| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| humanitarian crisis unfolding; Congo | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 1 2008, 03:13 AM (500 Views) | |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 03:13 AM Post #1 |
|
Captain
|
While the world's focus is directly on the looming poll day in the US there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in the African continent once again. Will the world once more be a passive witness to genocide or can we learn from past mistakes and prevent this http://www.apanews.net/apa.php?page=show_article_eng&id_article=79295 http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hahlwtZDW2XnO11jjeohaUMKMI2w |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 05:01 AM Post #2 |
|
Admiral
|
Its not that straightforward a situation for us to resolve. You have rebels fighting a government and the rebel advance is forcing people to flee causing the humanitarian crisis. The government itself is arguably corrupt and has blood on its hands (the AFP article points this out). If the UN troops fight the rebels, as the government seems incapable of doing, they have effectively taken sides. Its very difficult to keep two forces apart, staying neutral, and at the same time get humanitarian relief to people in desperate need of it. That however is probably what we are going to have to try and do. So I would not be too quick to judge western governments if they really would rather not have to get involved. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 06:38 AM Post #3 |
|
Captain
|
"Its not that straightforward a situation for us to resolve." I know, it never is, especially in circumstance of a breakdown of law and order bordering on anarchy, the self interest of opposing groups, generational fueds fuelled with hatred... all ready to explode into genocide. "So I would not be too quick to judge western governments if they really would rather not have to get involved." I will, if hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are once again butchered or die from disease and starvation. I don't have the answer and I remember the fate of the US military intervention in Rwanda. But that's why the pollies are paid the big bucks. I say, whatever it takes even if it comes to military intervention |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Nov 1 2008, 08:16 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Hundreds of thousands again displaced by civil unrest? That's a tragic situation. Saddam was accused of being responsible for 2,000,000 Iraqi deaths by the prosecutor in his trial. There was no objection to that number on Saddam's behalf. How long will it be until the countries responsible for stopping that genocide get proper recognition? Perhaps countries are bit less willing to send help realizing that "no good deed goes unpunished"? Anyhoo, 17,000 UN troops are already on site in Rwanda (link). Apparently that's not enough. I must give props to those troops as "blue-helmeted rape squads" did not come up in my brief google search. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 08:19 AM Post #5 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ Yes, I don't know how many times I've made that point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Nov 1 2008, 08:27 AM Post #6 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Past mistakes have taught us that we are just as likely to screw the situation up even more as we are improving it. Especially when both sides are just as nasty. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 08:32 AM Post #7 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ And I'd say that malcontents and whiners who didn't get there way are more responsible for screwups thant he one who wanted to help in the first place. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 08:35 AM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
This is true. Western intervention, particularly military intervention, in Africa does not have a particularly illustrious history. I'm not arguing for doing nothing, if someone can come up with a decent plan for resolving the situation fine but frankly it is up to the opposing sides to stop the violence. Ironic really that those who are often so opposed to expensive government intervention at home are often the most vocal supporters of expensive government intervention abroad (and vice-versa). Why that should be I don't know. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 08:39 AM Post #9 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
^^^ Well, see, if the state of Georgia were advocating the summary execution of some of it citizens, hell yes I'd call for expensive government intevention at home. In fact, the US government has done just that in response to that kind of thing. So, I guess you're little quip fell flat. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 08:54 AM Post #10 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Not a quip. A genuine point. I dont however wish to turn yet another thread into a left/ right debate so I'll leave it there. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 09:00 AM Post #11 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
It aint a left/right thing DS... You know, when armed thugs ransack an American city, killing all who oppose them, then you might have a point about the US (or people in the US) needing to spend more of money at home intervening. And this isn't an American thing either. I think all the Anglosphere nations have every right to look out into the world then contrast their own nations with what they see, and then ask themselves, "Should we really let death and destruction continue on unabated?" Western nation, particularly the Anglosphere nations --- Britain, United States, Canada, Australia --- have far more to be proud of than ashamed. What we have that should make us proud is our humanity and desire for individual liberty. It is something that is fairly unique to the Anglosphere nations, and it most certainly ought to be advocated and fought for in this world. Edited by Dwayne, Nov 1 2008, 09:06 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 09:42 AM Post #12 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Dwayne what gives us the right or the responsibility to look at another country and say "we are going to solve your problems"? So in this case rather than the two factions sorting the problem out for themselves there is a "need" for intervention by foreign governments. Why should our governments levy taxes on their populations and put their citizens in harms way not for their own defence but to sort out problems in other countries not of our own making. When do the citizens and governments of those countries have to take responsibility for their own actions? Why do our governments have to extend responsibility to foreign citizens because of their own governments incompetence, corruption, neglect, brutality etc. I am arguing this as a point, not because I particularly adhere to the above but I do think they are questions we should ask. Edited by ds9074, Nov 1 2008, 09:42 AM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 11:13 AM Post #13 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
What gives us the right is that we're ultimately protecting our own by attempting to eliminate those who would bring harm to us. What gives us the responsibility is that we have the capacity to act to eliminate despots and dictators who us fear and propaganda to scare the citizens from uprising, and then turn the citizens anger outward. These despots and dictators use personality cults to remain in power, and eliminating them does cause a period of uncertainty and confusion as the people readjust, but if the free world would act in a unified in doing this, it would make the transition for the citizens much smoother by creating certainty. When the citizens who lived under one of these despots knows the world is behind them and will not retreat from the inevitable insurgency of the former regime or competing regimes, those citizens will more readily adapt to living out from under the thumb of the despot. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 11:24 AM Post #14 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ For which countries do we apply this? What are the criteria? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 02:08 PM Post #15 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Well, I think the first step is in deciding to recognize that not all countries are created equal. I dictatorship has less of a right to exert itself in international affairs than a functioning representative-democracy that protects basic human rights. There are many nations on the American continent, European and Asian continents, as well as Australia, that fit the description. Countries like Russia, Sudan, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Somalia, etc, etc... They don't fit the description and are antithetical to any international organization that wishes to use the principles of democracy as part of the governing body. Then the free nations need to seriously look at each instance on a case by case basis. The calculation maybe cold, but I think it's the only way... We must calculate where force can be best applied with success, and then not flinch in doing so. We mustn't flinch, because people are already dieing anyway, and more people will die in the very effort to free them. In the short term, many may resent the effort, but the long term benefits far outweigh that short term pain. The ultimate subjugation, reorganization, and restitution of the nations of Japan and Germany are that model. The critic of this line of thinking maintain that culture is immutable and prevent this model from applying to many of the nations we may encounter. I believe this is hogwash and the fact that it worked on such dissimilar nations such as Japan and Germany is precident necessary to establish a basis for how to go about this transformation. It is for that reason I believe that some are so invested in this experiment in nation-building from succeeding in Iraq. If we succeeded in building a democratic Iraq that respected human rights, that would lay the foundation for further interventions around the world. Many, for their own reasons, simply don't want that to occur. Edited by Dwayne, Nov 1 2008, 02:12 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |






2:12 PM Jul 11