Kenya in Crisis

[piercehawkeye45]

First, Classicman, I was focusing on foreign policy with that quote. Foreign policy and internal affairs are not necessarily connected.

But, while I respect many of the opportunities that are available in the United States and that I directly benefit from many of them does not necessarily mean that we are a "good" country from every perspective. When it comes to other FIRST WORLD countries, the United States is behind in many different areas, while ahead in others.

I really don't feel like digging it up now, but I have seen many reports stating how the economic (class) mobility is low in the United States compared to other first-world countries because of how shitty our education is in low income areas. We are not that far ahead in health care, education, and many other aspects compared to other first world countries, but actually behind. If you disagree with any of those, it is only because we have different perspectives on how things should be run, which is subjective, so to say one is better than the other is as pointless as saying red is a better color than blue. Some people would rather have single-payer health care, some others favor privatized health care and then both sides can skew statistics to make their's look more favorable. But I have yet to see any statistic that shows the United States ahead in health care or education at the high school level, which does say something.

Also, you are looking at your view of the United States from a middle class white male's perspective. If you take a look from some American Indians, blacks, poor, and exploited foreigners perspective, you might see something different. All the benefits we receive are off the blood and bones of those four groups whether you will like to admit it or not. We NEEDED to displace, kill, and screw over the American Indians to get their land. We NEED(ED) the blacks for slave labor for the south, a static label to juxtapose whiteness (privileged class) with, and many of them die in our today's wars with very little benefits. We NEED the poor to power our urban areas and economy while they receive the short end of the stick on living conditions and pay. We NEED to exploit foreign countries to get rich (this mainly applies to the upper-class, not us) and our low prices at Walmart.

The United States is an extremely good country from some perspectives and a really bad country from others. We have made many innovations and without a doubt have changed the world since 1776, but we are no means any better than the other first-world countries in all or the majority of areas. We are definitely ahead of the rest of the world in some areas, but we are also behind in many others as well, it just depends on once again, perspective.

Why do you think so many people around the world hate us? It is not some bullshit excuse like you hear Bush and O'Reilly talk about, there are actual reasons.

Though, I would like to say, I do not point these flaws I see for hateful reasons, but because I want to improve our country in the areas that we are lacking in. I want to not only continue many of the great benefits every American citizen receives, but to turn our weaknesses into strengths. If I was just full of hate and looked at the United States in a condescending way, I would just move to Europe. That is the main difference between people like me and ducky.

[piercehawkeye45]

UG, Japan would not have lasted to the end of the month. They were being attacked from both sides since the USSR declared war on them, had no supply of oil so they would be sitting ducks, and were honestly considering trying to end the war before the bombs dropped, and I have heard of pretty credible sources that said, if I remember correctly, that the Japanese tried to end the war sometime after Okinawa on conditional terms but Truman denied to pursue his goal of "unconditional surrender".

Just think about it. We cut off their oil supplies so they wouldn't have been able to have the same tactics as in the other island attacks, were getting bombed to the fucking ground by US air forces, had another enemy declare war on them who they went to NUMEROUS times to try to end the war with with an economic ideology that they could never accept and were faced a 100% chance of losing the war. To think they would have held out until true unconditional surrender is laughable. They were done before the United States bombed them.

Also, then you have to look at the motives for the United States to drop an atomic bomb on the USSR. Truman did not like Stalin and knew there was going to be an arms race after the war and wanted to have the upper hand. It makes MUCH more sense that the atomic bomb was dropped to intimidate the Soviets while giving Truman the credit of unconditional surrender. Many modern historians acknowledge this so it isn't just some conspiracy theory.

If the war went on, it would just have been become a race to defeat Japan between the US and Soviets. The US was not going to stop and by looking at the Soviet invasion, they were not going to either. On top of that, Japan did not want to become a second Germany with a North and South Japan. They had a monarchy, which would have been the direct opposite of Communism, so they would have tried to stop the Soviets even more than the United States like Germany did. The estimated million death toll its complete bullshit.

Here is a book if you are interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-S.../dp/0674016939

If you want more proof:

On June 9, the Emperor's confidant, Marquis Kōichi Kido, wrote a "Draft Plan for Controlling the Crisis Situation", warning that by the end of the year, Japan's ability to wage modern war would be extinguished and the government would be unable to contain civil unrest.

