For as long as we’re decent people with an interest in seeing others enjoy our freedoms and prosperity?
While the failure of certain African nations to realise their duty and potential to influence their neighbours’ behaviour is certainly disappointing, I fail to see why it should cause us to derogate our responsibilities, even if those responsibilities are just those we voluntarily assume as a consequence of what sort of society we’d like to be. Especially then, in fact; the failures of others should have little to no bearing on our efforts. It just affects what direction our efforts should take (to wit, encouraging said others).
Drawing a line around a continent and declaring it not worth helping just strikes me as counterproductive, not to mention arbitrary in the extreme.
While I admit I posted what I did just because of the challenge factor, the reality is that, for an Administration genuinely interested in humanitarian interventions, Zimbabwe would be one of the low-hanging fruit - i.e. a country where the citizenry would, by and large, be glad to see us, and in such bad shape that even a misguided intervention could hardly make it worse.
Absent a certain Constitutional amendment, one could see Clinton doing something constructive about Zimbabwe in his third or fourth term.
I concede that it’s not a strong connection, but it’s hardly a non sequitur. Zimbabwe is in the straits it’s in due to reasons unrelated to Bush, but the presence of Bush, as opposed to a Clinton-style President, in the White House, has reduced the chances of constructive U.S. intervention from respectable (but far from certain) to zero.
Ah yes, the old “It’s not just that Bush is evil, it’s that Clinton is the savior from heaven, and in his THIRD or FOURTH term wink he’ll save the planet from evil. Just like he did with North Korea.”
Regardless, may I point out this map. You will note that Zimbabwe has no coastline. And gievn that none of its surrounding nations particularly likes us, certainly not enough to let us send a few hundred thousand troops across, you may note that there would be certain issues involved in conquering Zimbabwe. particularly given that there is no organized, large-scale, heavily-armed, opposition.
In addition, I have one word: Rwanda.
I am sorry to disturb you all. I apologize for wasting your time.
Since I am specifically addressing the idea that former President William J. Clinton is manna from heaven, what is your point? I did not bring up the subject. I did not make any preferential statement in favor of any politician. I merely pointed out the inanity of the previous poster’s comments, which were, at best, wishful thinking. I provided a clear historical precedent in a similar, though not identical, situation. Shold I ignore it or pretend it didn’t happen in order to avoid offending anyone or so that the incident should be forgotten?
I am sorry to disturb you all. I apologize for wasting your time. I should not have gotten involved in this thread.
Oh, good - I was wondering when this discussion would get on to the really pertinent topic of what this means for the USA’s internal politics. And hey, how 'bout them Red Sox, eh?
And since Bush is trying to negotiate a deal with NK that’s not quite as good, from our perspective, as Clinton’s deal with them, and a few unfortunate things have happened there since Bush abandoned Clinton’s deal that he’s working so hard to almost bring back, I’d say your specific example is an own goal for you.
At any rate, I wasn’t specifically talking about Clinton. Gore would have done just as well. There, now you can talk about Gore as the left’s savior if you wish.
Who said anything about conquest, occupation, or hundreds of thousands of troops? That’s your fantasy, not mine.
A timeline of Clinton’s relationship with his own generals, and his use of our military, would be instructive, I’m sure. They’re around; go look one up. But the main point is that Clinton started off at a disadvantage to his generals, and not very adept at using U.S. power - political, economic, military - in the world. But he got better as he went along. Whatever else you might say about him, Clinton was bright, and over time, he learned and adapted.
You claimed that the subject of your post, which you made quite blatantly clear, was that if we only had an unending stream of Clinton, world peace would prevail, as it constantly failed to do during his actual tenure.
Are you mad? Perhaps you failed to ntoe the complete abandonment of North Korea’s side of the bargain, or the fact that Bush only dropped it after NK made it balatntly obvious they ahd no intention of honoring it? And did you mss the fatc that NK driopped it not a minute after they made it - under Clinton’s watch? And did you miss the fact that - I’m sure this will shock you - Bush actually pushed for and apparently will receive verifiable capitultion from NK on all important points?
No, of course you were not talking about Clinton. You only specifically talked about him. I’m deeply sorry for not comprehending your logic. It’s obvious you were right.
Ah-huh. So, Clinton, without doing anything like that, failed utterly to even begin to do anything about Rwanda. Yet Clinton, without doing anything like that, wil succeed in Zimbabwe. Oh yes, Please tell me how his brilliant use of diplomacy will convince Robert Mugabe. Is it his charm? Yes, obvious! Clinton’s mere presence will no doubt sway the callous murderer of thousands and the world’s worst tyrant. Yes, the man who clearly cares nothing for economic, cultural, or religious principles will be so keen to bargain with a man who has no intention of harming him with force.
Ah, yes. The old blood-soaked madman smear. When in doubt, leftists always resort to calling their opponents murderers. If we don’t stop the massacres in Zimbabwe, we’re callous heartless fiends. If we do use force we’re murderers. If we even consider it we’re engaging in bloody fantasies.
I’m sure, if we were all as smart as you and as awesomely charismatic as Clinton, we’d no doubt see how obviously easy it is to convince Robert Mugabe to cease his evil (yes, evil) ways. But for us poor mortals, please explain how your hero would magically bring Robert “The Mugabe” Mugabe back to the fold like a little lost lamb. I mean, hey, he’s only guilty of mass murder, election fraud, rule by force, causing mass starvation, destroying his own economy, and causing tribal genocide. And he’s only supported by all his neighbors, who never really liked us.
Frankly, he makes Kim Jong Il look like Mr. Rogers. Which is saying something fierce.
You know. I don’t dislike Clinton as a president. He made many mistakes. Not taking Islamic terror seriously was one - but that was too easy before 9/11 and both reagan and Bush snr made the same mistake. Nonetheless, I applaud his acceptance of Welfare Reform and the dust-up in Bosnia - the major issues of his presidency. That does not mean I have some rosy picture of his ability to handle world problems which we just can’t fix. Not us, not the entire free world, not at a cost which we won’t pay. If it were up to me I might go for it, but we can’t do it without South Africa, which won’t play ball, and we can’t do it without the political will. Absent a strong casus belli, intense economic concerns, or the target being a LOT closer, it ain’t gonna happen. We may have to grind our teeth, but that’s the unpleasant fact of life, just like in Burma or Rwanda.
Islamic terror itself is a much easier problem in its own way: it’s much larger and far more vulnerable to our strengths of economic muscle, diplomatic bargaining, and military force.
I think the OP is somewhat mis-worded. “Countrymen starving? Nation falling apart? Cronies getting restless that trough will fall apart before they get a turn at being No 1 Snout? What to do? Seize remaining most valuable assets in country and give to cronies before they cap your wrinkly old ass!” would be more accurate, if not nearly so succinct.
And as for the whole “why don’t they just rise up” argument, I’d be curious to know the success rate of popular uprisings against regimes who have no qualms about killing a few thousand of their own citizens. That’s without even taking into account that something like one-seventh of the population have gone abroad. Most of the young active enterprising people you need for an uprising are in South Africa earning money to keep their families back home alive.
If you look at the regimes of e.g. Stalin, Hoxa, Ceausescu, Kim Il-Sung, Mobutu, and so on, then absent any external shocks it’s not actually that hard to stay in power if you are even a moderately competent tyrant, and Mugabe is a very clever and well-educated man, despite what some might think. He just doesn’t give a toss about what happens to the ordinary people in his country.
I think everyone should pay more attention to Zimbabwe, since based on historical trends it gives a good preview of where South Africa will be in another decade or two.
