3 ms·

The assumption that those interventions, including Bosnia, have something to do with avoiding genocide is beyond naive. Just two easy copy-paste from Wikipedia

The assumption that those interventions, including Bosnia, have something to do with avoiding genocide is beyond naive. Just two easy copy-paste from Wikipedia: "Bosnia conflict took place between 1992 and 1995,[..] 100,000 people were killed during the war." "During the approximate 100-day period from April 7 to mid-July 1994, an estimated 500,000–1,000,000 Rwandans were killed"

sdoering 11y ago
Thanks for the ad hominem and for pasting wikipedia. I was not saying, that this is/was the only reason for these interventions. By the way I hope I am not that "naive" to believe in easy answers in a complex world. Not doing so and realizing easy answers being thrown around was the reason I did comment in the first place. Do you really believe the world is cut into black and white that straight? I do not. I am far to cynical for that. For example we in the west did not hear that much of Rwanda during that time. There was no press storm I can remember (compared to the situation in Bosnia during the same time). There was no public outcry so no politician felt that pressure - maybe. Just maybe that was one reason. If people believe interventions happen because (for example) of lobbying interests of the military complex Rwanda would have been a perfect PR opportunity to sell some more ammunition and to have western countries engage in a yearlong conflict. That not happening might be oversight within these lobby groups or it might show, that this way of thinking does (at least not always) not work that easily. So please - let's be civil. Sheathe your "ad hominem"-sword and let's "fight" with solid arguments.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  I have read again both, your initial entry and my answer to it, and I stand for the content of my post. I don't think I have misrepresent your comment. Obviously I have misrepresented your opinions but I think, after reviewing your initial post, that it's hardly my fault. No idea what is the problem with pasting from wikipedia for making a point. I agree that the use of "beyond naive" was not appropriate and I want excuse myself for it. I would try to avoid this kind of thing in my comments in the future.

sdoering 11y ago

Thanks for the ad hominem and for pasting wikipedia. I was not saying, that this is/was the only reason for these interventions. By the way I hope I am not that "naive" to believe in easy answers in a complex world. Not doing so and realizing easy answers being thrown around was the reason I did comment in the first place. Do you really believe the world is cut into black and white that straight? I do not. I am far to cynical for that. For example we in the west did not hear that much of Rwanda during that time. There was no press storm I can remember (compared to the situation in Bosnia during the same time). There was no public outcry so no politician felt that pressure - maybe. Just maybe that was one reason. If people believe interventions happen because (for example) of lobbying interests of the military complex Rwanda would have been a perfect PR opportunity to sell some more ammunition and to have western countries engage in a yearlong conflict. That not happening might be oversight within these lobby groups or it might show, that this way of thinking does (at least not always) not work that easily. So please - let's be civil. Sheathe your "ad hominem"-sword and let's "fight" with solid arguments.

RobertoG 11y ago
I have read again both, your initial entry and my answer to it, and I stand for the content of my post. I don't think I have misrepresent your comment. Obviously I have misrepresented your opinions but I think, after reviewing your initial post, that it's hardly my fault. No idea what is the problem with pasting from wikipedia for making a point. I agree that the use of "beyond naive" was not appropriate and I want excuse myself for it. I would try to avoid this kind of thing in my comments in the future.