| 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 (503 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 07:11 PM Post #16 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Sounds great in theory. In practice its a little harder to implement. Iraq is still a way off being a "functioning representative-democracy that protects basic human rights" - at least without western props. As experience of decolonisation shows you can set up democratic systems of government and sometimes they work and sometimes they dont. I'm also not entirely happy that 'we' can decide what constitutes representative democracy and basic human rights for all humanity. What happens for example if America decides that some countries are electing governments that border on socialist and are taking away too much economic freedom from the wealthy and the corporations of their countries. Do they have a right to interfer in the internal affairs of another culture, another sovereign state? The whole thing is a moral minefield. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 1 2008, 07:38 PM Post #17 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
The standard is simple... are people being subjugated... terrorized... murdered? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 1 2008, 08:14 PM Post #18 |
|
Admiral
|
You see someone could argue that the USA is detaining people outside the rule of law, has engaged in acts of torture, that it state sanctions murder through the death penalty, that it is ruled undemocratically, that is has engaged in hostile acts of aggression against other sovereign states... I am not arguing this myself but the point is things can be twisted to suit political goals. Its not simple to decide if a country has stepped so far outside the normal rules that its normal sovereignty is void. Its even less simple to decide if the best course is then diplomatic mediation, sanctions, aid, peacekeeping force, limited military attack, blockade, invasion, full scale invasion and overthrow of government, total annihilation etc. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 1 2008, 08:15 PM Post #19 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Nothing will happen so long as the big oil companies continue to be able to extract oil relatively unimpeded there and so long as the corrupt Congonese government continues to pal up (to the USA and others who might otherwize do something). Similarly with the mineral resources the country is particularly rich in keep on being able to be extracted by the multinationals. All comes down to $s and a total lack of interest on the part of the international community, especially now that nearly all the major economic powers are in trouble economically. Heck the people dying are africans , and probably not christians so there are two more reasons why nothing will be done to put a stop to the slaughter. Edited by somerled, Nov 1 2008, 09:50 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Nov 1 2008, 09:14 PM Post #20 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
And those people are very important ... mainly due to their entertainment value. I suspect many of the same people, for example, are against spay and neutering pets because it interferes with their reproductive freedoms. Much like the people who would prevent deer hunting and then be surprised and horrified when most of the deer die of starvation during a hard winter. As to the question of when and why to intervene, that'll always be up to those in charge of organizations/countries willing and able ... which pretty much narrows it down to the UN leadership and the POTUS. It's hilarious, and telling, that citizens from countries that refuse to lift a finger on their own without having their collective hands held, do nothing but vent anger towards countries that routinely lead such endeavors but have chosen not to at that time. What's stopping their homelands from taking the initiative? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 1 2008, 09:51 PM Post #21 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
^^^ .... clueless.
Edited by somerled, Nov 1 2008, 09:52 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:32 PM Post #22 |
|
Captain
|
Somerled from a Q/S forum post "OK , not I give a toss if someone decides to ignore my posts - their loss , not mine if they choose not to benefit from my knowledge , experience or from reading and considering my opinion , or to engage in constructive discussion or even robust debate with me." I don't see it, I see an insulting remark, probably best described by board lingo as flaming. WHY? You believe the argument is "clueless"? Prove it by an attempt "to engage in constructive discussion or even robust debate" |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 10:58 PM Post #23 |
|
Captain
|
Sadly, there is probably some truth in that view. That being the case the only hope for those poor souls is the people of the nations that can prevent this, letting our elected reps know we will not passively stand by and watch tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths unfold before our eyes once more. Realisticly... I'm dreaming and their fate is almost sealed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | Nov 1 2008, 11:12 PM Post #24 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
Moderator Comment Somerled, It's okay to disagree with another posted, but the comment in your last post was uncalled for and unnecessary. It could be construed as a personal attack. At the very least, it's insulting. In the future, I expect you to keep those types of comments to yourself. Let's discuss the topic of the thread and stop with the personal jabs. End of Moderator Comment Edited by fireh8er, Nov 1 2008, 11:13 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 1 2008, 11:18 PM Post #25 |
|
Captain
|
Ds9074, your arguments are compelling, deeply intellectual, the dangers are great, pandora's box could be the outcome... I say, we cross that bridge when we reach it... the time for talk is gone, the grim reaper is knocking at the door.. it's time to act.. now! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 2 2008, 11:52 AM Post #26 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Act now? Why? Don't take action unless you're prepared for the reaction, good or bad. Saddam Hussein, over the course of his reign, killed directly and indirectly an estimated 1 to 2 million people. Every world leader I ever heard who spoke in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein mentioned his human rights violations as well as his weapons violations. Whether the critic wants to admit it or not, going into Iraq was as much for the human rights violations as it was for anything else. There always would be a reaction to the invasion, yet when the eventual reaction occurred, all the high mindedness about protecting human rights went right out the door. All the supposed protectors of human rights were no where to be found. In fact, many openly rooted for the oppressors who would deny Iraqi's their basic human rights. These supposed supporters of human rights called the terrorists in Iraq such things as "freedom fighter" in a gross attempt at moral equivelency. The point here is this; you are calling for action... NOW! But I don't think you really have the heart for it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 2 2008, 08:27 PM Post #27 |
|
Captain
|
From my critisism of the Iraq occupation you have good reason to make the claim "I don't think you really have the heart for it." I was all for the invasion, WMD or not but have since come to believe differently. Firstly I do not think it is a fair comparison, especially the urgency of the looming crisis. There is no time left for political wrangling, if we do not act with haste the fate of hundreds of thousands is pretty much inevitable. I do not believe the motives of the US admin were humanitarian to begin with in the case of Saddam, it's motives for war were more of national interest and a strategic play to insert a favourable government in the Middle East, create a new ally that would allow the US to rely less on Saudi Arabia for political support. I'm not saying there was a grab for oil but rather there was also an intent to secure a more reliable source in the national interest of the US. The humanitarian crisis caused by the occupation can be argued to rival the cruelty of Saddam's regime. That humanitarian crisis is already evident in the present situation of the Congo, it is far more clear cut. Dwayne, I respect your belief that the US acted for ALL the right reasons and the outcome of the occupation will vindicate your beliefs (that is the America I admired and respected) but I am now far more cynical toward motives of govt than you and far less optimistic of the outcome |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 2 2008, 11:29 PM Post #28 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I vote passive witness; but then again I am a cynic. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Nov 3 2008, 08:34 AM Post #29 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
Well, you're fair enough to admit your position, but I don't think the human rights issues regarding Saddam Hussein played fourth, third or even second fiddle to weapons. I certainly agree that the weapons was the only issue the media and the center-left felt was important, but it was not. The most important issue was actually the enforcement of UNSC 'Chapter 7' resolutions, which if a little logic was applied it would be recognized that those resolutions covered everything from the weapons to human rights violations. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| whitestar | Nov 3 2008, 09:21 AM Post #30 |
|
Captain
|
Yea, I remember.. I also remember that the UN would not back the military answer to enforcement but as I said, I didn't care. Saddam had handed the US a legitimate cause to go in and take him out, just as long as the people were freed from the tyranny any excuse will do. And that's what I believe it was, just a legitimate cover for the admin's already determined course of action. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



.... clueless.

2:12 PM Jul 11