i know it was the hutus killing tutsis, the civil war itself had nothing to do with us outsiders (although we gave them the guns) but i cant help thinking, if you walk past someone getting the *beep* kicked out of them, and you are bigger and stronger than both parties, arent you morally obligated to do something?
how responsible are you if you walk past that?
agh, god the world is *beep* up.
I had a big problem with that argument at the start of the Iraq war. Surprisingly, a lot of really nice people will say 'no you are not obliged to help if you can!'
Really disappointing. Politics get so much in the way and major governments, while being the only ones with the ability to help, are stuck with the conundrum of representing so many points of view as well as being in a world spotlight. Whatever they do will be judged and dissected. Look at Bush, he's a failure no matter what he does anymore.
I don't know the right answer because it seems we don't have the expenses left or the influence to help in any way. (Talking about Darfur since both Iraq and Rwanda have already been decided. Both disasters resulting from opposing actions. Sigh)
it is one way at looking at things, but lets say 2 rivaling parties get into a fight over an argument lets say they are 2 brothers how will you as a parent intervene yes first times you will be they can not keep relying on the parents help for stopping their argument at one time or another they have to learn how to solve their problems on their own so they may grow and evolve.
but then again my example is about 2 rivaling parties that are equal in size and strength and will not kill each other to prove a point.
the genocide of a million people should have been stopped by anyone who had the power to intervene.
I agree with your point that such people need to grow, but when one party is bigger than the other and the other has no chance then you have an obligation to step in. If the oppressive side are the "bad" side. Stabilising the country and helping to form government is/should be one of the few "first times" another country intervenes.
Genocide should always be stopped, regardless of the losses to your own countrymen.
I agree with you, genocide should always have to be stopped. In the case of Ruanda, with a better UN mandate, it would have been easy, if that hate-radio would have been taken out. But of course the main reason this happened, and that has been acknowledged by most countries in big conferences. Colonisation is the main cause of problems especially in Africa. In Ruanda, that would have been Belgium. So yes, we are all responsible.
shareNo, you do not. You volunteering to go risk your life? Hmmm? You sure seem keen to risk the lives of your countrymen.
shareyou imbecile. it was the west that colonised and segregted Rwanda in the first place. didn't you read this in the beginning of the film??
and as long as morons like you think the west had nothing to do with it, it's living proof that this is neither a life thing nor is it a death thing. it's a BLACK thing. the film even proved this when pretty white people were shipped off to safety and the blacks were slaughtered as soon as the |UN convoy left.
the united states even refused to call the events a 'genocide' at the time..it made me feel like telling the jewish madeline allbright that there was 'no holocaust' when she said that there was no genocide in rwanda.
[deleted]
No, you are not. Not responsible. It is good if you feel like helping, but it is not required of you to help.
share