NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/international/19nations.html?oref=login

Yes, it's not surprising that whenever the UN sees bad things happenning, even within its own ranks, it does nothing but cover it up.

After all, internationalists and the people on the left who love the UN can't allow any bad press to get out about it - let's just ignore the problem and hopefully the media will stop reporting on it.

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 18 - The United Nations has developed procedures to curb sexual abuse by peacekeepers, but the measures are not being put into force because of a deep-seated culture of tolerating sexual exploitation, an independent review reported Tuesday.

"A 'boys will be boys' attitude in peacekeeping missions breeds tolerance for exploiting and abusing local women," said the report, by Refugees International, a Washington-based advocacy group. "This attitude is slowly changing, but the U.N. must go beyond strong rhetoric and ensure that the resources needed to change this culture are available."

The 32-page document provided an update on an attention-getting report in March by Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein, Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations. His report was prompted by evidence that peacekeepers and civilian staff members had had sex with women and girls in Congo in exchange for food and money, and in some cases had committed rape.

Prince Zeid, a former military officer and civilian peacekeeper in Bosnia, said in a briefing on Tuesday that even though his report had addressed a situation that undermined the credibility of the United Nations, influential member states greeted it with "utter silence."

When I was younger...in high school, fiercely idealistic without having much real-life experience with internationalism, I thought the world of the UN. Frankly, I didn't know squat about it other than the brief overview presented in classes, and it sounded great. It was when I met my husband, a non-dogmatic communist, a man who grew up in a country where even oppressed by a military dictatorship, news of UN scandals and abuses were met with protests, and were common dinner-table topics, that I had my rosy perceptions of the UN challenged. And I've never gone back. The more I find out, the less faith I have in bureaucracy, at whatever level. The UN is no different...no better, no worse...as starkly inefficient and shot through with inconsistencies as any bureaucratic organisation.

People expect much of the UN, without truly understanding the ways in which the UN is rendered powerless. Tribalism within this organisation is rife, and by that I mean adherence to nationality rather than internationality. Corruption is hard to weed out, and when it is discovered, conflict between the levels...those wishing to expose, and those wishing to hide, boils over. The mechanisms for oversight are lacking, and the ability of altruistic individuals to effectively change policy is as much a pipe dream as it is in almost any bureaucracy.

I'm an internationalist, and a lefty, and I think the UN needs an overhaul so extreme that burning it to ashes and sowing the earth with salt would not be quite enough. But then again, I have the same feeling towards most bloated, ineffecient, ineffective organisations. I don't know of a solution to this kind of bureaucratic tangle...a way to weed out personal ambitions that thwart progress, those who grandstand for political gain rather than meaningful contributions to the whole, petty rivalries, set-in-stone traditionalists refusing to budge, convoluted procedures meant to baffle and dissuade those looking for change...Western society is run by such a system...should we be so surprised that the UN mimics it?

Now I know why I don't like the UN.

They don't stop the scandals and they don't put an end to violence and they don't stop genocides.

I say its time we start over.

What do you expect from an organization that uses third world thugs as "peacekeepers". We've heard about the Jordanian peacekeepers in East Timor abusing children, we've heard about the UN sex scandals in DRC, and none of it seems to matter. Also the UN has stood by idle while organized rape and genocide takes place in Sudan. Then they have the balls to complain about the US. At least our soldiers don't gang rape the local kids and women.

At least our soldiers don't gang rape the local kids and women.
Lately you mean. (sorry, couldn't help it...we've all been bastards at one time or another)

It's a vicious circle. The UN can not be truly effective unless nations actually commit to it, commit to actually ratifying resolutions, and passing domestic laws with teeth to adhere to those resolutions, commit to some form of oversight instead of letting their people run home and claim sanctuary rather than face charges. The power of veto needs to go.

The UN simply isn't set up to handle the kinds of problems we want it to handle. We need to come up with another solution...something with more teeth, and with a strict mandate and systems of accountability.

Can it happen, in a world run by corruption?

Doubtful.

Burn, baby, burn.

We should dismantle the U.N. and sweep it into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

At least our soldiers don't gang rape the local kids and women.


Really??? (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm)

Anything else? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0308-03.htm)

*insert foot in mouth* (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/153242)

More... (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1029) More... (http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-07/21/article06.shtml) More... (http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/698/index.php)

In Japan now... (http://www.well.com/~nobumasa/rape/rape9.html)

Here we go again... (http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=498)

Oh hell, why don't we just kill everyone! (http://www.internationalist.org/fallujarape0412.html)

Lately you mean. (sorry, couldn't help it...we've all been bastards at one time or another)
<snip>

Yeah, we've all been bastards at one time or another. The US, however, has gone quite a long way towards becoming civilized. More than I can say for the nations the UN gets it's peacekeepers from.

