Hotel Rwanda

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mom_of_one
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mom_of_one

Guest
I saw this movie today and I cried my eyes out. It was horrible! I sat there wishing that Jesus would come back, that I could adopt some orphans, and that I could join the Red Cross. I also felt very helpless in the face of such suffering-there’s so much and I can do so little about anyone’s suffering. (I’m the fixer type. It’s very hard for me to just sit still and pray.) Anyway, I wanted to post this here because I have some questions about the situation in Rwanda.

I know that the fighting that the movie was portraying was over in 1994. What I want to know is:

#1 Why didn’t America send troops? Or any other country, for that matter?
**#2 One of the U.N. soldiers claimed to the main character, Paul, that this was about rascism(sp?). The world didn’t care about them because they were black. True? Partially true? Or is that just Hollywood spicing it up for the movie? **
Thanks. Any info would be much appreciated.
 
Momofone:
I saw this movie today and I cried my eyes out. It was horrible! I sat there wishing that Jesus would come back, that I could adopt some orphans, and that I could join the Red Cross. I also felt very helpless in the face of such suffering-there’s so much and I can do so little about anyone’s suffering. (I’m the fixer type. It’s very hard for me to just sit still and pray.) Anyway, I wanted to post this here because I have some questions about the situation in Rwanda.

I know that the fighting that the movie was portraying was over in 1994. What I want to know is:

#1 Why didn’t America send troops? Or any other country, for that matter?
**#2 One of the U.N. soldiers claimed to the main character, Paul, that this was about rascism(sp?). The world didn’t care about them because they were black. True? Partially true? Or is that just Hollywood spicing it up for the movie? **
Thanks. Any info would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Momofone:

The truth in this instance is even worse than the allegations. I’ll start from the beginning, and from memopry, and see how far I get before I have to close down.

In 1993, we had the disaster in Somalia. A lot of what contributed to that disaster was a President who kept on asking the military to do more and more but kept on turning down their requests for the equipment they felt they needed to do the new, enhanced missions (Spectre gunships, light and heavy armor, helicopter gunships and attack helicoptors).

After the disaster (American servicemen’s bodies were desecrated and dragged through the streets of Somalia), President Clinton ordered the American military to leave.

It turns out that was Al-Queda’s first victory over the USA!

After President Clinton issued that set of orders, he ordered US troops on peacekeeping missions all over the place (including in RWANDA where a fragile peace had been in place for 2 years) to stand down and to assume a much more defensive posture. and, Then he ordered them to LEAVE.

Kofi Anon (The present President of the UN) was the Head of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time. Seeing the military that was backing the UN peacekeepers up, was leaving him high and dry, he ordered the UN to “Stand-Down” and to stop returning fire unless they themselves were fired upon. Those orders led to an exodus of the peacekeeprs which led to an exudus of the humanitarian organizations.

On top of that, one side in Rwanda was MUSLIM. The other side was Christian. The side that had been in power and got slaughtered were CHRISTIAN Tutsis, and those who “Got even” were Muslim “Hutus” who slaughtered some 800,000 of their neighbors in 6 months.

Because the UN peacekeepers had DISARMED the Tutsis and then fled the scene themselves, The Hutus had almost NO opposition as they were doing this.

That situation was aweful.

Continued on next post, Michael
 
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST…

Momofone, the situations which have been going on now for most of the 1990’s in the Congo, in Southern Sudan and in Zimbabwe dwarf it. More than 4 million Africans have been slaughtered in Civil war in the Congo, another 2 million + have been butchered in Sudan. Most of thse have been Christians and Animist who have been slaughtered in by Islamist Militia and government forces from Khartoom. and, 350,000 Black African Christians and Animists have been sold into SLAVERY as prizes of war by those militias and the government troops. Zimbabwe was once the “Breadbasket of Africa”. The country has been taken ober by bands of roving thugs who’ve so impaired it’s ability to grow and transport food that the country is on “Emergency Rations”, and those who didn’t die in the Civil strife are in danger of dying by starvation.

