Well, since genocide was the topic...that's what I was talking about. BTW, when somebody makes a comment simlar to "America does nothing in Africa," you don't have to take that literally. But since you want to nail me down on semantics...lets play. We were there, I acknowledged that. But it wasn't enough, was it? Therefore, this arguement actually supports my opinion...not counters it. But you're derailing my point. My point: American has done very little in Africa. So it should be no surprise that we aren't intervening in Darfur...just like we didn't intervene in Rwanda.
I also said that Somalia could be considered a genocide. I believe the American general we had there with the reduced force characterized it as such. Yes, it was enough. We accomplished our mission in Somalia. When we turned it over to the UN, they bungled it, so we had to go back in, and were again successful. The famine conditions, which were started by a drought and exacerbated by the stoppage of food shipments, were relieved. As such, there is no longer what could be termed a genocide in Somalia. They are still basically in the midst of a civil war, but that is not an indicator that we failed there, only that our mission in that instance was not nation building. I agree that more can be done in Africa, and that it is no surprise that the US has not intervened in the Sudan (though to me it is a disappointment). I disagree that America has done very little in Africa. In addition to Somalia, there have been tremendous aid payments, both public and private, from the United States. In fact, the single largest annual beneficiary of US foreign aid is in Africa (Egypt). We should do all that we can to stop every genocide as soon as it begins (or before, if possible). Unfortunately, I don't think the majority of Americans would support military intervention. That is why they had to be "lied to" to get behind the war in Iraq. Nation building is an unpopular use of our military.
I cannot find any credible sources that list Somalia encountered genocide. Okay, I guess it depends how you define success. You defined it as limiting the scope of what America set out to do. I'm defining it as providing meaningful change. I can say I set out to deliver a cup of coffee to a homeless person. Woohoo, I was successful. But in the big picture did you really do much? That is refreshing to hear...truely. I wish we can translate this sentiment into action, however, rather than words. I agree with you. American citizens have been generious in monetary terms. (Take note, however, that America isn't the #1 provider in terms of per capita). But it is our government that has been largly inept. Bingo! As such, I doubt very seriously anybody can convince me that there isn't an underlying racial bias involved in why your "average American" would not support military action in Africa. Particularly now that we are entreached in war with Iraq. And that is why I have a problem with this president and his war policy. Genocide occured in Iraq during the 80's but genocide is occuring right now in Africa. Our priorities are with oil (sorry, preserving our economic interests)...not with helping the Iraqi citizens. Two factors in why we aren't in Africa: 1. Ongoing war in Iraq. 2. Racial bias. IMO, both are real-world reasons why we aren't in Africa and they suck! I hate it. As a voter I can't do anything about #2 but our President pushed the war and spending all his political powerbase on an arguably unnecessary war. And now we are stuck w/ point #1. I just hope some good comes from it and Iraq doesn't turn into a disaster 20 years from now. In the meantime, Africans suffer...again.
just to be anal: israel is the largest recipient. egypt is second. and its only because of the treaty. plus you can't count egypt when discussing africa. yes duh its in africa but when we discuss africa its generally not egypt.
BTW, I'm enjoying your silence. You accused me of throwing the racial card on the topic of genocide. I'm still laughing at that one. Classic And I'm beneath you? You always know when a poster has "lost." Its when they claim to be smarter and announce victory for themselves. It's the kiss of death. Never hurts to toss in a condescending remark to make yourself feel better too...brah.
Sorry Kros. I'm going to trump both your reasons with the above one right from the article. Sadly, humanitarian intervention has never been a priority. Not with the Democrats. And not with the Republicans. Not with the US. Not with the UN. Racist? Hardly. Plenty of racism issues at home. But as to foreign policy...we don't much care about the skin colour of those on the ground. Only the economic and political importance. Iraq? Well...I guess we can always play the Iraq card. I was thinking maybe we should start a 'three-degrees-from-iraq' game, similar to the six-degrees-from-kevin-beacon, but since we usually make it a one-degree-from-iraq connection, it just wouldn't be as much fun. Iraq may have stretched the military, but as Basso pointed out, it wouldn't take much to help out here. And with or without Iraq, we likely wouldn't be rushing in anyways. You noted it yourself. Genocide just isn't the draw it should be. Funny (well, not) how this thread degenerated so quickly. Basso started it with frustration over his teams treatment of the situation. And the usual players dug out all the dirty laundy for the ensuing slap-fest. Just another day in the D&D...
