Kenya in Crisis
 

After recent elections in Kenya, domestic strife is out of control which this article describes in detail.

Is it Rwanda all over again, and will the international community once again sit by and let it happen?

I don't know, is the UN involved? If yes, then it is possible there will be a genocide.

Why would you say that?

During Rawanda's Genocide the UN and Madame Albright knew all about it and sat back and watched it happen. some 800,000 people were hacked to death, stabbed, and burned to death in a peroid of about 4 months. The UN is an inept organization that sucks up US tax payer dollars {IMHO}.

So... rwanda would have been better WITHOUT the UN?
Kenya will be better WITHOUT the UN?

I can buy the argument that the UN isn't gonna do jack shit, but i dont buy it that they'll actually make it worse.

Everyone would be better without the UN.

UN admits Rwanda genocide failure

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.
In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.

Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.

At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.

Continues:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm

I'm with you on this Ibram. I think Mercs summation of the situation is incorrect.

I'm aware of what happened in Rwanda and the role the UN played. At least they played a role. They did what they were supposed to do but it wasn't nearly enough. It could never be.

I don't think this should become an argument about whether or not the UN is a useful organization or not, although I would ask that if the UN did enter Kenya and create peace, would it then be seen as useful, and if so what would need to happen to ensure this outcome?

If it's not up to the UN, then should anyone in the international community step in to stop the genocide that will surely occur?

No, let the chips fall where they will. The US has been dragged into a number of these things and all we get is beat up by the international community. The African Union has failed to stop the killing in Darfur, the Ethiopians are in Somalia and it has been nothing but a mess. We went into Bosnia and got beat up for that as well. Let the Africans figure it out on their own. We have no business there.

or maybe you mean, nothing to gain by going there

Not at all. What did we gain in Bosina? How about Somalia? Oil? Slaves? what?

What he means is no oil available - therefore let them burn. We hate them because they have nothing for us.

Bosnia is the perfect example of how diplomacy works and how problems should be solved. The wacko extremists among us will deny this only because they hate Clinton and Clinton showed how problems can be solved. Clinton did it right; therefore it must be wrong – the Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Use political rhetoric rather than reality to determine what to do (and then blame the UN).

Shame is that Kenya only ten years ago was a model of African stability. A nation of warm relations to and a strong attachment to America. What has changed? According to TheMercenary, we don't care. They don't have anything we need. Therefore they are scumbags who should be left to rot on their own. Amzing the contempt TheMercenary has for one of America’s closest friends.

TheMercenary has advocated hate - the real agenda of politics that even blame the UN for all world problems.

I see the problem as forcing two nationalistic ethnic groups in the same political state.

I have two questions. First, what can we realistically do? Second, if we did stop the genocide, would we really have solved anything?

If we do stop the killings, we are not getting rid of the conditions that led to the killings, so by just stop killings, we are just pushing back the genocide to a later date where it will probably just be even worse. Big catch 22.

It’s a great pity.

I was hitch-hiking through Africa in the late 70’s and Kenya was one of the true gems of East Africa. In Nairobi an aged, white man (a remnant of the colonial times) gave me a lift in his Wolseley. He told me that he hoped he’d be dead “before the old man” (Kenyatta) because he figured that Kenyatta was the only thing standing between sanity and chaos. Maybe he was right.

I didn't take that out of his post at all. Course what the hell is my vote worth? :headshake










Oh yeah, same as everyone elses. :right:

Speak for yourself, tw.

My sampling of Kenya's vibe in mid 1985 told me President Daniel Arap Moi was running an undemocracy -- a mildly critical remark about him from me netted me a very white-eyed nervous look from a concierge. That sort of thing cropping up in casual public conversation is not a good sign. English-language papers ran great numbers of articles of an officialese flavor, all Arap Moi, all the time, most of the front page, as if this paper were some party organ. Another bad sign.

Cutting genocidal groups off at the ankle strikes me as more of a deterrent than Pierce is willing to credit it being: "they started doing that and the whole bunch of them got thrown in jail/shot/fixed." This tends to take the fuze out of the powderkeg, whether or not it removes the keg. At worst, it buys time to address the more tractable of the root conditions necessary for genocides, particularly an imbalance of firepower -- the easiest side of the genocide triangle to eliminate. There is nothing in particular about genocide that makes delaying it conducive to anything demonstrably more severe that I've ever heard of.