Momofone, I’m sure that race had something to do with the West and world’s enemic response to those outrages in Africa. I’m also sure that, in at least 3 of the cases, the identity of the perpetrators (a very perverse form of bigotry) had something to do with the NON-response (Rwanda and Sudan- Muslims, Zimbabwe - Black - according the present leaders of So. Africa).

Race has also had a lot to do with the lack of reporting and the underrporting of these outrages. That, and the fact that most reporters are lazy and risk averse. Couple that with the fact that most of the world’s reporters didn’t really care about the people, or were overwhelmed by the enormity of the suffering, and get what we got.

It seems that the only ones who cared about these people have been the crazies I’m going to tell you about, the Catholic Church the TAC (We have a few martyrs from these situations) and George Bush (whenever he can stop listening to the vipers over at State)

I know of a group of doctors and other medical personnel who go into areas that are so dangerous that the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders leave (Doctors without Borders haven’t been in Southern Sudan for most of the last 15 years - These guys have).

If you want, I can post their info later when the Senate thing is over and I have some time to dig. I also have info on Hatzallah which does the same thing in Israel when the Security Forces won’t allow Mogen David Edom in because things are still too dangerous.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, Courage is the Cardinal Virtue that makes all the other ones worthwhile.

I hope this answered your question.

Remembr to pray for the souls of all the people who died and for their murderers. Try this series of prayers - One of the Orthodox Brothers gave them to me:

users.sisqtel.net/williams/akathist-repose.html

May God richly bless you. Michael
 
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST…

Momofone, the situations which have been going on now for most of the 1990’s in the Congo, in Southern Sudan and in Zimbabwe dwarf it. More than 4 million Africans have been slaughtered in Civil war in the Congo, another 2 million + have been butchered in Sudan. Most of thse have been Christians and Animist who have been slaughtered in by Islamist Militia and government forces from Khartoom. and, 350,000 Black African Christians and Animists have been sold into SLAVERY as prizes of war by those militias and the government troops. Zimbabwe was once the “Breadbasket of Africa”. The country has been taken ober by bands of roving thugs who’ve so impaired it’s ability to grow and transport food that the country is on “Emergency Rations”, and those who didn’t die in the Civil strife are in danger of dying by starvation.

Momofone, I’m sure that race had something to do with the West and world’s enemic response to those outrages in Africa. I’m also sure that, in at least 3 of the cases, the identity of the perpetrators (a very perverse form of bigotry) had something to do with the NON-response (Rwanda and Sudan- Muslims, Zimbabwe - Black - according the present leaders of So. Africa).

Race has also had a lot to do with the lack of reporting and the underrporting of these outrages. That, and the fact that most reporters are lazy and risk averse. Couple that with the fact that most of the world’s reporters didn’t really care about the people, or were overwhelmed by the enormity of the suffering, and get what we got.

It seems that the only ones who cared about these people have been the crazies I’m going to tell you about, the Catholic Church the TAC (We have a few martyrs from these situations) and George Bush (whenever he can stop listening to the vipers over at State)

I know of a group of doctors and other medical personnel who go into areas that are so dangerous that the Red Cross and Doctors without Borders leave (Doctors without Borders haven’t been in Southern Sudan for most of the last 15 years - These guys have).

If you want, I can post their info later when the Senate thing is over and I have some time to dig. I also have info on Hatzallah which does the same thing in Israel when the Security Forces won’t allow Mogen David Edom in because things are still too dangerous.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, Courage is the Cardinal Virtue that makes all the other ones worthwhile.

I hope this answered your question.

