. That's genocide on a massive scale & yet the West stood by & allowed it to happen. I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent it but similar things are happening in some parts of the world right now. In most cases nobody seems to care.

PS. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

I know no one here is pointing fingers at the US but since the UN is worthless at stopping this kind of thing some people a) blame the US for doing nothing when it should have done something or b) blame the US for acting when it should have waited for the UN to do something.

As I said, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Quote:
And yet they expect South Africa to do something. Its sit on backside while twiddling thumbs again. So many problems could be sorted by perhaps actually doing something in that country.

Quote:

History is itself political but I try to steer clear of discussing current events. I admit to not being aware of any criticism of the US over Rwanda & have no way of knowing if what you quoted has any truth to it. Maybe we could all have done more. Somehow this never seems to happen until it's too late.

Webb, lots of countries are in the same position. The UK are being criticised because they are not doing much with Zimbabwe, a country where thousands of people who supported the opposition to mugabe, were just made homeless because of it. At the moment its just talk between officials, and people want more done. But you can bet your bottom dollar, if we were to send a peacekeeping force, either to stabilise the place or remove mugabe, it would be endless anti-war rallies from those with their heads up their backsides thinking the place will get better without our help, because really they dont know what they are talking about, but see this as an opportunity to perhaps be heard on tv, or look caring to their friends.

the US and UN are not the same thing.

Quote:


The USA have the reputation of a 'world police'. They acted in 1991, so why not in 1993, when the atrocities in Rwanda took place? Maybe because they were already involved in Somalia?

Quote:


No, you haven't pissed me off, but thanks for your concern.

So is it the president as in  he himself who dictates the policy or the combined efforts of the party and DFAT ?


A.

Quote:


Naturally,  it isn't as simple as "Do as I say ...", but the president sets the tone of the foreign policy, and the legislative  branch votes the monies with which to execute the policy.  The president does have certain "executive powers" to issue and implement directives and commands.  There's a constant battle between the legislative branch (and not necessarily the just by the "opposition") to direct the president's foreign policy, and the executive branch, charged with conducting foreign policy.  And even within the executive branch, there's always a struggle between the executive office (President) and the State Dept. (aka Foreign Office) as to who best implements policy/diplomacy...

Then of course, the media (left, middle, right) and the "people" are always telling the "government" what to do....

Sort of like everywhere else, I guess.