NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7245002.stm

If you didn't already have a reason to hate the man, now he's defending his administration's non-action regarding Darfur. Why is it our government jumped the gun to invade a country for dubious reasons, but still won't intervene to stop a genocide?

Bush plans to attend the Olympics despite China's Human Rights Violation, can you really be that suprised?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7245002.stm

If you didn't already have a reason to hate the man, now he's defending his administration's non-action regarding Darfur. Why is it our government jumped the gun to invade a country for dubious reasons, but still won't intervene to stop a genocide?

Various complex factors (http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/world_oil_reserves_map.jpg)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7245002.stm

If you didn't already have a reason to hate the man, now he's defending his administration's non-action regarding Darfur. Why is it our government jumped the gun to invade a country for dubious reasons, but still won't intervene to stop a genocide?

Probably the same reason we didn't jump into Rwanda but did in Yugoslavia.

Various complex factors (http://www.solarnavigator.net/images/world_oil_reserves_map.jpg)

next stop central and south america...and if there's time Africa and Western Europe...Those Brits and Norwegians have it coming

Probably the same reason we didn't jump into Rwanda but did in Yugoslavia.
We don't care about black people?

We don't care about black people?

That's not that far off the mark.

We don't care about black people?

Apparently.

Who did intervene in Darfur, exactly?

Why is it our government jumped the gun to invade a country for dubious reasons, but still won't intervene to stop a genocide?

Apparently, the lack of dubiousness of the situation. He's only a decider if he can fog it up for everyone else - it matches his diction and his masters.

eeegh, he just needs to either stay away from darfur entirely, or get involved somehow. Now the US military and gov't is kinda overstretched right now, so I'd say that until he can do something he should just stay awaaaay from this issue, it's a no-win.

eeegh, he just needs to either stay away from darfur entirely, or get involved somehow. Now the US military and gov't is kinda overstretched right now, so I'd say that until he can do something he should just stay awaaaay from this issue, it's a no-win.

Maybe somebody else should send the troops for once...you know, like the colonial European powers that were the (most recent) catalyst of this entire situation.

Blaming colonialism again? Pfft, when does that get old? It's a nice sound bite, but not very realistic.

Can the U.S. still blame the Europeans for all our problems? What is the statue of limitations?

If Africa really wanted to be stable, they'd beg the colonial powers to come back and run the entire continent.

Bush Defends U.S. Record on Darfur


What record?

I'll bet a kick in the nuts that Dubya can't even find Darfur on a globe. :p

If Africa really wanted to be stable, they'd beg the colonial powers to come back and run the entire continent.

Or, they'd follow Botswana's example.

Can the U.S. still blame the Europeans for all our problems?

You know, to make an analogy you have to compare like things, America is not in any way comparable. What you don't realize that the colonial period in America never ended, the colonists just changed.

We are not the people who had original claim to this land. The native american indians are. Can we still blaim europe? Of course not. But america is not a victim of colonization, it is a beneficiary of it. The fact that you even compare the US to most african nations shows you can't even think about US history conceptually. This nation wasn't founded by the colonized, it was founded by the colonizers.

The native americans are the victims of colonization. Can they blame the US for their problems? Abso-fucking-lutly.

Learn your history, child.

The thirteen colonies seemed to do quite well on their own. They didn't make excuses for their problems and look for people to blame.

The American Indians were imperialists who regularly took land from each other and conducted wars of conquest. The European colonists simply had the ability and population to do what none of the individual tribes could.

That's the way the world is. And Kennewick man has already proved that the American Indians who migrated from Asia were not the first people here. They possibly exterminated the original folk, but they didn't have the intelligence to form a written language to confirm this.

Native American is an offensive term. Are the WASPs more American than the Irish or Italians because they got here sooner?

The thirteen colonies seemed to do quite well on their own. They didn't make excuses for their problems and look for people to blame.

Because the analogy is fundamentally flawed. The thirteen colonies were not reclaimed by an oppressed population who had been continually and severely subjugated, had their natural resources stripped, their labor shipped off, their children intentionally left uneducated, and their economy dictated by foreign powers for their own benefit.