Remember to pray for the souls of all the people who died and for their murderers. Try this series of prayers - One of the Orthodox Brothers gave them to me:

users.sisqtel.net/williams/akathist-repose.html

May God richly bless you. Michael
 
The head of the UN Peacekeeping force was Canadian: Lt Gen Romeo Dallaire. There are several reasons that the genocide was unchecked.

a) The UN is a clunky, outdated, bureaucratic, ineffectual mechanism. If Canadian soldiers were not so good at doing what soldiers around the world are forbidden to do (scrounging) nothing at all would have been done. We got to be that good because our government has a history of hanging us out to dry. Americans talk about not having the latest tanks or jeeps. Canadians don’t even have decent boots. You can see a Canadian from a mile away by his or her bright green ‘camouflage’ uniforms. We can’t even get our equipment to work. Our seaking helicopters regularly just drop out of the sky and crash. Sometimes our medics are so understaffed they can’t get to wounded soldiers.

b) Requisitions for supplies got lost in the UN. Even Dallaire and the peacekeepers were eating rotten food from corrupted tins. Eventually some of Dallaires own friends in Canada ‘snuck’ some food and supplies into Rwanda.

c) Many countries have not been paying their fees to the UN. Most notable among these countries is the U.S. Without operational money, nothing gets done.

d) Dallaires troops were designated as peacekeepers. Therefore they could not use force to put down conflicts. Dallaire begged for a designation change and finally got one. But the stupid UN sent in the Belgian troops as peace enforcers. The Belgians were the old colonial power in Rwanda: racism was a given, low morale was a given, the soldiers were just plain scared out of their pants.

e) Dallaire made a stink. He was wise enough to hook in some international media. However, the liberal do-goodniks are only out on the streets protesting when their peace is disturbed. They don’t give a darn about other people’s peace. And sure it was racist. Do you think the liberals would have sat down for a minute if the people being slaughtered were white?

Dallaire finally knew that he was suffering from war stress syndrome and had himself relieved of duty. Every once in a while the police would find him disoriented and trying to commit suicide in some park in Hull Quebec. He is recovered now and just finished a secondment to Harvard where he taught mulilateralism.

The genocide has not ceased. It continues as I write. Dallaire has written a book entitled Shake Hands with the Devil. I recommend it. It is however a very difficult read. It is hard to imagine people being so brutal and other people being so callous and hard-hearted. There is a documentary out on this which was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and another film is being made coming out this September.
 
that is a great movie. Very sad.

Unfortunatly, the most direct and offensive quote was the truest, “They dont care about you, you are an African, not even a n*****”
 
It takes some time to go village to village and slaughter 800,000 people with rifles and knives. The world stood by silently while this happened.

Should we be the world’s policeman? Yes, in some cases, we should. Because there is no one else. And because power brings responsibility.
 
Ani:

Dallaire was the head of the PEACEKEEPING FORCE.

I was refering to the man who was over him. I can get you the link if it’s that import, but Dallaire was a MILITARY LEADER taking his ORDERS from a UN CIVILIAN AUTHORITY. That person was Kofi Anon, now the Secretary General of the UN.
Ani Ibi:
The head of the UN Peacekeeping force was Canadian: Lt Gen Romeo Dallaire. There are several reasons that the genocide was unchecked.

a) The UN is a clunky, outdated, bureaucratic, ineffectual mechanism. If Canadian soldiers were not so good at doing what soldiers around the world are forbidden to do (scrounging) nothing at all would have been done. We got to be that good because our government has a history of hanging us out to dry. Americans talk about not having the latest tanks or jeeps. Canadians don’t even have decent boots. You can see a Canadian from a mile away by his or her bright green ‘camouflage’ uniforms. We can’t even get our equipment to work. Our seaking helicopters regularly just drop out of the sky and crash. Sometimes our medics are so understaffed they can’t get to wounded soldiers.

b) Requisitions for supplies got lost in the UN. Even Dallaire and the peacekeepers were eating rotten food from corrupted tins. Eventually some of Dallaires own friends in Canada ‘snuck’ some food and supplies into Rwanda.

c) Many countries have not been paying their fees to the UN. Most notable among these countries is the U.S. Without operational money, nothing gets done.

