stingy cheapskates

[BlackShanglan]

VB - Can we consider, however, that the UN thought that without a consolidation of power within a stable representative government that this sort of disaster was likely to continue, recur, or worsen? Many of the worst disasters are created or worsened by human actions, and the famine in Somalia was no exception. I'd suggest that the UN was taking the long-term view in recognizing that without a stable government that was seriously attempting to work for the good of the people of Somalia, we would have an ongiong crisis that never really ended. Naturally, attempting to play about with local politics is always a dangerous game, as an outsider almost never understands all of the local cultural, social, political, economic, and religious ramifications of the situation. However, it's possible that the UN felt they had a viable alternative in mind.

Shanglan

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

How can one consider that taking one of the larger power players in place in Somalia and marginalizing him could lead to anything other that political turmoil?

In a country where political power is wielded simultaneously with quasi-military power, how could they believe it would lead to anything short of bloodshed?

How could they imagine that wresting power from one warlord so it could descend to another warlord would in any way change the nature of politics in Somalia?

What I am far more liable to believe is that U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali brought his opposition to Aideed from his former stance — supporting the former dictator Siad Barre — as baggage to the nation building decisions of Phase II.



BTW, Box: It was because the UN forces considered the humanitarian assistance of Phase I successful, that they conceived of and instigated the nation building of Phase II.

 

[Guest]

BTW, Box: It was because the UN forces considered the humanitarian assistance of Phase I successful, that they conceived of and instigated the nation building of Phase II.

Fuck you, Scarlett. I told you I'm breakable.

 

[BlackShanglan]

How can one consider that taking one of the larger power players in place in Somalia and marginalizing him could lead to anything other that political turmoil?

Naturally it would lead to turmoil. So did the removal of many other notable tyrants, exploiters, and warlords. In fact, any bad leader worth while deposiing will leave chaos in his/her wake; this is because only people who have seized control of a substantial portion of the area's resources can really be a threat to their own people.

If one is to use the potential for chaos as a argument against deposing a bad regime, then that becomes a universal argument against deposing any regime. I'm not willing to go that far, myself. In fact, I might suggest that the main goal of the UN and other countries in attempting to install democratic governments is to provide one of the only practical ways to allow regime change without chaos and bloodshed - regular elections. Warlords are notoriously unfriendly to this concept.

Shanglan

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

By definition, removing a tyrant by force leads to turmoil — this is why improving the world with a gun is so fraught with failure.

There was no argument against disposing of a bad regime, as the mission was to feed the starving Somalis. This, the UN was doing successfully. That success led to a change of goals.

Even then, nation building (they did not call it regime change) had not been on the agenda. If it had, I doubt that someone who had been an open opponent of one of the contenders would have been permitted to set the policy for finding a peaceful method of changing the status quo.

We had a lesson to learn in Mogadishu. The lesson was bitter, and we were too immature to learn.

Now we speak about the futility of providing international aid, and the lack of gratitude to our largess, but keep arranging that we should decide how other people should order their lives.

We would be a far better example to the world if we were to quit telling the world how to live, and at the same time, suppressed our foreign policymakers who meddle in other country’s development in order to wring a higher profit through the use of despots whom we set up as our bully boys.

 

[BlackShanglan]

By definition, removing a tyrant by force leads to turmoil — this is why improving the world with a gun is so fraught with failure.

Have you encountered a viable alternative method for prizing a country away from a well-armed and oppressive regime? If so, the world will thank you deeply and sincerely.

Now we speak about the futility of providing international aid, and the lack of gratitude to our largess, but keep arranging that we should decide how other people should order their lives.

We would be a far better example to the world if we were to quit telling the world how to live, and at the same time, suppressed our foreign policymakers who meddle in other country’s development in order to wring a higher profit through the use of despots whom we set up as our bully boys.

I beg your pardon, but I don't believe that most people care to live under regimes that wring money out of the country by starving, torturing, or killing its people, or by simply looting the place by force while suppressing all attempts at a real and helpful government. There is a difference between telling other people how to live and striving to allow them some chance of making that decision for themselves. People living in abject poverty under a violent, unstable, and self-interested governments are not "developing" or engaging in their native culture. They are suffering, and they deserve help in retaking their countries for themselves.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

Except in Haiti. In Nicaragua. In many other places. There, when with immense courage the people retake their country, we arrange a regime change in favor of a new torturing despot. Goodbye, elected government, hello thug strongman. Courtesy of the United States Marines.

Phooey on such niceties. More than 30 coups d'état in Haiti since its independence two hundred years ago.

You're splitting hairs over a distinction between one phantom and another. We don't do any humanitarian interventions, and we frequently stymie folks who do. Witness Vietnam trying to intervene against Pol Pot. We supported Pol Pot.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I beg your pardon, but I believe most people would rather live under an oppressive regime than die under an invading nation’s poorly educated smart bombs.

And I am certain that they dislike living under the oppressive regimes we have helped prop up over them so our businessmen could wring money out of their country while our bullies are starving, torturing, or killing them. Nor do they love us for looting their country of its natural resources by force, while suppressing all attempts at any real and helpful government.

This is why Americans – who as people are the most empathetic and caring on the planet – are almost universally hated because of their viciously oppressive foreign policies.

 

[cantdog]

They slaughter for mere economic advantage. This is only moral to nationalists, for whom the distinction between US and THEM is paramount.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I beg your pardon, but I believe most people would rather live under an oppressive regime than die under an invading nation’s poorly educated smart bombs.

And I am certain that they dislike living under the oppressive regimes we have helped prop up over them so our businessmen could wring money out of their country while our bullies are starving, torturing, or killing them. Nor do they love us for looting their country of its natural resources by force, while suppressing all attempts at any real and helpful government.

This is why Americans – who as people are the most empathetic and caring on the planet – are almost universally hated because of their viciously oppressive foreign policies.

I believe that this discussion actually involved the UN, not the US, and if you'll look, my statement was that one can be justified in removing an oppressive regime, not the US was justified in any specific action or that they'd ever done it in a model fashion.

Of course, one cannot speak accurately for others. Personally, if I felt that my country would ultimately achieve freedom from a violent and parasitic warlord, I'd be willing to be one of the casualties, even if it was from "friendly fire" or badly waged war. Some things are worth the sacrifice.

Shanglan

 

[dreampilot79]

American policy is guided by one glairing misconception.

We believe that democracy is a good thing. It is for us but that is because of an inexpicable condition. We have a sence of tolerance and fair play. We treat the loosers with respect and eventually listen and change to accomodate the minorities. (I know it may take a while but it does happen here).

We seem to think that democracy would be the same anywhere.

We actually think that if we eliminate a despot we will allow the PEOPLE to decide their fate. What we get is the people choosing another despot to replace the deposed one. Mainly this is because stability and security are top concerns and a despot establishes something like security and something like stability. The NEW despot may wreak havoc on the minority but the majority feel safe.

The second effect of majority rule in much of the third world is that it puts ONE faction in control. Much too frequently a faction bent on eradicating the minority.... the result.... genocide.

We neglect much in our assumption of the superiority of democracy. Iraq is a prime example. The minority has held power for decades and are not ready to relinquish it. This minority can not ALLOW an election where they will lose power. There may be much more to that situation than that... but that in a nutshell is a big chunk of the problem.

Sometimes, in some places, give them a good despot and things will be better than democracy.