You make a good point. We (and I sometimes do it too) tend to lump "Africa" as one entity. So these statistics people try to justify themselves with get skewed. Africa in a continent...not a country.
I don't know which assertion I'm laughing harder at: 1) That we went into Kosovo because of coal? 2) That we aren't going into Darfur because of race Each are ridiculous on their own merits: 1) The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have plenty. There is no reason to look to a place like Kosovo for low grade lignite, which isn't even economical to transport over long distances, much less HUGE distances to the US. Just an incredibly ridiculous and poorly research position by pippendagimp and then bolstered by krosfyah. Guys, step it up. 2) Darfur and other similar places in Africa simply have very little impact on the national security of the US and the quality of living in the US. Why then, should we go there? Places like the Middle East, with terrorists, nuclear capabilities both in place and developing, as well as stronger militaries, do pose a security threat. When you add in the energy presence, and the worldwide economic impact of it, it is clear why we (and the rest of the coalition/world) take an interest in the Middle East. Very very simple.
Racism at home? Exactly. I already said that. America has a horrible track record of racial issues. If we can't even take care of our own, of course we won't support taking care of non-Americans. I said that already. BNB, you are supporting my point, not countering it. I have mentioned numerious times that the reasons were are in Iraq is for economic reasons...not humantarian. If it was for humanitarian reasons, we would have been in Iraq during the early 80's when the gas chambers were flowing. So you say America only supports issues of economic importance. That's exactly what I'm saying. And regarding the economy, who controls it? Mostly whites. Which countries have the most wealth. Most white countries. Are you unable to thread that together? Why would whites be particlarly interested in helping blacks? But America sure jumped on the Kosovo wagon. This in flamitory, I know. Because Americans don't want to hear this. But the truth hurts. I can't do a typical D&D by providing web links to support my claims. But the proof is in the pudding. Just look at the end results and they speak for themself. Every situation is different and must be judged seperately...but the end result is always the same. Africa is ignored...again. Topic: Will America provide meaningful help in Dafur? If history is the judge...then...NO.
Kros... When you suggest we're not in Dafur because of race, then I wrongly assumed you meant that race was the reason we were not there. Seems we agree economics is the reason we're not there. And while it's true the economic test affects people of certain races more than others that doesn't make the policy itself racist, unless racism is the basis of that discrimination. I think that just about everybody who's posted here agrees we should be doing something. That it's shameful we haven't. Yet we prefer to play pin-the-blame on the donkey instead.
First time I've ever agreed with Trader_Jorge! Yes, we are in Iraq to assist America's "quality of living" (aka OIL!!!). TJ, You are now claiming there is an economic componant of why we are in Iraq. But on numerous occasions you and your compadres have argued the humanitarian reasons for being in Iraq by buying into the pack of lies this whitehouse has been feeding the public. It isn't for humantarian reasons we are in Iraq...puhlease! If it was, we'd have been there 25 years ago. You laugh and be dismissive all you want about the racial componants of why we aren't in Dafur. All I'm saying is look at the results. You can't argue with results. Africa gets overlooked everytime. To say that Africa is devoid of natural resources is silly. I bet your wife is wearing a diamond or two right now.
