NationStates Jolt Archive

Nigeria. Rwanda. Uganda. Ethiopia. Gabon. Robert Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe has plenty of competitors for the title of "least democratic in Africa."

But while he has been singled out for condemnation by the West, leaders of other autocratic states in Africa have largely been able to avoid sanctions and isolation. Many have friends in Western capitals. Or play a strategic role in the war against terrorist groups. Or sit on oil.

With corrupt and authoritarian governments close to the norm on the continent, it is not surprising that African leaders ignored Western demands that they censure Zimbabwe's president at a summit this week and some welcomed him with hugs.

As Mugabe himself has asked: How many African leaders can point a clean finger at him? How many held a better election than his one-man runoff that followed a campaign of violence against his foes that induced the opposition leader to quit the race?

While some African leaders have condemned Mugabe, many admire him for thumbing his nose at the West and pointing out its perceived hypocrisies, like the Bush administration appealing for human rights in Zimbabwe while facing criticism over the U.S. prison at Guantanamo.

"We Africans should learn a lesson from this," Gambian President Yahya Jammeh said in praising Mugabe's election to a sixth term.

"They (the West) think they can dictate to us and this is not acceptable. Africans should stand for Zimbabwe. After all, what did the West do for Africa?" said Jammeh, a former army colonel who seized power in a 1994 coup.

Just a decade ago, much of Africa was gripped by hope as a wave of democracy swept the continent.

It began with the extraordinary sight of protesters in the West African state of Benin taking hammers to a statue of Lenin. Within three years, 26 countries had held multiparty presidential elections on a continent known for one-man rule.

When elections in South Africa ended white minority rule in 1994, there was not one single-party state left in sub-Saharan Africa. Western nations tied aid to free elections and severed ties with dictators they had supported in the name of the Cold War fight against communism.

But the optimism, backed by theories that opening socialist economies to the free market would help pull Africa out of poverty, has evaporated and the democracy movement has stalled.

Today, only 21 states, including Botswana and South Africa, hold relatively free elections. Many of the remaining 31 are ruled by despots, including many offering the illusion of democracy with elections like those Mugabe held.

Rights activists put much of the blame on the West.

"It seems Washington and European governments will accept even the most dubious election so long as the 'victor' is a strategic or commercial ally," Kenneth Roth, executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, said in a recent report.

Among countries he singled out as sham democracies are oil-rich Chad and Nigeria; Uganda, whose President Yoweri Museveni's friendship with President Bush has shielded him from criticism; and Ethiopia, a major U.S. ally against Islamic militants.

Other oil producers that have managed to avoid international condemnation include Angola, which hasn't held a presidential election since 1992, and Gabon, where President Omar Bongo seized power in a 1967 coup and now reigns as Africa's longest-serving leader.

"Countries that have made a point of overtly aligning themselves with U.S. narratives and policies regarding terrorism appear to have benefited not only from financial and military support but seem successfully to have diverted attention away from their internal poor governance and human rights abuse," said Akwe Amosu, senior analyst at the Open Society Institute in Washington.

Much of the West's focus on Zimbabwe is tied up in the sadness of seeing one of Africa's great success stories fall apart so completely.

When Mugabe led Zimbabwe to independence in 1980, the country already had developed industries and an agricultural base that made it nearly self-sufficient because of years of U.N. sanctions imposed against a white supremacist regime.

Mugabe abandoned his guerrilla movement's policies of "scientific socialism" that called for nationalizing industries and land and instead encouraged a fairly free economy that grew and allowed him to make major investments in education and health care.

Zimbabwe blossomed and became a showcase for the continent, held up as an example to then white-ruled South Africa of an economic and multiracial success created by a black man. But the world's high hopes were short-lived.

In 2000, Mugabe sent out his loyalists to begin violently seizing white farmers' land out of revenge for their refusal to support a referendum to consolidate his power. That led to the collapse of a thriving commercial farming sector that exported food to Zimbabwe's neighbors.

The economic meltdown has left a third of Zimbabweans hungry and caused inflation to run at a mind-boggling 4 million percent. Out of a population of 12 million, some 5 million Zimbabweans are thought to have fled to other countries.

Yet while Mugabe has presided over this catastrophe, he still casts a spell over many Africans. Thousands of supporters thronged the airport at Zimbabwe's capital Friday to greet Mugabe when he returned from attending the African Union summit early in the week.