The reason the thirteen colonies did well once they left europe was because they were, for all practical purposes, still european, governed by the same people as governed them during the colonial period. To adequately compare africa to the United States you can't examine the US government as it stands now. Everything west of the Mississippi is, effectly, a US colony, even today.

What happened to the native african population is not comparable to what happened to the european decendant americans. It is comparable to what happened to the native indian population. And look what happened to them.

Once again, learn your history child.

Native American is an offensive term. Are the WASPs more American than the Irish or Italians because they got here sooner?

American yes. Native no.

Once again it boils down to saying that that blacks can't do it, so let's not let hold them responsible.

The thirteen colonies built a nation around them from scratch. Native Africans still had all of the infrastructure that ran the economy under the colonial powers and they screwed it up. Really screwed it up.

Nelson Mandela was unquestionably one of the most incompetent leaders in history and what he did to turn South Africa from the jewel of Africa to the crime capital of the world is appalling.

Not as appalling as the racist praise that he gets of course. It's sickening really.

HSH Prince Eric, what did you expect? The Europeans did next to nothing to prepare Africa for independence.

The Belgian Congo had a whopping 17 university graduates at the time of independence.

Guinea-Bissau had a single-digit literacy rate and only one manufacturing plant in the country - which produced beer for Portuguese troops.

Even the colonies which were relatively better off, like Ghana, had pitifully low literacy rates - Ghana's was 25%.

Moreover, African economies were structured so that they depended heavily on only one or two commodities - coffee, diamonds, whatever, making them extremely susceptible to world economic trends. If coffee prices took a downturn, those economies would bust. Europeans did nothing to diversify the economies.

Europeans in many cases introduced - or deliberately exacerbated - tribalism, as part of their "divide and rule" strategy. Look at the Belgians in Ruanda-Urundi, the British in Kenya, etc.

Finally, virtually all African countries became pawns of one power or another during the Cold War. Western or Soviet backed dictators were installed and propped up with generous aid, entrenching them in power, giving Africans few means with which to change their government.

No, Africa is not completely blameless for its predicament - but writing off colonialism as a factor is, to put it simply, quite silly.

The thirteen colonies built a nation around them from scratch.

No they didn't. They had build in infrastructure left by the europeans. They had the schools, the colleges, the manufacturing plants. The US, even as a colonial territory, was still fairly independant, and self contained. Boston and New York were, even during colonial periods, major shipping ports that bought and sold goods across the world. The way the Europeans made their money through the american colonies was through a system of taxation. Boston Philladelphia and New York were, at the time, just as advanced as London.

When the european colonial powers left, they left everything behind, including a fairly functional and interconnected economy.

Native Africans still had all of the infrastructure that ran the economy under the colonial powers and they screwed it up.

Bullshit. The problme is, the african economies were never ment to be self sustaining. They were never intended to allow for a nation to prosper. They were never intended to They were build for the sole purpose of feeding the parent nations. The infrastructure was designed to do one thing and one thing only. Strip raw materials and send them to the european parent nations. There was no educational infrastructure, no manufacturing capabilities, no refining capabilities, just the ability to extract raw materials and bring them to europe.

Unlike in the US where the europeans built a fairly functional economy and then taxed it, Africa was designed to drain resources into Europe where they were refined. And when europe left, that's all that remained. And the problem with an economy that's built entirely on exporting raw materials and importing manufactured and finished goods is that you inherently run at a deficit when you try to do that.

The US colonies, even during colonization, were capable of managing an economy at a profit. They had to, that's how the British made money on those colonies, they taxed them.

The african colonies on the other hand were managed under an entirely different philosophy. They weren't a profit generating economy that was taxed, and they were never intended to be so. They were designed, intentionally, to run at an incredible loss, because their natural resources were funneled out of the continent and into Europe, leaving them dependant on europe for finished products.

Again, your ignorance is astounding. Learn your history, child.

And in fact, if anything, the way the colonists managed africa was very much a "lesson learned" from what happened with America.

