UK complicit in Rwanda genocide

Post Reply New Topic

http://markcurtis.info/2018/01/27/rwanda-declassified/

As with Syria, we should have intervened much earlier and gone much further to protect people.

Yeah, dropping bombs is a great way to protect people. In fact we protected Syria so well, we ran out of bombs in 2016.

I wonder what will destroy us all first? The bombs or the climate change?

Wikileaks cables show the US had already intervened via proxy. But you're right, we could have fought with Assad against Al Qaeda instead of supporting Al Qaeda. Then so many Syrians wouldn't have been butchered and burned alive by Western backed Jihadists.

And it isn't difficult to work out that we create the crisis so we can get in.

Actually yes, it often is.

In the case of Rwanda I don't think bombing was the right idea. We should have put more troops on the ground, and earlier, and used them to prevent the genocide.

In the case of Syria, if Obama had stuck to his promises and bombed Assad when he used chemical weapons, then many lives would have been saved. It might not have "solved" Syria, but it would probably be in a better state than it currently is. Look at Libya, for example. We could also have done more to wipe out Daesh and Al-Nusra quicker.

The attack in 2013 was carried out by the Jihadists so it's them we should have bombed.

What are you on about? We put Al Qaeda in Libya and supported them and our parliament wanted us to fight alongside them again in Syria in 2013. Yeah look at Syria now, it's almost fully liberated from the organ eating Jihadists backed by us. Aleppo was under Al Qaeda's occupation but now the Christians in Aleppo are able to have Christmas celebrations again Like they were under Assad before we put Al Qaeda in, in 2011.

Clue, no beheadings or Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003, after the invasion on another pack of lies it's full of Al Qaeda and then ISIS. The goal is endless war even if that means supporting Al Qaeda.

Isn't it weird that when Al Qaeda is wiped out of the area there are no more 'chemical attacks'.

None of the countries we have bombed the crap out of are ever better off. The only reason we are in Syria is take out Assad so a natural gas pipeline can be built through the country. Russia is on the side of Assad because they don't want the pipeline, since they sell natural gas to Europe. If you think these wars about bettering the lives of the people in these countries, I've got a bridge to sell you.

When will bomb the Saudis and Israel to save the people of Yemen and Gaza?....

That's simply not true. Kuwait is a pretty clear-cut example of a country that is better off for Western intervention. South Korea, too. Japan. Germany. Kosovo. Mali. Italy. Afghanistan. Even Rwanda and Syria are better off for Western intervention, although they would have been even better off if we had done more. There's much more to intervention than "bombing the crap out of" a country and again, I'm certainly not saying that was. There have certainly been high-profile failures but those just teach us about how we need to intervene, they don't make the successes go away.

It's also a demonstrable fact that we're not in Syria to take out Assad so a gas pipeline can be built. It's obvious, because we're not in Syria to take out Assad! The Western presence has overwhelmingly been campaigning against ISIS with only very limited confrontation of the regime, mostly bombing chemical weapons sites.

Oh, Lord! I don't know where you're getting your information. We were arming ISIS and the other rebel groups to fight Assad, even the CIA admitted it.

Afghanistan is not better, Syria is not better, Libya is not better, Iraq is not better. I'll give you South Korea and Germany, but that's about it. I'm talking primarily of the last 20 years and the hyper-military interventionist U.S foreign policies post 9/11.

I'd advise you to more adequately inform yourself before discussing any topic.

You know what they say about people in glass houses

Good read on American action in Syria here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33997408

If you don't want to read it - mostly care packages and medical supplies. A training programme in Jordan which failed when less than 0.1% of the trained soldiers agreed to go back to Syria. Some supply of arms done with great reluctance because Obama didn't feel that he knew enough about the rebels (different opinions are offered about whether he was right and the US would have just ended up further arming ISIS, or whether earlier action could have helped the FSA and the Kurds hold off ISIS and Al-Nusra better). ISIS eventually took a lot of Western-supplied arms off the moderate rebels, but wasn't directly armed by the US (if you can find a reliable source that contradicts that then please post it).

Probably a controversial opinion here, but one I'm perfectly willing to defend: US foreign policy 2001-2016 was almost as strong as 1990-2001 and much better than the previous 20 years. Iraq could have been handled a lot better, but was much less of a shit-show than Vietnam. Libya was a limited success - it's clearly turned out much better than Syria, where non-intervention has been a disaster, and the previous misadventures in Libya in the 80s. Afghanistan was very difficult but has ultimately been a resounding success, unlike the previous intervention. Somalia had very limited capacity for success but has gone as well as could have been expected. Yemen is an utter mess but I don't think anything could change that. The shift in US foreign policy away from "fighting communism" to "defending democracy" hasn't been entirely successful, but it's a huge improvement.

Nothing in that article really disproves my point, really. The U.S. aim was to take out Assad, which you claimed wasn't the case.

Nothing I could probably say would convince you that U.S. foreign interventions are generally waged for oil and profits. However, this a book I would recommend to you written by Major General Smedley Butler back in the 1930s after he retired from the military following a successful career (winning two Congressional Medals of Honor.) He said he had been little more than a racketeer for U.S. corporate interests. It's an eyeopening read, and one that should be required in all U.S. high schools. It's entitled, 'War Is A Racket.'