Rwanda Genocide

is genocide a war tho? if they just be straight Killin niggas, I mean somebody oughtta dude sumpin

Yeah, nothing wrong with this at all…

It is literally impossible for imperialist powers to intervene against genocide.
1. Imperialist powers regularly participate in genocide. Even today, America is assisting its puppet Saudi Arabia in genocide against Yemen. Why would you trust a perpetrator of genocide to prevent genocide?
2. The profit motive is the sole reason that imperialist countries go to war. They will only ever "prevent genocide" if it means they think they will be able to plunder the region afterwards and exploit the proles. Imperialist intervention prevents socialist intervention, as in Germany post WWII.
3. The imperialists always falsify charges of genocide against the countries they plan on invading. If you live in an imperialist country, it is your duty as a communist to distrust all accusations of genocide that are leveled by the imperialist war machine. Because of the extent of their propaganda, you will not be able to figure out the truth until five or ten years after the fact.
IF YOU THINK IMPERIALIST ANTI-GENOCIDE INTERVENTION IS POSSIBLE, YOU ARE A CLASS TRAITOR.

Hmm…

This. Blame the British.

during the Syrian civil war there were massive media campaigns saying assad was starving and gassing people and this is why we should invade syria.
Its just a Casus belli to invade another country if its in our interest.

Has america ever gone to direct war in africa?
I think we had that blackhawk down thing then noped.jpg out of there.

thats different tho because stuff and the YPG is totally not a tool that is fucking itself over :^)

this has basically been the natural conclusion of the pragmatics and the NCLC and the fight against child labor. obviously child labor sucks, but as with everything modern America has turned everything into a crusade in the name of protecting the children of the nation.

fuckin jerk me off. your kid is a little shit, Nancy

why can't the profit motive simply be an added benefit? I mean surely, the purpose of intervening would be to save lives, but to profit off that intervention doesn't have to be the primary drive. are you suggesting that there is no longer such things as humanitarian efforts?

There is no such thing as a humanitarian war, how are you humanitarianly going to invade another country and humanitarianly get rid of its leader and humanitarianly shoot people in the face.
Its the ultimate double speak the left falls for all the time

isn't it mostly the right that wants to go to war? the left usually opposes war.

No, if you think this then you are a fucking moron.
Again, the imperialist powers are committing genocide RIGHT NOW. They don't care about human life.

You can convince any man to do evil if you tell them its for the greater good, for the right it god and country, for the left its for humanitarianism and peace

tribal conflict has been going on for 20 thousand years. Why now do we have the duty to stop them from doing as their culture demands?

Anyways, usually the only reason america goes to war is when we get attacked.

9.11, gulf of tonkin, sinking of Lusitania, attack on fort sumter, pearl harbor.

Really feeds into the whole false flag thing.

Most wars post ww2 are asymmetrical, funding of proxy groups or terrorists, drone strikes and new technology.

Actually the right wing used to be isolationist, they were the ones who never wanted to go to war.
It goes back to george washignton, in his farewell address he told everyone not to get involved in European affairs because they are giant faggots and we should have focused solely on the new world

No, because the only time imperialist nations intervene in genocide is when its stuff like "iraqi soldiers literally killing babies".

By their definition, imperialists nations only intervene to establish their power and for their own benefit. An imperialist nation never intervenes out of valid humanitarian reasons.

What happens when an imperialist nation "intervenes to stop genocide" is genocide on a larger scale than the one they supposedly stop.

How many leftists support this? You must be thinking about liberals.