d) Dallaires troops were designated as peacekeepers. Therefore they could not use force to put down conflicts. Dallaire begged for a designation change and finally got one. But the stupid UN sent in the Belgian troops as peace enforcers. The Belgians were the old colonial power in Rwanda: racism was a given, low morale was a given, the soldiers were just plain scared out of their pants.

e) Dallaire made a stink. He was wise enough to hook in some international media. However, the liberal do-goodniks are only out on the streets protesting when their peace is disturbed. They don’t give a darn about other people’s peace. And sure it was racist. Do you think the liberals would have sat down for a minute if the people being slaughtered were white?

Dallaire finally knew that he was suffering from war stress syndrome and had himself relieved of duty. Every once in a while the police would find him disoriented and trying to commit suicide in some park in Hull Quebec. He is recovered now and just finished a secondment to Harvard where he taught mulilateralism.

The genocide has not ceased. It continues as I write. Dallaire has written a book entitled Shake Hands with the Devil. I recommend it. It is however a very difficult read. It is hard to imagine people being so brutal and other people being so callous and hard-hearted. There is a documentary out on this which was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and another film is being made coming out this September.
Click to expand...
It was Kofi Anon who ordered Dallaire’s forces to “STAND-DOWN” after the American contingent left in the wake of the fiasco in Somalia.

I’m sorry that so may have blamed Dallaire, when other people are equally, if not more responsible for what happened in Rowanda. There was plenty of blame to go around on this one, and far too little credit, because far too little credit was earned.

I must admit that I’m even more horrified by the Genocide in Sudan, because the UN can’t even bering itself to call that mass slaughter and slavery “Genocide” for fear of offending the perpetrators and their friends.

And, maybe our best place really is on our knees asking for God’s intervention in Human History to relieve Human Suffering.

In Canada, the voters may want to start telling the politicians that shorting the military on supplies gets good and decent people killed, and that’s never right no matter what one’s ideology.

May God richly bless those who act to save His Little Ones. Michael
 
40.png
JimG:
It takes some time to go village to village and slaughter 800,000 people with rifles and knives. The world stood by silently while this happened.

Should we be the world’s policeman? Yes, in some cases, we should. Because there is no one else. And because power brings responsibility.
Click to expand...
Jim:

There were SEVERAL MOBS OF HUTUS going from village to village, or more properly, from UN “Safe Zone” to UN “Safe Zone”. The TUTSIS in these UN “Safe Zones” had been disarmed by the UN (under the orders of Kofi Anon) under the misapprehension that the UN Peacekeepers WOULDN’T LEAVE!

Well, when the UN Peacekeepers left, they rejected calls by the TUTSIS, who know what their neighbors would do, to allow the TUTSIS TO TAKE THEIR ARMS BACK! so, When the ARMED HUTU MOBS came upon the defenceless, UNARMED TUTSIS at the UN “Safe Zones”, they slaughtered them like SHEEP WITHOUT SHEPHERD OR SHEEPDOG!

Jim, it only took the HUTUS 6 months to do their deadly task. the Genocide of the Khmer Rouge took 2-1/2 years. That in Sudan has taken 17 years.

President Clinton may well be the most skilled politician of our age. After the First Gulf War, he came to the conclusion the worl would never back the US in exercisiong the type of force that would have been need to stop the Roaandan Genocide. President Clinton concluded the sight of American troops armed with “hyper-weapons” mowing down Muslim HUTUS armed with Machetes, rifles and pistols would lead to riots all across the Islamic World and, possibly, in the rest of the world as well, even if it were PROVEN that the Americans using the “hyper-weapons” were defending UNARMED WOMEN AND CHILDREN from the Muslim HUTUS!

President Clinton also concluded that Americans would never accept the type of casualties that sticking on the ground and “Slugging it Out” (not using out "Hyper-weapons-but using infantry and light armor) with such a mob would entail. That’s essentially what happened in Somalia, because of Clinton’s refual to deploy the American “hyperweapons” in support of the expanded mission).