Yeah, we've all been bastards at one time or another. The US, however, has gone quite a long way towards becoming civilized. More than I can say for the nations the UN gets it's peacekeepers from.
Well, when you are desperate for soldiers...

Really??? (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm)
It's already been revealed that those were doctored clips from a porn video. I've posted the proof here before. Oh, and Astlan is a heavily biased anti-US group. Listening to them is like taking Hitler's word for what the Jews are like.

Really??? (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm)

That's already been debunked as a hoax.

The Boston Globe Runs Faked Photos of Rape in Iraq: May, 2004

The Boston Globe runs faked photos of rape in Iraq
"Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photographic images depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women. Problem is the photos are fake. They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists. [...] "I'm surprised the editor even decided we should write about it [...] Somehow it got through all our checks. Our publisher's not having a very good day today.""

Boston Herald: Globe caught with pants down: May 13, 2004
"The Boston Globe was reeling yesterday after graphic photos of alleged sexual abuse of Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers turned out to be staged shots from a hardcore porn Web site. "This photo should not have appeared in the Globe,'' editor Martin Baron said in a statement. bostonglobesm-small"First, images portrayed in the photo were overly graphic. Second, as the story clearly pointed out, those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse. There was a lapse in judgment and procedures, and we apologize for it.'' The "lapse'' came after City Councilor Chuck Turner and perennial pot-stirrer Sadiki Kambon called a press conference in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to display more purported abuse photos. Turner claimed they came from "a very legitimate person'' but admitted they hadn't been authenticated. Kambon said he got them from a representative of the Nation of Islam. The Globe ran a picture of Turner and Kambon displaying the images. In a large shot in the paper's early editions, pornographic details are clearly visible. In later editions, the photograph was reduced, making the images slightly more obscure."


Globe offers editorial appology: May 14, 2004
The editorial points a finger at the source of the photos without discussing the editorial process by which the images—being offered by citizens rather than more trusted news sources—were vetted by the paper itself:
"The recent actions of Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner were reckless and inflammatory. With no regard for truth or consequences, Turner unveiled graphic photographs at a Tuesday press conference, suggesting that the images portrayed the rape of Iraqi women by US soldiers. The display was an all-time low for a member of the City Council. Turner, now in his third term, used twisted logic to justify the photo array. While stopping short of claiming authenticity, Turner argued that "the American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures" in light of recent revelations regarding abuse of Iraqi prisoners."

It's already been revealed that those were doctored clips from a porn video. I've posted the proof here before. Oh, and Astlan is a heavily biased anti-US group. Listening to them is like taking Hitler's word for what the Jews are like.
Let's not get into this...come on people, this is about the UN, not the US. I'm sure that some US soldiers are guilty of abuses...it would happen I suspect in ANY army. Let's keep the focus on the UN though, please? Unless you really want to hijack any meaningful conversation.

Really??? (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm)

Anything else? (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0308-03.htm)

*insert foot in mouth* (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/29/153242)

More... (http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1029)
The Boston Globe Runs Faked Photos of Rape in Iraq: May, 2004
The Boston Globe runs faked photos of rape in Iraq
"Boston residents got more than they bargained for this morning when their copy of the Globe came complete with graphic photographic images depicting U.S. troops gang-raping Iraqi women. Problem is the photos are fake. They were taken from pornographic websites and disseminated by anti-American propagandists. [...] "I'm surprised the editor even decided we should write about it [...] Somehow it got through all our checks. Our publisher's not having a very good day today.""
[WorldNet Daily]
[Scan of the Boston Globe image via Matt Drudge]

Boston Herald: Globe caught with pants down: May 13, 2004
"The Boston Globe was reeling yesterday after graphic photos of alleged sexual abuse of Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers turned out to be staged shots from a hardcore porn Web site. "This photo should not have appeared in the Globe,'' editor Martin Baron said in a statement. "First, images portrayed in the photo were overly graphic. Second, as the story clearly pointed out, those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse. There was a lapse in judgment and procedures, and we apologize for it.'' The "lapse'' came after City Councilor Chuck Turner and perennial pot-stirrer Sadiki Kambon called a press conference in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to display more purported abuse photos. Turner claimed they came from "a very legitimate person'' but admitted they hadn't been authenticated. Kambon said he got them from a representative of the Nation of Islam. The Globe ran a picture of Turner and Kambon displaying the images. In a large shot in the paper's early editions, pornographic details are clearly visible. In later editions, the photograph was reduced, making the images slightly more obscure."
[Boston Herald]

Globe offers editorial appology: May 14, 2004
The editorial points a finger at the source of the photos without discussing the editorial process by which the images—being offered by citizens rather than more trusted news sources—were vetted by the paper itself:
"The recent actions of Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner were reckless and inflammatory. With no regard for truth or consequences, Turner unveiled graphic photographs at a Tuesday press conference, suggesting that the images portrayed the rape of Iraqi women by US soldiers. The display was an all-time low for a member of the City Council. Turner, now in his third term, used twisted logic to justify the photo array. While stopping short of claiming authenticity, Turner argued that "the American people have a right and responsibility to see the pictures" in light of recent revelations regarding abuse of Iraqi prisoners."
[Globe Editorial and an article from the paper's ombudsman.]


