[VioletlightHeron]

The entire humans-in-space program is a waste of money. Back in the Sixties and Seventies the American had to keep ahead of the Soviet was machine, so they used that to justify keeping the space program alive. Later, they started telling the world that innumerable benefits for us here on earth would come out of research done in space. They talked about new health-and-longevity-benefiting stuff that would come about. They talked about using it to improve our quality of life. However, after 40 years of the space program, NOTHING has come out of it that we could use to our advantage. Yes, some technology was developed for the space program that we otherwise wouldn't have (smaller computers, etc) but those are mere BY-PRODUCTS of a program that has wasted trillions of dollars over a number of decades.

When that rocket blew up over Texas last year, those men and women died in vain. Do you know what they were doing in their last days? They had 50 assignments to carry out on their mission, over 40 of which were suggestions by ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS that were just designed to capture more interest in the space program and keep the young of American believing it has some purpose. What a shameful waste! The US spent billions of that mission, as they always do, so some fourth-grader in Tupelo can know what happens to sunflower seeds in zero gravity. And it cost those astronauts their lives. Purposeless, purposeless, purposeless.

And then there's always AH's point about how if we do manage to colonize another planet or the Moon, we'll just f*ck it up as we always have done. Think about it - those lunatics down at NASA are saying this is a pursuit which could unite all mankind in our wondrance and fascination and drive to know what's out there and what we can do. Uh, didn't we already colonize another world? Ever hear of THE NEW WORLD? We discovered half a planet never seen before and instead of saying "we must unite to explore it and profit from it for all our benefit", we said "get the f*ck out, this new world's ours!" and we fought for 200 years over it. And if you think we've "Evolved" since then, you've got another thing coming.

Prediction for the future: if we succeed in putting a colony on the moon, American Republicans will try and put nuclear weapons there as a defense strategy.

The ONLY thing about the space program I support is communication and exploratory satellites like Hubble. Humans do not belong in space. It's not worth it.

I think human space exploration is worthwhile, for a couple of reasons. One, it gives us more of an idea of how the universe was formed..all those trips to the moon collecting rock samples and the satellites put up into orbit like Hubble give us valuable insight into the formation of the universe, how the Earth was formed, etc. Two, simple exploration is worthwhile. Think of what the world might be like today if Leif Erickson hadnt decided to follow obscure rumours of a greener land to Newfoundland? or if Columbus decided it wasnt worth the bother to cross the ocean? I think one of the telling things in favour of this arguement is the Chinese sea explorers in the 14th century. They were so far advanced of other neighboring civilizations, light years ahead of the Europeans, Arabs, what have you. What did they do? They got complacent, decided that there wasnt anything worth exploring for, that their world as they knew it was perfect, so they dismantled their boats and started looking inward. What happened? They got overtaken by events and other people, they weren't proactive and colluded in their own sad demise. It's taken them centuries to become a world power again. I'd also like to point out that the Soviets didnt have any warm fuzzy intentions in their quest for exploring space, the US was the only country capable of competeing with them and making sure that the knowledge gained from rockets, plastics, new metals was shared with other countries.

[grooveless touque]

I think one of the telling things in favour of this arguement is the Chinese sea explorers in the 14th century. They got complacent, decided that there wasnt anything worth exploring for, that their world as they knew it was perfect, so they dismantled their boats and started looking inward. What happened? They got overtaken by events and other people, they weren't proactive and colluded in their own sad demise.

That goes back to the argument of needing to keep one step ahead of everybody else in order to maintain your power. It's a desperate cycle. The Chinese could have gained more power from discovering the new world, if they had wanted, but would it have been for the better? No, it would have been just another wolf fighting over the carcass of the New World. It's bad enough that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, etc. were all fighting for their stake.

Not going to Mars is not going to cause the US to collapse like the Chinese dynasties did. In fact, if they used the hundreds of billions of dollars they spend on humans in space on social programs in their own country, they would not only be the greatest world power, they would be the gmost benevolent society in world history.

[VioletlightHeron]

That goes back to the argument of needing to keep one step ahead of everybody else in order to maintain your power. It's a desperate cycle. The Chinese could have gained more power from discovering the new world, if they had wanted, but would it have been for the better? No, it would have been just another wolf fighting over the carcass of the New World. It's bad enough that the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English, etc. were all fighting for their stake.