Because the colonial theory of America was build their economies, move your own people there en mass, educate their elite just as well as you educate your ruling class back home (let's not forget harvard university predates the country, it was formed by the British), and set it up to be a reasonably self contained economy, let them generate profit, then tax the shit out of them.

The problem with that is, if you set your colony to be able to be profit generating, then they can survive without you. If you educate the colonial leaders, they might decide to not listen to you anymore. And if your now functional colony decides they don't need you anymore and gives you the big "fuck you" and, thanks to your efforts, now have the means to back that up...well...that's basically it for your little merchantile dreams.

So after learning that lesson in America, the colonizing eruopeans did the exact opposite in africa. They didn't set up africa to be self sufficient, they set it up to steal from them. And steal from them they did. And when they left, they left with exactly what they intended to give them. Nothing.

Given its track record, the US is doing the Africans a favor by ignoring them completely. We intervened in Iraq, which wasn't as bad as Africa, and look how that turned out. How many Iraqs do we need? Fifty? One Hundred? I thought one was too many.

The US isn't designed to help foreign countries. It was designed to find nations it deems enemy and leave them in ruin, like we did to Iraq.

Bush plans to attend the Olympics despite China's Human Rights Violation, can you really be that suprised?
Oh I don't think any less of him for that, the kind of ivory tower hippies which 'boycott' China deserve nothing but laugher anyway, in reality that kinda of behavior is just self-gratifying egotism disguised as 'taking a principled stand'...

What you are saying is complete lies.

The technical knowledge, resources themselves, the manpower and the equipment was all there. It was when the natives took over the leadership that everything went to shit. That's cold fact and I'm not going to argue that it turns dark at night.

Keep blaming colonization in the past, it does nothing to remedy the problems that exist.

What you are saying is complete lies.

Yeah, because...um..you said so, apparently. Unfortunatly for you, some crap some kid says on the internet isn't automatically true.

No matter how much you want to pretend it is.

What you are saying is complete lies.

Prove it.

Doesn't work with me Neo. You know that it was the leadership that was the problem if you know anything about the situation, not because it lacked the resources that the colonial powers had.

And as I said GL, I'm not going to argue that it turns dark at night. Do the research yourself.

Doesn't work with me Neo

Yes, so it would seem. Most people would be ashamed of that, but if you wish to publically declare your own inability to form a cohesive argument or understand a premise a 10 year old would get, that's your choice.

But hey, since you already admitted you are incapable of proving your argument...your presense seems kind of irrelevant now, doesn't it?

What record?

I'll bet a kick in the nuts that Dubya can't even find Darfur on a globe. :p

Ok first of all I'm going to make sure that you are not wearing any cups of any kind.

*waves wand over LG body* No metal cup, good.

Now we just get a big, strong, burly, gay biker dude to check for a plastic cup and to see if there's anything to actually kick. ;)

Oh yea, I went there.

Hope you know I'm just messing with you LG ;)

And as I said GL, I'm not going to argue that it turns dark at night.

Child, given your track record here and the demonstrably erronious positions of your "arguments", were you to argue that it gets dark and night, I would consider that in and of itself fairly pursuasive evidence to the contrary

And as I said GL, I'm not going to argue that it turns dark at night. Do the research yourself.

You can't be fucking serious. I have done the research - unlike you. I own literally dozens of books on African history from people across the political spectrum. I have probably done a lot more research on it than you have. Of course, knowing you, I don't expect you to provide any argument of substance.

Asked whether America still occupied the moral high ground after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, Mr Bush gave a crisply blunt answer, our interviewer says.

"Absolutely," he replied. "We believe in human rights and human dignity. We believe in the human condition. We believe in freedom."

My god, how I hate that man.

My god, how I hate that man.

Does it say whether he gave that reply with a straight face?

Does it say whether he gave that reply with a straight face?

I'm certain he was completely serious, and steadfastly believes in his statement...

...which is probably the worst part about it.

Well, about Darfour...let me remember...just last week the French army give a " logistical support " to the Tchadian army against 3000 "rebels" soldiers armed, sent and fully equiped by Sudan.
The funny thing is that just before we done this " little logistical support", the president of Tchad was besieged in the presidential palace, 700 km from Sudan borders...I love so much the language of diplomacy.