Zimbabwe is "the single greatest challenge ... in southern Africa, not only because of its terrible humanitarian consequences but also because of the dangerous political precedent it sets," said U.N. deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro, Tanzania's former foreign minister.


(link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jdumOLeBZYk-RUis4jS-H0IlYGZQD91N6A600))

For the record, Jammeh is a lunatic. He once claimed that he had discovered a cure for AIDS, and said that he would give it only to people who stopped taking any other treatment.

The article makes a good point. Western governments make high claims to defend democracy around the world, but support pro-Western dictators. Sarkozy promised, during his election campaign, to do away with realpolitik and talk tough to all dictators, but did exactly the opposite once he was elected, strengthening good relations with Ghaddafi, Bongo, Déby, al Assad and others. Bush is also on excellent terms with some of the world's most brutal dictators, including Obiang and Karimov.

One might argue that international politics, and economics, mean you "have" to be friends with nasty people. But then don't claim to be an international defender of democracy. It makes you a hypocrite.

The Western media relay Western leaders' criticism of dictators who use anti-Western rhetoric, such as Mugabe or Kim, but they (the media) are generally silent too about other dictators. (I bet most of you have never heard of President Obiang, that charming fellow who publicly stated that God gave him the right to kill anyone he wants.)

Also for the record, Freedom House lists the following African countries as "free" - i.e., as democracies with a competitive, multiparty political system, full adult suffrage, and regular, free and fair elections with secret ballot:

Benin
Botswana
Cape Verde
Ghana
Lesotho
Mali
Mauritius
Namibia
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
South Africa

It also lists 23 other African countries as "partly free".

It's good to remember, from time to time, that there are a number of functional, stable democracies in Africa.

Lies. The American government would NEVER do something so hypocritical.

/Sarcasm.

Those are democracies waiting to happen.

If you say otherwise, you empower the terrists.

Is anybody really surprised? Like, honestly? Superpowers have always used smaller, weaker nations for some kind of gain, be it political, military, or economic. I'd be shocked if anybody didn't see this coming...

It's kinda sad when a nation can have a not-so-secret history of torture and supporting some of the worst dictators in history and still have a cleaner human rights record than almost entire world regions. In the race to be the worst nation ever, America is doing the best it can to schieve that title...and losing horribly. All we can claim now is to be the richest and most powerful, military and economic-wise.

I wonder how long until someone blames America or brings up Naziism. Can't have a serious discussion without someone Godwinning it up.

It's not just in Africa. It happened in Asia too. I mean, what's new?

Sad, and true. But it's not news. Major powers ruling by dividing up the vassal states and using them as their proxies to help them rule over remote regions. That trick is as old as time. It's also highly effective, and we'll be doing it at the end of time, as well.

I don't see what the big deal is. I mean the Nazis were worse. And America caused worse.



this is a joke.

I have to say: so what?

Are we only supposed to do business with countries that pass some sort of "ideological perfection" test? Or maybe the author wants us to start a program of dictator assassinations?

Mugabe is being a pain in the butt and is ruining his country, and we've decided we don't like him. That does NOT place any requirements upon the west as regards any other country. Or to put it another way: WE DON'T RUN THE PLANET ANYMORE, MORON. That was the entire point of eliminating the big empires.

If a nation has a dictatorship, it's that country's problem. Not ours. Only if said dictatorship starts doing things that appall us will we act against it.

I have to say: so what?

Are we only supposed to do business with countries that pass some sort of "ideological perfection" test? Or maybe the author wants us to start a program of dictator assassinations?

I can't be sure what point precisely the author was trying to make, but my point is a reminder of the hypocrisy of some Western leaders. As I said:


One might argue that international politics, and economics, mean you "have" to be friends with nasty people. But then don't claim to be an international defender of democracy. It makes you a hypocrite.

And I am astonished that certain NSGers haven't taken the opportunity to threadjack this into a "Dem Darkies Kant Rool Demselves Propperly, Hur Hur Hur" gloat.

To be fair, Obiang did get a feature in a lengthy Spiegel article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434691,00.html) a while ago. Oh, and the views and actions of our governments also don't reflect our own personal ones.

That's because it's not us who decide elections, but idiots with mortgages or pensions.

