I like that idea in theory.

I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as "charity" among nations. Their is always a political goal. Establishing a UN type of action would require convincing member nations that they had a stake.

What would that stake be? Future oil rights, mineral rights, political influence (communism even)?

And of course, where does it end? When does the UN stop and the countries become independent again?

But it's a starting point worth considering.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Well, one has to make cristal clear, that those meassures are solely of temporary nature to restore order, not to bring civilisation to the barbars.

That style of UN colonialisation is exactly how the evening of the European colonialisation looked like. They all just "cared" for those younger civilisations to develope. They even had a mandate from the league of nations for that.

__________________
When the Nazis came for the communists I remained silent, I was no communist.
When the Nazis came for the Unionists I remained silent, I was no Unionist.
When the Nazis came for the Social Democrats I remained silent, I was no Social Democrat.
When the Nazis came for the Jews I remained silent, I was no Jew.
When the Nazis came for me, there was no one left who could protest.

Yes indeed. That was specifically in my mind when I made that suggestion.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

And as long as there is enough incentive to begin, there is enough incentive to not stop.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

ROFL. That's just mean...

You have a hang up about being half breed but it doesnt give you the right to take it out on everyone else.'Intelligence and good looks',its a White thing you wouldnt understand.

I'm not hung up about it all. I'm very happy to have two cultures that I participate in and know a lot about. I view it as a very constructive and enriching experience, unlike yourself who is ignorant of your culture, has little to be thankful for and thus has so much hate and bitterness with the world that he has to vent it constantly.

Well I think a person who is ugly would have to say that all he has going for him is his skin tone (as if that meant much). Racists and Nazi's, those people tend not to have much going for them in life. Ugly, unintelligent, unaccomplished, unpopular. The racism and togetherness gives them social acceptance and power, whereas they were weak and rejected before. Well, you believe in Nazism and racism, so I guess you can understand all this pretty well.

Needless to say that someone who needs to be empowered and accepted, probably doesn't have good looks either, but I suspect that when being in jail and getting fucked up the ass, that could be an advantage as well. Makes a convict less of a tempting target. Think about somewhere you'd rather be the next time things get intimate in the shower room.


WEB

All too easy.


WEB

Well the system is used by Switzerland as well, and some other country (don't remember). It's the system that's important, not really who it comes from.

Well you're probably making assumptions, as you often do, about what other people know, don't know, intend or don't intend, and then leaving it up to the other person to prove or disprove your assumptions, rather than just asking the question in a straightforward manner. I don't think that's a wise way to go about discussing things.

Sure, you make your innuendo known, but I think it is worthless to speak about innuendo's when you can make a direct statement instead.

So what? What does this have to do with anything I've said?

I don't look at a complicated problem and give up because it's complicated. You've disagreed with my idea but you still have not given any rational reason why.

Thank goodness for that!



WEB

Well one of the problems with UN troops is that so far as I have read about them in action (and I'm no expert on the UN either) the UN peacekeepers are rarely allowed to fight. The UN fought in Korea during the Korean War, but I don't know if the UN actually has actually fought elsewhere. Being able to fight and defend people is important.

Secondly, you haven't really gotten past the problems I mentioned to you earlier.

Countries generally tend not to give a crap about Africa, so they are not willing to donate men and material for any nation-building in Africa.

There could also be the additional obstacle (perhaps of corrupt African leaders) who will diplomatically and politically oppose any UN efforts to do nation-building in Africa. When I say nation-building, I do mean nation-building imposed forcefully. Seems you are arguing that as well.

You want the UN to setup entire cities? Or just elaborate refugee camps? Like I said earlier: the political will to send soldiers and money is too lacking among UN member states to do much in Africa.


WEB

tee hee...like assuming you've been attacked when you haven't?


Actually, I believe I gave reasons why I didn't think it would work and without going back to quote myself, I'm guess I would have laid them out quite plainly. I think I said something about too many cultures in too close proximity and the dangers of elitist rule in such climate.

You've given some very good reasons why you think it would work. Is that the goal or were we supposed to be killing each other?