Those "rebels" who took refuge in Darfour and sided with the Janjawids, were sent by Sudaneses for only one reason: a few weeks ago, after more than one year of negociations, EU finally agreed to sent troops at the frontier, to stop Janjavids raids and protect refugees.
It's obvious that it's only the first step...the rebel offensive delayed this, because Irlande and Poland doesn't want to send there soldiers in a fighting area.

Oh, and, about who cares or not, the bulk of this Eufor is composed of 2100 French, 400 Polish and 400 Irish.
Britain contribution is...4 men. In logistical role.

About the state of African nations, there's some true success...never heard of Senegal ?
And, yes, there was in most of them a lot of infrastructure, and, about the French colonies on this continent, except from Algeria ( and partially, the Cameroun ), decolonisation was a slow and peaceful one, with a shift of power between the White elites and the Black elites, who were highly educated...God, the first president of Senegal was a member of the Académie Française !

Definitly, we coudn't be blamed for ALL the failures of Africa, more than 50 years after getting out.

Does it say whether he gave that reply with a straight face?

He can't control his face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3_EwUERW1U

I'm certain he was completely serious, and steadfastly believes in his statement...

...which is probably the worst part about it.

Heh.

About the state of African nations, there's some true success...never heard of Senegal ?

Senegal has achieved some success, to be fair. Aside from the Casamance conflict, it's a pretty stable country, and one of the freest in Africa; their anti-AIDS efforts have also achieved spectacular results. However, living conditions remain primitive, and the country fares little better than it did at independence.

God, the first president of Senegal was a member of the Académie Française !

And was also nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Definitly, we coudn't be blamed for ALL the failures of Africa, more than 50 years after getting out.

Of course not. But "we" do deserve a good share of the blame.

Of course not. But "we" do deserve a good share of the blame.

I agree, it's just frustrating to heard this everytime.

He can't control his face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3_EwUERW1U

I was gonna say something along the lines of what appears to be (in the nicest way i can put it) a form of Tourette's Syndrome of the face.

Maybe somebody else should send the troops for once...you know, like the colonial European powers that were the (most recent) catalyst of this entire situation.

Well we both know that'll never happen. When is the last time Europe has cleaned up its own mess with troops?

The "colonial power" in Sudan was Egypt. You really can't blame the Europeans for this.

To be fair, the US was more urgent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Darfur_conflict#Timeline) about Darfur than any other member of the Security Council.

So of a bunch of people who couldn't give a toss, the US went closest to giving one afterall.

To be fair, the US was more urgent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Darfur_conflict#Timeline) about Darfur than any other member of the Security Council.

So of a bunch of people who couldn't give a toss, the US went closest to giving one afterall.

Kinda ironic when you think about it.

The technical knowledge, resources themselves, the manpower and the equipment was all there. Technical knowledge, not so much. Course, all of this is rather irrelevant when you consider the inherent lack of industrial infrastructure.

And as I said GL, I'm not going to argue that it turns dark at night. Do the research yourself.You are a purple bunny. If you claim you're not a purple bunny, you are lying. I have done my research on this.

My god, how I hate that man.Not inherently different from when the good ol' Texecutioner spake of a "Culture of Life", though. Freedom, human rights, dignity, and life are all terms that can be redefined as need be for men like him.

Well we both know that'll never happen. When is the last time Europe has cleaned up its own mess with troops?

Well, could you tell me when occured the last intervention of US in Africa ?
Somalia, 1994 ?
Today bombings to help Ethiopia crushing Somalia islamists and slaughtering Erythrean civilians in the same move ?

I've never heard of a succesfull US intervention to really help African countries...

So, except if you have proof, cut the crap.

The formal colonial power do they job, especially France and Great Britain.

