Thanks a lot Slick Willie
I guess Slick Willie was too preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky than to save 800,000 people from being murdered. Since Rwanda had no oil the UN could careless
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Sometimes in April (2005) Discussion > Thanks a lot Slick Willie
I guess Slick Willie was too preoccupied with Monica Lewinsky than to save 800,000 people from being murdered.You are oversimplifying the Unites States lack of action during this travesty and, it is not as if the rest of the world made a point of intervening including the UN soldiers that were already in place. From the US standpoint, Clinton had to consider public reaction as well as the situation. As was pointed out in the movie, despite how the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff viewed the situation, once it reached Capitol it would be interpreted as another Mogadishu. It was very unlikely that Congress would have approved military action and in the end it is Congress’ decision. It is illegal for a US president to allocate military forces without congressional approval.
Secondly, since the fiasco known as Vietnam the US has been very standoffish about committing troops to anything that has been much more than a quickie operation. Because of this, smaller powers that would have never seriously contemplated drawing the wrath of the US military might began taking pot shots at a dragon that has allowed itself to be perceived as weak. In fact, many extremists in the Middle East work of the premise that the US does not have the stomach for a real fight and this is why they have no fear of directly attacking Americans and American interests abroad and, now, on our own soil. If the average American in the 1940s had the same mentality that far too many Americans have now, Japan would be in control of much, if not all, of the Pacific and we would very likely be speaking English. Actually, I would not be speaking anything as the Nazis held blacks in as much contempt as they held Jews, Gypsys, homosexuals, et al, and would have very likely had many black Americans exterminated.
Lastly, Clinton was not the one that was obsessed with Monica Lewinsky, the neo-conservative Republicans were. Generally, no one else gave a rat’s behind about Clinton’s extramarital affairs except the neo-cons that decided to waste tax-payer dollars on attempting to impeach the President on the grounds of so-called immoral activities. That type of politicking has no place in the US government, but the Right is very good at convincing a certain segment of the US populace that politicians are supposed to be good Christian moral compasses and that it is the place of the government to dictate morals. The previous is inconsequential in a secular society and the latter is a clear violation of the Constitution.
“No little fishies left in the sea. No little fishies, ‘cept Londo and Me.”
—G’Kar share
Thanks for the liberal BS. Slick Willie lacked the balls to do anything, Monica had them.
share> If the average American in the 1940s had the same mentality that far too many Americans have now, Japan would be in control of much, if not all, of the Pacific and we would very likely be speaking English.
We are speaking English, aren't we? I know I'm writing this in English.
http://imdb.com/user/ur2019270/ratings
then why did Mr. Slick fly over there after the massacre and apologize for not doing anything?? He was basically saying he was sorry they didnt have any oil to fight for so a genocide of 800,000 is acceptable. He'd rather shoot loads on Monica's face
shareI think Clinton, although one of the best presidents we've ever had, made the wrong decision by not doing anything, and it's entirely fair to criticize him for it. BUT, make sure you don't forget about the rest of the world. UN troops were already there and the UN did nothing (as usual, all talk no action).
shareIrish - you have been hitting the bottle a little hard with your opening comment. He rode the economics of Reagan/Bush and slept while the terrorists prepared for 9/11. If that is you idea of good, we need another potato famine.
shareIf I recall when the Monica scandal came up and Clinton tried to bring up international problems the Republicans said he was trying to play a "Wag the Dog" on the country so we would forget what was going on with Lewinsky. So blame your over zealous friends in the Republican party not Clinton.
share"Clinton, although one of the best presidents we've ever had..."
People and their beliefs never cease to amaze me.
[deleted]
"With Clinton, we had a BUDGET SURPLUS and GOOD INTERNATIONAL STANDING."
We had a budget surplus because of the internet bubble (and in large part due to the Social Security trust fund's method of accounting), not because of anything Clinton did (or had in his power to do). He basically got out of the way and took credit for his Presidency coinciding with a banner spike in the business cycle. And if you'll cast your mind back to his last year in office, the stock market had already started to correct, and the economy began to slide towards recession. Bush inherited that poor economy, and also the fallout from Enron, Worldcom, etc. As to good international standing, I traveled through Europe during US-led NATO operations in Bosnia. In Greece and Italy, I saw Clinton's head superimposed on a poster of Godzilla, I saw graffiti equating him with Hitler, and I saw "Clinton=Assassin" written on the sidewalks. So much for a welcoming response to a humanitarian mission. I also seem to recall our African embassies being bombed during this time, and Clinton lobbing a missile into Sudan. (We were also periodically bombing Iraq.) If by "good internatioanl standing" you mean the support of Western Europe and Canada, then it is true that relations between us are strained now. But under Clinton, America wasn't exactly universally loved either.
