|
Darfur (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj O'Callaghan |
It's a messed up region in the world very few countries in the African continent have done well for themselves, when they have their plagued by high crime rates, proverty and corruption etc.
Yes European empires like the British & French screwed it up, but that happened years ago and it's in the past.
A lot of charities raise money for Africa but it hardly turns much around on a positive note a percentage of people receive fresh water, education and medical suppilies. What Monetary aid foreign governments send out usually go on some President Obumka's (fictional African name) 10 new Limousines and 10000 AK47's. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
It's a messed up region in the world very few countries in the African continent have done well for themselves, when they have their plagued by high crime rates, proverty and corruption etc.
Yes European empires like the British & French screwed it up, but that happened years ago and it's in the past.
A lot of charities raise money for Africa but it hardly turns much around on a positive note a percentage of people receive fresh water, education and medical suppilies. What Monetary aid foreign governments send out usually go on some President Obumka's (fictional African name) 10 new Limousines and 10000 AK47's. |
Yeah, colonialism ed up Africa. But that was in the past. Many other nations in other parts of the world go to crisis, but managed to pull themselves up.
Maybe Africa should stop giving into dictatorships and learn to use what they have to try to help themselves. Blaming colonial past is not going to fix the present problems.
As for Darfur, UN can't do because although exceptions have been there in the past, UN members do not want UN to start poking their nose into what the consider internal affairs. Esp. China and its human rights problems.
Only a dumb ass would think the Sudanese govt isn't behind Darfur. But knowing that, and the realities of int. politics is a different story |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
But Darfur has little or no oil or other strategic minerals/resources, so I dont think Americans are interested at all in sending some of their troops here to develop democracy and try peace ;-) Plus we all know how democratic Sudanese government actually is :rolleyes:
And we all know how piss-poor pathetic and weak UN actually is. If you actually paid close attention, you'd notice that UN only has succeeded and had somewhat support and development when directly supported by US government / military. Which makes it a tool of USA, rather than a serious force / global entity that can do something to help the situation. |
A couple of problems.
The U.N. has no army and is at the mercy of those countries that volunteer their own.
Since the U.S. seems the only one willing most of the time, you therefore have your answer; it's no so much the U.N. being the U.S. lapdog as much as the apathy of the rest of the world.
We (Canada) should be proud of our commitments (despite decades of government neglect when it came to our forces) around the world.
I do agree that the U.N., when it comes to playing peace-keeper, has a piss-poor record. No argument from me there. But lets not point fingers when, by it's very nature, its supposed to be a group effort. |
|
|
| spiflicated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I do agree that the U.N., when it comes to playing peace-keeper, has a piss-poor record. No argument from me there. But lets not point fingers when, by it's very nature, its supposed to be a group effort. |
Also, in many peacekeeping operations, the UN must be invited and allowed to stay by the countries they are keeping peace between. Talk about inefficiencies! |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by spiflicated
Also, in many peacekeeping operations, the UN must be invited and allowed to stay by the countries they are keeping peace between. Talk about inefficiencies! |
You're talking about 'traditional' peacekeeping which is suppose to be two parties cease fight and ask UN to enforce a ceasefire/treaty whatever. (which most has fallen under Chapter 6 of UN Charter and limits rules of engagement for UN peacekeepers)
Then you have the IFOR/SFOR, Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq which is commonly referred as peace support operations (sometimes still known as 3 block war) where peace is enforced by either UN troops or nations operating under UN mandate. (Iraq did not originally have this mandate, but now it does)
This concept is that in theory, each block could be different type of operation. You can have a full blown firefight with tanks and gunships and whatnot at one block, next block could be patrolling the streets and the 3rd block could be a humanitarian ops. (delivering food, whatnot)
The creation of UN pretty much outlawed outright war between nations, so peace support ops would be the closest to a full blown war, even if it's fought between nation agaist some sort of insurgents, or insurgents against insurgents.
Like I said Darfur is allowed to continue because nations do not want UN or other nations to step in and interfere in internal politics.
Someone else already said that UN has no troops on its own, and that it relies on other nations for money, and troops.
No nation really wants UN to be the new overlord of all nations, esp the big 5 in the Security Council.
Firestarter, US has contributed very little to past UN ops (exception being Somalia) and all other times have operated under UN mandate for most part, but without being under UN command. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
On an interesting note ... recently Russia nullified most of the African debt to the former Soviet Union. International Monetary Fund holds many African countries hostage, and these are barely able to pay off just the interest alone. These banks are mainly based in Europe. And Africans are still suffering. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
On an interesting note ... recently Russia nullified most of the African debt to the former Soviet Union. International Monetary Fund holds many African countries hostage, and these are barely able to pay off just the interest alone. These banks are mainly based in Europe. And Africans are still suffering. |
On an interesting note, if you're an investor with World Bank and IMF, would you want to give away millions of bucks? Kinda hard decision, I'd think.
Yeah, IMF and WB loans are full of restrictions that often does no good for an avg African plus the dictators get rich off of it at the expense of avg Africans, but still. While I'm all for helping out others, villifying others (not saying you are) who expect a return on their investment given on a good faith (at least, basic economic transaction goes) is a bit rough |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
A couple of problems.
The U.N. has no army |
Not exactly, but NATO. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not exactly, but NATO. |
NATO doesn't work for UN, and NATO doesn't consist the entire world.
Actually, NATO prefers to work without being under UN control b/c UN bureaucratic tape is too much. |
|
|
| Dopey |
| I think IDF should do it. I know it is almost certainly not in the cards, but they are a very capable military force, and are very much in need of good PR. Albeit, they would need to rename themselves. How about Israeli Freedom Force? :) For international relief operations only of course. Meh, sounds a bit IFFy. :toothless |
|
|
| WM2 |
| The problem is you're forgetting that if Israel does anything militaristic in a country that has Muslims living in it they're really only trying to carry out their Zionist campaign. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by WM2
The problem is you're forgetting that if Israel does anything militaristic in a country that has Muslims living in it they're really only trying to carry out their Zionist campaign. :rolleyes: |
LMAO. IDF doing peacekeeping or anything sort of that. THat'd go well with Muslims. |
|
|
|
|