If a nation has a dictatorship, it's that country's problem. Not ours. Only if said dictatorship starts doing things that appall us will we act against it.

Read: They stop giving preferential treatment to the US.

And I am astonished that certain NSGers haven't taken the opportunity to threadjack this into a "Dem Darkies Kant Rool Demselves Propperly, Hur Hur Hur" gloat.

Dem Darkies Kant Rool Demselves Propperly, HA HA HA!!!

Better? ;)

Well, like it or not, the Zimbabwean economy is in total collapse. A lot of which even Mugabe's allies also admit is a result of his economic policies.

(C'mon, when the OFFICIAL inflation rate is 165,000%, you know the economy's in trouble. Let's not even go into the outsider estimates of 4mil% inflation, which most people will dispute.)

To be fair, Obiang did get a feature in a lengthy Spiegel article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434691,00.html) a while ago. Oh, and the views and actions of our governments also don't reflect our own personal ones.

Indeed. I just thought it worth pointing out that, while Western leaders are (rightly) denouncing Mugabe, they're (far more discreetly) patting their good friend Obiang (and others) on the back.

And, in general, Obiang gets far less media attention than Mugabe.

Well, like it or not, the Zimbabwean economy is in total collapse. A lot of which even Mugabe's allies also admit is a result of his economic policies.


Nobody's disputing that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[edit:] I've come across this (http://www.slate.com/id/2193870) about Obiang (and the fact that hardly anyone reports on what he's doing to Equatorial Guinea).

Indeed. I just thought it worth pointing out that, while Western leaders are (rightly) denouncing Mugabe, they're (far more discreetly) patting their good friend Obiang (and others) on the back.

And, in general, Obiang gets far less media attention than Mugabe.
"Countries with something to offer us get better reception than completely failed state who we used to like but then totally betrayed us shocker"

"Betrayed" you?

You're still missing the point. I'll try to spell it out clearly.

Western leaders state over and over again that they stand for democracy around the world, that they want to defend democracy everywhere, that dictators are intolerable, etc... And at the same time, quietly, and generally without the media taking too much interest, they establish friendly relations with some of the world's worst dictators.

I'm not disputing that the dictators have "something to offer". I'm saying:


One might argue that international politics, and economics, mean you "have" to be friends with nasty people. But then don't claim to be an international defender of democracy. It makes you a hypocrite.

"Betrayed" you?
Yes. We funded and helped Mugabe, on the grounds that he would create a multi-party regime based on the ideals of reconciliation between both the black and white communities. He did that for about one year, and then banned all opposition parties, and has been mounting attacks on white farmers of increasing severity since.
Western leaders state over and over again that they stand for democracy around the world, that they want to defend democracy everywhere, that dictators are intolerable, etc... And at the same time, quietly, and generally without the media taking too much interest, they establish friendly relations with some of the world's worst dictators.

I'm not disputing that the dictators have "something to offer"; I'm saying that one might argue that international politics, and economics, mean you "have" to be friends with nasty people. But then don't claim to be an international defender of democracy. It makes you a hypocrite.
Oh, absolutely. Can't argue with that.

[edit:] I've come across this (http://www.slate.com/id/2193870) about Obiang (and the fact that hardly anyone reports on what he's doing to Equatorial Guinea).

Hardly anybody ever pays attention to Equatorial Guinea. I never cease to be amazed at how few people even realise it exists. Only the recent discovery of oil and the coup that wasn't has in any way placed it in Western consciousness in the last 2-3 years.

The really sad thing is that Obiang is far from the worst ruler the poor country's had. Most people when asked to name a ghastly African dictator will come up with Mugabe, Idi Amin, Jean Bedel 'Emperor' Bokassa, or perhaps 'The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake' (better known as Mobutu Sese Seko), but Equatorial Guinea's Macias Nguema (president 1968-1979) was easily a match for any of the above.

A third of the population fled the country under Nguema. I can find no reliable figures for the number of people who were killed in the same period but at last one source at the time referred to the country under Nguema as 'the Dachau of Africa'. He was also occasionally compared to Pol Pot.

Obiang's almost a pussycat in comparison.

