Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (72066)	9/20/2004 7:42:00 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 793899

Alastair, In that report, where you laud the French you missed this item on French intervention: also facilitated the safe exit of many of the genocide’s plotters, who were allies of the French The US has neglected and failed Africa. France, Belgium, the UK and other European powers have actively participated in its destruction. Yes its evil to sit and watch a crime, but its worse to participate. John

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (72066)	9/20/2004 8:42:17 PM
From: SBHX	Respond to of 793899

In truth Ms Albright and the Clinton administration had the lessons of Somalia to advocate non intervention as the ultimate ideal foreign policy. Which is why there was such reluctance to call the atrocities by their proper name genocide. The UN would have been legally obliged to intervene. Is there any doubt that the common Albright and Clinton response of firing cruise missiles into empty buildings and tents speaks volumes about the will of america to act against open aggression. That was the normal american response back then. But this dogma of non intervention was clearly on the wrong side of history. It can be argued that this is all hindsight, but then, what is the world doing about Darfur? If we wring our hands about the 1000+ US military deaths, what about the outcry over the weekly slaughter of thousands in Darfur? Fact of the matter is, even with the US unwilling or unable to commit troops to either Rwanda or Sudan, France as a member of the security council easily could have tabled the move into Rwanda much much earlier. France did not do have to wait until between 500,000 to 800,000 people had been killed. Even if France could claim ignorance of the true extent of the genocide (and vast volumes have been written about that 100 days of slaughter to cast doubt that France did not know what was going on), the fact that the masterminds of the genocide were given safe passage by France does not show of compassion, but instead reeks of complicity. But lets give France the benefit of the doubt, lets just look at Sudan today. Given the lessons of Rwanda, there is now no excuse for France not to lead a peacekeeping coalition with some teeth into Sudan yesterday. Did that happen? No. Lets look at what France did instead : France opposes UN Sudan sanctions news.bbc.co.uk France accused of blocking Sudan sanctions afrol.com As far back as March 2003, France has openly campaigned for the current regime in Khartoum. vitrade.com Far from being a disinterested player, just like Rwanda, The Khartoum regime is looking more like a French surrogate than a foreign power. The French do not have clean hands in Sudan, just like it never did in Rwanda.