What Really Happened

[myfiles3000]

Please educate this uninformed correspondent how economic growth equates to an automatically and commensurately larger contribution to  foreign aid?
Is this "obligation" outlined in some obscure tome authored under the auspices of the U.N.?
It would seem so.

no, j2k4 there is no man-made "law" or international legal regime under which the USA or any other nation is obligated to share its wealth with the needy. Its just that some nations try harder than others.

It would also seem that, the proferring hand having been bitten bloody, it might naturally follow that said hand would be withdrawn, to some extent.Could there possibly have been less "need" in succeeding years?

what the hell are you talking about?

Re: Rwanda-
As I said, it has/had happened before; one of those occasions occurred in Southeast Asia after "popular opinion" was allowed to force a wholesale, willy-nilly withdrawal from Viet Nam. The slaughter was much worse than even Rwanda-well into the millions-but this is subject to the failing memories of the rhetorically selective, and political circumstances into the bargain.

right, so i guess the world will never again depend on the USA for anything, because of vietnam. Fine, have it your way, bury your head in the sand. just stop bragging about how magnanimous y'all are.

One more thing- I don't choose to match my educational level, or lack thereof, against anyone else here. I feel, given the current state of higher education, lucky to have gotten the education I have, when I got it; however, I don't feel I really started to get ahead in this area until I took responsibility for educating myself. Higher education these days is a risky proposition due to the introduction of academic W.M.D.-"Weapons of Mass Delusion".

whatever gets you through the night, j2.

[j2k4]

You nailed it, Clocker.

Myfiles-

I really can't recall all the specifics in Rwanda, but when people bring up past genocide/holocaust-type events (of which there were MANY), I wonder why the U.S. has somehow assumed the mantle of responsibility for ALL of them.
Going back to WWII, these things have happened, at times largely under cover.
Everyone knew Hitler was persecuting the Jews, but the dimensions of his acts and intent weren't known until the war was ending, and the camps were discovered. As with other such incidents, much of the slaughter takes place without so much as a peep, because dead men (as it were) tell no tales.

Myfiles chooses not to pay heed to historical context and circumstances:

Could we have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda?

Given full knowledge of events and a clear field-probably.

Could/should others have stepped in? Certainly.

Was doing so, at least arguably, someone else's duty? Yup.

Could we have averted Pol Pot's killing spree? Had we stayed in South East Asia, and fought to win, you bet.

Speaking of massacres-what about Stalin?

Estimates of the numbers of his victims run as high as 25 MILLION.
What would myfiles have had us do there?

(No fair using the "apples and oranges" argument, either, myfiles.)

No, I guess the U.S. is uniformly liable for curing ALL the world's ills; no way around it.

Seriously-I'd be the last to claim a perfect record for the U.S.; I've said it before.

But-if we close all our bases around the world, cease our interminable interference, and, for lack of a better term, "pull in our horns" as people like you insist we do, how are we supposed to effectively, and coincidentally, fix everything?

Are we to adopt a posture of 'sugar daddy' to the world? No strings? No conditions?

BTW, myfiles-

If WE don't look out for our OWN well-being on an on-going basis (that is to say, 'act in our own interest&#39, we wouldn't be in shape to help for long.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000@25 May 2003 - 00:01

this argument wouldn't hold up in high school, let alone a first year econ class. let alone a discussion among educated adults.

Myfiles-

This was what prompted me to make the statement about my "education".

It IS sufficient to get me through the night, and I sleep very well, indeed.

I'm sure I wouldn't qualify as educated in your circles.

[Rat Faced]

Clocker, you answered your own question.

Wasn't Rwanda a colony until 1959?

Until 1959.

Since then its been an independant sovereign state. Belgium has as much responsibility to interfere as UK did when USA invaded Grenada.

....less in fact, as Grenada is a member of the Commonwealth, which we have treaties with. (actually, by those treaties UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the rest of the Commonwealth should have rushed to Grenada's aid.... )

Or do you suggest that the UK should have declared war on the USA for invading a former Colony?


Actually, i'd be interested to know whether j2k4 thinks we should have invaded the Republic of Ireland when the IRA was bombing the fuck out of Ulster and the British Mainland.........some of the arguments used in a number of threads seem to suggest this.....







:-"



I really shouldnt answer in a political debate when I've had a drink........

[clocker]

Well, actually my question wasn't when Rwanda gained it's independence.

I assume ( and I have to assume, since he has pointedly refused to elucidate ) that Myfiles was referring to Rwanda when he stated that the American electorate didn't "have the stomach" to accept "50 or 100" American casualties to save 800,000 people.
So my question is:
Given that tribal warfare had erupted at least 3 years prior to it's independence, and the situation there has degenerated ever since, why should America be expected to go in and sacrifice 1 US soldier while Belgium ( which has to accept some of the responsibility ) sits idly by?



Now I need a drink...

[Rat Faced]

They havent.

There have been quite a few Belgian military deaths in their former Colonies in Africa.

I heard of one Belgian Para that was tortured and killed by decapitation (limbs 1st, while still alive) 500m from a company of Belgian Troops, that were ORDERED not to interfere with what was happening.

The Belgian Government has no Mandate or Right to interfere there, and they follow International Law.

I dont think i would have had the discipline NOT to charge in........and im not sure I'd want to have that much discipline, but its an example that they are there (or were, im not sure if they have pulled out now)


However in former 'colonies', surely the former 'opressors' are the LAST people that should go in.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@25 May 2003 - 18:47



However in former 'colonies', surely the former 'opressors' are the LAST people that should go in.

Fair enough RF.

Given that much of the world considers the US "The Great Oppressor", do you think we should rush in?

