Where was that Fatboy Liberal Michael Moore on Rwanda?????
bush misled us into war. what about clinton misleading us on north
korea and rwanda. in north korea, he sent jimmy carter who came back
saying everything's cool and north korea is NOT an evil country,
something even communists would have a hard time denying. it gave
north korea ample time and opportunity to develop nuclear weapons and
now they have it. clinton should have been tougher or attacked north
korea-bigger threat than iraq in terms of weapons of mass
destruction--before it developed weapons.
but even worse is clinton's misleading us about rwanda. bush misled us
into doing something. clinton misled us into doing nothing and europe
is culpable also as are all the black african nations which just
folded their arms and did nothing while 100,000s of people were being
slaughtered. when violence broke out in rwanda, it was immediately
clear from day one that GENOCIDE on a massive scale was taking place.
clinton and european leaders refused to use the word 'genocide'
because it would obligate them to do something under the UN charter.
so, they simply decided not to use the term, misleading themselves and
the public. clinton and europeans decided to let the bloodbath run
its course and by the time the tide had turned, 800,000 people had
been killed in a month or two. all clinton and the international
leaders had to do to intervene was call it for what it was: genocide.
but, as it would have obligated them to take action, they opted to
pretend it was just a civil war. had clinton called it genocide and
if americans and europeans had acted swiftly, 100,000s of lives would
have been saved. they did nothing. they purposely and knowingly
avoided the term 'genocide', they misled everyone just to shirk
humanitarian responsibility.
instead, everyone played the game of diplomacy. europeans especially
love this game and it's understandable. US is one country but europe
is germany, italy, france, spain, etc, etc. and they can never be of
one mind so they think of diplomacy as some kind of aristocratic game,
of endless meetings and sipping wine and parties and handshakes and
schmoozing back and forth. and while they did this, by the time they
finally admitted it was genocide, it was too late. they did on the
eve of WWII too. just alot of meeting, schmoozing, wining and dining,
paper shuffling, handshaking, exchanging jokes, and photo-op.
when people blame the US for not relying sufficiently on diplomacy
prior to the iraq war, it's a valid criticism but let's remember that
european diplomacy which is petty, just a matter of national interests
squabbling amongsts themselves, tying every power into compromised
impotence. the movie 'no man's land' demonstrated this best. All
those UN peacekeeping troops in yugoslavia didn't do ***** for 10 yrs,
more at each other's throats than getting together and taking strong
measures(it finally took the americans to do that). europe is like
the arabs at the end of lawrence of arabia. it's about petty pride,
honor, etiquette. ***** them. besides, we had been using
'humanitarian' diplomacy against iraq for over 13 yrs which led to
death of 300,000 women and children from malnutrition and disease
thanks to diplomatic methods such as economic sanctions; how much
longer should that have gone on? until after several yrs when
100,000s of more women and children die? european politics has been
about talking, not doing. it's a game played by gentlemen who don't
want to dirty their hands.
what happened in rwanda was genocide pure and simple; it could have
been stopped and countless people could have been saved. the world did
nothing. clinton went golfing while 100,000s were being slaughtered.
the likes of michael moore never even mentioned it at the time,
obviously too busy raking in millions with his entertainment shows.
roger ebert, married to a black woman, never asked clinton in the
interviews how a leader who professes to love blacks so much did
absolutely nothing to stop a genocide on that scale? on the first day
of the massacre, the government radio called on all hutus to kill all
tutsis. it was a brazen act of genocide yet no one did anything. Even
the left kept mum since blacks are not supposed to commit genocide.
heck, only white people commit evil acts, not blacks. so the world
went on partying, clinton went on smiling and playing golf, the
european leaders danced and wined and dined and signed resolutions and
so forth and so on. and the killings just mounted and mounted.
roger ebert and michael moore, who profess to care soooo much about
blacks, and are so incensed about bush's liberation of iraq, haven't
said a single word about clinton's culpability for not lifting a
finger to save a single rwandan. ebert is an assmuncher, democratic
party's running dog. a fawning fat idiot who rolled before clinton in
the interview, licking the president's *****. good doggy, roll over.
now what is worse? a war with casualties in the 10,000s where an
entire nation is liberated from a brutal muderous genocidal dicator or
doing absolutely nothing while our fellow human
beings--800,000-900,000--are exterminated in a month? who is the
worse leader? bush or clinton? who is the worse hypocrite? clinton,
so chummy with black americans and eager to win their votes, refusing
even to call a genocide a genocide so as to keep out of messy foreign
affairs. it makes me laugh that the likes of moore and all these
leftists who feign so much outrage over iraq have NOTHING to say about
clinton's criminal mishandling of rwanda. now, clinton was not the
most responsible. first of all, the blame of course must fall on
rwandans. secondly it must fall on neighboring african countries
which refused to help their fellow africans. next the responsibility
falls on europeans who've had a long history in africa. they did
nothing. finally, US, as a superpower, had the means to enforce the
UN charter against genocide. instead, what did the world do?
diplomacy. while countless were dying by the minute, diplomats and
officials met in plush surrondings and wined and dined. oh boy, isn't
diplomacy sooooo civilized. can't have that barbaric gungho american
activism. let the leaders of the civilized world meet and shake hands
and exhange jokes and nibble on hoerdevers(sic). some good that did.
diplomacy has its time and place. but, in times of emergency and mass
genocide, diplomacy is useless. only swift action will do. but, you
can't expect action from leaders who refuse to call genocide genocide,
who don't even know the meaning of 'is'.
still, i think clinton redeemed himself by stopping the ethnic
cleansing in kosovo. and thanks to US war on the serbs, milosevic is
out of power. i suppose clinton felt shame over the rwanda affair and
couldn't let another genocide take place during his administration.
but what did moore say about the war in kosovo? americans are nothing
but imperialist murderers; it was just a manifestation of the
triggerhappy murderous american soul; it was just the columbine
incident on a global scale; US military was just like those kids who
went on shooting spree in at the colorado highschool. this was the
opinion of moore on the war in kosovo. and now, moore is expounding
the delirious, deranged anti-american hatred of radical islamists.
moore is a marxists, alqaeda is muslim, but their hatred of america is
equally extreme, virulent, and rabid.
--------------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