I can’t argue with President Clinton’s conclusion about worldwide reaction in the first case - The world loved this guy.

I also can’t argue with his conclusion about the American aversion to Casualties when the mission was inadiquately explained and it was clear the Chief Executive cared more about world opinion about him than reducing those casualties among his soldiers.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see effective interventions happening in those conditions, not unless they ahve some sort of INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT, Which the mission for Rowanda didn’t.

Jim, if President Clinton had cared more for our soldiers’ welfare than for his image abroad, and had not been averse to sending the “hyper-weapons” which give us such a technological advantage over our enemies and would have allowed our soldiers to use tose weapons as designed, the dirst ferw weeks would have been a bloodbath for the HUTUS.

But, once they saw that they weren’t going to be able to do anything but die and lose battles, I believe the Hutus would have given utp trying to slaughter their neighbors. We then would have been stuck enforcing an ARMED peace by OCCUPATION for 5 or 7 years.

A LOT fewer people would have died. and Africa would be a LOT more stable in the LONG-RUN as MOBS and THUGS saw that we would intervene and STAY for the COMMON GOOD.

Jim, would you be willing to pay for the expense and the American Casualties and deal with the hatred and vitriol from abroad, to do this?

May God richly bless those who act to save His Little Ones. Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
In Canada, the voters may want to start telling the politicians that shorting the military on supplies gets good and decent people killed, and that’s never right no matter what one’s ideology.
Click to expand...
Ha! Some Canadians do this regularly, including me. Most Canadians are ignorant or couldn’t be bothered. Canadian exists under the military umbrella of the U.S. The liberals here strut around being peaceniks and trashing Americans. Lack of gratitude is such an unbecoming trait. The only thing that is going to change this is if Americans start speaking up and asking Canada to pay the piper.

By the way thank you for adding the names of the four Canadian friendly fire casualties to your Afghanistan memorial. I always thought that part of that problem was caused by Canadians not having the proper communications equipment.
 
The U.N. was just plain stupid and corrupt sending in the Belgian troops as PEACE ENFORCERS.
 
I also have seen the movie…and it was so unbeleivable in all of its cruelty. I was stunned and paralysed by such cruelty of man against man. Iraq does not hold a candle to this in my eyes. :crying:

This is amost informative read…is there anything we could do, besides prayer for this?

Blessings,
Shoshana
 
Traditional Ang:
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see effective interventions happening in those conditions, not unless they have some sort of INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT, Which the mission for Rowanda didn’t.

. . . . if President Clinton had cared more for our soldiers’ welfare than for his image abroad, and had not been averse to sending the “hyper-weapons” which give us such a technological advantage over our enemies and would have allowed our soldiers to use tose weapons as designed, the dirst ferw weeks would have been a bloodbath for the HUTUS.

But, once they saw that they weren’t going to be able to do anything but die and lose battles, I believe the Hutus would have given utp trying to slaughter their neighbors. We then would have been stuck enforcing an ARMED peace by OCCUPATION for 5 or 7 years.

A LOT fewer people would have died. and Africa would be a LOT more stable in the LONG-RUN as MOBS and THUGS saw that we would intervene and STAY for the COMMON GOOD.

Jim, would you be willing to pay for the expense and the American Casualties and deal with the hatred and vitriol from abroad, to do this?
Click to expand...
You pose a difficult question. According to your scenario, intervention and occupation would have resulted in fewer deaths and more stability in the long run.

The U.S. seems to get hatred and vitriol from abroad no matter what we do, so perhaps the more just course would have been to come to the aid of the victims of genocide. Pres. Clinton was willing to intervene in Bosnia but not in Africa. The American people in general have a heavily isolationist side, so the main problem with intervention would probably be domestic politics rather than geopolitics.

Colonialism is always roundly condemned. But once the colonial powers are gone, the international community seems to have no problem with genocide as long as it is not the colonial powers doing it. ‘It’s not genocide–it’s just self-determination!’