Not going to Mars is not going to cause the US to collapse like the Chinese dynasties did. In fact, if they used the hundreds of billions of dollars they spend on humans in space on social programs in their own country, they would not only be the greatest world power, they would be the gmost benevolent society in world history.

I agree, its not as if the sky is falling and we need to skedaddle to Mars or the moon to survive. Again, with the amount of money that is spent on the space program being put to other social uses, its a worthy idea, but not feasible because of two things. One, the US does give a lot of financial aid to other countries and helps support the World Bank, UNESCO and WHO.The money isn't always used for the benefit of the people, especially in 3rd world countries ruled by dictators or incompetent, corrupt governments. Two, the american public would throw a shit fit about the supposed waste of taxpayer money, egged on by "concerned" politicians of both stripes. I would expect the same reaction in any other country by its citizens.

[AmbitionlessHipster]

ahh debate! Yippee! :jump

Ok, while you have a very valid point about what white colonial explorers did in Africa and Asia in the 1500's-1800's, you forget about the other non-white "exploiters" did to peoples of their own race or other races; The Mongols invading Russia and China in the 1200's-1400's, the Japanese invading China in the 20th century, the Vikings invading europe in the 9th and 10th century. All of these examples show that no matter what race, creed, color you are, there are individuals who will exploit others for their own profit..its not just whites. Secondly, while it would be great to have everybody treat each other fairly and equitably as good neighbors all the time, its not logical to expect people with different competing interests to play fair..its the nature of humans, of animals even to not play fair. Who's heard of a wolf that walks up to a sheep and asks politely for a lamb shank? Unlike animals, Humanity has evolved over the centuries as certain behaviors have been deemed unacceptable. We've gotten over, for the most part i feel, discriminating against others because of their skin colour, religion, what have you. It's not a perfect society, discrimination and hatred does happen, but i think to make a society that ensures equality of all citizens, you'd have to have a very powerful government that makes most of the decisions. Frankly, that scares me because ANY type of government that wishes to have a "fair", well ordered people eventually starts loving power for its own sake and loses sight of its goals. Communism had a great goal, everybody gets the same treatment, land, wealth, the government insures equal distribution of power to its citizens. Then it started treating some of its citizens as less than equal because those citizens disagreed with their goals, then it became paranoid and didnt trust its own citizens. Capitalism and Communism have their own share of flaws and weaknesses, but i trust capitalism and democracy more because everyone has the right to vote and speak their mind. They can be manipulated by Repubs, Dems, corporations, labor unions, etc but they have that vote to say what they want. I say it is better to acknowledge our failings and mistakes but not dwell on them all the time. Hindsight is 20/20 perfect vision. I appreciate where you are coming from, but i disagree with your viewpoint :thumb:

Perhaps you have misread, or better, I think you are misrepresenting me just a tad. I did not forget that people destroy their own nations… however; I am just relating the white (Caucasian/European) tendency towards ethnocentric essentialisms. I agree that it is a human flaw, but imperialism was ‘largely’ (I stress this as not a totality) a “white” problem as they not only wished to retain lands (which all greedy nations do). They had set out to change the cultures that they were invading; they used them and changed the politics, the religions, the customs, and beliefs. It was much, much more than simply gaining territory and “discovery” (which can also be interpreted as some sort of propagandistic term). It centred on racial beliefs of superiority. You also failed to mention the colonisation (and subsequent genocide) of the native peoples of South and North America. Now, this is certainly not to deny that human nature is based upon competition and whatnot. I obviously understand that humanity is greedy and flawed. When, however, you mention things such as “colonising” the moon, it reminds me of all of the disgusting things done to people. Also, NASA is a bunch of white, corporate and government MALES who are essentially in search of profit. This is proved with the Challenger (I think) deaths last year… along with what ‘Grooveless’ said: it was purposeless. It was a “feel good” so that NASA (a.k.a. corporations and governments) could once again justify pouring millions of dollars into a venture (while the public sheep lapped it up like good little soldiers) that is rendered unnecessary in terms of the problems that are present on earth, at this present time which are far more pertinent.
<<”We've gotten over, for the most part i feel, discriminating against others because of their skin colour, religion, what have you.”>> Ask anyone who was a victim of such pillaging and destruction if THEY have gotten over it. I highly doubt it. THEY must suffer the effects of the racist colonisation/imperialism imposed upon them… just read some post-colonial literature (especially books about Trinidad and Africa) and tell me if we should sit back and simply accept that it is “simply a part of humanity.” Acceptance is not the answer, nor is denial… especially not flying to the moon. It should be the least of our concerns.
<<” It's not a perfect society, discrimination and hatred does happen, but i think to make a society that ensures equality of all citizens, you'd have to have a very powerful government that makes most of the decisions.”>>

Right, so let us just give up and accept this joke of a democracy that faces us. I mean, why bother trying to find a better means, right?

