The French Gov't, Clinton Administration and Rwandan Genocide.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sputdr, Jan 11, 2007.

  1. More damaging evidence of the Clinton Administratio and our peace loving allies in France.

    Fearing a loss of influence in the region, France – with the knowledge of the U.S. – helped rekindle the civil war in Rwanda that led to the massacre of more than 1 million people in 1994, according to a growing body of evidence.
    New information indicates the French helped renew a civil war between the then Hutu-run government of President Juvenal Habyarimana and minority Tutsis in order to forestall implementation of the Arusha Accords.

    Signed Aug. 4, 1993, the peace agreement signaled an end to the long-running conflict between the Hutus, represented by the Rwanda government under Habyarimana, and the Tutsis of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF.

    (Story continues below)

    The Arusha Accords also stripped considerable power from the French-backed ethnic Hutu president Habyarimana. Most of the power was vested in the Transitional Broad Based Government that was to include the RPF and other political parties until elections could be held.

    According to sources, the French were not happy with the peace agreement, concerned that Habyarimana was caving in to international pressure and opening the door to further Anglophone influence in the area.

    Implementation of the agreement would have significantly weakened France's influence in the region.

    The evidence of French complicity and involvement in the 1994 Tutsi massacre has emerged during proceedings of the United Nation's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, indicating:

    French troops trained the Interahamwe militia of Hutu extremists.

    France supplied shipments of arms well in advance of the genocide in anticipation of such a massacre.

    The French government has refused to prosecute Hutu members who fled to France following the massacre.
    The U.N. Tribunal is expected shortly to announce its findings.

    Sources contend the U.S., knowing France was involved in the massacre, took no action. The U.S. had been monitoring all communications, including diplomatic communiqués, but did not want to create a crisis in Franco-American relations over a country regarded to have little strategic interest.

    In fact, U.S. policy makers at the time interpreted the dispute between the Hutus and Tutsis as a "tribal conflict," in an effort to avoid use of the word "genocide."
  2. IT's all their fault!!

    Darn those Iraqis

    Laurie Stone
    Online Journal
    Thursday, January 11, 2007

    To the People of Iraq: Now I get it. This war is all your fault.

    Darn you. We had a perfectly good invasion and occupation going until you had to ruin it with your sectarian violence and civil war. How dare you react to our bombings, shootings, torture and imprisonment with mayhem and carnage of your own? How boorishly uncivilized.

    And after all we’ve done. Haven’t we restored electricity to about four hours a day? So what if you’re afraid to send your kids to school? Haven’t you heard of home tutoring? So your country’s being occupied by the biggest, most powerful military in the history of the planet? You should feel honored to be the object of our well-meaning, noble intentions. So we’ve released anarchy and chaos. So you’ve lost a few family members. So your streets are becoming lawless and impassable. So you’re afraid to go shopping for fear of being blown to bits. For God sakes people, as Donald Rumsfeld would say -- pull your socks up!

    You must understand, good citizens, I’ve seen the light. It’s not our ill-conceived, immoral, illegal invasion and occupation of your country causing the problems. It’s you. After hearing politicians (on both sides of the aisle) and our wonderful media constantly repeating this new mantra, I now understand this war is all about your faults and shortcomings. As Condi Rice stated not so long ago, stamping her Manolo Blahniks in displeasure, “We’re running out of patience.” And who can blame her? After all, we came to Iraq (uninvited, but who’s counting), wrote you a new set of laws, bestowed on you those whom we wish to govern your country, taken control of your natural resources, assassinated your leader, even designed you a new flag. If that’s not democracy, what is?

    So what if in every poll taken, the vast majority of you want us out, we’re not leaving until we deem you fully, unequivocably, thoroughly, without the slightest doubt, loving every minute of it, certifiably . . . f-r-e-e. In other words, you’re getting our democracy whether you want it or not. And if you don’t like it, if you think you might have better ideas, if you voice just the slightest, teensy, softest objection to our little plan, there’s a place called Abu Ghraib that will be happy to set you straight.

    So please, good people of Iraq, please cooperate with our noble mission. We only want what’s best for you. Honest.
  3. Oh no, I just can't believe the French would do such a thing, since they are so "progressive" . . .
  4. gblnking


    I'm suprised the French didn't surrender to the Hutu.