McNamara admitted that the event literally never fucking happened
youtube.com/watch?v=5AaGVAipGp0

When Britain and France went to war in 1792, George Washington declared neutrality, with unanimous support of his cabinet, after deciding that the treaty with France of 1778 did not apply.[3] Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 explicitly announced the policy of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

n the wake of the First World War, the non-interventionist tendencies of US foreign policy gained ascendancy. The Treaty of Versailles, and thus, United States' participation in the League of Nations, even with reservations, was rejected by the Republican-dominated Senate in the final months of Wilson's presidency. A group of Senators known as the Irreconcilables, identifying with both William Borah and Henry Cabot Lodge, had great objections regarding the clauses of the treaty which compelled America to come to the defense of other nations. Lodge, echoing Wilson, issued 14 Reservations regarding the treaty; among them, the second argued that America would sign only with the understanding that:

Nothing compels the United States to ensure border contiguity or political independence of any nation, to interfere in foreign domestic disputes regardless of their status in the League, or to command troops or ships without Congressional declaration of war

The war in Europe split the American people into two camps: non-interventionists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America's involvement in this World War II. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France suffered a stunning defeat by Germans, and Britain was the only democratic enemy of Germany.[14][15] In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, "Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force."[16] A national survey found that in the summer of 1940, 67% of Americans believed that a German-Italian victory would endanger the United States, that if such an event occurred 88% supported "arm[ing] to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble", and that 71% favored "the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men".[17]

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers empowered the interventionist argument. Writer Archibald MacLeish asked, "How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?"[18] In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, "the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government."[19]

Eh? The Genocide still happened, just the counter forces massacred Hutu's as well. Basically, both sides were genociding eachother.

One on a significantly larger scale while simultaneously being denied political expression, and rights. Not to mention the entire conflict was sparked by Tutsi's in the first place.

this is such bullshit, the US engaged in plenty of cappie wars in South and Central America before WWII.

...

Did you know Hutus and Tutsi lived alongside eachother like any other tribes until some Belgian colonist doctor told them that one tribe is inherently inferior and supposed to rule over the other.
From then on there was civil war.
Y'all need some Adam Curtis. Get smart, Holla Forums.

Original quote is in here:
rwandanstories.org/origins/colonialism.html

one superior, the other one inferior.

divide & conquer
Holla Forums vs sjw, locals vs immigrants, locals and immigrants vs russia and north korea

Those fucking evil western imperialists should never have stopped them from having their tribal wars in which they enslaved and ate each other.

This is not sarcasm, I truly believe this was a mistake. Sub Saharan Africa should have been under a Star Trek like Prime Directive.

but see and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_of_Loving_Grace_(TV_series)

It's called war, let's drop the liberal doeblespeak

whitey gets blamed for whatever he does

we're like one colony of ants continuously attempting to destroy and consume another colony of ants that would do just the same to us

I don't necessarily know if I believe that war is synonymous with or an aspect of specific cultures. it may be synonymous with or an aspect of humanity, but so is hate and murder and rape and theft, and we have a duty to try and preventing those things from happening as well

well, who are you defining as the imperialist powers, and where are they currently committing a genocide? asking in all seriousness about the last part. aside from darfur, I haven't heard of any other more recent genocide (which could very well be the fault of my own ignorance)

but is war for the means of future peace in itself an ignoble act? can there not be a legitimate reason or purpose to war or intervention?

how staunch is the difference between leftists and liberals?

weren't the Lusitania and possibly even Pearl harbor attacks false flags as well?

Imperialist powers did "intervene". Not only were their policies at the root of the social and political causes of the genocide to begin with (Belgium basically engineered the Hutu-Tutsi divide out of racist ideology and cynical politics), they were also directly involved with the logistics that made the massacres possible (France provided Hutu paramilitaries with weapons and training).

When the UN did intervene to save people, such operations were confined to whites and they pulled out when they were done with that. They basically met distressed Tutsi with a "shoo, shoo" as they were leaving.

this reminds of the UK and US intervention/meddling in Iranian affairs back in the fifties. their involvement is maybe the first domino to fall in the chain of events that is current middle Eastern turmoil

What the fuck is this blatant denialist bullshit? This isn't Holla Forums.

to be fair, whitey do be kinda fuckin up shit historically

to be fair, name a shade of the rainbow that didn't

And that is how you end up with a generation of braindead tankies who believe this or that genocide "actually" didn't happen in spite of the massive amount of evidence, all because "muh imperialism".

I feel like there's been an uptick in genocide denial in Holla Forums as of late. Hm, I wonder where the people who engage in that kind of rhetoric might originate from…

native Americans probably?

really gets the noggin joggin :^)

Imperialism caused that, so kill the european bougies.