From the 'Dictator of the Month' web page:

By July 1970, Nguema had created a single party state in the country and by May of 1971 parts of the national constitution had been eliminated. By 1972 Nguema had declared himself “President for Life”. Nguema’s regime was extremely brutal, completely eliminating government social services with exception to internal security, carrying out a pogrom of abject terror against the population. As a result, the basic services and infrastructure of the country such as roads and transportation, but also water supply, basic health care and electricity transmission fell into total ruin. Meanwhile, widespread corruption and embezzlement of the state’s coffers further weakened the country.

By 1975 public schools had been closed in the country, marking yet another huge state program to fall to Nguema’s regime.

Nguema’s paranoia continued grew, which led to extensive purges that allowed him to install many friends and family members into government positions, but also led to the death or expulsion of one third of the population of the country. With the economy on the already in absolute collapse, Nguema had no choice but to bring in Nigerian workers, but this was short lived, as the intolerable conditions in the country and low wages led to riots and strikes, which were brutally quelled by the regime. This led to extremely poor relations with the Nigerian government, which demanded to annex Equatorial Guinea to control the situation. By 1976 the Nigerian workers, approximately 60.000 in number, also fled the country; in fact, his own wife fled the country due to the deplorable conditions.

By this time all skilled workers and foreigners had left the country, which left the country absolutely in shambles. Private boats were destroyed by the government and fishing was banned; even the word “intellectual” was banned in the country. Nguema then africanised his name to Masie Nguema Biyogo Ñegue Ndong and demanded that others do the same. He created a cult of personality in the country, making the citizens of his country believe that he had magical powers- one of his self- appointed titles was the “Unique Miracle”

I also like his self-appointed title 'Grand Master of Education, Science, and Culture'.

I have to say: so what?

Are we only supposed to do business with countries that pass some sort of "ideological perfection" test? Or maybe the author wants us to start a program of dictator assassinations?

Mugabe is being a pain in the butt and is ruining his country, and we've decided we don't like him. That does NOT place any requirements upon the west as regards any other country. Or to put it another way: WE DON'T RUN THE PLANET ANYMORE, MORON. That was the entire point of eliminating the big empires.

If a nation has a dictatorship, it's that country's problem. Not ours. Only if said dictatorship starts doing things that appall us will we act against it.
The article's not talking about taking the dictators out. It's talking about stopping supporting them. As in active financial aid and such.

Africa protects intself from any intervention. The "friends" in Africa dont care about the people of other countries. They do however care about keeping their own crimes a secret

Can anyone name a time where an african nation has been sanctioned or condenmed by the UN? (I dont mean a sole nation or person from the UN)
Africa unites to keep itself safe from community movements. They vote in a block to say that their actions are fine.
Allowing fellow african nations to "fix the problem" is just letting them sweep it under the rug.

can find no reliable figures for the number of people who were killed in the same period

Estimates range from 50,000 to 80,000.

Can anyone name a time where an african nation has been sanctioned or condenmed by the UN?

South Africa 1962 (sort of).

By the way, one of the guys trying to get rid of Obiang was just sentenced to 34 years jail (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7493717.stm). And if it's gonna be Black Beach Prison, he's not gonna live to see the end of the term.

Now, the coup was obviously about the oil reserves, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the money had come from big oil companies (with support from western intelligence services) - but you'd have to wonder whether it really could have been much worse than Obiang.

The article's not talking about taking the dictators out. It's talking about stopping supporting them. As in active financial aid and such.

Why should we?

Seriously. We're told, over and again, "The US is not the World's Policeman." Fair enough.

But there is a simple corollary to that - If the US isn't, neither is anybody else. What countries do inside their own borders ceases to be anybody's business but theirs. And whether we do business with them or not is likewise.

Non Aligned States
Quote:

Read: They stop giving preferential treatment to the US.


Bullshit.

When elections in South Africa ended white minority rule in 1994, there was not one single-party state left in sub-Saharan Africa.
Uh... no. How about Zaire? I don't even want to start on the countries that have opposition parties but use violence and intimidation against them (Angola?)

Its political suicide to actually do something meaningful. People dont care. They just want to be seen as caring. If the world did care they would intervene with the military if neccessary to remove someone causing geonicide to the people in their own country.

The South African dictator is just a racist a**hole. But no one has any intention of actually doing something.

If you support and trade with people like Batista or the Shah of Iran, you end up with people like Castro and Ayatollah Khomeini.

Why should we?

Seriously. We're told, over and again, "The US is not the World's Policeman." Fair enough.

