Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Al Gore- Would he have sent troups to Rwanda if he could have?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:46 PM
Original message
Al Gore- Would he have sent troups to Rwanda if he could have?
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 09:51 PM by FrenchieCat
If he had been President at the time.

I know that he was the Vice President, but I believe that the President has the final say so....so I never necessarily held Al Gore responsible for this.....however.....

According to a prolific Gore supporter here, with whom I was having a debate about this issue.....this is Gore's alleged stance:

"If you want to know Gore would not send US troops to Rwanda if it was happening today. He never flip-flopped on that issue. And the US military is not a toy. You don't send them everywhere where vaious groups are killing each other. By the same token the US military should be in Sudan or should have been in Siera Leone or Somalia."
---------------------
Does anyone have any evidence that would refute this?....because I wanted to think that Al Gore would have sent troups in to stop 800,000 Rwandans from being macheted to death.

However, if this is Al Gore's true stance on what happened in Rwanda, than I'm sorry....as a Human being and a Black American, I cannot say how deeply this troubles me!

In fact, same poster said this:

"But it's none of our business and it's not a US national security issue. Again, no US troops were killed in Rwanda and noone was killed by the US military in Rwanda. There were not strategic conseuneces.

There were not US guard troops sent to Africa so we would end up with a shortage here at home.

And Gore had been consistently against sending US troops for combat mission to Rwanda.

He regeretted that we didn't send the humanitarian mission earlier but he never said that we should have intervene militraly in way , for example, we did in the Balkans."


Please tell me this isn't so!

Thank you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. I seen Gore's wife Tipper in Entebbe, Uganda
I was there in support of Rwanda relief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. When was this?
and thank you for the support.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:58 PM
Original message
If I remember correctly, August 1994
I can't believe that was over 10 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. From the 2nd debate in 2000
http://slate.msn.com/id/91280/

2. Rwanda. Bush said the Clinton administration "made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda." Gore corrected him: "We did actually send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures." Rather than drag out this dispute in an attempt to humiliate Bush—as the old Gore did in the first debate on the question of Russian intervention in Yugoslavia—the new Gore retreated quickly into appropriate self-criticism: "I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Yup, I remember the debate going on at the HQ in Entebbe
My supervisor flew into the Rwanda Airport to do the advance planning for security of the Airport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Given your experience, what do you think?
You were there in August and the massacre was in April. Would you say we should have gone in February or March or not? What was your take on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrueAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Hey, I'm a "liberal"
I feel for people. I think we should of been there with force to stop the killings. But what do I know, they don't have any oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Self-delete
Edited on Wed Oct-26-05 06:44 PM by BullGooseLoony
Looked it up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Gore pushed hard for intervention in Rwanda, for instance."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. That's why I don't understand the Gore poster who is saying all of this...
especially considering that Gore pushed for intervention in Kosovo. I don't see what the difference would have been between Kosovo and Rwanda....

So is "Gore Poster" wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Gore's position is correct.
It's nice to think we are the deus ex machina of the earth, but when people decide to murder their own...you have to be prepared to walk in and stay for decades. And that's just for starters. Because, if you leave, they go back to killing.

Perhaps you think it's wrong that we intervened in Kosovo, but Gore would not intervene where the people are black. We have obligations to NATO nations. We have treaty partners. We did NOT stop the Serbian murders until we won our partners' consent and assistance. I recall that a friend went on a UN mission to Sarajevo, and came back saying how hard our government was trying for intervention, but Europe didn't give a shit. Do you remember the UN team from Belgium that threw off their berets on the tarmac because they had been forced to stand by while the Serbs bussed innocent men to their mass graves?

Europe could have lifted a finger and stopped those murders. They didn't. But WE were supposed to invade and do it? When Europe agreed, we stepped in and stopped the killing.

Africa is a huge continent with many nations. Not one of those nations lifted a pinkie for Rwanda. They aren't banding together to protect the people of Darfur, either. And how about that African state where rebels chop off arms? Anyone rushing in to aid those people? Not Africans. Not anyone.

Heartbreaking, isn't it? People dying for no good reason.

We had and have NO RIGHT to intervene in Rwanda. There is, though you don't seem to respect it, such a thing as international law, international relations.