I am not an expert on foreign relations, but it would seem that the key to an interventionist policy, as far as keeping the price tag as low as possible, would be to intervene early and often. Fight small actions to avoid larger actions. After all, we’ve been in Korea for 50 years, and that war’s still not over.
 
Here’s what our Holy Father has to contribute from Zenith news.

VATICAN CITY, MAY 22, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI encouraged the bishops of Rwanda to work tirelessly to instill the Gospel in their nation which was torn by genocide a decade ago.

The Pope directed this message to the Rwandan bishops whom he met Saturday at the conclusion of their five-yearly visit to the Holy See.

In response to the words addressed to him on behalf of the prelates by Bishop Alexis Habiyambere, president of the Rwandan episcopal conference, Benedict XVI expressed words of hope for the citizens “harshly tried by the 1994 genocide and its consequences.”

The tragedy broke out April 7 that year, when clashes took place between Hutus and Tutsis. In just three months, 800,000 people were massacred and 3 million fled the country.

The Holy Father appealed to Rwandan Catholics to “remain firm in the faith, persevere in the hope that the risen Christ gives, overcoming all temptations to discouragement.”

“To work actively in peace and reconciliation, you must give preference in particular to a pastoral program of closeness, founded on the commitment of small lay communities in the Church’s missionary pastoral endeavor in harmony with pastors,” he told the bishops.

Warns of sects

Benedict XVI continued: “I encourage you to support these communities so that the faithful will accept the truths of faith and its exigencies, developing in this way a more intense ecclesial and spiritual life, without allowing any falling away from the Gospel of Christ, in particular, because of the numerous sects present in the country.”

About 48% of the central African nation’s 8.4 million inhabitants are Catholics.

The Pope told the bishops: “Work tirelessly so that the Gospel will penetrate ever more profoundly in the heart and life of believers, inviting the faithful to assume increasingly their responsibility in society, in particular in the field of the economy and politics, with a moral sense nourished by the Gospel and the social doctrine of the Church.”
 
Rosalinda: Thanks for that post about the Holy Father and the Rwandan bishops. His encouragement of them is hopeful. What a burden it must be to be Pope.
 
Jim:

ONE BIG reason Clinton intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo is that NATO and the EU both supported both interventions and supplied bases, equipment, munitions and troops to the best of their ability.

The NATO support was big, because it meant that we didn’t have to fight off the neighbors in order to come to the aid of the people in those situations.

That’s NOT the way it would have been in Rowanda, Sudan, the Congo, or Zimbabwe. In fact, it would have been the exact OPPOSITE of Bosnia and Kosovo as far as support in all of those places.
40.png
JimG:
You pose a difficult question. According to your scenario, intervention and occupation would have resulted in fewer deaths and more stability in the long run.

The U.S. seems to get hatred and vitriol from abroad no matter what we do, so perhaps the more just course would have been to come to the aid of the victims of genocide. Pres. Clinton was willing to intervene in Bosnia but not in Africa. The American people in general have a heavily isolationist side, so the main problem with intervention would probably be domestic politics rather than geopolitics.

Colonialism is always roundly condemned. But once the colonial powers are gone, the international community seems to have no problem with genocide as long as it is not the colonial powers doing it. ‘It’s not genocide–it’s just self-determination!’

I am not an expert on foreign relations, but it would seem that the key to an interventionist policy, as far as keeping the price tag as low as possible, would be to intervene early and often. Fight small actions to avoid larger actions. After all, we’ve been in Korea for 50 years, and that war’s still not over.
Click to expand...
The NATO - EU support also determined the American response to both situations, which relied heavily an AIR POWER and the High Tech Weapons I mentioned earlier.

The infrastructure of Serbia was devastated, as was that of the rest of Yugoslavia. In Kosovo, we succeeded in changing who the perpetrators and victims were, so that Muslim Mobs now destrpy Serb Christian villages while UN peackeepers watch. So, I don’t believe we succeeded in fixing the situation.

