Worse than Rwanda

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
If its the correct action to take then it should be taken, regardless of whether you win the popularity contest or not. The US, Europe in general, Australia, South Africa, Japan and other developed/free "western" nations have immense power and influence and should be using this to pursue moral polices - which includes not tolerating the sort of medeival genocide which is taking place in Sudan. Its in their own long term interests as well - Saddam shows the benefit of short term "the enemy of my enemy" logic.

SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power. Funny I was of the impression it was trying to improve the standard of living for the majority of the population that had been denied citizenship for hundreds of years.
As well as get investment into the country whilst not capitulating totally to the IMF for that investment.
Then it's got to worry about denied aid from the US because it's people said "boo" when Bush said "Iraq".

Of course the US can feel victimised as it is the whipping boy for the sins of the world.

Yes the poor poor downtrodden American government is such a batter bunch. It's busy defending itself from such big bullies like Saddam.

Not to say it hasnt sinned but youll rarely see as bitter a tirade against it and its policies as youll see against, say France. France participated in the supposed coup on haiti, committing troops to the occupation force, but the only ones getting the bad press for this apparrent coup are the US.

And what do you think would have happened if France would have said "yes Mr. Aristide we will send troops in to prevent the US backed coup militants from ousting you"?
Hell what do you think would have happened if the US said to Koffi "get a SC resolution and get in there and protect Aristide boy"?

They dont have to "prove" it to anyone. They either pursue a just and correct strategy or they dont. History will judge it in the end.

Or they don't prove anything and just take what they want from who they want.

Sudan does have oil reserves- its half the reason for the civil war.

Yes but getting oil isn't the problem, it's controlling the oil. Sudan isn't a big prize in that instance, Iraq is.

Ill help you out - its possibly because the US is at full stretch trying to maintain itself in Iraq whilst also maintaining enough reserves to keep the North Koreans and the Chinese in their respective boxes,

Yes it's busy trying to gain more control of world oil reserves.

The EU is not vassal of the US, just because the US isnt going in doesnt mean it cant. [/B]

If thats the only option then I don't disagree.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
its possibly because the US is at full stretch trying to maintain itself in Iraq whilst also maintaining enough reserves to keep the North Koreans and the Chinese in their respective boxes,

Which boxes are these, exactly, and is there any indication that either nation is actually trying to break out of said box should it exist?

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by Nuttzz
http://www.debtireland.org (a drop the debt website)

some of the money

---

> not more than 50%

substantial amounts of money

---

> more than some

No, that's your interpretation. 'Some' can mean more than 'substantial'. I'm not going to waste time on semantics - again, if you can find a source that says clearly that 'most' of the money was spent on weapons I'd like to see it. It may have happened in a very small number of individual countries, but I think your generalisation was false.

FF racked up a rake of debt in the 70's & 80's, why did I as a taxpayer since the late 80's have to pay high taxes to service the national debt that my parents generation borrowed. Please Mr Bank its not my fault. Your debts dont die with you BTW.

We lived in a democracy and had the choice to vote FF out. The people who lived in Zaire, Argentina etc lived in dictatorships, dictatorships who were given loans by private banks and multilateral institutions, much of which they either simply took for themselves or used to oppress their people. You're saying that it's not enough that people suffered under tyrants in the past - now the people who live in these countries today (many of whom struggled long and hard for the democracy that we take for granted) should pay the bills too.

The point still stands. Poor countries who are getting debt cancellation are spending more than they otherwise would on health and education. You, apparently, would rather they didn't.

Nuttzz

So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

and i will repeat myself yet again

They still should have to repay it, the lending institutions could suspend repayments or charge 0% interest on them until they get back on their feet.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

It is precisely because these debts will have been written off that banks would be scared of lending to 'tin-pot dictators' again. Which would mean tin-pot dictators would have less opportunity to rip off their own subjects, which would be less of an incentive to seize power.

and i will repeat myself yet again

They still should have to repay it, the lending institutions could suspend repayments or charge 0% interest on them until they get back on their feet.