I do not want to turn this into a huge debate over the benefits and faults of democracies and other systems, however, if you are willing to accept the weaknesses, then a mistake is being made. Acceptance is what makes sheep and herds, the worst kind of humanity possible. I do know the qualities and faults of other political systems, and of course I do not think that they are plausible ways of governing our society. Democracy, however, or whatever it stands to be in its present for, is not the solution. Contemporary forms of government represent liberal democracies that are the product of capitalist market societies. These contemporary governments may be “democratic”, but they are not adequate representations of the general will of the people. Most importantly, the governments of North America are representative democracies, elected by the population and the majority vote. This is in direct opposition to the ideals of representing ALL people. Active participation of all citizens is impossible in both Canada and the United States because of the vast size and large population of both nations, however, more action should be taken to eradicate puppet states and dead democracies which are led by corporate power and lobbies. The government parties are fallible and tend to represent corporations and support a market society as opposed to promoting the general will of the citizens. (George W. Bush’s call for a war against Iraq was very questionable as to whom he was representing: people or profit?) The capitalist nature of North American society may be beneficial in promoting competition, encouraging innovation and facilitating life but it does not express the general will nor the best for society as a whole rather it promotes an elite few. The corporate owners are highly influential in government matters and have the potential to change the “will” and necessities of the people as a contingent whole.
Reiterating my point, I think it is a shame that people are so willing to accept “flaws” (such as democracy) rather than attempting to better ourselves. We are the herd that Nietzsche describes us as… it is inescapable until we step up and demand change.

Leslee

[VioletlightHeron]

Perhaps you have misread, or better, I think you are misrepresenting me just a tad. I did not forget that people destroy their own nations… however; I am just relating the white (Caucasian/European) tendency towards ethnocentric essentialisms. I agree that it is a human flaw, but imperialism was ‘largely’ (I stress this as not a totality) a “white” problem as they not only wished to retain lands (which all greedy nations do). They had set out to change the cultures that they were invading; they used them and changed the politics, the religions, the customs, and beliefs. It was much, much more than simply gaining territory and “discovery” (which can also be interpreted as some sort of propagandistic term). It centred on racial beliefs of superiority. You also failed to mention the colonisation (and subsequent genocide) of the native peoples of South and North America. Now, this is certainly not to deny that human nature is based upon competition and whatnot. I obviously understand that humanity is greedy and flawed.

I don't think you want to understand the point I am making, that no matter what race, creed,color exists, no race of people on this earth is innocent of practicing racial discrimination in its history. There are tribes in Africa; in Nigeria, Uganda and Congo that hate and destroy each other out of smug superiority of their race/tribe, but barely a word is breathed in the major newspapers of the underlying reasons why these countries are shambles. It is inpolitic to suggest that Asian and Black races share the same sad flaw of the skinheads and Aryan believers in the white race. What was the massacre in Rwanda about? It was about the hatred of the Hutu people by the Tsuti (sp?) tribe and their decision to slaughter them for some ancient wrong done or belief that the Hutu's were less than human and therefore slaughter could be justified. I think its a great thing to teach our schoolkids about the failings of the past, about slavery and Jim Crow. But, at some point, life has to go on. We have laws in this country and in canada that outlaw discrimination and the agencies to enforce those laws. The scenario that scares me the most in this country is based on the boy who cried wolf all the time. The NAACP and other organizations have done a wonderful job of pointing out the deficiencies of some governments and corporations, but it is very rare to hear something from them that is not a complaint. The NAACP is a political organization just like the rest of the right to life, pro gun, pro abortion groups out there that have their own agenda. To cry racism and discrimination because they did not get their way in politics is foolhardy and dangerous. Dangerous because the louder they scream about racism in this country without verifiable facts to back it up, the more people start to ignore them. The more people ignore them, the less power and believability they will have when it comes to pointing out real instances of racism in American society. In my ideal world, people would sit down and negotiate their differences with respect;all parties recognizing that sometimes they dont always get what they want and the best way to get what they want is to think smarter and present better arguements and convince more people their ideals are right rather than whining and carping about the raw deal they got.