Tw is far too willing to say "We hate..." -- it's more illustrative of tw's own cast of thought than of anyone else's, singular or collective. Maladroit. Bosnia really wasn't a perfect example of anything well done, what with its ethnic cleansing and suchlike diversions. We should not be expected by anyone (sane) to give it a top grade because a Democratic President had to deal with it. That would be blatant prejudice.

Freudian slip? :D


(hee hee!)

But who is going to throw them in jail? The United States? The United Nations? I don't know if that is even possible and then you have to deal with the aftereffects of us coming in there.

And that wouldn't take out the fuze, it would just stop it from burning.

I requoted our extremists who see no profit in going there. Why is Brianna defending those whose underlying political agenda is based in hate and violence?

Meanwhile, moderates will recognize Kenya as a country undergoing some turmoil. This is far from Rwanda and Brunei deja vue. At least not yet. Counter productive would be other nations interfering at this point. If Kenyans solve this problem, then 50 burned victims in a church could become memorialized as what happens when extremists are permitted to exercise their usual solutions to everything - violence.

Kenyans and only Kenyans currently are our best hope for a lasting solution here. Kenyans must be permitted time to solve their own problems. If major actions are required as became necessary in the Balkans, then such actions will require the UN - in direct contradiction to those who just reposted Rush Limbaugh extremist rhetoric.

Hmmm looks like you are both saying the same thing to me.

Sorry, the US is too busy in Afghanistan and Iraq to care about a few Africans.

I think that Kanye West is more and more right: 'Bush doesn't care about Black people'.

Bush doesn't care about Brown people either, just that they are more important politically.

I keep posting this. Please learn to read with care what was posted rather than what you want to read.

TheMercenary is saying we have no purpose in Kenya like we have no purpose in Bosnia. He says the UN is our useless enemy when, if the world eventually has to solve Kenya, then we will need the UN.

Where, classicman, do we say same thing? Posts from tw and TheMercenary are completely different - if classicman grasps the significant details. You didn't previously which was why you felt insulted when no insult was posted. You really need to reread multiple times before posting. Classicman has again completely misrepresented what was posted.

Did you notice we say contrary things about the UN? Did you notice we post contrary conclusions about Bosnia - where the lessons of how to conduct nation building are demonstrated? He says America got beat up in Bosnia. Wacko extremists (ie Rush Limbaugh) promote that lie. In reality, Bosnia was a perfect example of how to do nation building. Did you notice our posts use both examples to reach contrary conclusions about Kenya? Do you read before posting? Why must I again resummarized (or requote) details that you completely ignore? Why do you set yourself up again to be criticized for replying to posts that do not exist? Will you now take insult where none exists?

Since YOU brought it up - Yes tw, I will take your diparaging tone as an affront. I have read hundreds of your posts from years back to the present. You write with a pompous tone. Whether that is intended or not - that is your deficiency. I am not the only one to see it, I am just more vocal about it. We all have things to work on to improve ourselves in life. Perhaps this could be yours.

As to the real discussion. Yes I have read both your posts in this thread very carefully. I am well aware of your different opinions. That is why I found it interesting that BOTH OF YOU came to the same conclusion through very different thought processes.
Amazing actually that the two of you both think we should stay out of there and let them figure it out for themselves.
There is a lot of irony in your last post - guess you didn't read mine well enough.

Eh? I thought he was sleeping with Condo-lazy Rice.

So what about "Yellow people"?

I wouldn't have the slightest doubt (if such reports were to come to light) that the American CIA are responisible for the whole problem from the very beginning. Implementing political unrest (in another country) would be keeping in true form with standard CIA procedure if such unrest might lead to increased American influence and (ultimately) American control.

The British Empire relied on "Divide and Rule" tactics. The Americans rely on "Destroy and Reconstruct".

He owes them money.

The Unibomber tw resurfaces...

http://usversusthem.files.wordpress..../unabomber.jpg

You're kidding, Bri.

There was white showing all the way around the iris, and nervous glances to either side to check on who might be listening. Fortunately, the lobby was empty but for us two.