Your bringing Belgium into the discussion provided a segue to add my own ideas as well...like foreign influence can be corrupting and dangerous. Just because I fed off your post doesn't mean I was attacking you.

This will be my last discussion with you about personal issues on this thread. I answer because you seem to be asking me to speak abbout our personal (as opposed to political or idealogical) differences. That isn't fair to others who may really be interested in the thread topic and not a private tif between posters.

If you wish to air our laundry, perhaps the mods will allow you an "off topic" thread. And of course, there are always private forums if you wish to continue without me...speaking of being direct and honest. And lastly, you could always discuss any personal issues you have with me personally.

As far as your system of government idea for Africa, do you think Belgium and Switzerland are dissimilar or similar to African countries and in what ways?

I absolutely do not agree with Kingdaddy that people living in Africa are either by nature incapable or unwilling to handle their affairs. I believe they've mostly been stripped of the tools to do so. Part of the problem, in places like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, etc... is that those educated and willing to handle the job have either been murdered or have become refugees. What is left to choose from are people like Charles Taylor, and Robert Mugabe both examples of legitimately elected rulers.

I see Africa like I see generations of violence in families. They have no idea how to stop the cycle. Anyone capable of aiding can't be trusted for past and present corruption.

This is why I like danielpalos idea.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I didn't assume you were attacking me. I just engaged you on one of your comments. You may or may not assume what I know or what my bias is, if I have any, but you will be challenged on it where you make those assumptions or charges.

Well you didn't show whatever on-topic reply you said you made, and I certainly don't remember reading any from you. Your very brief and vage comments here attest to that. They don't even make sense. Consociationalism fosters co-operation between elites. When you say "elitist rule" the elites are still elected in democratic elections. Are we on the same page there?

If you define being called on one of your comments "killing" I guess so. I've yet to see much by way of substantive discussion from you, so perhaps we will be constrainted to the "killing" part.

It's interesting. Actually I did not know about what King Leopold had done in Congo until I did some reading this afternoon about him, after your comment gave me the occasion to. However, I was aware of what Belgium had done in Rwanda. It really isn't that relevant to the point I was making, however you did make an unwarranted assumption and I called you on it. Now it seems like you are complaining about being called on your unwarranted assumption, rather than either defending yourself or just letting it pass.

It seems rather dishonest to me, to make comments and then refuse to be held accountable to them.

I don't care whether you discuss personal issues with me or not. I don't have personal issues with you. We are not friends, and we're not enemies. I'm primarily interested in the issues. Now if you say something that I think is wrong, I will challenge you on it. If that disturbs you too much, perhaps you should not discuss anything with me at all.

Did you read my link on consociationalism?

I think that I am going to stop talking with you about Africa here. I'm not interested in explaining things to someone who will not stand up and take accountability for what they have said, but only complain about being called out on it.

While we ceratinly have our personal disagreements, I think it is certainly better to argue about etiquette and things like that, then to be wasting time in a discussion with kingdaddy's ignorant hate.


WEB

Indeed, in our very first encounter on the subject, I spelled it out quite plainly, numbering each point. By definition, if I am correct, the system would not work well in many areas of Africa.
Your response:
Perhaps so. And I attempted to address this later. I will say it again now: people don't wake up knowing how to rule a country, it takes training, it takes time, education, and experience. Those that may be capable of ruling, even a small, relatively autonomous group, are frequently murdered or running and living as refugees.

The cycle must be broken first. You and I agree on that but not on the methodology to which you offered a unilateral action on the part of the US similar to our action in Iraq.

If a person seriously considered for a second that the United States could march into some country in Africa and begin nation building, I would think that person was incredibly, grossly naive. ARGGHHH! If you think Iraq might be a quagmire, you ain't seen NOTHIN yet! Holy shit batman!

What a fucking stupid idea. When I said you were being politically incorrect, it was an effort to be gentle with a huge faux pas. To suggest the form of government you suggested, on the surface, was odd. I gave you the benefit of the doubt to explain your ideas and you did. I appreciate your honesty in clarifying that what I thought was true, you simply didn't know.