When, however, you mention things such as “colonising” the moon, it reminds me of all of the disgusting things done to people. Also, NASA is a bunch of white, corporate and government MALES who are essentially in search of profit. This is proved with the Challenger (I think) deaths last year… along with what ‘Grooveless’ said: it was purposeless. It was a “feel good” so that NASA (a.k.a. corporations and governments) could once again justify pouring millions of dollars into a venture (while the public sheep lapped it up like good little soldiers) that is rendered unnecessary in terms of the problems that are present on earth, at this present time which are far more pertinent.

I agree and disagree with you on this arguement. I feel the problem with NASA is it is a big government agency. Huge federal agencies are, in my opinion, prone to errors in judgement and slothfulness because their is a lack of accountability and common sense because of the size and amount of money spent. I dont think Corporations are good or evil, its the people who run them, especially in the big corporations that depend of government contracts to continue in business and get lazy or mismanaged and are concerned with profit motive rather than cost effectiveness and accountability. There are corporations out there, and people within some of the big corporations that follow their sense of right and wrong and use fair business practices. These companies invent faster, more effective rockets, fuel cells etc that make space exploration more conceivable and everyday living better for all of us. Hyundai Prius or that other electric car? Like anything in this world, I feel there are lots of good things and bad things and I feel that the best way to live life is to celebrate the progress and achievements we make toward a better human race and accept failure and work to correct it, knowing that it may take more time than i would want. Recrimination and bitterness leaves you in a trap of your own making. There's an old saying ive heard, cant remember off the top of my head who said it but it goes like this..Forgive the sins of the past of your fellow man, but never forget the choices and errors that lead to these sins.

ok, i've babbled enough here, thanks for graciously allowing me to speak my peace..over to you, leslee :thumb:

[Kim]

True but what about something like healthcare? Money would certainly be useful there, the government could help relieve costs for those less fortunate. I saw this documentary on tv the other day, about a couple in the US. The guy was unemployed so he didn't have healthcare and the woman was suffering from cancer. She had to keep working while she was getting chemotherapy in order to ensure she had healthcare coverage. That's just not right, is it? I don't know, maybe I've just been spoiled by our Dutch system.

I agree that humans are explorers and that includes going up into space but it's not priority number one. Plus I can't get over the fact that Bush is presenting this great plan a couple of months before he hopes to get re-elected.. just another self-promotion scam.

There are alot of valid points in your arguement about different health systems, however I don't know anything about Dutch health care, perhaps you could fill me in. The thing is here in the States, there are alot of big companies being squeezed by their health care costs and lots of disagreements between companies and unions when it comes to contract negotiation time. My granddad's pension from Bethelhem Steel got dumped when the company was acquired after spending years in bankruptcy. It sucked for the pensioners, but it isnt the fault of the new management because the previous management grew complacent and squeezed by foreign and domestic competition. Plus when the old management finally woke up and realized that they had to cut costs in order to survive, the pensioners and the union didnt want to budge on what had been promised to them. They were stuck and the company was stuck between a rock and a hard place. And if you remember correctly, Kennedy made his man on the moon by the end of the decade speech out of idealism and political concerns as well. Politicians are politicians, doesnt matter what party they belong to. There always has to be something in a policy issue that either addresses their political needs or makes them look good.

We're very fortunate here in the Netherlands, practically everybody has health coverage, which is heavily subsidised by the government. It's a good system. The government made some cuts recently due to the economic recession and this didn't go down well at all, there were lots of protests but no matter what, we're lucky people.

As for Kennedy, I don't think it had anything to do with idealism but it was all about politics, like you said. The truth is that the US got their asses kicked in the Bay of Pigs affair in Cuba, which just so happened to be a communist ally of Russia. Yuri Gargarin had already gone into space in 1961, Russia seemed to have made clear advances and so the USA needed something to strike back with, to demonstrate their superiority. Getting a man on the moon seemed the perfect way to do that.

Let's not forget though that presidents are merely puppets, they don't actually call the shots. Behind the scenes are all kinds of advisors and sponsors who will tell the president what to do and in the process make sure they reap all the benefits. It's an "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" situation. If anything is going to change about the way the US is run, one of the things that needs to be taken into consideration is this whole system of mixing business with politics, the two are so intertwined, it's only logical conflicts of interest will arise.

