What Really Happened

[clocker]

Originally posted by clocker+24 May 2003 - 21:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 May 2003 - 21:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:03
<!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000

@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Where/when did this happen?

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...[/b][/quote]
I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by clocker+25 May 2003 - 06:24--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 25 May 2003 - 06:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:30

Originally posted by -clocker@24 May 2003 - 21:03
<!--QuoteBegin--myfiles3000

@24 May 2003 - 20:55


By the way, I should point out that I don&#39;t necessarily have anything against US military interventions. Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Where/when did this happen?

Ah,I&#39;m still waiting...

I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting. [/b][/quote]
unnecessarily so, i might add.

[OlderThanDirt]

myfiles3000 wrote:

clocker wrote:

I hate to muddle this discussion with facts, but I&#39;m still waiting.

unnecessarily so, i might add.

Two points for clocker, then.

[clocker]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@24 May 2003 - 20:55
This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

Or true, apparently.

[myfiles3000]

clocker, if you&#39;d bothered to follow the thread, and read all of my posts in this very thread from yesterday, you&#39;d know the answer is rwanda. instead, you sat there demanding an answer like some spoiled debutante.

And before anyone misquotes me again (older than dirt) I&#39;m going to re-post the comment. Clocker, the quote should appear below. in a box with a yellow background.

Indeed, i think the problem is that American voters can&#39;t stomach the casualties, which leads to 800,000 dead to save 50 or 100 american lives. This ain&#39;t what i call bravery. Or selflessness.

the 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutus. The americans didn&#39;t kill the Tutsis, and i never said they did. What i was saying, to counterbalance what i thought to be an overly congratulatory portrayal of the USA in world affairs, was that this massacre could have quite easily been prevented by the worlds great hyperpower. it was a conscious decision not to get involved. a deliberate act of ommission. of not acting. and 800,000 people were slaughtered as a result. The USA didn&#39;t even "try".

the cost would have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of dozens of US fatalities. but little strategic pay-off in return. cost Too high. return too low. so 800,000 Africans die. The USA is not an inherently benevolent force in the world. stop trying to convince yourself and others it is. where benefits accrue from their actions, they are by-products. welcome to the real world.

[myfiles3000]

the plot thickens...



NOTE: i mistakenly posted this chart to the wrong thread first time around, my bad. perhaps clocker could repost his chart so we can keep the discussion in a single place.

[clocker]

ok, so now what?

[j2k4]

Myfiles-

Please educate this uninformed correspondent how economic growth equates to an automatically and commensurately larger contribution to foreign aid?
Is this "obligation" outlined in some obscure tome authored under the auspices of the U.N.?
It would seem so.

It would also seem that, the proferring hand having been bitten bloody, it might naturally follow that said hand would be withdrawn, to some extent.

Could there possibly have been less "need" in succeeding years?

Re: Rwanda-

As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.

One more thing-

I don&#39;t choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here.

I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don&#39;t feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself.

Higher education these days is a risky proposition due to the introduction of academic W.M.D.-"Weapons of Mass Delusion".

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 13:41


I don&#39;t choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here.

I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don&#39;t feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself.

I just knew it&#33;

You&#39;re a lifetime subscriber too, aren&#39;t you?

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@25 May 2003 - 13:41

Re: Rwanda-

As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.

Just a quick question...

Since Rwanda seems to have become the poster child for outside intervention that didn&#39;t happen...
How come no one has asked Why doesn&#39;t Belgium step in?

Wasn&#39;t Rwanda a colony until 1959? Didn&#39;t the tribal slaughter begin before Belgium granted independence?
How have they managed to attain such moral superiority of late, and why is it the US&#39;s problem/responsibility to step in?
I suppose it&#39;s a lot easier to ride a high horse if you avoid the mud...