"...we cannot be sure we will not share the fate of Germany and be reduced to adverse circumstances under which we will not attain even our supreme object of safeguarding the Imperial Household and preserving the national polity".[7]

Kido proposed that the Emperor himself take action, offering to end the war on "very generous terms". Kido proposed that Japan give up occupied European colonies, provided they were granted independence, and that the nation disarm and for a time be "content with minimum defense". With the Emperor's authorization, Kido approached several members of the Supreme Council, the "Big Six". Togo was very supportive. Suzuki and Admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, the Navy minister, were both cautiously supportive; both wondered what the other thought. General Korechika Anami, the Army minister, was ambivalent, insisting that diplomacy must wait until "after the United States has sustained heavy losses in [Ketsu-Go]".[8]

In June, the Emperor lost confidence in the chances of achieving a military victory. The battle of Okinawa was lost, and he learned of the weakness of the Japanese army in China, of the navy, and of the army defending the Home Islands.

... according to [Prince Higashikuni's] report it was not just the coast defense; the divisions reserved to engage in the decisive battle also did not have sufficient numbers of weapons. I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war.[9]

On June 22, the Emperor summoned the Big Six to a meeting. Unusually, he spoke first. "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them."[10] It was agreed to solicit Soviet aid in ending the war. Other neutral nations, like Switzerland, Sweden, and the Vatican City were known to be willing to play a role in making peace, but they were so small they could not have done more than deliver the Allies' terms of surrender and Japan's acceptance or rejection. The Japanese hoped that the Soviet Union could be persuaded to act as an agent for Japan in negotiations with the Western Allies. There was no agreement on what peace terms Japan might accept, or when to approach the Allies. The leaders of the Army were confident of their ability to deal the Americans a crippling blow when they attempted to invade Kyūshū in late 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrend...s_within_Japan

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Most times conflicts don't even have good guys versus bad guys too ….

Yeah, that’s true.

Originally Posted by classicman

….. where the world would be without all we've done as a country and world leader ….

There’d be a WHOLE LOT less political and military turmoil in the world but rather than confuse you with additional facts, I’ll just refer you to piercehawkeye45’s response.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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

…… and now a war-time favourite tune “Mi Brue Heben” sung by Jung Yun Leane. A one and a two .....

Actually, I served in the sequel: "The Sun Sets in the East"

Originally Posted by ZenGum

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

…. and those surgery-tent cut ups Capt. Hawkeye Pierce, Doc Painless, Spearchucker Jones, Major Burns, Hotlips Hoolihan and the rest of those lovable guys and gals at the M*A*S*H unit.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.

These are the most important words spoken on this thread so far. Concise and to the point.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

The country is awesome because so many people do not have your view of patriotism that Ibram so accurately defined -

Patriotism for patriotism's sake is nothing but self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing.

A great patriot does not go about waving flags, wearing flags on a lapel, and singing songs of glory. The great patriot innovates. He gets an education. He advances mankind. He sees wrong and tried to right it, sees suffering and tried to heal it, sees war and tried to stop it. There is no glory in patriotism as so often expressed in self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing. It is that misguided patriotism that created the American disasters in Vietnam and Iraq. That tried to create nuclear war with the USSR. Fortunately, men are in increasing numbers over the centuries that that boys brainwashed by patriotism are a problem; not a solution.

Yes we need cannon fodder from time to time. So we hype them up with acclaims of patriotism and send them off. But sacrificing one for his country does not make a great man. The greater man comes back alive with the knowledge of how such patriotism can be misguided - or what really makes a great patriot. The great men don’t fight wars. They accomplish greater victory without conflict. That is the real patriot – different from what so many misguided souls believe.

Ibram is right on the money accurate. To become a man, one eventually learns what Ibram has defined.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you take a look from some American Indians, blacks, poor, and exploited foreigners perspective, you might see something different. All the benefits we receive are off the blood and bones of those four groups whether you will like to admit it or not. We NEEDED to displace, kill, and screw over the American Indians to get their land. We NEED(ED) the blacks for slave labor for the south, a static label to juxtapose whiteness (privileged class) with, and many of them die in our today's wars with very little benefits. We NEED the poor to power our urban areas and economy while they receive the short end of the stick on living conditions and pay. We NEED to exploit foreign countries to get rich (this mainly applies to the upper-class, not us) and our low prices at Walmart.