But there is a simple corollary to that - If the US isn't, neither is anybody else. What countries do inside their own borders ceases to be anybody's business but theirs. And whether we do business with them or not is likewise.
.

This.

All of the reasons that I've heard on NSG for not going to Iraq apply double or triple for not going into any African country (Darfur, for example).

I suggest that if any European on this board wants intervention in any African nation, that they go and volunteer for their country's military service, and demand to be transported to the African hotspot/shithole de jour.

I also suggest that Europeans who complain about Africa take a look at how many colonies the US had there (Liberia) and how many were European. It's not like you left the place in any semblance of order, and washed your hands of the place - and did your fair share of taking advantage of the resources there afterwards - and sent the majority of mercenaries there - I could go on...

I suggest that if any European on this board wants intervention in any African nation, that they go and volunteer for their country's military service, and demand to be transported to the African hotspot/shithole de jour.

I also suggest that Europeans who complain about Africa take a look at how many colonies the US had there (Liberia) and how many were European.
I'm curious. Where does your rabid anti-Euro frothing originate?

We're not some kind of collective consciousness, y'know. It's not like we sit here trying to work out new and diabolical ways to aggravate the US.

Of course there are some who automatically assume the worst of the US in all situations, just as you yourself could be fairly characterised as doing the same to Europe, but even at that it seems a little silly for you to continually try to label 50+ countries and over 700m people as acting in concert to thwart you.

I'm curious. Where does your rabid anti-Euro frothing originate?

We're not some kind of collective consciousness, y'know. It's not like we sit here trying to work out new and diabolical ways to aggravate the US.

Of course there are some who automatically assume the worst of the US in all situations, just as you yourself could be fairly characterised as doing the same to Europe, but even at that it seems a little silly for you to continually try to label 50+ countries and over 700m people as acting in concert to thwart you.

Maybe you're new here. At NSG, it's the fault of the US, no matter how the problem originated. You can see people here posting that it's the US fault for not intervening in Darfur, not intervening in Rwanda, not intervening in Zimbabwe...

The people that post it are either Europeans, or Americans who have been encouraged into self-loathing by the comments here.

Africa, with the exception of Liberia, is largely the fault of the European nations. History shows this. If anyone wants it cleaned up, the Europeans should foot the bill in blood, bodies, and money.

Maybe you're new here.
Oh, I was here for quite a while before creating this particular nation ;)
At NSG, it's the fault of the US, no matter how the problem originated. You can see people here posting that it's the US fault for not intervening in Darfur, not intervening in Rwanda, not intervening in Zimbabwe...

The people that post it are either Europeans, or Americans who have been encouraged into self-loathing by the comments here.
Ahh, so it's just a plain and boring old persecution complex then. Perhaps you are simply unable to see that the US is not perfect, just as none of the rest of us can claim to live in countries with a perfect record. There is a strong argument that, as the most militarily capable nation on the planet, the US should be encouraged to take the lion's share of any intervention operations. I don't use it, because it just doesn't sit well with me.

Your "Europeans, or Americans who have been encouraged into self-loathing" labelling ignores the rest of the world. I've seen Australians and South Americans criticise the US, too. Are they just Euros-by-association?

Africa, with the exception of Liberia, is largely the fault of the European nations. History shows this. If anyone wants it cleaned up, the Europeans should foot the bill in blood, bodies, and money.
It'd be futile to argue against verifiable historical fact, which is probably why I've yet to see anybody doing so. Simply by dint of the fact that they were the most powerful Empires at the time, it was the Old World nations who were responsible for the vast majority of the colonisation of Africa. However, I thought we were supposed to have moved on since then, no? Or are you suggesting that the Belgian people should take responsibility for the foreign policies of Leopold II, or that modern Germany is somehow the same entity that created Bismarck's colonies?

Assigning responsibility for historical events by nationality is asinine. It is what can be done today that matters.

It'd be futile to argue against verifiable historical fact, which is probably why I've yet to see anybody doing so. Simply by dint of the fact that they were the most powerful Empires at the time, it was the Old World nations who were responsible for the vast majority of the colonisation of Africa. However, I thought we were supposed to have moved on since then, no? Or are you suggesting that the Belgian people should take responsibility for the foreign policies of Leopold II, or that modern Germany is somehow the same entity that created Bismarck's colonies?