Sorry dude, you're wrong. You've been taken in by hoaxes. Naive, gullible people are often fooled by such crap.

Sierra, the UN doesn't "stand by and watch abuse," they join in on the 'fun.'

Hmmmm....boy did THAT kill this thread...

A few people have made good points, that there are problems of tribalism within the organisation and that it is difficult to weed out corruption especially when you consider the buddy-buddy system of family and friends that operates as the supra-national level of the organisation (I speak on behalf of the experience of friends). This article however is hardly the most damning or insightful report to use in condemning the United Nations. In fact just recently a Canadian report has been released indicating that the number of people dying in genocide, war and armed conflicts has been continually decreasing since 1992 and one of the reasons the author cited was that the end of the Cold War allowed the United Nation to behave in a more forceful manner.

The Jordanian ambassador to the UN in the article places the blame on the member nations and considering he has been involved in such peacekeeping operations he would seem to be pretty informed on the situation. Yes abuse has happened and yes it is unacceptable but the United Nations can only act as far as the majority of member states will allow it to. Ultimately it is the nations that those specified peacekeeping armies come from that need to be held accountable and the United Nations if it fails to act on a complaint.

The article also said that the message of zero-contact was being pushed but hadn’t gained momentum yet which I don’t think can be traced back a fundamentally good reason to dismantle the entire system. Many people who criticise the UN tend to focus on the Security Council which I would consider one its weaker organisation, which we should all note is dominated by the five veto powers who pretty much set the agenda within that chamber. The UN does a multitude of different things which are often overlooked especially in monitoring elections, the WHO, world food program and sponsoring activities to raise education for women and children’s rights.

Ultimately we have to consider, regardless of our opinions of the UN (which I will note is preparing fro some major structural changes) is it better we have a weak UN or no UN at all. I think the only conclusion can be that it’s better to have a United Nations then none at all and I don’t see how it could be argued otherwise.

Hmmmm....boy did THAT kill this thread...
You should see what happened to my "NS Department of Libel and Slander" thread. Fucking environmentalists hijacked a perfectly good humor thread about Angelina Jolie's third-world adopted babies being used to make baby oil and which Actresses we claimed to be screwing and used it to debate global warming. In essence, environmentalists polluted my thread until it was unable to support posts.

:D

Would we better off without the UN? As in, kill it, and start from scratch? I'd love to say yes, but the answer has to be no. It's the same as the way I feel about the Canadian government...as much as I hate it, until we have a viable alternative, we can't just trash it. And the problem is, a solution needs to come from the outside. It just can not happen within the system itself, no matter what foolish idealists believe.

We should dismantle the U.N. and sweep it into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.

Yes your right. Forget about trying to change something thats broken... just bin in. :rolleyes:

So we'd be left with a sinlge world superpower, expected by the world to sort out everyones problems... and a lot of Americans bitch about the fact the US does too much policing anyway. So you want to the US to do more of that!? Good answer!

There is more to the UN then merely the UN Gen. Assem. and the UNSC.

UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, ICJ, UNFP- all these do good, honest work.

The idea is fine- the people are corrupt.

Yes your right. Forget about trying to change something thats broken... just bin in. :rolleyes:

So we'd be left with a sinlge world superpower, expected by the world to sort out everyones problems... and a lot of Americans bitch about the fact the US does too much policing anyway. So you want to the US to do more of that!? Good answer!

There is more to the UN then merely the UN Gen. Assem. and the UNSC.

UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, ICJ, UNFP- all these do good, honest work.

The idea is fine- the people are corrupt.

No, I don't want the U.S. to do more of that. Way to put words in my mouth. What I personally would like would be for the U.S. to have a neutral, non-aligned, peaceful foreign policy, with diplomatic and commerical relations with every nation, non-interference in other nations' affairs, and refusal to intervene in wars that are of no concern to us.

Yes your right. Forget about trying to change something thats broken... just bin in. :rolleyes:

So we'd be left with a sinlge world superpower, expected by the world to sort out everyones problems... and a lot of Americans bitch about the fact the US does too much policing anyway. So you want to the US to do more of that!? Good answer!

There is more to the UN then merely the UN Gen. Assem. and the UNSC.

UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, ICJ, UNFP- all these do good, honest work.

