Stuff Happening in Africa Too

[Placebo Effect 0]

To quote Bill Maher, we don't do anything about the countries in Africa, or even North Korea, because they don't have "strategic American interests. And by that, I mean white people and oil."

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I just went back and re-read the CNN article Kotz posted at the beginning of this thread............there is no mention of the Islamic vs. Christrian aspect of this ongoing crisis in the article.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Well, that blather was certainly interesting.

Yeah... fascinating. It's not often that one comes across an honest-to-God xenophobe.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Well, that blather was certainly interesting.

Yeah... fascinating. It's not often that one comes across an honest-to-God xenophobe.

Your labeling means nothing to me because I know I'm right and the Internationalists like you are wrong. See, this is what the left does so well. They don't like what you have to say (cause it might actually have had some thought put into it or might be true) so they instantly put one of those "shut-up" labels on you. In the two+ years I've posted sporadically on this board, I've rarely had anyone actually take me on and try to debate what I was saying (NoCalMike and JOBTW did occasionally and I found we actually agreed somewhat when they listened) But most of the time I get a "shut-up label" and that's the end of the "debate." It seems with the left, If you're for traditional marriage your'e a homophobe. Family Values? Right-Wing Zealot. Affirmative Action or curbing illegal immigration? Why you're a racist! Protecting America's sovreighnty and actually caring about the future of a fragile culture? Xenophobe! Heavens no! The list goes on. I really need to read Tammy Bruce's "New Thought Police" about this topic.

 

Anyway, I'm out for a couple of days.

[Guest MikeSC]

And actually, you're not following our rules. We've done nothing but follow your fucking rules, and now that we're on this incredibly wacky and wild mission to fix the world, it's our fucking responsibility to fix these places that are a threat to us (through avowed state support of terrorism), based on the precedent set by Iraq and Bush's preemption policy. No amount of clever rhetoric changes that; we either go into Sudan, or you conservatives are full of eight breeds of shit.

Hardly. Liberals have set out requirements for action:

 

UN MUST approve of it --- none of that "unilateral" crap.

They must be an EMINENT threat.

 

Neither fit the Sudan whatsoever.

 

And, again, WE'RE THE ONES LEADING THE CHARGE TO GET ANYTHING DONE. We haven't sent troops yet.

At least I'll respect if we go into Sudan. I won't agree with the overuse of our military, but I won't complain about it, either. But if we don't go, we've overseen a travesty.

If the UN can't do a damned thing about it --- why are we still a part of it, when it tends to fall back on us to do everything anyway?

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

So why did we care about Iraq? I keep hearing we liberated them and stopped the mass killing and attacks on Kurds and such. It was our duty to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people from a corrupt regime that was harming them and not even coming close to helping.

 

So what's the difference?

Because other posters here are right - Africa is, for most of the civilized world, insignificant.

 

And because it would be even MORE difficult to make something respectable out of those countries than it has been in rebuilding Iraq. You think the Middle East is hard? Africa takes the fucking cake.

[Guest Brian]

In parts of Africa, civil war is very profitable, especially for industries like gem and cellphone.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Care to back up that statement with facts?

 

The last time I checked, companies really don't like unstable regions because of the HIGH RISK. Sure, there's lucrative profit opportunites, but you're faced with risks of nationalization and revolt.

 

Explain to me, in rational terms, why a company would take such a risk. Prove it. Economics tells me otherwise.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Because the companies don't actually build factories there or send their workers. The warlords know (or are told) how valuable silicium and other resources are and where they can be found in their territory. They somehow aqquire the knowhow (if you have guns and power and money you're likely to get the information you need) on how to mine said materials. The companies then buy these through middlesmen or the international market, which suddenly has a new source of cheap silicium.

 

It's just like the diamonds and other precious stones/metals coming from the mines in Africa, those aren't legal government/company -owned mines. They're run by warlords with their slave/employee army. These diamonds are a considerable lot cheaper than normal ones, especially because the whole enterprise (due to a lack of enviornmental concerns and saftey proceedures, not to forget minimum wage, unions, etc) costs a lot less in first place.

 

 

So yeah, companies really can profit from civil war.

 

 

Also: the Sudan thing has little to nothing to do with Islam vs. Christianity in this case. Here it's the whole raping and pillaging of the south-west, which has a majorly black population whereas the ruling class is Arabian. You get the idea.

[Guest INXS]

Don't forget about Zimbabwe as well - another African country with great problems.

 

I don't think the American public would accept going into Sudan. Iraq was all about the oil money, and Saddam was already built up as a hate figure so people were content for us to go into Iraq.

 

The best thing we can do is offer aid to Sudan.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Your labeling means nothing to me because I know I'm right and the Internationalists like you are wrong

 

And with logic like this, who could disagree?

 

I think your "western culture=endangered species" rhetoric is idioitic because we're the global superpower with companies and culture pushing ourselves over the rest of the world. If by "western culture" you're talking about the super-conservative way of thinking from back in the fifties, then fine, death can't come quick enough for that.

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't forget about Zimbabwe as well - another African country with great problems.

 

I don't think the American public would accept going into Sudan. Iraq was all about the oil money, and Saddam was already built up as a hate figure so people were content for us to go into Iraq.

 

The best thing we can do is offer aid to Sudan.

"Iraq was all about the oil money"?

 

Hmm, we've spent a couple of hundred billion dollars on the operation --- but NO CHANCE the US can EVER do things out of altruism.

 

The only people who were obsessed with oil were the ones opposed to the action.

-=Mike