[myfiles3000]

J2, honestly, you have a real knack for filling large amounts of screen space without saying much of anything. it must work very well on those not inclined to read critically....

Myfiles chooses not to pay heed to historical context and circumstances:

i'm having deja-vu...could you be a little more specific as to what i'm missing here?

Could we have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda? Given full knowledge of events and a clear field-probably.

neither conditions were absent, ergo you should have according to your own logic, probably.

Could/should others have stepped in? Certainly.

like who? Belgium?! do you think that BELGIUM has the excess military capacity to put down a civil war/ethnic cleansing in which 800,000 people were killed?!

Was doing so, at least arguably, someone else's duty? Yup.

whose would that be? either way, its irrelevant, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I must reiterate: i never said that the USA has any particular role, that was J2's line. To quote:

Imagine you have the power, financial, military, what-have-you, and the altruistic inclination to HELP-anywhere in the world. You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid.
You literally have whatever it takes to vanquish evil (subject to definition), equalize any playing field, cure (almost) any ill, and the will to help in almost any situation- in most cases, without compensation.
You know, as the world's leading consumer of goods and resources, as well as being the richest and most powerful country on Earth, you have a duty to do so; not "sharing" would be sinful.

AND

The fact remains, WE TRY! We always have. And if we stop spending, influencing, and acting when need be, things will get worse-I'd bet my own money on that, too.

what happened to "You are willing to spend the lives of your own to render aid."? You're backtracking.

I wonder why the U.S. has somehow assumed the mantle of responsibility for ALL of them. As with other such incidents, much of the slaughter takes place without so much as a peep, because dead men (as it were) tell no tales.

see your own comments above. plus, regarindg rwanda, everybody knew damn well what was going on. the same also happens to be true with East Timor, plus you yanks were good enought to supply the weaponry used in the slaughter of 200,000 civilians by the indonesian army. Not only did the good ol usa NOT do anything to prevent the genocide, they AIDED AND ABETTED IT. charming.

Speaking of massacres-what about Stalin?Estimates of the numbers of his victims run as high as 25 MILLION. What would myfiles have had us do there?(No fair using the "apples and oranges" argument, either, myfiles.)

apples and oranges all the same. I think most people on this board can appreciate the obvious difference between intervening in rwanda and the USSR. but just to spell it out, no, i don't think risking World War III with the only other nuclear superpower of the time would have been justified. I would have thought it went without saying, but there you have it.

If WE don't look out for our OWN well-being on an on-going basis (that is to say, 'act in our own interest&#39, we wouldn't be in shape to help for long.

good to see you're finally coming around to my way of thinking, j2. if you look over our posts, you'll see that is has been YOU that ever said otherwise. I'm not the one guilty of myth-making.

edit: quoting hijinx

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker+26 May 2003 - 00:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 May 2003 - 00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Rat Faced@25 May 2003 - 18:47



However in former &#39;colonies&#39;, surely the former &#39;opressors&#39; are the LAST people that should go in.

Fair enough RF.

Given that much of the world considers the US "The Great Oppressor", do you think we should rush in? [/b][/quote]
Only certain parts of the World consider the USA as the "Great Oppressor"....eg Most of Middle East.


Please dont think that EVERYONE hates the USA, they dont.



What really gets to me is how certain countries, EVEN NOW, can kill thousands of their people and it doesnt even get mentioned in the news.

No threats of intervention by the rest of the world despite blatant fixing of elections and assasination of political opponents.

eg Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, where 1/2 the people are starving; not due to lack of rain etc...but due to their own Government......


Ah, but cynic that I am.....they dont have the vast mineral resources of their neighbour South Africa, or any Oil Fields of worth.

Im not getting at USA here..........but at all of the stupid bloody people "In Charge".

I certainly would have put intervention here.....A REAL problem (Starvation), ahead of Iraq....an IMAGINED problem (WMD).

Especially as the number of people being &#39;mistreated&#39; is way in access of those that were in Iraq.

[clocker]

Well, surprise&#33; surprise&#33;

RF, we agree&#33;

Many Americans (step up hobbes) were as appalled by the pathetic spin that Bush used to justify our incursion in Iraq as the rest of the world. From my ( cursory) check of the foreign press, I see that pressure to prove the existance of WMD is still high, while here in the US the question has been relegated to the status of "irrelevant". Our media spin focuses on "our brave boys/girls" and how do we "insure Democracy for the people of Iraq". Winning the war on TV was apparently more important than actually fininshing off the job- the Baath party is still active and aggressively organizing underground resistance cells, waiting ( and trying to hasten) the day when American interest wanes and they can rise again.
But ,that given, I think it&#39;s almost a moot point.

Here is where I side with j2...

Rat, you bring up Zimbabwe.
Myfiles is passionate about Rwanda.
Everyone seems to have their pet cause where US intervention would be more accepable/humane/justified.
" Your invasion of Iraq was totally illegal and unjustified, but you really should help ___( fill in the blank)."

I think that many non-Americans have a very distorted view of us.
Fact is the US has severe problems on the homefront.

Personal bankruptcy is at an all time high.
Our hardware infrastructure ( the interstate highways, bridges et al) is crumbling.
Our software infrastructure ( health care, education, etc.) is a mess.

We could spend every penny of our GNP on nothing but our own problems and it would still take decades to achieve the level of comfort & security that most of the world already thinks we enjoy.

I don&#39;t think that everybody hates America.
It does however get rather galling to continously hear about our stupidity/ gullibility/ rapacity without ever reading a constructive idea of how it could be better done ( or who could do better).

So step right up Belgians, English, French , whoever...

We could easily build Fortress America with a fraction of our current military budget, and spend the remainder totally on us
.
Would the world be a better place then?