The idea is fine- the people are corrupt.
Yes, people are corrupt, and as representatives of nations, they fuddle the process of reform. Unless you plan on taking the people out and having cats run the UN, we need to accept that corruption is inevitable, but NOT live with it...create mechanisms to deal with that inevitability:)

It's a damn sight harder, and more expensive to renovate than to build from scratch. The UN was set up with a particular mandate in mind, based on the structure of the international community at the time. And yes, it does do some good work...but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is bloated and corrupt. If we really want to commit to internationalism...not a world government, but a covenant of nations, we need an organisation based on today's realities. Let us shrink the UN, and focus it on specific areas instead of spreading it out so thinly...and let us take the time and effort to design something better, something that is more inclusive.

No, I don't want the U.S. to do more of that. Way to put words in my mouth. What I personally would like would be for the U.S. to have a neutral, non-aligned, peaceful foreign policy, with diplomatic and commerical relations with every nation, non-interference in other nations' affairs, and refusal to intervene in wars that are of no concern to us.
And peacekeepers who put their allegience to the international community over their national ties.

And peacekeepers who put their allegience to the international community over their national ties.

Screw the international community. What happens abroad should be of no concern to us, unless our national security is jeopardized. We should refuse to ever again send "peacekeepers," anywhere, because we're not supposed to be a world policeman.

Screw the international community. What happens abroad should be of no concern to us, unless our national security is jeopardized. We should refuse to ever again send "peacekeepers," anywhere, because we're not supposed to be a world policeman.
You misunderstand me.

I'm not talking about US soldiers alone, I mean any soldiers that are 'donated' by countries to be peacekeepers. I'd like to see a choice for soldiers in any given nation...serve the nation, or serve as a peacekeeper. As a peacekeeper, your alliegance should be to the charter of the international organisation (if we come up with something other than the UN), meaning crimes committed would be dealt with by that international organisation, not on a national level. Make more sense?

You misunderstand me.

I'm not talking about US soldiers alone, I mean any soldiers that are 'donated' by countries to be peacekeepers. I'd like to see a choice for soldiers in any given nation...serve the nation, or serve as a peacekeeper. As a peacekeeper, your alliegance should be to the charter of the international organisation (if we come up with something other than the UN), meaning crimes committed would be dealt with by that international organisation, not on a national level. Make more sense?

Yup.

Screw the international community. What happens abroad should be of no concern to us, unless our national security is jeopardized. We should refuse to ever again send "peacekeepers," anywhere, because we're not supposed to be a world policeman.

Screw the international community? Nice. Good luck with that isolationist policy.
So how would you trade with other countries after telling them "F*** you mate-sort out your own problems".... self sufficency perhaps?:rolleyes:

Yes, people are corrupt, and as representatives of nations, they fuddle the process of reform. Unless you plan on taking the people out and having cats run the UN, we need to accept that corruption is inevitable, but NOT live with it...create mechanisms to deal with that inevitability

It's a damn sight harder, and more expensive to renovate than to build from scratch. The UN was set up with a particular mandate in mind, based on the structure of the international community at the time. And yes, it does do some good work...but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is bloated and corrupt. If we really want to commit to internationalism...not a world government, but a covenant of nations, we need an organisation based on today's realities. Let us shrink the UN, and focus it on specific areas instead of spreading it out so thinly...and let us take the time and effort to design something better, something that is more inclusive.

I agree. Slim it down and hack away at the bureaucracy.

The proble, is that the UN is a higgildy piggildy morass of various bodies that arose as time goes on, as different issues arose. NOW is the time to stand back as look objectively at the dead weight.

And peacekeepers who put their allegience to the international community over their national ties.
Which isn't going to happen if states are only in it for their own gain... ALL states.

Screw the international community? Nice. Good luck with that isolationist policy.
So how would you trade with other countries after telling them "F*** you mate-sort out your own problems".... self sufficency perhaps?:rolleyes:


Why don't you ask the Swiss? They have consistently done that as a matter of foreign policy - they say, "oh, well, you guys go ahead and fight, we're neutral - sort out your own problems".

The Swiss win every war.

Screw the international community? Nice. Good luck with that isolationist policy.
So how would you trade with other countries after telling them "F*** you mate-sort out your own problems".... self sufficency perhaps?:rolleyes:

By "screw the international community" I mean "what happens to them is none of our business and not worth risking our necks for."

Why don't you ask the Swiss? They have consistently done that as a matter of foreign policy - they say, "oh, well, you guys go ahead and fight, we're neutral - sort out your own problems".

The Swiss win every war.

No not neutral. A lot of coutries are neutral and trade. I'm talking about the 'screw you' attitude. Nobody cries to the Swiss for help..... except maybe Belgian chocolate makers :p , but when you appeal for help form the biggest power and your told "Screw you".... don't expect any trade favours. ;)

Also:

I never said I was an "isolationist." I'm a non-interventionist. There's a huge difference. Isolationists are people who want to erect walls around their country and completely cut off all ties with the outside world. Non-interventionists, on the other hand, are people who favor ties with the outside world, but refuse to get entangled in the outside world's affairs.