You're simply continuing to embarrass yourself. Your last reply to StupidMoniker was just sad. You can't find any references to genocide in Somalia? Try googling. If that proves to be too much for you, here's a start: http://www.somaliawatch.org/archivefeb01/010202301.htm StupidMoniker then correctly states that we accomplished our mission in Somalia. You seemed to begrudgingly accept that, yet then say it wasn't enough, and make some bizarre comparison to giving coffee to a homeless man. Then you continue to bemoan the current administration, play the race card again, and blah blah blah. Listen, you can only feel sorry for yourself and play the race card so long. This might work in the real world when people are afraid to respond to your ludicrous statements for fear of being un-pc, but that doesn't fly on an internet message board where posters are anonymous. You better have some justification for claiming it's a race thing, or people will call you out. You can't just make people prove it's NOT a race thing until you've shown that it is. We're still waiting for you to do that. You're owned again, brah.
1. I'm not saying race is the ONLY reason. I'm saying race plays a part. And if anybody claims that race plays absolutely no role in global history, I'll show you a very sheltered person. 2. To take that a step further, if you beleive that race does not play a role in the history of the global economy as we see it today, I'll show you an uninformed person. 3. Now, to tie that in, as the way our global economy has been shaped into modern times, is it no wonder that Africa is an economic wasteland? Africa has a long history of its natural resources being stripped away to wealthier parts of the world (aka white countries). 4. So that brings us to our topic. Folks here now say race is not a factor but that there simply is no economic benefit to assisting Africa. Really, you don't say. How convenient.
well...i suppose if race plays a part in everything....then everything is racist. really can't argue with that. It's just a rather strong label to affix to the Dafar indifference, IMO, though it sure is appropriate in many other places.
Yea, I found that link. Which is why I added the "credible sources." Your owned. Huh, so you would list Somalia on the list of American success stories? Fact is, Somalia is still a disaster today with no formal government and is a breeding ground for Al Quida and other terrorists. If you think I'm being bizzarre, sorry. Until you do something other than throwing condescending remarks my way, perhaps I'll concede. But... I've justified my position over and over and over and over. If you don't want to accept my arguements, thats fine. But not you or anybody else has countered my arugments with anything other than....nuh oh...your stupid. I've demonstrated I'm serious about my arguments and I've provided support for them. You have simply thrown insults. And you say you are beneth me? Really? What is this about? I don't understand. It doesn't help your credibility. It makes you look foolish.
Yes, it is a strong statement but I initially made just one comment and Bigtexxx jumped all over me for it and then others jumped in. So I was forced to support my statement. But that's reality. White America prefers not to talk about it because truth hurts. So yes, I'm aruging race plays a part. I didn't say racist, you did. Is everything racist? I'm illustrating a very long history of America's uninvolvement in Africa. Label it how you want. I'm just illustrating a point. And no, you can't argue with it because it's the truth. The only counter arguments I got were denials and insults which ignore the overwhelming historical facts . Therefore, their arguments only bolsters my argument about America's indifference in the matter.
Here's the article alluded to. As detailed, NATO and it's mult-national corporate friends did seem to get a good return on their investment (costs associated with the attack). This attack was made while Clinton was in office and the operation itself was led by Supreme NATO Commander Wesley Clark. Whether race, goodwill, politics, or whatever plays any role in the decisions to go ahead with these kinds of operations, I can only speculate. But economics, on the other hand, is undoubtedly always a factor. In the end, it's all about bucks - the rest is conversation. The Spoils of Another War Five Years after Nato's Attack on Yugoslavia, its Administration in Kosovo is pushing through Mass Privatization by Neil Clark 'Wars, conflict - it's all business," sighs Monsieur Verdoux in Charlie Chaplin's 1947 film of the same name. Many will not need to be convinced of the link between US corporations now busily helping themselves to Iraqi state assets and the military machine that prised Iraq open for global business. But what is less widely known is that a similar process is already well under way in a part of the world where B52s were not so long ago dropping bombs in another "liberation" mission. The trigger for the US-led bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was, according to the