Are you really gonna bring up this crap? #1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country. Yes blacks were used as slave labor - IIRC we abolished that, right? Did we take the land from the indians? Yes and your point is? There will be rich and poor in every society, and our poor have it it infinitely better than most, if not all, other country's poor. ok, fine start naming some other "great countries" which did not exploit some other group to advance their own ideals. I'll wait. I think that America does a hell of a lot for the world as a whole and you are focusing on much of the negativity of the past. Did "America" make mistakes and do bad things, of course, but I think we have gone a long way to learn from and rectify them.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Are you really gonna bring up this crap?

Crap? Is it not true?

#1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.

First, I'm really tired of the "the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries" reasoning. Its just a cop-out. If we have a problem in our country, no matter how it relates to other countries, we should try to fix it in a reasonable manner.

Second, do you know how the poor compare to other first-world countries?

Yes blacks were used as slave labor - IIRC we abolished that, right?

So you think everything is going to be just fine if when we stopped slavery? Everyone would like that to be the case, but it just isn't true. Blacks still represent the underprivileged class and there are still racial disparities as much as we would like to ignore and blame them on blacks.

Also, you are making it sound like we did blacks a favor by freeing them?

Did we take the land from the indians? Yes and your point is?

Acknowledge the fact that the only reason you can live your life like it is today is because we took stole from, killed, and deceived the American Indians. You didn't kill anyone, but you are benefiting from your ancestors killing them.

ok, fine start naming some other "great countries" which did not exploit some other group to advance their own ideals. I'll wait.

There are no "great countries" that haven't exploited other countries or have benefited of the exploitation of others. America is no different. If I wanted to push the case, I would just talk about the level of exploitation but that would get too messy.

I think that America does a hell of a lot for the world as a whole and you are focusing on much of the negativity of the past. Did "America" make mistakes and do bad things, of course, but I think we have gone a long way to learn from and rectify them.

But how do you know we have rectified them?

I'll give you a hypothetical example. Lets say me and you are running a race, 100 meter dash. And because I want the upper hand, I break your leg right before the race. Now, because I did that, I got disqualified and someone else is taking my place and the race is set for the next day. But, because you have a broken leg, the race can never be fair. If we give you a head start, the other guy will complain saying that "he didn't break your leg so he shouldn't be penalized for it" and if you don't get a head start, you will be at a very steep disadvantage.

Now here is the question. By disqualifying me from the race, did we rectify the situation? By giving you a head start, did we rectify the situation? The answer to both the questions are no. The only way the situation will be rectified is when your leg heals, and that comes with time. In the meantime, my replacement will still be benefiting off my misdeeds no matter what his original views are. That is the problem.

That is why there is really no way of rectifying many of the situations that are present today. Yes, we are not doing the misdeeds that we have done in the past, but we are still benefiting from them and there is very little anyone can do about it except trying to speed of the healing process, which ironically usually does the opposite.

But yes, I have been focusing more on the negative parts just as you have been focusing on the positive parts. There is no need from me to mention the positive parts because those are not needed for my argument, but notice how I don't deny them either. If we are arguing over abortion, why would put out an argument for your side? The point of my argument is to say that America has done its fair share of misdeeds and then shouldn't be labeled a "good" country. Everyone knows of America's positive effects, so it is irrelevant using them in my argument. And please don't take me as we are a "bad" country either. We are as I said numerous times, a country that is just protecting our own interests, very little good or evil can come from that statement.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I'm really tired of the "the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries" reasoning. Its just a cop-out. If we have a problem in our country, no matter how it relates to other countries, we should try to fix it in a reasonable manner.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that at all. I was speaking in terms of relativity. I think we all know there is a problem. To what degree and the decisions on how to address it are not mine to make.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

So you think everything is going to be just fine if when we stopped slavery? Everyone would like that to be the case, but it just isn't true. Blacks still represent the underprivileged class and there are still racial disparities as much as we would like to ignore and blame them on blacks.

I am not ignoring nor blaming blacks for anything. I did not say, nor imply that at all!

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Also, you are making it sound like we did blacks a favor by freeing them?

I said no such thing! Not even close. You want us to recognize a problem and correct it, yes? Well all I said is that is what we attempted to do so and still are attempting to address issues regarding racial bias. There is only so much a gov't can do to correct a problem through legislation though. Most of this particular issue may be cultural, not procedural.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Acknowledge the fact that the only reason you can live your life like it is today is because we took stole from, killed, and deceived the American Indians. You didn't kill anyone, but you are benefiting from your ancestors killing them.

Oh please - are you serious? Lets say that one caveman clan killed another clan and took their territory. This particular clan evolved into oh lets just say - Americans - Am I to blame for their actions too? I mean, seriously, how far back do you want to look?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

There are no "great countries" that haven't exploited other countries or have benefited of the exploitation of others. America is no different.

That is why there is really no way of rectifying many of the situations that are present today. Yes, we are not doing the misdeeds that we have done in the past, but we are still benefiting from them and there is very little anyone can do about it except trying to speed of the healing process, which ironically usually does the opposite.

I agree.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If we are arguing over abortion, why would I put out an argument for your side? The point of my argument is to say that America has done its fair share of misdeeds and then shouldn't be labeled a "good" country. Everyone knows of America's positive effects, so it is irrelevant using them in my argument. And please don't take me as we are a "bad" country either. We are as I said numerous times, a country that is just protecting our own interests, very little good or evil can come from that statement.

Re: the first sentence - To get to the truth instead of winning a pointless argument - Isn't that what we are trying to do here find reasons and answers? Or are we here just to argue. Heck, I don't want to waste my time on that.

America has made mistakes, yes, but overall is America a good or bad country? That is the ultimate question and I say its a good one. But again, that is just my opinion.

[aimeecc]

Although this discourse is interesting, I will point to the obvious - you will never agree nor see things through the others eyes. But unlike the Kenyans, the two of you aren't going to kill each other, then have your family kill the others family, then ravage the land the others family lived on.
I spent 6 months in Africa. I consider myself a liberal, or maybe a conservative liberal, or maybe a libertarian. Anyway, after 6 months there I have come to the conclusion the west (USA and western Europe) should leave en masse. CENTURIES of aid to them have done nothing. You can say the aid had an agenda behind it, but we (collectively) have built schools only to have them turn into squatting huts. Dug wells only to have one tribe refuse to let another tribe use it, and then when it breaks, the few people we taught how to fix it are either dead and taught no one else, or they've forgotten. We send food, to have one tribe use it as a weapon against another. We (collectively) have not been able to convince them to rise above their tribal roots - something that was accomplished in Europe (to a greater or lesser extent, arguably, depending on location) following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. I had an Ethiopian Muslim tell me woman are lazy and should have no rights - all while I watched the women carry loads of sticks on their backs to go to the market to sell as firewood so they can feed their children, while the men were busy chewing quat (a drug) and sitting in a drug induced stupor. I went to the dedication of a new school - and watched the mayor of the town ask the aid organization "what are you giving me next?"
After centuries of aid, what the preponderance of the people in Africa know is that wait and the westerners will give you food. Our centuries of aid have created a continent that expects one hand out after another. I can't blame them - its all they know. But it needs to stop. After centuries of trying to bring them from tribal roots and trying to help them become self sustaining, and all of this has failed - maybe we should stop trying and let them solve it on their own. Maybe coming to know that America or England or France isn't going to drop of tons of rice will make them become self sustaining.
BTW, UN forces are not on "stand by" waiting to go to a crisis. There were no large indicators violence was going to happen to this degree. Kenya did not ask for UN help. So, how could the UN have responded? Anyone think of that?
As far as references to Darfur, the AU peacekeepers there are under a limited mandate that limits their involvement, and are ill trainined and equipped to deal with the mess. The main reason the forces are their is because the providing nations receive money for sending troops there. And its not as simple as red vs white. There are over 26 warring factions. An ill-trained and poorly equipped force definitely can't handle that, and quite frankly, neither can the US or any other western nation.

[Undertoad]

So, how could the UN have responded? Anyone think of that?