What you are demanding of Gore is EXACTLY WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH DID. You are demanding that we invade a sovereign nation that did not attack us because we know better how they should conduct themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I much disagree with that stance....
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 10:35 PM by FrenchieCat
We are talking about 800,000 dead people... :cry: we are not talking about invading a country because they "might" have WMDs. We are talking murders upon murders as they were happening.

After Germany imprisoned their own Jewish population and murdered them....we said never again.

Are you saying that in this case, it was quite alright?

And if so...why did Gore then push to intervene in Kosovo?

What was the difference? :shrug:

If Rwanda and places were genocide happen are none of our business, WTF are we good for....as the supposed "leaders of the Free world".

Please let me know!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. OMG~
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 10:54 PM by FrenchieCat
You said.....Perhaps you think it's wrong that we intervened in Kosovo, but Gore would not intervene where the people are black. We have obligations to NATO nations. We have treaty partners.

My answer......

HELL YEAH!...I THINK IT WAS WRONG!

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
8. I don't know what Al would do....
But American mercenaries were all over the Rwandan and Democratic Repbulbic of Congo, and Sierra Leone "civil unrest" every time.

The bottom line on Rwanda was basically this: They never were much of a producer of diamonds, but the DRC was. Suddenly, Rwanda became one of the world's biggest diamong exporters. Basically, diamonds were being stolen from the DRC and shiped to diamond markets.

Here's some info. For more, google Rwanda + American + mercenaries

My name is Wayne Madsen. I am the author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999, a work that involved some three years worth of research and countless interviews in Rwanda, Uganda, France, the United Kingdom, United States, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. I am an investigative journalist who specializes on intelligence and privacy issues.
...
The Ba-N'Daw Report
The covert programs involving the use of private military training firms and logistics support contractors that are immune to Freedom of Information Act requests is particularly troubling for researchers and journalists who have tried, over the past several years, to get at the root causes for the deaths and mayhem in the DRC and other countries in the region. These U.S. contractor support programs have reportedly involved covert assistance to the Rwandan and Ugandan militaries - the major backers of the Rassemblement Congolais pour la démocratie (RCD factions and - as reported by the UN's "Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources an Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC" -- are responsible for the systematic pillaging of Congo's most valuable natural resources.
http://www2.minorisa.es/inshuti/madsen2.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critical period, about which relatively little is known, is between the beginning of 1991, when the new RPF offensive started in Rwanda's north, and the RPF seizure of power in the capital, Kigali, in 1994. Some say that Anglo-American mercenaries fought on the side of the RPF. Others report that U.S. diplomats made open threats to members of the Rwandan interim government of April 1994 to get them to capitulate.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2928arusha_trib.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

RC: Rebel RCD denies American mercenary support

Mulumba also rejected Zimbabwean accusations that US mercenaries were involved on the rebels' side in southern DRC. "I'm categorically denying that we have any mercenaries on our side - least of all Americans," Mulumba told AP. Zimbabwe's defence spokesman Colonel Chancellor Diye claimed on Monday that American mercenaries were active in central and eastern DRC, fighting alongside Congolese rebels. "The presence of white mercenaries has been noticed, 15 at Lusambo and the same number at Kabalo. The mercenaries are American nationals manning communications equipment and artillery," Diye said. Lusambo and Kabalo are to the north and east respectively of the key Congolese diamond mining centre Mbuji Mayi.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/irin813.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NEW MERCENARIES --
CORPORATE ARMIES FOR HIRE

by Major Thomas J. Milton, USA

Security Contractors: Vinnell Corporation, Brown and Root, MPRI, Sandline Ltd., Executive Outcomes. As the armies of the major nations shrink, the number of companies that provide military assistance grow. These companies are filling a legitimate defense need, usually advising and training regular armies. Many members of the United States Army are familiar with the US based companies. Soldiers either have worked alongside them in operations, training, or in headquarters staff functions. But what about the others, the French, Brazilian, British, or South African? Some companies view themselves as military assistance corporations, similar to many United States based corporations; however, they have taken the military assistance role to the next level. Traditionally, corporations working for a foreign government provided only assistance and training, they did not conduct combat operations. This is changing.

http://www.faoa.org/journal/newmerc3.html




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
11. Of course he regretted it
He said so in the second debate that, in retrospect, we could have saved those lives. How on earth could he not regret it? I don't buy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-25-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I understand "regret".....
but I want to know more about the two stances that I am hearing about....on the one hand, He didn't ever feel that Troups in Rwanda were appropriate...and on the other hand he regrets the deaths.