Kristallnacht in Kosovo - The burning of churches raises questions about independence.
March 19, 2004, 8:42 a.m. By Damjan de Krnjevic-Miskovic
nationalreview.com/comment/krnjevicmiskovic200403190842.asp

Not only do we need to have LOCAL INTERNATIONAL support, but WE need to understand why we’re there and have a plan for remedying the hatreds that brought about the conflict in the first place.

We also need to be ready to repair the INFRASTUCTURE of our “ENEMIES” as we did in WW II. I really don’t thing the politicians have any grasp at how much THE POST WAR PERIOD after WW II contributed towards the LENGTH and DEPTH of the Peace between the countries involved.

Another thing is that, with few exceptions, most of the young people in those countries aren’t taught just how much we contributed to their societies, and, because of that, most are pretty ungrateful, envious and angry towards us.

This is a case were spending some money teaching the truth would benefit everybody quite a bit. PEOPLE aren’t happy or cooperative who are INGRATES. Whereas, most are happier and more cooperative who have reason to be GRATEFUL!

SO, PART OF THE PROCESS WILL BE EDUCATIONAL and that will require real money, so that people understand what we’re doing and why.

One thing we have to realize is this, we can’t complain when a President starts intervening to set Captives Free and to stop Genocides because we don’t like his Political Ideology. NOT, if we want him to intervene in those situations.

Let’s see if the situations in Sudan, Lebanon, Libya and Zaire are resolved…

May God richly bless those who act to save His Little Ones. Michael
 
40.png
JimG:
The U.S. seems to get hatred and vitriol from abroad no matter what we do.
Click to expand...
Anti-americanism does exist. However the situation in Rwanda was an atrocity of passing the buck. The U.S. should have paid its UN dues. However, even with a robust budget the UN has grown corrupt and ineffectual.

What truly made me gag was Oprah Winfrey’s self-righteous ‘intervention.’ Like, 12 years after the fact she sends her reporter over and then surprise surprise reports the genocide as being ‘racist.’ Not a mention of Dallaire. Big praises for Hotel Rwanda but not a mention of Dallaire’s book or the two documentaries coming out on him, even just the first documentary loudly praised by Robert Redford at the Sundance film festival.

Wesley Clark encountered the same obstacles in Europe. He had to do the same things that Dallaire did. Only difference is that Dallaire didn’t have air power.
 
40.png
Rosalinda:
Here’s what our Holy Father has to contribute from Zenith news.

VATICAN CITY, MAY 22, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI encouraged the bishops of Rwanda to work tirelessly to instill the Gospel in their nation which was torn by genocide a decade ago.

The Pope directed this message to the Rwandan bishops whom he met Saturday at the conclusion of their five-yearly visit to the Holy See.

In response to the words addressed to him on behalf of the prelates by Bishop Alexis Habiyambere, president of the Rwandan episcopal conference, Benedict XVI expressed words of hope for the citizens “harshly tried by the 1994 genocide and its consequences.”

The tragedy broke out April 7 that year, when clashes took place between Hutus and Tutsis. In just three months, 800,000 people were massacred and 3 million fled the country.

The Holy Father appealed to Rwandan Catholics to “remain firm in the faith, persevere in the hope that the risen Christ gives, overcoming all temptations to discouragement.”

“To work actively in peace and reconciliation, you must give preference in particular to a pastoral program of closeness, founded on the commitment of small lay communities in the Church’s missionary pastoral endeavor in harmony with pastors,” he told the bishops.

Warns of sects

Benedict XVI continued: “I encourage you to support these communities so that the faithful will accept the truths of faith and its exigencies, developing in this way a more intense ecclesial and spiritual life, without allowing any falling away from the Gospel of Christ, in particular, because of the numerous sects present in the country.”

About 48% of the central African nation’s 8.4 million inhabitants are Catholics.