No not neutral. A lot of coutries are neutral and trade. I'm talking about the 'screw you' attitude. Nobody cries to the Swiss for help..... except maybe Belgian chocolate makers :p , but when you appeal for help form the biggest power and your told "Screw you".... don't expect any trade favours. ;)

There shouldn't be any trade favors. There should be international free trade.

Screw the international community? Nice. Good luck with that isolationist policy.
So how would you trade with other countries after telling them "F*** you mate-sort out your own problems".... self sufficency perhaps?:rolleyes:
I think he's getting upset by the damned if you do, damned if you don't perception of the US in terms of military intervention. And let's not get into that. Keep it international...the US would of course have to be involved in any sort of reworking of the UN, or construction of a new system.

I agree. Slim it down and hack away at the bureaucracy.

The proble, is that the UN is a higgildy piggildy morass of various bodies that arose as time goes on, as different issues arose. NOW is the time to stand back as look objectively at the dead weight.


Which isn't going to happen if states are only in it for their own gain... ALL states.
Of course states are going to be in it for their own gain...why bother otherwise? But the perception of what benefits a nation needs to change. Stability and peace is a benefit for some...chaos and murder benefits others. Which will we put our weight behind? That decision needs to be made by the people in each nation. Get off our assess, and put the pressure on, and make peace and stability a priority. Sell Big Business on the concept.

EVERY NATION ON EARTH is guilty of thinking of themselves first. That is what nation states do. That is the covenant they have with their people. But the tough thing is, international cooperation IS needed before internationalism can work, and be a direct benefit to nation states individualy. Chicken and egg...we need to put aside our own concerns just enough to make it work at the beginning...but that will involve a real leap of faith. Committing too much, and having it fail, would be a real blow.

Edit: and shouldn't it be Psychotic Mongeese?:D

There shouldn't be any trade favors. There should be international free trade.

Agreed.

By "screw the international community" I mean "what happens to them is none of our business and not worth risking our necks for."

Like it or not the world is globalised. That attitude doesn't fly any more. The old saying: If America catchs cold... Europe sneezes. Same can be said for Asia.. EU... China.... South/Latin America etc etc.

It IS your business.... it is ALL of our business.... like it or not.

There shouldn't be any trade favors. There should be international free trade.

Personally, I disagree.

Fair trade, not free trade.

Screw the international community. What happens abroad should be of no concern to us, unless our national security is jeopardized. We should refuse to ever again send "peacekeepers," anywhere, because we're not supposed to be a world policeman.

I agree with not meaning to be the worlds policemen that's in the interest of US citizens and the rest of the world. But as for "screw the international community" i totally disagree, with Human Rights comes Human Responcibilities and a position totally unacceptable when you consider the implications of say fascism ever making a real political return.

Why don't you ask the Swiss? They have consistently done that as a matter of foreign policy - they say, "oh, well, you guys go ahead and fight, we're neutral - sort out your own problems".

The Swiss win every war.
True neutrality comes at a high cost...and the Swiss can handle it because they are small. And they hop all their recruits up on that fine chocolate:).

But under the guise of neutrality, the Swiss have actually helped great evils be perpetrated. Money laundering for all types of criminals.

Also:

I never said I was an "isolationist." I'm a non-interventionist. There's a huge difference. Isolationists are people who want to erect walls around their country and completely cut off all ties with the outside world. Non-interventionists, on the other hand, are people who favor ties with the outside world, but refuse to get entangled in the outside world's affairs.
Non-interventionism is a pipe-dream. Somehow, whether it be through trade-agreements, or other bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements, you are going to be tied into the affairs of someone else. I really don't think non-intervention is an option anymore, when economies are SO interconnected.

I think he's getting upset by the damned if you do, damned if you don't perception of the US in terms of military intervention. And let's not get into that. Keep it international...the US would of course have to be involved in any sort of reworking of the UN, or construction of a new system.

Sadly, that comes with the tag of lone superpower- thats just life

Of course states are going to be in it for their own gain...why bother otherwise? But the perception of what benefits a nation needs to change. Stability and peace is a benefit for some...chaos and murder benefits others. Which will we put our weight behind? That decision needs to be made by the people in each nation. Get off our assess, and put the pressure on, and make peace and stability a priority. Sell Big Business on the concept.

EVERY NATION ON EARTH is guilty of thinking of themselves first. That is what nation states do. That is the covenant they have with their people. But the tough thing is, international cooperation IS needed before internationalism can work, and be a direct benefit to nation states individualy. Chicken and egg...we need to put aside our own concerns just enough to make it work at the beginning...but that will involve a real leap of faith. Committing too much, and having it fail, would be a real blow.