Assigning responsibility for historical events by nationality is asinine. It is what can be done today that matters.

Sorry, it's not our fucking problem. If we had done to Africa as a whole what Europe did to it, everyone would be foaming at the mouth demanding that we fix it, regardless of cost.

Get busy. All those funny lines you guys drew on the maps in the late 19th and early 20th century have certainly caused a fuckload of problems for everyone now.

Sorry, it's not our fucking problem.
If it's not 'your' "fucking problem" then you have no need to be sorry, do you? At least try to be honest in your rants.
If we had done to Africa as a whole what Europe did to it, everyone would be foaming at the mouth demanding that we fix it, regardless of cost.
...and there you go again. Who is this 'we' that you refer to? I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else but I don't think of the US as being represented by you and your posts, which is probably just as well. As for the "foaming at the mouth" fantasy that you continue to shout about, do you have anything to back up that assertion, or is it just another facet of the perceived persecution of the US that obviously has you so riled?
Get busy. All those funny lines you guys drew on the maps in the late 19th and early 20th century have certainly caused a fuckload of problems for everyone now.
...and yet again... "you guys"? Who are you talking about? Are you talking about politicians who were in power before most of us were born and who therefore cannot be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to have been representing me?

You just can't see it objectively, can you, despite your acknowledgement that it's the root of "a fuckload of problems for everyone". It's either a problem that belongs to the world, in which case the world should act collectively in trying to do something about it, or it's a problem that should stay in Africa, with the Africans themselves. I submit that the fact that various parts of the 'civilised' West have supplied weaponry and/or support and money to different factions over there means that it should be considered a problem for the world at large.

Sorry, it's not our fucking problem. If we had done to Africa as a whole what Europe did to it, everyone would be foaming at the mouth demanding that we fix it, regardless of cost.

Get busy. All those funny lines you guys drew on the maps in the late 19th and early 20th century have certainly caused a fuckload of problems for everyone now.

Stop being such a rapid nationalist, colonialism occurred because of a massive imbalance in the developmental stages of industrialization in the world, which allowed Europe to exploit Africa for raw materials and slave labor so that their own populaces at home (who were educated and had political power) would had have to bear the atrocious costs of capitalist industrialization and development.

In short, it was easier to enslave an uneducated, illiterate black man than a European.

Colonialism was a systematic response to the 'Euro-centric' way capitalism developed.

Stop being such a rapid nationalist, colonialism occurred because of a massive imbalance in the developmental stages of industrialization in the world, which allowed Europe to exploit Africa for raw materials and slave labor so that their own populaces at home (who were educated and had political power) would had have to bear the atrocious costs of capitalist industrialization and development.

In short, it was easier to enslave an uneducated, illiterate black man than a European.

Colonialism was a systematic response to the 'Euro-centric' way capitalism developed.

It's still not our problem.

It's still not our problem.

Stop thinking in terms of black and white jingoistic terms, that's where you go wrong. You'll find if you take a systematic economical look at colonialism, rather than from your current frothing-at-the-mouth nationalist perspective, you'll find much more satisfying answers.

Stop thinking in terms of black and white jingoistic terms, that's where you go wrong. You'll find if you take a systematic economical look at colonialism, rather than from your current frothing-at-the-mouth nationalist perspective, you'll find much more satisfying answers.

I'm not thinking in jingoistic nationalist terms.

Every time the US intervenes anywhere now, for any reason, people shit themselves.

I'd rather do what the Chinese do now, and buy and sell to anyone as long as they pay cash.

If the local government is corrupt, fucked up, or committing genocide, that's not my problem. If the local people don't like it, they can have a revolution and engage in their own corruption, fucking up, and genocide to their heart's content. And, as long as they pay cash, I'll do business with them as well.

It seems to serve China well, and I think it's a good policy. In fact, I would even sell arms to both the government and the rebels - as long as they pay cash. It's not my problem if they want to kill each other.

Bullshit.

I remember a distinct lack of US criticism for the likes of the Shah of Iran, a certain Pakistani military dictator, a few flavors of South American nasties and a fascist regime in Taiwan, especially when not very pleasant things like mass killings and outright butchery were carried out. They had quite a few things to offer, I believe. Strategic territory, resources, it's not a terribly large list, but that isn't to say that the value wasn't.

This.

All of the reasons that I've heard on NSG for not going to Iraq apply double or triple for not going into any African country (Darfur, for example).


