Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonRwanda was eventually declared a genocide. Darfur is not technically a genocide. I'm not saying it's any better, I'm just saying it's not a genocide. It's not the number of murders that constitutes a genocide. Who gives a damn about the stupid definition of genocide? Human rights groups all over the globe might. I guess "the America" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't give a ****, even though there were movements and marches and large organizations lobbying for the US government to aid in the ending of those disgusting actions. Where in the definition of genocide is a specific number mentioned? Or the Holocaust? What are you talking about? I doubt the US "didn't feel like" getting involved in Rwanda, but I agree that Somalia definitely affected the decision. A government's job is to serve its constituents as best it can, and after somalia, US involvement in Rwanda seemed like a bad idea in that it would decrease public support for governmental activities.

Yes, I realize that Rwanda was eventually declared genocide. This is what i found on dictionary.com as the definition of "genocide": "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." So what i meant by "how many does it take to call it a genocide" is that why wasn't Rwanda declared a genocide after 10,000 murders; or 100,000; or 500,000? Genocide is more of an idea than an act, in my opinion. After watching Hotel Rwanda about a month ago, i was inspired to find out more information about the situation so i picked up the book [U]We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow we will be Killed with our Families[/U] by a guy named Philip Gourevitch. It's quite interesting, actually.

There seems to be like 5 different discussions in this thread right now so I'm not gonna go on any more about this particular topic. But I'd like to discuss it with anyone else who wants to.