[Kim]

What was the massacre in Rwanda about? It was about the hatred of the Hutu people by the Tsuti (sp?) tribe and their decision to slaughter them for some ancient wrong done or belief that the Hutu's were less than human and therefore slaughter could be justified.

This massacre could have been prevented by US and western troops. But no, the US decided to pull out, and convinced UN troops to do the same. They claimed it was a quagmire and intervention was pointless. Research later pointed out that 5,000 troops would have been enough to prevent the whole massacre. Just needed to point this out.

But speaking of Rwanda, the problems that arose there in 1994 can all be tracked back to the days in which it too was taken over by colonialists. Rwanda was first part of German East Africa and then later come under control of the Belgians. The Belgians left the Tutsi's with all the power and when the Hutu's rebelled against this political and social inequality, thats when the string of violence started. So even though it was a clash amongst two african races, we can't plead innocent.

[VioletlightHeron]

I don't recall if the US had troops in Rwanda in the first place, though I'm pretty sure the UN had peacekeepers there, from what i understand of the situation, the UN and US pretty much dawdled, hemmed and hawed about putting real force on the ground, the UN because of having to ask(make that beg) the member countries for more troops and after the debacle in Sarajevo and Sbrenicia, alot of countries were hesitant to supply troops.I think that after the problems in Somalia, the US had been much more reluctant to bring in the military to solve humanitarian crisises. The American public simply didnt like the idea of using our troops to solve other countries problems and getting shot at and killed with no thanks.

[grooveless touque]

The UN did indeed have troops there, but of course peacekeepers weren't permitted by mandate to intervene in that. And they didn't have the numbers to work with it, either. The US never had troops there in the years before that massacre. The only reason the US considered it not worth going in to quell the situation was because the US did not stand to gain anything from a forced peace in Rwanda. In Iraq, they have oil...not to mention a very public face to piss on (Saddam Hussein). In Rwanda, the American people would have been harder pressed to support military activity there...there was no benefit to the US, and there was no obvious "target". Americans like to know who to be angry at. For some incredibly superficial reason, the American masses can only get behind conflicts where they can name a name to blame for the situation.

[Kim]

I don't recall if the US had troops in Rwanda in the first place, though I'm pretty sure the UN had peacekeepers there, from what i understand of the situation, the UN and US pretty much dawdled, hemmed and hawed about putting real force on the ground, the UN because of having to ask(make that beg) the member countries for more troops and after the debacle in Sarajevo and Sbrenicia, alot of countries were hesitant to supply troops.I think that after the problems in Somalia, the US had been much more reluctant to bring in the military to solve humanitarian crisises.

You're right, I made a mistake about the US having actual troops in Rwanda, sorry. Nevertheless they were the ones that strongly supported the withdrawal of all the troops once the genocide started to gather speed. Plus, the fact that they refused to commit their own troops to the effort reduced the prestige of the operation and discouraged nations which would have been eager to join an American-led intervention.

The American public simply didnt like the idea of using our troops to solve other countries problems and getting shot at and killed with no thanks.

Not sure what to think about this statement but as for the sentiments of the american public: a poll held amongst the american public in July of 1994, after the genocide had been more widely reported resulted in 66% of the population supporting the US contributing troops to " a large UN peacekeeping operation to occupy Rwanda and forcibly stop the killing".

[VioletlightHeron]

Not sure what to think about this statement but as for the sentiments of the american public: a poll held amongst the american public in July of 1994, after the genocide had been more widely reported resulted in 66% of the population supporting the US contributing troops to " a large UN peacekeeping operation to occupy Rwanda and forcibly stop the killing".

I think the key to that poll was it was held after the massacres had happened and after the media reported it widely, the same media attention and outrage over what the American public thought were needless deaths in Somalia in 1992 helped push the Clinton administration to pull troops from Somalia and allow the warlord they were going after to take over the country. I dont think we should have withdrawn from Somalia and part of the reasons behind that fiasco was the reluctance of the Clinton administration to deploy heavier armored helicopters to the area. They forgot one of the basic rules of war, never underestimate your opponent and never go into battle without the best equipment and support available.

[VioletlightHeron]

You're right, I made a mistake about the US having actual troops in Rwanda, sorry. Nevertheless they were the ones that strongly supported the withdrawal of all the troops once the genocide started to gather speed. Plus, the fact that they refused to commit their own troops to the effort reduced the prestige of the operation and discouraged nations which would have been eager to join an American-led intervention.