I suppose you doubly support America performing peacekeeping duties in Darfur then, seeing your ardent support for American military adventures abroad.

I suppose you doubly support America performing peacekeeping duties in Darfur then, seeing your ardent support for American military adventures abroad.

No, I'm not in support for going to Darfur.

Since everyone is bitching about American military "adventures", I suggest that we withdraw from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences. I also suggest that we lift sanctions on Sudan, and trade with its government as the Chinese so fruitfully do. We should also send the Dalai Lama on a one-way trip to China the next time he comes to the US, and also show our support for China at the Olympics. It doesn't do to fuck a major trading partner. We should also withdraw our Navy from the Persian Gulf, and let the Iranians turn it into an Iranian lake. If anyone has a problem with that, let them send their Navy - say, to open the Straits of Hormuz when the Iranians are feeling their oats.

We should also withdraw from Afghanistan, and stop pressuring Pakistan to fight al-Q - from so many posts here I hear that it was legitimate for al-Q to attack the US and kill 3000 people - so why are we in Afghanistan?

And since so many Americans would much rather be at the mall than fight, then why ask them?

I think that the military should be turned into a make-work program (as so many complainers seem to indicate that it is - they didn't actually sign up to be part of anything except the occasional military exercise).

I would, however, reserve one part of America's military. From now on, if we're fucked with, we'll use nuclear weapons. Immediately and without warning, and with no apologies. I don't need a huge military to do that.

from so many posts here I hear that it was legitimate for al-Q to attack the US and kill 3000 people - so why are we in Afghanistan?
Be a good chap and link one, if you don't mind.
I would, however, reserve one part of America's military. From now on, if we're fucked with, we'll use nuclear weapons. Immediately and without warning, and with no apologies. I don't need a huge military to do that.
Well, at least nobody can legitimately accuse you of having any kind of grasp on reality :p

The South African dictator is just a racist a**hole.

I've never heard Mbeki described as a dictator before. Nor as a racist.

Be a good chap and link one, if you don't mind.


There were plenty during the summer three years ago here. Funny, the database doesn't go back that far.

Well, at least nobody can legitimately accuse you of having any kind of grasp on reality :p

Funny, no one likes the idea of nuclear weapons as a response. Maybe they would respect that.

There were plenty during the summer three years ago here. Funny, the database doesn't go back that far.
Is that a roundabout way of saying that you have no way to back up your claim?

Funny, no one likes the idea of nuclear weapons as a response. Maybe they would respect that.
I was under the impression that nobody liked the idea of nuclear weapons at all. I think you may be confusing 'respect' with something else.

Whilst we're on the subject, and just for giggles, what in your opinion constitutes being "fucked with" to a degree that would merit a nuclear response?

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you have no way to back up your claim?
Maybe you should read through every anti-US anti-war thread of the past three years - the search function is inadequate. It doesn't mean I can't back it up - it means that your question is obsequious because you know the search function is fucked and the database doesn't go back very far.


I was under the impression that nobody liked the idea of nuclear weapons at all. I think you may be confusing 'respect' with something else.

Whilst we're on the subject, and just for giggles, what in your opinion constitutes being "fucked with" to a degree that would merit a nuclear response?

Note that after WWII, when we nuked Japan, we got a considerable amount of "respect" from non-nuclear nations - in that they didn't attack us. Even the nations with nukes didn't attack us directly - because we had shown that we were willing to use one without warning.

This counted for more than the size of our arsenal, until the generation that experienced this event aged out.

I believe that in response to 9/11, when we asked Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden and al-Q people, we should have nuked them within 60 minutes of their public "No".

Airburst nuclear weapons, salted with magnesium. Which has a very, very short half-life as it becomes radioactive sodium. Maybe one would have done it - depopulated Afghanistan in less than a month. And it would have been safe to live there two months later.

After that demonstration, people would limit their pushing us on almost anything - because no one wants to find out what happens if you fuck with us.

more stuff
See, the problem is that you're just coming across as a somewhat confused person spouting endless, jingoistic rubbish about whatever the subject of the day happens to be. You're all "don't mess with Texas!!1one! ra ra ra" writ large, and it's pretty obvious to me that you neither know nor care that it's precisely this kind of attitude that pisses people off so much, and leads to the sort of backlash that you're moaning about having seen in old threads.