Shall I compare tw trying to analyze politics to a thalidomide case trying to play the bagpipes...?

I can keep that up.

speaking of thalidomide, I saw on tv that they're going to use some form of the drug for something else. I'll have to look it up and see what it is.

Here it is. Cancer. You can read the rest of the article if you like.

:tinfoil: Everything is America's fault - as usual. :headshake

Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.

And you think I'm joking...

But seriously, we have fucked up many countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blum#Quotations

And on a similar note, some folks claim that the rise of LSD was due to the CIA using it to distract the anti-war movement:
(Mentioned in passing here.)

Given some of the things the CIA did do, I wouldn't rule out anything.
I'd love to work for the CIA. You get to do all sorts of crazy shit.

You're not far from the truth. Considering most of what's happened since then I must admit that I have similar thoughts.

One incident that's still a question mark for me though is Korea. I'm inclined to believe that the Americans were "the good guys" there but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't know enough about the topic to give an answer. Most times conflicts don't even have good guys versus bad guys too so who knows.

Thanks for asking, I think you're a moron.

Gov't-related deaths in the 20th C, including wars:

http://cellar.org/pictures/killings.gif
http://cellar.org/pictures/killing2.gif

Blum is an ass with an axe to grind, but thats fine - blame it all on America. Its fine, really. Just stop and think REALISTICALLY where the world would be without all we've done as a country and world leader - good and bad.

UT, your graph is skewed, keeping it to government related deaths take out a lot of them. And deaths have nothing to do with Aretha's question.

Classicman, I know Blum's stance and I don't take him to heart but he does put out some good solid stats. And stop being stupid and saying "blame it ALL on America". I have never ONCE done that and I explained that in a different thread yesterday. The US has done a lot of shit to other countries so we do have to take some responsibility for it. We exploit other countries and we do not do what is "good", but what protects our own interests, there is more than enough evidence to back those statements up.

Africa for example, I have a friend that went there to help out and he says all the Western corporations are in control, who sell their resources for extremely cheap prices and then sell back products to them for a bloated price. They also get screwed over by the WTO with behind the counter offers. If you don't think shit like this has anything to do with the welfare of foreign countries, I don't know what to tell you.

For your question, it would be stupid to guess because we are dealing with chaos theory (butterfly effect). If one thing was changed in the 1940's in a particular country, we will have no idea of what big changes would have happened in the 1960s or 1980s. It could be much better than it is today, or it could be much worse.

But we can have some insight in some situations. Iran, for example, why did operation Ajax happen in 1953? What would have happened if we didn't support a coup and replaced a socialist-leaning leader with the Shah? Why did the Iranians vote in Mohammed Mosadeeq? What did he do that turned the British and United States against him? What would have happened if we would have let them go?

I'll throw a guess out. The situation in Iran is very similar to what happened in Venezuela in 1999. A country exploited by Western oil companies decided to kick the corporations out. What is happening in Venezuela today (this is ignoring all the propaganda bullshit from both sides)? What has their GDP changed? How about their poverty rate? Are they better off before or after Chavez came in?

I will go back to my Africa example. What would happen if we stopped exploiting Africa? I will give you my guess. First, local rulers will get very rich and powerful from their resources and our prices will probably go up for various materials. Then because of the new rich and powerful leaders, militarism will be on the rise and we will see many wars and genocides with a scene most likely similar to Europe in the 700s to WWII. Political lines will change and empires will rise and fall. After a while, like Europe, will will finally see some stability in that area. Is that better than worse than what we have now? I don't know but hey, at least they are have more control than now.

We have also helped many other countries out so I can't ignore that. But once again, that gets into chaos theory. Bottom line, I have no idea what the world would be like and anything that claims too, is most likely dead wrong.

I am also tired of the idea that the world would be lost without US's help? We didn't need the British to get to where we are now and I have real doubts that many other countries need us either.

UT, that graph is definitely wrong.

at least five million, if not over ten or fifteen million, chinese died as a result of Mao's policies. That isnt shown at all.

Sure it is. The high points on the graph are number killed per year and Mao was at it 40 years. Look at the yellow area.

But ... but ... you were there! You and Radar both!