Turing77:
Several questions you should ask about Bush 2 is "Why isn't he doing anything for the poor people of Sudan who at this very moment are being killed en mass just like in Rwanda"? 400,000 people have died so far and he just mentioned it a few weeks ago about "sanctions"!!!! COME ON!!!! Get a grip. The United States citizen just simply just dont care about African and Black in paritcular! Look at New Orleans if you dont beleive me.
Second question I have for all of you people who are still obsessed about Bill Clinton and Monica is, as many have you quoted, is he was to busy with her doing his thing on her "face". Hmmm.....Have you ever thought when she started working in the White House as an intern? I do recall she was hired in mid 1995. So therefore, he was not doing his thing to her at the time of the massacres which started in April 94-July 94. Please for all of you that are this upset about Clinton atleast get your dates and times right.
Yes! Americans were upset about the loss of Blackhawk down in Somalia. They were not going to intervene after that incident at all. They didnt want to lose any soldiers and that is a fact. Now, the French, British, Belgiums, etc., all of those countries pulled out too. Belgium first because it had lost 10 of it's peacekeepers whilst protecting the Prime Minister. The Interhawme militia knew after Somalia that if they killed the UN peacekeepers they (The UN) would cave in and withdraw....and you know what....they did!!!!! Well all we now can do is learn from this, however, that too has been said in history.
GOD BLESS ALL THE RWANDA PEOPLE FOREVER!
Wow. OK. I agree that President Clinton could have done more. In fact, the entire world to a degree failed Rwanda.
But the massacre happened in 1994. Monica Lewinsky didn't work in the White House until 1995, and the scandal itself didn't even emerge until 1998. Check your history dude.
[deleted]
"Liberia was mere lip service."
Tell that to Charles Taylor. Actually, he'd probably agree, since he's living free and easy in Nigeria, and plotting his political return, instead of sharing a cell with Slobodan Milosevic. However, the US does have an interest in Haiti, both because we have many Haitian-Americans, and also because our Coast Guard doesn't want to have to rescue four-hundred Haitians from an innertube every day like in 1994. We risked American lives to put Aristide in power, and then we risked American lives to get him out of the country before the rebels could give him the "Samuel Doe" treatment. I think that goes above and beyond the call of duty in terms of helping out a nation that has been independent for two-hundred years. Haiti, to use a bad pun, needs to sink or swim on its own, or else it'll be a vassal-state to the US forever. If Haitians would stop killing each other, it'd be a good start. (As far as African conflicts go, you're right: the US doesn't care...but then neither does Africa!)
The previous poster said: "We risked American lives to put Aristide in power, and then we risked American lives to get him out of the country ... I think that goes above and beyond the call of duty in terms of helping out a nation that has been independent for two-hundred years ... If Haitians would stop killing each other, it'd be a good start."
Sigh. That is entirely true. Even though this topic is about Rwanda, North American help to Haiti is right on-topic.
In fact, Haiti could have been the model for constructive intervention. But, Haiti is a now a social, political, economic and environmental disaster. Haiti's decline is not a product of recent colonialism, though the Duvalier regimes were supported by the USA. Papa Doc was a "reformer" when he succeeded a military-thug group in 1957; he became a favoured US client in the '60s, as a neighbour of Castro's Cuba.
Even so, America's influence was benign. The USA needed nothing more than stability in Haiti. To that end, America built water projects, seaports, telephone systems and roads. The Haitian fishing industry was provided with deep-sea boats, refrigeration plants and skills in processing.
They chose to throw these gifts away, rather than build on them. Perhaps Papa Doc became a mad, voodoo fool. Perhaps his son "Baby Doc" was worse.
But when we (Canada and the USA) gave Haiti its last, best hope in 1994, we did it correctly. Jean-Bertrand Aristide was a Canadian living in Montreal. US forces neutralized the Haitian military. Canada returned Aristide to Port-Au-Prince with great acclaim.
US troops remained to keep order. Canada sent a cadre of RCMP officers to create a new Haitian gendarmerie.
We wasted our time, in retrospect.
Why is America always automatically to blame? What about all the other countries that stood by?
By the way, I'm no Slick Willie fan.
clinton and many politicians were handcuffed by a foregin policy that didnt allow the US to intervene, theres the problem right there...we consider ourselves the policemen of the world, but when were really needed we do nothing...the same with the holocaust, we didnt join the war to stop jews from being exterminated nor did any country...and yet we strut into iraq for no reason? thats makes a lotta sense...the terrorists who masterminded 9/11 werent in iraq, they were in pakistan and sudan...its funny even when clinton opted to intervene in the kosovo conflict where innocent people were being massacred, then people have a problem...thats cuz a democratic president can do nothing right, according to the republican spin doctors, but when bush consigns 1000s of his own countrymen to needless death in iraq, thats just him being patriotic...
I think if anything can be learned from rwanda, its that there is no justice in the world, and there never will be...
-No god, no master-
[deleted]