Weeel, there is some concern that black nationalism (nativism? racism? tribalism?) is on the increase in South Africa, and the leadership is increasingly going for a “support the blacks against the whites no matter what approach.” For example, they’ve been quite supportive of Zimbabwe.
Don’t know if it will happen, if it’s just baseless fears, or if people are fearful over real but trivial trends, or not. I know more about ancient Egypt than I do very about South Africa, and I don’t know much about ancient Egypt.
Based on the fact that essentially every other country on the continent has had at least one trip down the shitter in the last half-century, and that South Africa has two of the key ingredients that seem to lead to catastrophe:
[ol]
[li]A dysfunctional political system where access to power and patronage is determined not by open elections but by gaining control of the dominant faction in the liberation movement which has a total lock on power[/li][li]A huge mass of very poor people, and lots of assets seen as being controlled by those associated with the previous regime, and which present an irresistable temptation to anyone looking to buy a bit of popularity in the shanty-towns or fund a shopping spree in Dubai[/li][/ol]
Obviously I’m not very well-informed since the media over here are a bit on the parochial side, but I’ll bet £1 that within 20 years SA will look closely resemble how either Nigeria, Kenya or Zimbabwe look today.
Even decent people have limits, and in case it’s not completely evident, Western freedoms and prosperity aren’t exactly welcome everywhere in the world.
The failure of certian African nations to intervene is quite more than disappointing, it’s almost criminal, at least to the extent that such a thing can be. In as much as we are citizens of the planet, as opposed to citizens of a nation, we have a duty, albeit on a purely moral level, to assist others where and how we can. With that said, the responsibility does not extend to every single person who CAN provide assistance, but to those who decide themselves to lend a hand. It’s nice to continue to do good things for those who need those things done, despite the lack of change in the situation, but there comes a time when you’ve got to examine the situation and determine if the best course is to continue, or to give up. I think we may be closer to the latter than the former. Whether or not they SHOULD, the failures of others absolutely affect our efforts. This is a human thing; if you refuse to help your own, why should WE help them?
This, to a lesser degree is the case between the US and Mexico. We provide aid, we provide through our economy jobs, homes and futures for people who would not otherwise have an opportunity to have those things. On the other side of that, many who come from Mexico effectively steal the opportunity, rather than come by it legally, but nevertheless, the opportunity exists closer to home. Can you imagine wealthy Africans sending money to poor Mexicans? I can’t. Charity must begin at home.
Admittedly, drawing such a line is counterproductive to the continent around which the line is drawn, but arbitrary? Hardly. It is a case of ‘if you always do what you always did, you’ll always get what you always got’.
Frankly, I chalk this up to the shrinking of the world. Globalization is change, people fear change, and this is simply the backlash that surrounds that fear.
Nope, don’t buy it. Just because we do it this way here today, doesn’t mean it has to be done this way everywhere. It’s akin to fishing, you can spend a thousand bucks on tackle, another $500 on rod and reel, $2000 on fishfinders and GPS and still more on clothes and accessories, when you can catch the same fish with a stick, some line a hook a worm and a jon boat.
Sure, it’s EASIER the other way, but better the old way than no fish at all
Yeah, but they had a whole system in place for feeding their people (sorta). It’s one thing to do things inefficiently to replace nothing, but it’s another to replace a semi-working system with 10th century farming techniques.
Admittedly, and that’s what happened, on top of the theft of the farms themselves
they’re actually taking several steps back, while committing a multitude of wrongs, all the while the rest of the world is supposed to continue to funnel both money and resources toward a problem they didn’t start, and no matter how much money is thrown at it, will never be fixed. I mean the US alone has pledged upwards of 9 billion by 2010, up from 1 billion in 2001. A pittance next to this war, ok sure, but still, that’s 9 billion dollars, and we’re not the only ones. On the flip side, a lot of the money just disappears into the pockets of the people distributing it, so even if we give MORE money, we’ll end up doing the same or less than we did before.
What do you base that on?