Or were you just overwhelmed by the stupid futility of it all for 23 & 1/2 minutes per week?

What?

Still not enough - I'm not even including general drought and starvation caused by Mao in those numbers - one of his five-year-plans alone killed (roughly) six million people. That woulda certainly caused a bigger spike than shown there.

I don't follow your math, Ibram: 6 million over five years is a little more than a million a year. The graph shows that for about 1947-1953, 1958-1963, and 1966-1970. And the years in between aren't that far below a million a year, either.

Well, the graph starts in the 20th century, so it does not show deaths in the 19th century to the American Indians, deaths from government-condoned slavery, and, if war is included, the Civil War and War of 1812.

It also only counts deaths directly attributed to a government. As one of the world's top weapon suppliers and a supporter of numerous repressive regimes and insurgent groups, the US would certainly show up on the map if we accounted for that.

We didn't score the goals but we certainly should be credited for the assists.

The map doesn't even appear to list the Korean and Vietnam Wars, although there is a set in the 1970's for the Cambodian genocide.

By some accounts, the U.S. dropped 8 million tons of bombs onto Vietnam (and Cambodia), and according to that chart, we didn't hit anything. Either the chart is wrong or someone needs to go back to flight school.

You mean you didn't serve with Mobile Army Surgical Hospital 4077?

According to the other lying administration, we killed everyone in Nam three times over. Therefore the chart must be wrong. Nixon (like George Jr) would not lie.

It so funny to watch you guys struggle to apply "original sin" to your own country. Here's a hint for you: when we were arming insurgents and supporting regimes the most, we were actually fighting the schools of thought which produced a lot of the biggest areas of color you see on the chart. The numbers that we armed did not produce big areas of color.

Oh, haha, that flew over my head.

I wonder if it'll be good luck if it shits on you...

So as long as we are fighting people who are evil, we can never do anything wrong? Sorry to exaggerate but that is exactly how you are coming off. Fighting evil with evil doesn't equal good UT.

But, I mean, we can never do anything wrong. I mean we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan to save lives right? (hint: no)

I don't know how you take my attitude as, but I do not think America is good but I do not think it is pure evil either. There is always some balance. The United States is not a "good" country, those do not exist, we are only protecting our interests like every other country in this world. We just have the power to do it more covertly.

.........I doubt it.

That you really feel that way is truly sad.

That you feel that way is truly ignorant. Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.

Thats bullshit Ibby. What is sad is that neither you nor PH have any idea of how awesome a country America is.

I may be a lot of things, but on this subject, ignorant is not one of them.

Pierce, it seems you've missed the Hiroshima-Nagasaki calculus. It's all out there in Estimate Land, but roughly 225,000-250,000 deaths from those two strikes were the price of not taking an estimated one million casualties on the Allied side of the ledger alone, with approximately two to three million estimated for the Japanese. Concomitant general damage for Operation Olympic would have made Kyushu and Shikoku look like a giant rake had gone over those islands from one end to the other. Tokyo was hoping to stop a very experienced army whose every soldier had a semiauto rifle plus support weaponry of every description and complete air supremacy with war emergency manufactured matchlocks and bamboo spears. Such army as they had left had boltaction rifles, badly designed machine guns, and plane crashes by way of cruise missiles.

Any question what would have happened, or of the eventual outcome anyway? If you want to put it romantically, Hiroshima and Nagasaki died that Japan might live. It did take the Emperor Hirohito's word to convince Imperial Japan that it had suffered quite enough, but even so, one plane, one bomb, one city was easy math to do.

I'd say it's pretty well proven that we did save lives that way, simply enough by the shortening of the war.

If we are fighting people who are evil, who cares if we do something wrong? Frankly I do not, and I have trouble believing in the honesty of those who do. Inerrancy on our country's part is not something I'm going to expect -- though I might expect fewer errors from one group, contrasted with another. Wars have errors in them. The idea is to make the other poor dumb SOBs collapse under theirs. Patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but one-note anti-Americanism is the first property of the moronic. I make a hobby of demonstrating my intellectual power before those who are absolutely desperate not to credit me with any. It's fun watching them squirm and choke down their just deserts, and watching the cherished delusions they thought were an adequate philosophy of life trickle away.