I don't think dictators' debts should ever have to be paid back - it sets a bad example, as I've explained. For other Third World debts, I agree that payments should be reduced or suspended in light of required expenditure on health, education and other essentials.

mike65

Originally posted by sovtek
SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power. Funny I was of the impression it was trying to improve the standard of living for the majority of the population that had been denied citizenship for hundreds of years.

South Africa is the African superpower. It has the men and the means to make a difference but has in its 10
years since full democracy failed to use it. A pity as next door Zimbabwe goes to hell in a handcart.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Nuttzz
So we write off the debt of these countries and when another tin pot dictator comes along, do we give him a wedge of cash and then write it off when he is kicked out?

I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

I'm not being facetious - it will show why your suggestion is so far off track.

jc

Nuttzz

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

I'm not being facetious - it will show why your suggestion is so far off track.

jc

MMMM

Sand

SOUTH AFRICA, since when did it become a world power.

Perhaps not a world power such as the EU might be but its certainly a regional power that can use its relative power and influence to great effect in southern africa, and perhaps africa as a whole. Unfortunately theyve spent their time getting chummy with Mugabe and he pisses his country down the drain. On top of this, Mbeki has done his bit to make the pope sound sensible when it comes to AIDs and the effect its having on Africa.

And my point was not that South Africa should go around backing up the international love of democracy and human rights but that it was one of the nations which had the power and influence to do so.

And what do you think would have happened if France would have said "yes Mr. Aristide we will send troops in to prevent the US backed coup militants from ousting you"?

You see what I mean about whipping boy? The US gets the bad press, when its pointed out France was in there as dirty as the other then suddenly its not really like they had a choice, mitigating circumstances and exscuses and a more neutral, almost sympathetic tone appears.

Maybe France would have been scared to send troops in to prevent Aristides fall - so the obvious choice then is to send them in as part of the deal which removes Aristide? France wasnt afraid to oppose the US not so long ago, now suddenly they are?

Which boxes are these, exactly, and is there any indication that either nation is actually trying to break out of said box should it exist?

China - Taiwan, and North Korea - South Korea. The US has made undertakings in both cases, which must be backed up with a credible military force to discourage any agressive moves. Removing the military forces from here and committing them to Sudan, whilst already heavily committed to Iraq removes a vital protection for two of the more successful democracies in Asia - even with the recent troubles in South Korea, and the shooting of the Taiwanese leaders.

The US has successfully managed to present an image of near limitless resources and power but this is a bluff. It cannot fight multiple wars all across the globe simultaneously and commit hundreds of thousands of troops to each region that needs some stability. Realistically it has set itself the target of being capable of fighting and winning two wars simultaneously - Iraq is one.

In such a case its time for the EU and the other "enlightened" nations to provide some support to their ideals ( not necessarily the US - preventing a slaughter in Sudan is not in conflict with the EUs claimed respect for human rights and intolerance of genocide ) that goes beyond words, undertakings and treaties. The US can be criticised for what its done and what its doing - the EU cant because its not doing anything concrete to prevent this slaughter - isnt this what the EU RRF is supposed to be for? 60000 troops able to deploy extremely quickly on humnaitarian missons?

If the members of the Security Council would give the UN a mandate to send an armed security force, they'd go. If any UN staff have 'scarpered' it's because they're civilians - would you prefer they stayed and defended themselves with pencils and paper?

Im was referring to Srebinica where the UN forces willingly surrendered civillians they claimed to be protecting to be massacred by the Serbs. Why arent the UN up for crimes against humanity?

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
I'd suggest that you educate yourself on exactly how international loans are now structured, and why they have become structured that way.

Since I'm not exactly sure what you mean either, would you care to elaborate?

sovtek

Originally posted by mike65
South Africa is the African superpower. It has the men and the means to make a difference but has in its 10
years since full democracy failed to use it. A pity as next door Zimbabwe goes to hell in a handcart.

Mike.

And what exactly should they do about Mugabe?