I sure would like prolific poster to enlightened all of us on this.

I never really knew Gore's real stance on this....and it looks like I still don't! :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
An Unabashed Atheist Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. The US has NO BUSINESS Butting In
I cannot knowledgeably speak about Al Gore's stance on this issue.

However, I firmly opposed the United States having ANY involvement in Rwanda. Quite simply, Rwandan affairs are Rwandan affairs. Rwanda ought to be responsible for itself. By the same token, the US had NO BUSINESS getting involved in Kosovo and has NO BUSINESS getting involved in Darfur.

The United States military has ONE duty: defend the United States from foreign aggressors. That's it. We ought not get involved in ANY conflict unless it directly affects the US. Rwanda, Kosovo and Sudan all fail that test; they DO NOT directly affect the US. Indeed, they have NO affect on the US, as a country, at all. Thus, the US military should butt-out.

I believe in self-sufficiency on the individual level, as well as self-sufficiency on the country-by-country level. Those are core tenets of my Libertarianism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well you are a liberatarian.....
so, what you say doesn't faze me much....although I am still not sure what a Libetarian truly believes in. Aren't those the folks that should be living on an island so that they won't be bothered by government and other people....or something? Aren't they those that don't really want to contribute to society.....just reap the benefits from it?

According to you, the Jews dying in concentration camps were none of our business. How so, so sad! :cry:

So at least, let me ask you this: Can the military be used to help rescue folks from natural disasters or no?

As the leading superpower, I think that you hold a dishonorable position as to how this country should conduct itself.....so I disagree with your premise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
An Unabashed Atheist Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. My response...
so, what you say doesn't faze me much....although I am still not sure what a Libertarian truly believes in. Aren't those the folks that should be living on an island so that they won't be bothered by government and other people....or something? Aren't they those that don't really want to contribute to society.....just reap the benefits from it?

Libertarians have a very simple philosophy. Nothing is more important than the individual; nothing is more important than freedom. Additionally, people ought to be responsible for themselves, rather than dependent upon the government. Additionally, the government should be as small and un-intrusive as possible. Finally, every country ought to be responsible for itself, rather than dependent upon other countries.

According to you, the Jews dying in concentration camps were none of our business. How so, so sad!

The Holocaust itself? Yes, that was none of our business. Incredibly tragic? Of course it was. However, still none of our business. Hitler and the Nazis were our business ONLY because Hitler had expansionist goals. Thusly, he fully intended to affect the US.

So at least, let me ask you this: Can the military be used to help rescue folks from natural disasters or no?

If at all, only in the US. The US military is EXCLUSIVELY charged with protecting and defending the US. It is responsible for NO other country.

As the leading superpower, I think that you hold a dishonorable position as to how this country should conduct itself.....so I disagree with your premise.

The hegemon taking care of the smaller countries is perfectly analogous to the government taking care of the less-well-off citizens. It's big government-ism, which is antithetical to libertarianism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I don't buy your philosophy.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
An Unabashed Atheist Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. OK
Not many do. That's why Libertarians are mired in the muck of Third Party-ism.

Only 1 Libertarian in Congress....Ron Paul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. But three in this one little piddly thread....
Who would have bet on such odds?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikefromwichita Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Very well said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Is there a Libertarian Underground for y'all....
or somethin'? Considering y'all both just joined, I'm trying to figure out why a policy resulting in 800,000 dead people is a "very well said" thing! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
An Unabashed Atheist Donating Member (72 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. Response
800,000 people dying is not a good thing. 800,000 people dying is a tragic thing. HOWEVER, it's definitely a good thing when policies promote self-sufficiency. Rwanda ought to take care of itself. Just like every individual ought to take care of him/herself. One country should not rely upon another country to take care of it. Just like citizens should not rely upon the government to take care of them.

It's all about self-sufficiency. When the government doesn't have to play "nanny," freedom flourishes.

BTW, thanks for the support Mike.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Amazing how all of the libertarians start showing up....
all of the sudden!

Amazing indeed!

Tag, your it! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drummo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-26-05 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
22. Nice try. You think we shouldn't have sent troops to Sudan.
So stop accusing others.

Rwanda was none of out business. Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-27-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. I won't....and there are plenty of others like me....
I don't get OVER that many deaths that easily.

But you can speak for yourself.

plenty socks in that shoe! Wooh Boy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC