TOPICS:
JUL 23, 2004 07:12 AM
JUL 23, 2004 08:09 AM
The U.S has a moral obligation to stop genocide where ever it occurs, but on it's watch, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia have all lost millions due to genocide.
The U.S was one of the last Western countries to ratify Lemkin's genocide treaty.
Hell, I could even mention the Armenians, and I bet a lot of people would say 'what about them?'. And that's exactly what Hitler is remarked to have said: 'No one remembers the Armenians'.
It is the foulest of human deeds and it still happens, no matter how many promises were made after the holocaust ('never again'), we're still seing genocide and we're still seeing people pretty much get away with it.
Also, that's the first time I've ever had to use that icon and hopefully the last time.
JUL 23, 2004 08:51 AM
Coliwali
I'm lost
February 2003
JUL 23, 2004 10:36 AM
JUL 23, 2004 10:44 AM
JUL 23, 2004 10:57 AM
JUL 23, 2004 11:31 AM
TheRedBaron
Cambridge, MA
November 2003
JUL 23, 2004 01:58 PM
JUL 23, 2004 03:14 PM
pains me to say it, but no.
whats happening is awful, but africa is a clusterfuck all over thanks to the outfall from europes imperial days and it'd be all but impossible to get out again.
africa badly needs to get its shit together, and we can't do that for them otherwise such situations as this will continue to arise on an almost yearly basis.
africas problems are too big, too widespread for outsiders to solve 
JUL 23, 2004 06:07 PM
ecky said:
pains me to say it, but no.
whats happening is awful, but africa is a clusterfuck all over thanks to the outfall from europes imperial days and it'd be all but impossible to get out again.
africa badly needs to get its shit together, and we can't do that for them otherwise such situations as this will continue to arise on an almost yearly basis.
africas problems are too big, too widespread for outsiders to solve
Bullshit.
Outside aid groups have been making progress in Africa for years. UN security forces have had limited successes there (limited only by their home nations' lack of interest or fear of commitment). The Rwandan massacre wasn't an inevitable clusterfuck, it was an example of gross negligence on the part of the international community, and that means the citizens and media of UN countries. I've heard people who were in positions of responsibility in our government and some in Europe say "we knew what was going on, we knew that there were UN troops there who needed assistance and who could have prevented it. We were getting dire daily reports from peacekeeper commanders there, but our hands were tied by public and partisan opposition, and we would have been crucified at home had we acted."
African leaders have been telling the G8 leaders exactly what they need for several years now, and their pleas have been falling on deaf ears. At this year's summit, Bush was too busy trying to convince France to help out with the Iraq aftermath to talk about Africa.
It's an overwhelming problem if you try to solve all of Africa's problems at once with a limited scope of solutions (like troops alone), but taken individually, Africa's problems are easily manageable. Some renewable food aid, money to fight AIDS (promote education of safe sex, dispelling widely-believed myths about sex, distributing condoms, etc), reduction in demand for diamonds, and fair prices on coffee would, all by themselves, go a long way toward reducing the grip local warlords have over their regions, regional fighting along borders, and the desperation that turns envy, hunger, mistrust, and miscommunication into brutal wars. If you add US-backed UN peacekeepers to the mix, success in fighting many of Africa's problems is attainable.
Of course, there's no way "US-backed UN peacekeepers" could even exist under Bush's foreign policy, and he has refused to promote any sort of safe sex other than abstinence, which is even more ludicrous in Africa than it is elsewhere.
[Edited on Jul 23, 2004 by bean]
JUL 23, 2004 09:32 PM
MagicFlute
Compton, CA
December 2003
JUL 24, 2004 12:55 PM
MagicFlute
Compton, CA
December 2003
JUL 24, 2004 01:02 PM
ecky said:
pains me to say it, but no.
whats happening is awful, but africa is a clusterfuck all over thanks to the outfall from europes imperial days and it'd be all but impossible to get out again.
africa badly needs to get its shit together, and we can't do that for them otherwise such situations as this will continue to arise on an almost yearly basis.
africas problems are too big, too widespread for outsiders to solve
this is not an indigionus government,the people being slaughtered
are,and its not a european imperialism,but indeed an indigionus
people so affected,if you choose not to support them(the only opption
you offer is some sort of other big dadyism)they will still be
in the position of needing support because of european colonialism
RACER_X
Philadelphia, PA
February 2003
JUL 24, 2004 02:39 PM
Amazingly enough no one has mentioned China's overt backing of this whole thing...... 
JUL 24, 2004 03:58 PM
JUL 24, 2004 05:23 PM
Racer_X said:
Amazingly enough no one has mentioned China's overt backing of this whole thing......
have a link?
JUL 24, 2004 05:51 PM
s5 said:
Racer_X said:
Amazingly enough no one has mentioned China's overt backing of this whole thing......
have a link?
not just china
Oh, and by the way, this pretty much tells China's side of the story
[Edited on Jul 24, 2004 by erstwhileista]
JUL 24, 2004 06:14 PM
erstwhileista said:
s5 said:
Racer_X said:
Amazingly enough no one has mentioned China's overt backing of this whole thing......
have a link?
not just china
Oh, and by the way, this pretty much tells China's side of the story
[Edited on Jul 24, 2004 by erstwhileista]
Hmm. Well... I don't read Mandarin, so... anyone have a translation?
Anyway, sorry to start this topic and not reply; I was away IRL.
I personally believe that we should intervene, but that we need to watch situations like this more closely as they develop. Many of the African countries, like Zimbabwe, are being run into the ground by corrupt leaders bent on profiting and killing. These leaders are under the impression that they can do whatever they like in Africa - none of the major world powers will care. Thus far, they've been right.
If we were able to act more effectively earlier in the process, we could avoid armed confrontation. Sanctions would have been appropriate a few months ago; now they will do little more than illustrate the impotence of the UN.
While the US shouldn't have to be the world's police force, in many ways we don't have a choice. The UN's Rapid Reaction Force is not yet a reality and UN coalition forces are not strong or coordinated enough to respond to imminent threats of genocide - such as Rwanda or Sudan.
Just my $0.02
JUL 24, 2004 06:43 PM
JUL 24, 2004 08:09 PM
slimjim said:
erstwhileista said:
s5 said:
Racer_X said:
Amazingly enough no one has mentioned China's overt backing of this whole thing......
have a link?
not just china
Oh, and by the way, this pretty much tells China's side of the story
[Edited on Jul 24, 2004 by erstwhileista]
Hmm. Well... I don't read Mandarin, so... anyone have a translation?
Anyway, sorry to start this topic and not reply; I was away IRL.
I personally believe that we should intervene, but that we need to watch situations like this more closely as they develop. Many of the African countries, like Zimbabwe, are being run into the ground by corrupt leaders bent on profiting and killing. These leaders are under the impression that they can do whatever they like in Africa - none of the major world powers will care. Thus far, they've been right.
If we were able to act more effectively earlier in the process, we could avoid armed confrontation. Sanctions would have been appropriate a few months ago; now they will do little more than illustrate the impotence of the UN.
While the US shouldn't have to be the world's police force, in many ways we don't have a choice. The UN's Rapid Reaction Force is not yet a reality and UN coalition forces are not strong or coordinated enough to respond to imminent threats of genocide - such as Rwanda or Sudan.
Just my $0.02
You dont even need a Un rapid reaction force the un could just higher Mercenaries to do the Job But their not interested in africa anyway
JUL 24, 2004 08:15 PM
bean said:
Bullshit.
Outside aid groups have been making progress in Africa for years. UN security forces have had limited successes there (limited only by their home nations' lack of interest or fear of commitment). The Rwandan massacre wasn't an inevitable clusterfuck, it was an example of gross negligence on the part of the international community, and that means the citizens and media of UN countries. I've heard people who were in positions of responsibility in our government and some in Europe say "we knew what was going on, we knew that there were UN troops there who needed assistance and who could have prevented it. We were getting dire daily reports from peacekeeper commanders there, but our hands were tied by public and partisan opposition, and we would have been crucified at home had we acted."
African leaders have been telling the G8 leaders exactly what they need for several years now, and their pleas have been falling on deaf ears. At this year's summit, Bush was too busy trying to convince France to help out with the Iraq aftermath to talk about Africa.
It's an overwhelming problem if you try to solve all of Africa's problems at once with a limited scope of solutions (like troops alone), but taken individually, Africa's problems are easily manageable. Some renewable food aid, money to fight AIDS (promote education of safe sex, dispelling widely-believed myths about sex, distributing condoms, etc), reduction in demand for diamonds, and fair prices on coffee would, all by themselves, go a long way toward reducing the grip local warlords have over their regions, regional fighting along borders, and the desperation that turns envy, hunger, mistrust, and miscommunication into brutal wars. If you add US-backed UN peacekeepers to the mix, success in fighting many of Africa's problems is attainable.
Of course, there's no way "US-backed UN peacekeepers" could even exist under Bush's foreign policy, and he has refused to promote any sort of safe sex other than abstinence, which is even more ludicrous in Africa than it is elsewhere.
[Edited on Jul 23, 2004 by bean]
*humps bean's leg* 
JUL 25, 2004 06:53 PM
MagicFlute
Compton, CA
December 2003
JUL 26, 2004 10:53 AM
WaTed said:
bean said:
Bullshit.