You're sitting in this thread stating that, if it were up to you, the good ole US of A would be retreating back inside its own borders and preparing to nuke anyone that gainsaid it, whilst at the same time claiming in another thread to be some kind of paragon of piety within your church. Which is it? The reactionary warmongering fool or the peaceable, sins-absolved man of faith?

Note that after WWII, when we nuked Japan, we got a considerable amount of "respect" from non-nuclear nations - in that they didn't attack us. Even the nations with nukes didn't attack us directly - because we had shown that we were willing to use one without warning.
Ahh, so the only reason nobody attacked the US after WW2 was because you'd nuked someone? Can you even hear yourself? For that matter, can you identify any nation who you believe was interested in attacking you at that time?

Let's not even mention the dissonance between wanting nothing to do with the rest of the world and your newly stated belief that you should have nuked Afghanistan a few years back. For the record, I'm perfectly familiar with the ways that nuclear weaponry can be adapted to lessen the long-term effects... I just don't see that it's even remotely relevant to the discussion.

You give your fellow nationals a bad name.

(also, you may want to look up the word 'obsequious'... either it doesn't mean what you think it means or your post makes even less sense than the little I was giving it credit for).

The former Soviet Union

The former Soviet Union
Ah yes, 'the evil commies'. I don't believe that they were in any condition to mount any assault on the US at that time -- nuclear weapons or no -- but I'll concede the point, for whatever it's worth.

I would, however, reserve one part of America's military. From now on, if we're fucked with, we'll use nuclear weapons. Immediately and without warning, and with no apologies. I don't need a huge military to do that.

Hurrah for advocating the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. :rolleyes:

Why should we?

Seriously. We're told, over and again, "The US is not the World's Policeman." Fair enough.

But there is a simple corollary to that - If the US isn't, neither is anybody else. What countries do inside their own borders ceases to be anybody's business but theirs. And whether we do business with them or not is likewise.


You seem to not be able to understand the difference between trade and monetary aid.

You seem to not be able to understand the difference between trade and monetary aid.

Because today there is no difference.

Aid dollars to many of these countries are the only reason they CAN trade. Foreign aid is the thing propping up their economies, keeping things working at all. It's not what the aid is supposed to be for, but that seems to bother neither the givers nor the receivers.

Personally, I'd like to end the current foreign aid regime entirely; it isn't working, and it isn't providing much of anything in terms of long term help, and that has been true for half a century now.

Aid dollars to many of these countries are the only reason they CAN trade. Foreign aid is the thing propping up their economies, keeping things working at all.
Any specific examples you had in mind?

No, I'm not in support for going to Darfur.

Since everyone is bitching about American military "adventures", I suggest that we withdraw from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences.

Do not try to evade the question by blaming others. Do you, or do you not, support American military intervention abroad as have been done already? Do not attempt to wriggle out of this by passing the buck onto others. Answer truthfully.

Any specific examples you had in mind?

Botswana. Cote d'Ivoire. Mali. I could probably think up a dozen more.

Edit: Apparently Botswana is doing better now.

Uh... no. How about Zaire? I don't even want to start on the countries that have opposition parties but use violence and intimidation against them (Angola?)

Zaire legalized opposition parties on April 24, 1990.

Do not try to evade the question by blaming others. Do you, or do you not, support American military intervention abroad as have been done already? Do not attempt to wriggle out of this by passing the buck onto others. Answer truthfully.

idk what hotwife thinks but I'll give it a shot, having been in a similar situation before (deciding between saying fuck it and giving up on the rest of the world and supporting our role as the super of this condominium from hell)

The answer is I support our intervention because its the right thing to do, but frankly its not worth it because it causes us more trouble than its worth. Furthermore I'd like to see people beg for our help when shit hits the fan, or at least have them solve the problems they're so concerned about.

Personally I support the position of doing nothing on the world stage anymore. Withdraw from the UN, etc. Because if the world doesn't need us good, if they do, they can beg us for help, it'll be amusing.

On Topic:

The reason why we support some dictators and condemn others is because of what we can gain from them, generally. This is because we have two roles here, for one we want to stay powerful and influential, sometimes this requires you to reward bad behavior, if it means you will have the opportunity to fix things later on, or continue working on a problem you've already started trying to solve. Thats my opinion on the matter anyway.