I'm an idealist :D I hope the overwhelming desire to help your fellow man overrides that..... and not i'm going to stop with the drugs :p

Edit: and shouldn't it be Psychotic Mongeese?:D


Sheep- sheeps :D

I believe in the ideals- people let the ideals down. I don't believe starting again will work. It'll just be "Ah, not again. Screw this- i'm striking out on my own." And we're back to a pre-WWI global power system. :(

Non-interventionism is a pipe-dream. Somehow, whether it be through trade-agreements, or other bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements, you are going to be tied into the affairs of someone else. I really don't think non-intervention is an option anymore, when economies are SO interconnected.

I mean non-intervention in wars, conflicts, nations' internal affairs, etc.

I mean non-intervention in wars, conflicts, nations' internal affairs, etc.
Thats impossible- as I and Sinuhue have pointed out- due to increasing interdependence, that country WILL get sucked into something... ie America WWI

Thats impossible- as I and Sinuhue have pointed out- due to increasing interdependence, that country WILL get sucked into something... ie America WWI

Sure it can work, as long as we actually put effort into it. Another thing that would help would be abandoning all our military bases abroad, bringing all our troops home, and completely eliminating all forms of foreign aid.

Sure it can work, as long as we actually put effort into it. Another thing that would help would be abandoning all our military bases abroad, bringing all our troops home, and completely eliminating all forms of foreign aid.

How kind... i'm sure that will do you favours abroad.

It can't work because it has been tried before.... and the world now is even MORE globalised then 1914.

Non-interventionism is a pipe dream. Two outcomes- you either become involved bit by bit- or you isolate your self to make sure you DON'T become involved.

I mean non-intervention in wars, conflicts, nations' internal affairs, etc.
So do I. And I say it's near to impossible. Because that would mean not singing the lowest of trade agreements...agreements which absolutely affect the internal affairs of the signatory nations. Often in ways the average person can not even imagine. For example...you sign an agreement with Ecuador to buy a certain amount of bananas at a fixed price. The crop fails, but the price is non-negotiable, and the producers go under. Or your best trading partner is embroiled in a war, and is buying up certain supplies almost faster than you can produce them...but they are in a war you do not support. Whether you withdraw your supplies, or not, you are making a decision that has an international impact.

Sure it can work, as long as we actually put effort into it. Another thing that would help would be abandoning all our military bases abroad, bringing all our troops home, and completely eliminating all forms of foreign aid.
Which would not necessarily be in your nation's best interests...and I'm assuming that this desire for non-intervention is to keep those interests in the forefront?

How kind... i'm sure that will do you favours abroad.

It can't work because it has been tried before.... and the world now is even MORE globalised then 1914.

Non-interventionism is a pipe dream. Two outcomes- you either become involved bit by bit- or you isolate your self to make sure you DON'T become involved.

Foreign aid does nothing except enrich the coffers of despots: Mobutu Sese Seko, Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, need I continue...

So do I. And I say it's near to impossible. Because that would mean not singing the lowest of trade agreements...agreements which absolutely affect the internal affairs of the signatory nations. Often in ways the average person can not even imagine. For example...you sign an agreement with Ecuador to buy a certain amount of bananas at a fixed price. The crop fails, but the price is non-negotiable, and the producers go under. Or your best trading partner is embroiled in a war, and is buying up certain supplies almost faster than you can produce them...but they are in a war you do not support. Whether you withdraw your supplies, or not, you are making a decision that has an international impact.

Well, if Ecuador gets involved in a war, we'll just sit back and let them worry about it. Not worth getting our men killed over.

Foreign aid does nothing except enrich the coffers of despots: Mobutu Sese Seko, Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, need I continue...
You're not entirely correct there. Foreign aid does indeed enrich the corrupt...and part of that is due to the inefficient distribution of said aid AND the fact that there are accomplices on the giving end as well. However, foreign aid ALSO gets the giving nation certain 'benefits' as strings most certainly ARE attached. To be blunt, structural adjustment programs are part and parcel of foreign aid, and they benefit the giver, more than the receiver. You'll be hard-pressed to find foreign aid (other than disaster relief) that does not have these strings.

You're not entirely correct there. Foreign aid does indeed enrich the corrupt...and part of that is due to the inefficient distribution of said aid AND the fact that there are accomplices on the giving end as well. However, foreign aid ALSO gets the giving nation certain 'benefits' as strings most certainly ARE attached. To be blunt, structural adjustment programs are part and parcel of foreign aid, and they benefit the giver, more than the receiver. You'll be hard-pressed to find foreign aid (other than disaster relief) that does not have these strings.

Private charities and humanitarian organizations would be a better solution, IMO. That way, the people will be helped directly.

