Does the Rwandan Genocide make Bill Clinton a failure as President?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Would any president have intervened in Rwanda?

If it had oil.

[HillGoose]

Would any president have intervened in Rwanda?

If it had oil.

I would have. Save hundreds of thousands of kids while also creating a steadfast American ally in East Africa.

In my opinion, not intervening was both cowardly and stupid.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No, we're not the police of the world.

Also, Bill Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda largely because of what happened in Somalia in 1993 ("Black Hawk Down").

[HillGoose]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No, we're not the police of the world.

Also, Bill Clinton didn't intervene in Rwanda largely because of what happened in Somalia in 1993 ("Black Hawk Down").

If we aren't the police of the world it's going to come back and bite us in the butt. We could save money by no longer protecting trade routes and airspace, but then hostile organizations/governments would be able to control them and we'd lose access to the benefits unless we complied with the demands of terrorists. I prefer if our nation is not held hostage by unfriendly governments, being forced to choose between doing their bidding and losing access to the global market and quickly losing most of our economy.

[Blair]

No- giving all the agency to Clinton ignores that it was a failure of the entire international, and diplomatic community rather than just the President. A head of state is only as good, and as powerful as the system he's working within.
 
As people often forget the major military responsibility for stopping Rwandan should have rested with Belgium who had troops in the country, or France who propped up the Rwandan Government as it was a strong ally.

The responsibility lies with the UN- and by extension the UK/France/US who cut the UN peacekeeping force, and drastically reduced it's mandate.

No doubt HillGoose has an image of the US sending 100,000 troops in, and turning Rwanda into Baghdad circa 2003, but the reality is that US intervention wasn't need- it simply needed a stronger UN presence and troop funding.

Not a failure overall, but we should have intervened. Same goes for Obama and Syria.

Tbf all Obama's 2013 strikes would have done is take out a couple of airports, and command bunkers- it wouldn't have done enough to stop Assad.

[ChelseaT]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No we must not. Every penny we waste helping foreigners could be spent on something useful. If nations cant handle their problems, then that is their issue.

[JoeyOCanada]

Absolutely not.

[HillGoose]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No we must not. Every penny we waste helping foreigners could be spent on something useful. If nations cant handle their problems, then that is their issue.

Brah do u not realize how bad things would be in the USA if we didn't protect our interests overseas?

[ChelseaT]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No we must not. Every penny we waste helping foreigners could be spent on something useful. If nations cant handle their problems, then that is their issue.

Brah do u not realize how bad things would be in the USA if we didn't protect our interests overseas?

Not as bad as if our infrastructure collapses. Which we could prevent with the money we currently waste.

[HillGoose]

No, it wasn't our issue.

Are you saying the million who died were worthless?

Nope. Just that it wasn't our issue.

The whole world is our issue. Sadly, no intergovernmental body is strong enough to solve the world's problems, so we must. It is our burden, as an affluent and stable state, to promote human rights and liberal values throughout the world, and intervene if such values are not held up elsewhere.

No we must not. Every penny we waste helping foreigners could be spent on something useful. If nations cant handle their problems, then that is their issue.

Brah do u not realize how bad things would be in the USA if we didn't protect our interests overseas?

Not as bad as if our infrastructure collapses. Which we could prevent with the money we currently waste.

Infrastructure wont collapse all at once lmao we can fix it as we go

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

It's a stain on his presidency, but not an irredeemable one.

[HillGoose]

No- giving all the agency to Clinton ignores that it was a failure of the entire international, and diplomatic community rather than just the President. A head of state is only as good, and as powerful as the system he's working within.
 
As people often forget the major military responsibility for stopping Rwandan should have rested with Belgium who had troops in the country, or France who propped up the Rwandan Government as it was a strong ally.

The responsibility lies with the UN- and by extension the UK/France/US who cut the UN peacekeeping force, and drastically reduced it's mandate.

No doubt HillGoose has an image of the US sending 100,000 troops in, and turning Rwanda into Baghdad circa 2003, but the reality is that US intervention wasn't need- it simply needed a stronger UN presence and troop funding.

Not a failure overall, but we should have intervened. Same goes for Obama and Syria.

Tbf all Obama's 2013 strikes would have done is take out a couple of airports, and command bunkers- it wouldn't have done enough to stop Assad.

100,000 US troops marching into newly free Kigali would have been preferable but honestly Clinton could have at least had AC-130s pounding Interahamwe positions until nothing remained of the genocidal maniacs but dust.