The UK stopped the civil war and helped democracy in Sierra Leone and Libera ( and, thus, Libera is in fact USA mess, not European...remember ? )
France helped, just in the last two years, to stop civil war in Tchad, save the country of the "rebels" sent there by Sudanese islamist goverment just two weeks ago.
Just two years before, French troops protect and evacuate more than 40 000 europeans from Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, when racist anti-whites riots were sparked by president Gbagbo.
In the same time, we stopped another civil war in their country, make so much diplomacy that now the Prime Minister of Côte d'Ivoire is the formal leader of the northern rebellion.

I could also speak of the stabilization of Centrafrique against another Sudanese-backed insurrection...

In fact, the only ( and fucking big ) failure I see in our actions in Africa in the last decades, it's the Rwanda cluster-fuck.

Oh, and, if USA were so committed to do something about Darfur, why, fucking why, the now peacekeeping force ongoing there is a fully European one ? ( with 2100 French soldiers on a total of 3800... )

We don't care about black people?
More to the point, black Africans mostly can't afford American goods and services, unlike white Balkans-types.
Blaming colonialism again? Pfft, when does that get old?
1815-ish for the US, 1970-odd for everyone else.
Can the U.S. still blame the Europeans for all our problems?
No, and nor can the rest of the world. We tried to let people have their freedom in Africa, and it's not really our fault that it's an utter clusterfuck after two generations without colonial rule.
If Africa really wanted to be stable, they'd beg the colonial powers to come back and run the entire continent.
Self-determination is fine by me, so long as we don't get blamed.

Well we both know that'll never happen. When is the last time Europe has cleaned up its own mess with troops?
2006, in the Côte d'Ivoire for the French, up until very recently with the British in Sierra Leone, as far as Africa goes.

In terms of Europe, we still have forces in KFOR, and the 2006 conflict in Lebanon, which isn't our fault whatsoever, is being prevented from happening again by European peacekeepers in UNIFIL until the 31st of August 2008 at the very earliest.

That's quite a good effort, no?

The "colonial power" in Sudan was Egypt. You really can't blame the Europeans for this.

Egypt in the North, I believe, and the UK in the South. It was divided between the two as part of an agreement; it was this agreement in particular that catalyzed a lot of the present-day problems in Sudan.

Egypt in the North, I believe, and the UK in the South. It was divided between the two as part of an agreement; it was this agreement in particular that catalyzed a lot of the present-day problems in Sudan.

I'm not sure of the details, so perhaps I am talking out my hat. A Wiki article with some info on the formative period,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkiyah
for what it's worth.

Child, given your track record here and the demonstrably erronious positions of your "arguments", were you to argue that it gets dark and night, I would consider that in and of itself fairly pursuasive evidence to the contrary

Dont waste your time arguing with HSH. Its like arguing with a rabid badger, because of something not totally its own fault, it has some sort of mental condition that makes it incapable of really functioning in a normal way. The argument pretty much boils down to "I know what Im talking about, you dont, because I said so. You want proof? Ummmm why should I have to provide proof for my ficticious claims?"

Well since you brought it up KOL.

I'm still waiting for you to paste those posts where I reveal my love and devotion to George Bush. You still looking?

Blaming colonialism again? Pfft, when does that get old? It's a nice sound bite, but not very realistic.

Can the U.S. still blame the Europeans for all our problems? What is the statue of limitations?

If Africa really wanted to be stable, they'd beg the colonial powers to come back and run the entire continent.Sad, but accurate.

The "colonial power" in Sudan was Egypt. You really can't blame the Europeans for this.That's why it was called Anglo-egyptian Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Egyptian_Sudan), huh?

Bush Defends Self in Hopeless Attempt to Not Be Considered Worst President Ever.

This makes complete sense! Instead of going after the Human rights violators, we go after people who have never done anything wrong except "Experiment" with drugs.

Well since you brought it up KOL.

I'm still waiting for you to paste those posts where I reveal my love and devotion to George Bush. You still looking?

I already answered that. You dont ever provide sources, so why should I? Im still waiting to hear about all those people who thought Kerry should have been elected SOLEY on his nam record.

Still just not willing to take it back huh? I'm certainly not surprised.

Bush Defends Self in Hopeless Attempt to Not Be Considered Worst President Ever.
Not bolded?