Well, if Ecuador gets involved in a war, we'll just sit back and let them worry about it. Not worth getting our men killed over.
Pretending that Ecaudor is your main trading partner, your economy would be directly, and negatively impacted by any such war. Whether you send soldiers in to die or not, your economy will likely go into recession. Perhaps that is the better option, perhaps not. If all you are talking about is withdrawing any military support, then your non-intervention is limited. As you seek for new avenues of trade to prop up your sagging economy, you impact directly the war effort of your former ally.

Foreign aid does nothing except enrich the coffers of despots: Mobutu Sese Seko, Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, need I continue...

Yes your right. Never EVER ever ever ever ever, has foreign aid... EVER... done any good.

Pretending that Ecaudor is your main trading partner, your economy would be directly, and negatively impacted by any such war. Whether you send soldiers in to die or not, your economy will likely go into recession. Perhaps that is the better option, perhaps not. If all you are talking about is withdrawing any military support, then your non-intervention is limited. As you seek for new avenues of trade to prop up your sagging economy, you impact directly the war effort of your former ally.

Well, if a recession happens, it happens. It's not worth fighting over. Soldiers should never be sent abroad unless our national security is credibly threatened.

Pretending that Ecaudor is your main trading partner, your economy would be directly, and negatively impacted by any such war. Whether you send soldiers in to die or not, your economy will likely go into recession. Perhaps that is the better option, perhaps not. If all you are talking about is withdrawing any military support, then your non-intervention is limited. As you seek for new avenues of trade to prop up your sagging economy, you impact directly the war effort of your former ally.

Bottom line: Non interventionism cannot work.

Yes your right. Never EVER ever ever ever ever, has foreign aid... EVER... done any good.

It hasn't. All it does is slows and hinders economic growth, enriches the governments of the recipient countries, and makes them dependent on foreign aid.

It hasn't. All it does is slows and hinders economic growth, enriches the governments of the recipient countries, and makes them dependent on foreign aid.

Really? Tell that to... Ireland.(A prime beneficiary of US foreign aid) Tell that to... Portugal. Tell that to... Japan. Tell that to....post apartheid South Africa

If you mean govt to govt aid, then yes. That is the most inefficent use of aid. NGO's and direct aid are better.

Well, if a recession happens, it happens. It's not worth fighting over. Soldiers should never be sent abroad unless our national security is credibly threatened.

Say that when your in another Great Depression. ;)

Private charities and humanitarian organizations would be a better solution, IMO. That way, the people will be helped directly.
I don't mean to be a downer here, nor am I overly cynical, but NGOs are not necessarily a better solution. They are accountable not to the people they are set up to serve, but rather to those people that contribute to them. A bass-ackwards system if ever one existed. Much aid is inefficient, unmonitored, culturally inappropriate, and ineffectively administered. The goal of most NGOs is to work themselves out of existence...yet not a single one has. Instead, we have massive conglomerations, Big International Non-Governmental Organisations (BINGOS) that are administratively top-heavy, and run up incredible operating costs. As well, these oraganisations are allowed to discriminate according to any criteria they wish, be it ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc. Tracking how many of your donation dollars actually make it to the 'people' is a convoluted and frustrating process, and even worse is the final answer....pennies.

Really? Tell that to... Ireland.(A prime beneficiary of US foreign aid) Tell that to... Portugal. Tell that to... Japan. Tell that to....post apartheid South Africa

If you mean govt to govt aid, then yes. That is the most inefficent use of aid. NGO's and direct aid are better.



Say that when your in another Great Depression. ;)

Japan reached where it is today not by foreign aid, but by implementing free-market policies.

Post apartheid South Africa is doing very poorly, in case you haven't noticed. The unemployment rate is about 45%, economic growth is sluggish, half the population is below the poverty line, the country is an international drug-smuggling route comparable to Colombia, their murder rate is 2nd highest in the world, they are the rape capital of the world, over 300,000 armed robberies annually, racism on both sides is worse than ever, and corruption is rampant. Under apartheid, South Africa was a First World country almost as safe as Switzerland, with huge economic growth. Now it's a Third World hellhole as dangerous as a warzone. Granted, there are some improvements. The new government doesn't bulldoze squatters' homes, torture or kill dissidents, terrorize its neighbors, or unleash death squads. But on the whole, South Africa is a lot worse off than ever before.

Japan reached where it is today not by foreign aid, but by implementing free-market policies. post WWII- it was ONLY foreign aid that got it back up on its feet so quickly.

Post apartheid South Africa is doing very poorly, in case you haven't noticed. The unemployment rate is about 45%, economic growth is sluggish, half the population is below the poverty line, the country is an international drug-smuggling route comparable to Colombia, their murder rate is 2nd highest in the world, they are the rape capital of the world, over 300,000 armed robberies annually, racism on both sides is worse than ever, and corruption is rampant. Under apartheid, South Africa was a First World country almost as safe as Switzerland, with huge economic growth. Now it's a Third World hellhole as dangerous as a warzone. Granted, there are some improvements. The new government doesn't bulldoze squatters' homes, torture or kill dissidents, terrorize its neighbors, or unleash death squads. But on the whole, South Africa is a lot worse off than ever before.

