Playing devil's (Clinton) advocate technically I don't think Clinton lied about Rwanda. The Clinton Admin neglected and ignored the Rwanda and certainly deserves blame. At the same time though pretty much the whole US elected government could've been faulted because at the time the Clinton Admin was greatly weakened by a resurgent Repub. Congress, that was even more against the idea of intervention in Rwanda and among other things threatened to re-write the war powers act to limit the ability of the Pres. to deploy US troops. Clinton certainly deserves blame for political venality by not using the bully pulpit to rally support for intervention or going ahead in the face of Congressional opposition to deploy troops. The Clinton Admin. though did learn a lesson and deployed troops to Bosnia and Kosovo without going through the UN and in the face of opposition from many in Congress.
A few things to point out... 1. Clinton admitted that one major failure of his administration was the failure to intervene in Rwanda. Make no mistake about it, intervention in Africa on such a scale is virtually inconcievable under any administration (especially our current one) and I'd guess that Clinton might be the only guy who might even think about doing this. 2. Understand the political climate. We just had a disaster in Somalia (remember black hawk down) and public opinion was totally against African intervention. Under pressure from a Republican Congress and the public, Clinton issued PDD-25 which was a presidential directive that essentially stated that the US would intervene only when national security was threatened. (which pretty much meant we'd never go back to Africa) Yes, its probably a bull**** policy that won't end anytime soon. 3. The UN was slowly turning away from African intervention. The number of UN peacekeeping operations has declined substantially and support for those is down. And its no surprise why. China and Russia have pushed forth massive non-intervention campaigns and even if the US wanted to intervene there's no chance. The reason why the UN wouldnt pass a resolution that called for sanctions on Sudan was because China has oil interests there and watered down the resolution to save face. Point is... what happened in Rwanda is absolutely terrible and should be a reminder that genocide prevention should be a priority. We should be taking a more hardline stance against Sudan but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. I guess Rwanda isnt much of a memory to anyone in the diplomatic community anymore...
Do you realize the group in Sudan respondible for the genocide is an Islamic group backed by the government? So lets see, we have government sponsored mass killings of Christians occuring in the name of Islam. Strange, this sounds like a great place to target our global war on terrorism. If Sudan goes unchecked, it obviously would be a great place to setup a terrorist camps. America likely will need to address Sudan...sooner or later. If we do it later, hopefully it won't be as an act of retaliation like 9/11 (when we had chances to get in there proactively...that is).
krosfyah, last time I checked, the missile attack of a Sudan pharmaceutical plant by US in 1998 was a mistake - a crossed fire.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you are trying to make a joke because you think I'm a nut-job for implying Sudan is an Islam religious war, just quickly google "Sudan Islam Genocide." You will very clearly confirm what I'm telling you. Or maybe you are relating Clinton to Sudan. However, the genocide in Sudan started in 2003, IIRC. Anyway, feel free to clarify whatever it is you are saying.
It seems to me your line of reasoning is if US let Sudan go unchecked on its government-sponsored genocide, then it'll inevitably breed terrorism, which will develop into a real threat (like 9/11) to US national security, and we better deal with it sooner. I would argue the domestic problems (admittedly a grave matter) of a foreign nation does not necessarily lead to security threats to US. There are plenty of historical events to show otherwise. To wage a war with that country on grounds of defeating terrorism is not a good reason. I say a war for humanitarian cause would sound much better, although it won't gain much support from American public, for the simple reason alluded to by arno_ed. The reference to bombing of Sudan's factory by Clinton administration 1998 is a reminder that how easily a quick-fix type of WOT could go estrayed.
Wasn't that essentially Bush's policy about Iraq since Bush himself has said that there is no direct link to 9/11 and Iraq? Liberals have been saying that since the leadup to the Iraq war. You mean like Iraq...but in this instance its not so quick. Wnes, I'm just pointing out simularities between Iraq and Sudan and some potential points of hipocracy in this administrations approach. I think you and I are on the same side.
Agree here. Luckily or unluckily, you haven't heard anything from Bush Administration on invading Sudan? Just saw on CIA's factbook Sudan's natural resources include "petroleum; small reserves of iron ore, copper, chromium ore, zinc, tungsten, mica, silver, gold, hydropower."
Yea, if Bush went into Sudan, I'm sure it would be with guns blazing. Shock and Awe, baby! Yeeee Haw!