The Pope told the bishops: “Work tirelessly so that the Gospel will penetrate ever more profoundly in the heart and life of believers, inviting the faithful to assume increasingly their responsibility in society, in particular in the field of the economy and politics, with a moral sense nourished by the Gospel and the social doctrine of the Church.”
Click to expand...
Hello Rosalinda,

So are we to conclude that Pope Benedict sees no need for international military force in the area? I never heard any indication from Pope John Paul II that international military force and war were needed in the area in 1994 to protect the people. Are we clear that Church leaders did not and do not call for acts of war from international forces in these situations? Are we clear that Rawanda, according to the Church, was simply a failure of the Church to spread the gospel in the area.

Popes have tirelessly condemned America in all her military actions around the world including Kosovo. Do Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict proclaim that international forces did the wrong thing in not going to war in Rawanda to protect the innocent? I think that Popes have done a great missdeed to the world in their overly aggressive policy to condemn all military action to look righteous. They have turned the world into anti-war, anti American pacifist at all costs. This has been a great disservice to those in the world who need international troop protection.
 
Steven Merten:
Hello Rosalinda,

So are we to conclude that Pope Benedict sees no need for international military force in the area? I never heard any indication from Pope John Paul II that international military force and war were needed in the area in 1994 to protect the people. Are we clear that Church leaders did not and do not call for acts of war from international forces in these situations? Are we clear that Rawanda, according to the Church, was simply a failure of the Church to spread the gospel in the area.

Popes have tirelessly condemned America in all her military actions around the world including Kosovo. Do Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict proclaim that international forces did the wrong thing in not going to war in Rawanda to protect the innocent? I think that Popes have done a great missdeed to the world in their overly aggressive policy to condemn all military action to look righteous. They have turned the world into anti-war, anti American pacifist at all costs. This has been a great disservice to those in the world who need international troop protection.
Click to expand...
Steve:

I see nothing in the Pope’s statements, implied or otherwise, that would have him say what you’re saying. The Pope did not say that what happened in was simply a failure of the Church to spread the gospel in the area."Neither did he condemn the use of peocekeepers there.

Most of the statements I’ve reen relating to Kososvo have had to do either with our METHOD of intervention and what was a seemingly disproportionate number of civilian casualties. I think he could also have legitimately taken issue with all the churches burned by Muslim mobs over the last 2 years in Kosovar Serb villages.

Steven, just because you didn’t hear any calls from the Pope for an International force in Rwanda didn’t mean that he never called for one:

Here’s some instructional reading:

cityparent.com/foreveryoung/20050513/22225.html

February 2, 1997In Gikongoro, Rwanda, Venuste Niyonzima is the first man tried locally for crimes against humanity in his own village. A U.N. Human Rights official in Rwanda expresses “serious concern” over the lack of lawyers and adequate defense for those accused of participation in the 1994 genocide. Canadian priest, Guy Pinard, a witness to the 1994 genocide, is murdered by Hutu terrorists while saying mass.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rwanda/etc/cron.html

Pope John Paul II said a multinational force for eastern Zaire should go ahead even though large numbers of Rwandan refugees had returned home.

cnn.com/WORLD/9611/20/zaire/

As in the Persian Gulf war, there are quite convincing characteristics of the policy that convey a determination not to target or strike civilians purposefully. The primary moral criterion of just means appears to be an intrinsically important guide to policy. This conclusion (my third) can be challenged on at least two grounds. First, civilians have been hit by NATO attacks on at least three occasions: two civilian trains and a convoy of Albanian refugees. All were horrific, none was intentional, and they therefore do not contradict the conclusion drawn above about the policy.

americamagazine.org/articles/Hehir.htm

afjn.cua.edu/News/Africa%20Statement-Catholic%20Bishops%20Nov01.cfm

preventgenocide.org/prevent/news-monitor/2003may.htm

I’m sorry, but you can’t blame the above on the Pope.

May God bless those who act to save His Little Ones. Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top