This is going to sound extremely negative, but i think the American government is stuck with a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't attitude from the European public and governments. We are the ones you turn to when the European people and government want to intervene in some places ( Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda), but dont have the know how or armed forces to solve the problem and we are dammed if we do intervene in places where we feel our national security is at stake and you think we are being imperalistic war mongerers or whatever. The EU, France and other European governments didn't want us to invade Iraq because they felt any issues of Saddam possessing WMD could be negotiated and worked out. My question is, if they felt this way, why didnt they press more forcefully for inspections back in 1994 or thereabouts? Inspections worked for a couple of years after the Gulf War, but once France and the other countries wanted to go back to business as usual, Saddam could go back to playing hide the weapons salami with the inspectors.

[grooveless touque]

Well if you want to get into matters of when it was convenient for certain countries to want to try negotiating WMD investigations, you have to consider all the evidence the US ignored in their unjustified pre-emptory invasion of Iraq. WMD inspections showed nothing because there was nothing to find, not because Saddam was doing such a supreme job hiding them. It was highly suspected in the international community that Saddam's forces never regained the power they had before the first Gulf War, let alone exceeded them to the point of actually having WMD that posed a threat to the US. All the intelligence suggested it. The American administration blatantly ignored everything in evidence, instead choosing to rely on the "it must be there" bet. Guess what, they lost. Well, technically, the US never loses ANYTHING...the Iraqis who died in this War (25,000-40,000) lost. And just recently we had a document come to light from within Saddam's administration from one minister to another saying they did not have any luck with their attempts to develop WMD. Their programs were dismantled from within years ago.

[CanuckCourage]

I think that after the problems in Somalia, the US had been much more reluctant to bring in the military to solve humanitarian crisises. The American public simply didnt like the idea of using our troops to solve other countries problems and getting shot at and killed with no thanks.

Frankly I don't think the American public know Somalia or Rwanda from a hole in the ground, so the idea that they didn't like the idea of getting shot fighting for someone elses problems is bunk . As Neil put it , "Americans like to know who to be angry at. For some incredibly superficial reason, the American masses can only get behind conflicts where they can name a name to blame for the situation. " The Whole Iraq invasion was based on rhetoric, misinformation and lies . We saw the reasons morph from "the threat of WMD to the security of the US" to " Regime Change" to "Liberation of the Iraqi people" and finally back to " WMD" . The feel good coverage in the US on the whole invasion leaves you to wonder ..Funny the rhetoric , trying to connect Iraq to 911 and the terrorists...and now I see in coverage they often refer to the resistors in Iraq as "terrorists". Nice choice of words..now of course the faces of Uday and Qusay paraded on the newspapers as some great , good old US extremist Christian justice , nice way to lead by example, parade the dead around like it's the Middle Ages , maybe impaling their heads on a couple stakes and putting them on the White House lawn seemed too extreme . Of course the great face to associate and feel great about was none other than Saddam himself , John Wayne got his man . if I hear any more rhetoric or military jargon i'm gonna puke , starting off with Saddams capture in his " Spider Hole" , big f***ing spider , and this was before the release of The Return Of The King , where I would have believed in such a hole . Other phrases I hope never to hear again " Evildoers" "Axis of Evil" "Shock and Awe"(9,000+Civillians aka Collateral Damage) " Decapitation Strike" "Embedded reporters"....

I don't think the American public (in general , I don't paint everyone with the same brush , speaking of the majority though ) is too concerned with anything until it is laid out in front of them in terms of good VS bad (American Justice) , your country is steeped in this "iconic hero culture" , nationalism taken too far, not "were doing this because it's an humanitarian venture" . Whatever the will of the current administration is , enough propaganda and rhetoric can be produced to convince the majority of the population of just about anything. For the most part the masses are sheep . Kind of all over in my post , this shit is just getting on my nerves...

[AmbitionlessHipster]

But speaking of Rwanda, the problems that arose there in 1994 can all be tracked back to the days in which it too was taken over by colonialists. Rwanda was first part of German East Africa and then later come under control of the Belgians. The Belgians left the Tutsi's with all the power and when the Hutu's rebelled against this political and social inequality, thats when the string of violence started. So even though it was a clash amongst two african races, we can't plead innocent.

Thanks Kim :thumb: My point exactly!!