Outside aid groups have been making progress in Africa for years. UN security forces have had limited successes there (limited only by their home nations' lack of interest or fear of commitment). The Rwandan massacre wasn't an inevitable clusterfuck, it was an example of gross negligence on the part of the international community, and that means the citizens and media of UN countries. I've heard people who were in positions of responsibility in our government and some in Europe say "we knew what was going on, we knew that there were UN troops there who needed assistance and who could have prevented it. We were getting dire daily reports from peacekeeper commanders there, but our hands were tied by public and partisan opposition, and we would have been crucified at home had we acted."
African leaders have been telling the G8 leaders exactly what they need for several years now, and their pleas have been falling on deaf ears. At this year's summit, Bush was too busy trying to convince France to help out with the Iraq aftermath to talk about Africa.
It's an overwhelming problem if you try to solve all of Africa's problems at once with a limited scope of solutions (like troops alone), but taken individually, Africa's problems are easily manageable. Some renewable food aid, money to fight AIDS (promote education of safe sex, dispelling widely-believed myths about sex, distributing condoms, etc), reduction in demand for diamonds, and fair prices on coffee would, all by themselves, go a long way toward reducing the grip local warlords have over their regions, regional fighting along borders, and the desperation that turns envy, hunger, mistrust, and miscommunication into brutal wars. If you add US-backed UN peacekeepers to the mix, success in fighting many of Africa's problems is attainable.
Of course, there's no way "US-backed UN peacekeepers" could even exist under Bush's foreign policy, and he has refused to promote any sort of safe sex other than abstinence, which is even more ludicrous in Africa than it is elsewhere.
[Edited on Jul 23, 2004 by bean]
*humps bean's leg*
anyone have any links to chomsky on the subject??? 
JUL 26, 2004 11:44 AM
MagicFlute said:
WaTed said:
bean said:
Bullshit.
Outside aid groups have been making progress in Africa for years. UN security forces have had limited successes there (limited only by their home nations' lack of interest or fear of commitment). The Rwandan massacre wasn't an inevitable clusterfuck, it was an example of gross negligence on the part of the international community, and that means the citizens and media of UN countries. I've heard people who were in positions of responsibility in our government and some in Europe say "we knew what was going on, we knew that there were UN troops there who needed assistance and who could have prevented it. We were getting dire daily reports from peacekeeper commanders there, but our hands were tied by public and partisan opposition, and we would have been crucified at home had we acted."
African leaders have been telling the G8 leaders exactly what they need for several years now, and their pleas have been falling on deaf ears. At this year's summit, Bush was too busy trying to convince France to help out with the Iraq aftermath to talk about Africa.
It's an overwhelming problem if you try to solve all of Africa's problems at once with a limited scope of solutions (like troops alone), but taken individually, Africa's problems are easily manageable. Some renewable food aid, money to fight AIDS (promote education of safe sex, dispelling widely-believed myths about sex, distributing condoms, etc), reduction in demand for diamonds, and fair prices on coffee would, all by themselves, go a long way toward reducing the grip local warlords have over their regions, regional fighting along borders, and the desperation that turns envy, hunger, mistrust, and miscommunication into brutal wars. If you add US-backed UN peacekeepers to the mix, success in fighting many of Africa's problems is attainable.
Of course, there's no way "US-backed UN peacekeepers" could even exist under Bush's foreign policy, and he has refused to promote any sort of safe sex other than abstinence, which is even more ludicrous in Africa than it is elsewhere.
[Edited on Jul 23, 2004 by bean]
*humps bean's leg*
anyone have any links to chomsky on the subject???
I don't know why you would want a chomsky quote, but to further conversation here you are. Granted the majority of Chomsky's writing on the Sudan was after Clinton bombed the pharmaceutical plant and again for his book '9/11' in which he damns America and makes comparisons of the terrorists bombing to the pharmaceutical bombing. I was unable to locate a more recent reference to the current situation. Chomsky does mention the civil war and waring factions but only to say Clinton's bombing ruined possible compromises to end the fighting.
Leo casey--
..blame the US attack on this factory for every conceivable problem [and some inconceivable ones as well] in the Sudan and its surrounding region. Using a quote full of the most remarkable euphemisms, Chomsky informs us that the bombing of the factory brought to a halt "compromises" that might have ended the decades old "civil war" between Sudan's "warring sides." How the destruction of a single factory could have produced such remarkable results is never made clear in the particular passage Chomsky provides, but a fuller account is provided in the complete article from which it is excerpted. The full account, however, would strip the veneer right off the euphemisms, so Chomsky limits himself to the short selection. What the selection calls a "civil war" between "warring sides" has been a genocidal campaign conducted by the northern Arabic government, run by the extreme
Chomsky's reply to Casey
Chomsky's reply to Hitchens
Criticism of Chomsky I include the last link, because it was horrificly long and the information of relevance is in the last couple of paragraphs. THe article does question Chomsky's support of some of the most brutal regimes and their murderous ways.
jholtsnider
I'm lost
February 2004
JUL 23, 2004 05:55 AM