Can i use that for my sig? Because I've never heard of something so insane....

Can i use that for my sig? Because I've never heard of something so insane....

What's insane? It's the truth. South Africa was once a First World country, with little crime. Now look at it. It's a Third World hellhole.

Post apartheid South Africa is doing very poorly, in case you haven't noticed. The unemployment rate is about 45%, economic growth is sluggish, half the population is below the poverty line, the country is an international drug-smuggling route comparable to Colombia, their murder rate is 2nd highest in the world, they are the rape capital of the world, over 300,000 armed robberies annually, racism on both sides is worse than ever, and corruption is rampant. Under apartheid, South Africa was a First World country almost as safe as Switzerland, with huge economic growth. Now it's a Third World hellhole as dangerous as a warzone. Granted, there are some improvements. The new government doesn't bulldoze squatters' homes, torture or kill dissidents, terrorize its neighbors, or unleash death squads. But on the whole, South Africa is a lot worse off than ever before.

But isn't the African National Congress the paragon of virtue?

I mean, isn't Mbeki right when he says that AIDS isn't caused by a virus?

:rolleyes:

But isn't the African National Congress the paragon of virtue?

I mean, isn't Mbeki right when he says that AIDS isn't caused by a virus?

:rolleyes:

Oh yes, you're right! :D

What's insane? It's the truth. South Africa was once a First World country, with little crime. Now look at it. It's a Third World hellhole.

...

I don't even know where to begin with pointing out what was wrong with your previous statement.... It'd take too long. But it would have something to do with the words: oppression, freedom, torture, Mandela and NOT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

And we are now waaaay off topic.

...

I don't even know where to begin with pointing out what was wrong with your previous statement.... It'd take too long. But it would have something to do with the words: oppression, freedom, torture, Mandela and NOT A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY.

And we are now waaaay off topic.

Maybe you misread my post. I said the apartheid regime tortured and killed dissidents, terrorized its neighbors, unleashed death squads, etc. I said the new government was superior in one way, in that it did not. It seems you're not only in need of manners (as exemplified by your snotty, arrogant style of debate) but spectacles, as well.

But isn't the African National Congress the paragon of virtue?

I mean, isn't Mbeki right when he says that AIDS isn't caused by a virus?

:rolleyes:

I still think its better now then under aparthied.... harumph!
*pouts*

I still think its better now then under aparthied.... harumph!
*pouts*

It's more democratic, but economically, it's a lot worse off. And it's a lot less safe.

*raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!???:eek:

Maybe you misread my post. I said the apartheid regime tortured and killed dissidents, terrorized its neighbors, unleashed death squads, etc. I said the new government was superior in one way, in that it did not. It seems you're not only in need of manners (as exemplified by your snotty, arrogant style of debate) but spectacles, as well.

Not arrogant... just right :p

Well if the new govt doesn't do the above things that you listed... then its A LOT better off.

Apartheid regime was white dominated. Now its black dominated. Are you implying that under the white govt it was First World and now under the black givt it is Third World?

When apartheid ended in 1994, there were fears that
South Africa's then Marxist-influenced ANC would take the country on a path of nationalisation and centralisation.

The country would soon sink into the economic abyss of many other African nations, the pessimists feared.

But this did not happen.

The country has seen modest but steady growth of 3% a year over the past decade.

The rand has survived three crises and strengthened.

And these days, investors are so confident that markets are swayed little by politics.


Black South Africans have greater access to services like electricity, water and telephones.

Ten years ago South Africa was seen as a much riskier place to invest in Razia Khan, Standard Chartered Bank

And they have a greater chance of becoming wealthy too as more jobs have opened up for blacks, and as they have been given shares and property as part of moves to redistribute wealth.

These enormous changes have been achieved with relatively little external borrowing.

Hellhole?

Not arrogant... just right :p

Well if the new govt doesn't do the above things that you listed... then its A LOT better off.

Apartheid regime was white dominated. Now its black dominated. Are you implying that under the white govt it was First World and now under the black givt it is Third World?



Hellhole?

Yeah, sorry, I came across as a prick, I have too short a fuse. I apologize. South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

South Africa isn't Third World because it has a block government. It's Third World because it has an incompetent government. And it is quite the hellhole, crime is out of control, with rampant murder, rape, robbing, and chaos. But on the plus side, as you noted, things are slowly improving for blacks. But the country still has an awfully long road ahead of it.

Bingo. Exactly........now what WERE we talking about.... *scratchs head*

[QUOTE=
Sinuhue *raises her tomahawk*
What is it with you people and your incessent need to wander off topic!!!??? [/QUOTE]

Forgive me massa.... :D

Wow...is that a sextuple post? (find the delete button!)