WEB's good response
That's a nice assessment but I personally think it is rather shallow and missing the force of the prime ingredient which I allude to with your reference to Belgium; Foreign influence! I'm so sorry you missed the subtlety. I will make every effort to remember to be more direct with you.

Did Leopold make your stomach turn? And I don't know if you read up on Liberia and Sierra Leone yet but that is recent history and our own doing to a great extent. Unilateral nation building in Africa...pffft

And I'm supposed to trust the US to march in and "fix" things for poor, ignorant Africa?!

Foreign influence in Africa is not just responsible for sins of the past, it would be a HUGE, GINORMOUS influence in Africa's future. Rubber for Leopold, oil for present day China and US.

Did it occur to you that the "war on terrorism" is eerily similar to the "cold war", the war on the spread of communism? What do you suppose we really care about Africa? For Christ sake you didn't even know about a multi million person genocide in the Congo and your half black! What makes you think citizens of the US really give a shit for Africa?! Goooooo USA!!! Hooray!!!, March in and save the poor savages from the Muslims and Communists...fuck. Hand the keys to Bush, he can handle it for us while we go fix dinner and write a check to "save the children" when we see the bloated kid on TV. Better yet, write a check to the church so they can send over some good missionaries with a basket of bread...and salvation...poor fucking savages.

Yes, we can get plenty of international interest in Africa but at what price and then how do you make them go away? They won't. And why would they? Again, we make the mistake of applying a human characteristic to the machine of government - humans are fickel and governments are their unweildy machines. It takes more than Leggo land aptitude and sappy regret to build nations.

Direct enough for you?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Your first response to me was really a joke. I'm not just trying to be mean to you here. It had no substance or structure. It really had only one line that was relevant:

2. Elitist rule has had REALLY, REALLY, horrendous results in these areas. The only elitists in these countries got there nefariously. Who would you suggest?

Now to my knowledge, despite the fact that consociational governments in Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland do have "elites" those elites are nonetheless ELECTED. So you say "elite rule has had REALLY, REALLY horrenous results in those areas." Kindly show me where ELECTED elites in Africa or any other 3rd world country has had "REALLY REALLY horrenous results."


Here's some information on the Belgian consociational government for you:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...slative_branch
Apparently, even those MP's appointed by regional governments, are appointed by elected officials.

So, aside for one extremely vauge and imprecise statement, you have completely failed to in any way substantiate your criticism of using a consociational government in Africa.

"The cycle" must be broken before you can fix the cycle? Of course this makes no logical sense. A new poltiical system is intended to fix the cycle. If you've already fixed the cycle then you don't need the new political system.

Your comment here is rather obtuse in two ways. Firstly, I only suggested a change in their form of governance. To my recollection on this thread, I have not advocated sending in any troops to do any nation-building. Secondly, your arrogance is unreal. You consider your OPINIONS to be facts and matter of knowledge, and thus people cannot disagree with you, they can only be ignorant of the FACTS, which apparently are your opinions. If you want to learn about fucking stupid, you should take a good read through your posts.

Well by all means, great one, educate me then. Give me a better analysis of why Africa is in chaos.

I think the problem is not with directness, but you are really sloppy. Not just sloppy in the sense of conveying your own thoughts, but sloppy in that you mix apples and oranges and you don't even know it. You make baseless statements and don't realize it.

So, what do you mean "missing the force of the prime ingredient?" Are you saying that Africa needs foreign influence or doesn't need it? If it doesn't need it, then you wouldn't criticize a plan for "missing" it would you? Maybe you do have some problems conveying your thoughts using the English language as well.

If you are going to try to come across with a condescending attitude, JHC, you better have all your ducks in order or you will be made to look a fool.

I've read up a little on Liberia before and during this conversation as well. Except for the inital act of sendingn blacks to Liberia, I don't see how the civil war there is our fault. Also, given that the fighting there doesn't involve any natural resources like oil, I think that you saying that we are interfering there yet are extracting no profits is a contradiction of what you have been arguing here. According to your point of view, anywhere where we get involved in, we are supposed to be getting something out of it. So if the civil war in Liberia is of our own making, what are we getting out of it?