Does anyone know the US position on the war/cease-fire in the Dem. Rep. of Congo?

[Fencer128]

Anyone know the US position on the war/cease-fire in the Congo? Do the US see any one side as holding "the will of the people" or "the moral highground"?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Chris A]

Pretty sure we are not that involved as the UN has already condemned it

The head of the United Nations mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has condemned the spate of violence in the country's volatile northeast,

 

[43st]

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised we're not bombing the crap out of the DRC also. I mean we're so holy in our motives, just look at the god fear we've installed in the Middle East.

Interesting how we claim to "save" people from dictatorship and misery. It certainly makes that arguement completely laughable.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Thera
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised we're not bombing the crap out of the DRC also. I mean we're so holy in our motives, just look at the god fear we've installed in the Middle East.

Interesting how we claim to "save" people from dictatorship and misery. It certainly makes that arguement completely laughable.

Holier when it has to do with our interests. True. Sad, but true. On the bright side Hussein is gone and won't kill again.

 

[csiro]

Let's see how the UN handles the situation as they seem to be the answer for crises everywhere..

The US shouldn't even touch this with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: csiro
Let's see how the UN handles the situation as they seem to be the answer for crises everywhere..

The US shouldn't even touch this with a 10 foot pole.

If the UN were to be replaced/abolished as many would like around here - who would do the peace keeping? The US? or would we just let this fragile "relative peace" fall apart because this country or the lives of millions more are not of any great importance to us. If the UN isn't the answer for these people - what is?

Andy

 

[csiro]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: csiro
Let's see how the UN handles the situation as they seem to be the answer for crises everywhere..

The US shouldn't even touch this with a 10 foot pole.

If the UN were to be replaced/abolished as many would like around here - who would do the peace keeping? The US? or would we just let this fragile "relative peace" fall apart because this country or the lives of millions more are not of any great importance to us. If the UN isn't the answer for these people - what is?

Andy

I think the UN has a role to play but maybe they should be restructured. They have the same problem as the Arab League are having now. Too many differing opinions and in the end, too little gets done.

 

[Zrom999]

Anyone know the US position on the war/cease-fire in the Congo? Do the US see any one side as holding "the will of the people" or "the moral highground"?

The US has 2 positions:

1) Where?

2) Don't know, don't care.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Zrom999

Anyone know the US position on the war/cease-fire in the Congo? Do the US see any one side as holding "the will of the people" or "the moral highground"?

The US has 2 positions:

1) Where?

2) Don't know, don't care.

3) Does it have oil?

4) If UN is against it, it must be good.

 

[JellyBaby]

If the UN were to be replaced/abolished as many would like around here - who would do the peace keeping?

Screw the U.N. There was life before the U.N. Surely, that body has done some good work but nowadays it's largely a bureacratic cesspool and a political tool.

There's really nothing it can do over and above what impromptu coalitions can accomplish and I prefer the later because of their efficiency and temporary nature.

Though most of us would like to see some God-like agency intervene to end all strife here on earth the fact is hardship is often necessary and can lead to a longlasting, meaningful reward: peace.

I don't know many details of the Congo situation yet but it could be something that country must work out for itself...?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

If the UN were to be replaced/abolished as many would like around here - who would do the peace keeping?

Screw the U.N. There was life before the U.N. Surely, that body has done some good work but nowadays it's largely a bureacratic cesspool and a political tool.

There's really nothing it can do over and above what impromptu coalitions can accomplish and I prefer the later because of their efficiency and temporary nature.

Though most of us would like to see some God-like agency intervene to end all strife here on earth the fact is hardship is often necessary and can lead to a longlasting, meaningful reward: peace.

You seem to have made a couple of assumptions for yourself in that arguement.

1. That if life turns to sh*t - you'll be alright (your country has power, influence, etc).

2. That "impromptu coalitions" are better at dealing with all manner of the UN's work and can be trusted anymore than the UN can to do the right thing.

3. That anyone else gives a damn about your problem (because your country is a big player).

I would guess that for a great majority of the world they can't agree with you on 1, 2 or 3. That is why IMHO we need a UN of sorts. Suggest and promote reform by all means as a stagnant system is a dead system - but provide practical and reliable altenatives for all concerned before taking the view that it's no longer a meaningful organisation.

Also, can you give me some examples of necessary hardship please.

I don't know many details of the Congo situation yet but it could be something that country must work out for itself...?

Like Iraq? No - it has been having a hell of a time "working it out for itself". Probably the only reason were not up to ~4 million dead now is because the UN peacekeepers are attempting to shore up the fragile cease fire.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

If the UN were to be replaced/abolished as many would like around here - who would do the peace keeping?

Screw the U.N. There was life before the U.N. Surely, that body has done some good work but nowadays it's largely a bureacratic cesspool and a political tool.

There's really nothing it can do over and above what impromptu coalitions can accomplish and I prefer the later because of their efficiency and temporary nature.

Though most of us would like to see some God-like agency intervene to end all strife here on earth the fact is hardship is often necessary and can lead to a longlasting, meaningful reward: peace.

You seem to have made a couple of assumpotions for yourself in that arguement.

1. That if life turns to sh*t - you'll be alright (your country has power, influence, etc).

2. That "impromptu coalitions" are better at dealing with all manner of the UN's work and can be trusted anymore than the UN can to do the right thing.

3. That anyone else gives a damn about your problem (because your country is a big player).

I would guess that for a great majority of the world they can't agree with you on 1, 2 or 3. That is why IMHO we need a UN of sorts. Suggest and promote reform by all means as a stagnant system is a dead system - but provide practical and reliable altenatives for all concerned before taking the view that it's no longer a meaningful organisation.

I don't know many details of the Congo situation yet but it could be something that country must work out for itself...?

Like Iraq? No - it has been having a hell of a time "working it out for itself". Probably the only reason were not up to ~4 million dead now is because the UN peacekeepers are attempting to shore up the fragile cease fire.

Cheers,

Andy

As much as I often detest the UN I think I'm pretty much with you in that there is a role they can play. The only place where I may not be in agreement with you (as I don't know where you stand on this) is that the UN is the de facto world body in charge of saying what is right and what is wrong; that the UN is the new world government that decides when and where actions will be taken. Sometimes, as in the case of Iraq, coalitions of the willing may better address a crisis than what can be accomplished within the beaurocratic morass of the UN.

As for those that say why isn't the US over in Africa getting its hands dirty, the US has the right, just like any country, to pick and choose which battles it's willing to fight according to its interests. It's not up to the US to initiate the will to address all the wrongs of the world. I don't see too many other countries willing to put their money and their lives on the line even when it is in their interest to do so, let alone do it for something that benefits them not in the least.

 

[Fencer128]

As much as I often detest the UN I think I'm pretty much with you in that there is a role they can play. The only place where I may not be in agreement with you (as I don't know where you stand on this) is that the UN is the de facto world body in charge of saying what is right and what is wrong; that the UN is the new world government that decides when and where actions will be taken. Sometimes, as in the case of Iraq, coalitions of the willing may better address a crisis than what can be accomplished within the beaurocratic morass of the UN.

I admit that I used to have the view that the UN should be the organisation that sets the benchmarks for action to be considered acceptable. I have to admit (and this is because my view has changed) that there are definitely times when I believe morally justified action should be taken and there is no way that you could get a majority concensus agreeing to it. In my opinion that was the case with Kosovo for example. However, that does not mean that a serious attempt should not be made (IMHO it should always be tried) to get a consensus anyway. It is the debate that this would throw up that not only allows everyone to prepare themselves for what may happen - but also offers the opportunity for all sides to get fresh perspectives on their thinking even if agreement if not met. Whenever consensus can be achieved it should be.

(I should add that IMHO I don't see the Iraq situation in the run up to this war as a particularly good demonstration of how to argue a case - which is why I chose Kosvo for my example!)

As for those that say why isn't the US over in Africa getting its hands dirty, the US has the right, just like any country, to pick and choose which battles it's willing to fight according to its interests. It's not up to the US to initiate the will to address all the wrongs of the world. I don't see too many other countries willing to put their money and their lives on the line even when it is in their interest to do so, let alone do it for something that benefits them not in the least.

I wouldn't expect any one country to get involved in an ongoing war - but I would hope that all capable members of the UN (or its equivalent) could contribute part of their professional armed forces at some point to maintain peace keeping and cease fire duties. With the UN you have a system that allows for this and from all countries. I would also hope that diplomatic efforts could be made (through the UN when all other avenues arer lost) to exert influence to push for cease fires, etc in the first place.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[JellyBaby]

Also, can you give me some examples of necessary hardship please.

Examine what America endured throughout its history. Initially, the break with the British to establish a sovereign nation. Would you have prefered a U.N.-type agency interfere at this stage? It would have prevented the creation of the greatest democratic country in earth's history.

The war of 1812? Pesky Brits again, America declares war on them. Who's side should the U.N. take here? The Brits? After all some still felt they had a legimate claim to the growing Colonies.

The civil war? What would have happened to state's rights and slavery had a U.N. agency interfered here and partioned the north and south perhaps leaving permanent peacekeepers in between?

It's a matter of self-determination. I see the U.N. ultimately as a stagnator of self-determination as it grows in size, scope and authority. The world doesn't need a permanent U.N. body if that body exists to dictate terms to member nations and to interfere in affairs of state.

 

[Fencer128]

Examine what America endured throughout its history. Initially, the break with the British to establish a sovereign nation. Would you have prefered a U.N.-type agency interfere at this stage? It would have prevented the creation of the greatest democratic country in earth's history.

How would the UN interfere? By supporting the US if the British got the upperhand and started massacaring them perhaps? or by pressurising both sides to find a diplomatic solution?

The war of 1812? Pesky Brits again, America declares war on them. Who's side should the U.N. take here? The Brits? After all some still felt they had a legimate claim to the growing Colonies.

Is that a question of hardship? or concern about whether the UN supports you. What if it had taken the Brits side at the time? What's to say they would have intervened militarily or that one history would have been better than the other? There would be no hindsight in the here and now.

The civil war? What would have happened to state's rights and slavery had a U.N. agency interfered here and partioned the north and south perhaps leaving permanent peacekeepers in between?

I find it difficult to believe that you would know that such a divide might not have worked? Can you say that for certain and that all the deaths were completely necessary. There's no way for you to know what was better. For all you know it may have saved many lives if that had been the case.

It's a matter of self-determination. I see the U.N. ultimately as a stagnator of self-determination as it grows in size, scope and authority. The world doesn't need a permanent U.N. body if that body exists to dictate terms to member nations and to interfere in affairs of state.

How does it interfere with affairs of state - as opposed to world affairs for example? In what way does it dictate terms exactly?

It might help me to better understand where your coming from if you could answer that thanks. I still don't see much necessary suffering around today. Without the benefit of hindsight could you give me some examples of ongoing or up and coming necessary suffering?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Does anyone else see the need for necessary suffering - as outlined in the posts above?

Cheers,

Andy

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well . . . the American Way:

1) might makes right as long as we have more might . . .

2) we have more stuff than you do but if we decide we want what little you have we will take it . . .

3) if you must suffer for the US to profit/benefit . . . you will suffer . . .

God Bless America