standard western version of history, the failure of the Serbian delegation to sign up to the Rambouillet peace agreement. But that holds little more water than the tale that has Iraq responsible for last year's invasion by not cooperating with weapons inspectors. The secret annexe B of the Rambouillet accord - which provided for the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - was, as the Foreign Office minister Lord Gilbert later conceded to the defence select committee, deliberately inserted to provoke rejection by Belgrade. But equally revealing about the west's wider motives is chapter four, which dealt exclusively with the Kosovan economy. Article I (1) called for a "free-market economy", and article II (1) for privatisation of all government-owned assets. At the time, the rump Yugoslavia - then not a member of the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development - was the last economy in central-southern Europe to be uncolonised by western capital. "Socially owned enterprises", the form of worker self-management pioneered under Tito, still predominated. Yugoslavia had publicly owned petroleum, mining, car and tobacco industries, and 75% of industry was state or socially owned. In 1997, a privatisation law had stipulated that in sell-offs, at least 60% of shares had to be allocated to a company's workers. The high priests of neo-liberalism were not happy. At the Davos summit early in 1999, Tony Blair berated Belgrade, not for its handling of Kosovo, but for its failure to embark on a programme of "economic reform" - new-world-order speak for selling state assets and running the economy in the interests of multinationals. In the 1999 Nato bombing campaign, it was state-owned companies - rather than military sites - that were specifically targeted by the world's richest nations. Nato only destroyed 14 tanks, but 372 industrial facilities were hit - including the Zastava car plant at Kragujevac, leaving hundreds of thousands jobless. Not one foreign or privately owned factory was bombed. After the removal of Slobodan Milosevic, the west got the "fast-track" reforming government in Belgrade it had long desired. One of the first steps of the new administration was to repeal the 1997 privatisation law and allow 70% of a company to be sold to foreign investors - with just 15% reserved for workers. The government then signed up to the World Bank's programmes - effectively ending the country's financial independence. Meanwhile, as the New York Times had crowed, "a war's glittering prize" awaited the conquerors. Kosovo has the second largest coal reserves in Europe, and enormous deposits of lignite, lead, zinc, gold, silver and petroleum. The jewel is the enormous Trepca mine complex, whose 1997 value was estimated at $5bn. In an extraordinary smash and grab raid soon after the war, the complex was seized from its workers and managers by more than 2,900 Nato troops, who used teargas and rubber bullets. Five years on from the Nato attack, the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA), the body that operates under the jurisdiction of the UN Mission in Kosovo (Unmik) - is "pleased to announce" the programme to privatise the first 500 or so socially owned enterprises (SOEs) under its control. The closing date for bids passed last week: 10 businesses went under the hammer, including printing houses, a shopping mall, an agrobusiness and a soft-drinks factory. The Ferronikeli mining and metal-processing complex, with an annual capacity of 12,000 tonnes of nickel production, is being sold separately, with bids due by November 17. To make the SOEs more attractive to foreign investors, Unmik has altered the way land is owned in Kosovo, allowing the KTA to sell 99-year leases with the businesses, which can be transferred or used as loans or security. Even Belgrade's pro-western gov ernment has called this a "robbery of state-owned land". For western companies waiting to swoop, there will be rich pickings indeed in what the KTA assures us is a "very investor-friendly" environment. But there is little talk of the rights of the moral owners of the enterprises - the workers, managers and citizens of the former Yugoslavia, whose property was effectively seized in the name of the "international community" and "economic reform". As the corporate takeover of the ruins of Baghdad and Pristina proceeds apace, neither the "liberation" of Iraq nor the "humanitarian" bombing of Yugoslavia has proved Chaplin's cynical anti-hero to be wrong. ยท Neil Clark is a writer and broadcaster specialising in Balkan affairs http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-05.htm
What are you talking about. There are a number of nations in Africa that have had more to do with terrorism in general, and Al Qaeda specifically than Iraq. Liberia, and Sudan are two of those nations. It is vitally important for to be active in Africa to anyone who has done only the smallest amount of research on the subject.
Yea, TJ knew he was throwing in a load of crap on this one which is why he never bothered to come back to defend himself.