Oh be fair, they could have responded to the crisis by turning all the children into sex slaves.

It's what they do, and when they say they'll stop it, they just continue.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Re: the first sentence - To get to the truth instead of winning a pointless argument - Isn't that what we are trying to do here find reasons and answers? Or are we here just to argue. Heck, I don't want to waste my time on that.

I agree with you, I thought our arguments were to find "the truth"? I am not going to purposely deceive or lie to anyone just to win and you have shown that you aren't going to either.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that at all. I was speaking in terms of relativity. I think we all know there is a problem. To what degree and the decisions on how to address it are not mine to make.

How was I putting words in your mouth?

Originally Posted by Classicman

#1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country.

Originally Posted by PH45

the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries

The only flaw I see out of my logic is that I said complaining instead of "it isn't such a big deal because...". For that, my fault, but my second sentence still backs up what I should have said in the first place.

I am not ignoring nor blaming blacks for anything. I did not say, nor imply that at all!

I was making a generalization with the "as much as we would like to ignore or blame...". That was more of a rant to make a point than an accusation towards you.

I said no such thing! Not even close.

I'm sorry, this is my fault, I changed my post and forgot to edit that.

But, when the topic goes to slavery and someone responds "we freed them didn't we", that almost always is in a context where they are making it seem like did they a favor by freeing them and that rectified the problem. You did say "we did free them right?" in a defensive manner, so I meant to questioned you to see what you meant. I first had it as an accusation, but then reconsidered to make it a question and forgot to take out the 'you'.

You want us to recognize a problem and correct it, yes? Well all I said is that is what we attempted to do so and still are attempting to address issues regarding racial bias. There is only so much a gov't can do to correct a problem through legislation though. Most of this particular issue may be cultural, not procedural.

For a broad generalization, yes, I want to recognize a problem and correct it but I don't mean that in the typical liberal way, which has made the problem even worse. There are ways the government can correct this problem, but it is in ways that are not being used now, and they are not the typical liberal way of thinking. It would actually seem more like a conservative solution than liberal.

And yes, I agree that most of it has to do with individuals as well.

Oh please - are you serious? Lets say that one caveman clan killed another clan and took their territory. This particular clan evolved into oh lets just say - Americans - Am I to blame for their actions too? I mean, seriously, how far back do you want to look?

You can take it as far back as you want and you will find the same thing. Actually, many of the American Indians we stole land from weren't actually the original settlers, which sticks to my point of Americans not being any better or worse than most other nations.

Also, I would like to point out that if any other country would do what we did the the American Indians in present times, we would see human rights violations up the a-hole. So this is a matter of hypocrisy and understanding of what we did to get the land we have now.

In reality, I am not really worked up about this because it has happened so many times before and will happen many times in the future, but the denial that we destroyed a continent of a diverse, advanced (in some parts, hence the diverse), and normal people to get what we have. There is nothing we can do to change the past and I don't even like talking about the morality of actually changing it but it is the denial that gets to me.

I am not accusing you with any of that, just making a point.

America has made mistakes, yes, but overall is America a good or bad country? That is the ultimate question and I say its a good one. But again, that is just my opinion.

Cool. I really don't have much disagreements with a general subjective view on the United States but I attacked what I saw was an objective view that the United States was good, which I disagree with on an objective level.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A genuine patriot, tw, does NOT try what you are on record as trying here: cutting down absolutely every single tactic and strategy likely to result in our winning the war. Tw, you just can't bullshit people with normal minds. Particularly not you. Jeez, buddy, the only reason you try it is to gratify a subconscious masochistic urge: there are people here who think the stupid-Left needs a good hard spanking, one that will go on and on for seven generations.

[Aliantha]

there are people here who think the stupid-right needs a good hard spanking. One that will go on and on until you use the safety word.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by PH

The only flaw I see out of my logic is that I said complaining instead of "it isn't such a big deal because...” For that, my fault, but my second sentence still backs up what I should have said in the first place.

I meant that since our poor are better off than those in other countries are by comparison, we as a country are doing something toward the problem. I certainly did not say nor mean that the poor don’t exist or that we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate become more independent & productive members of society.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by classicman

I meant that since our poor are better off than those in other countries are by comparison, we as a country are doing something toward the problem. I certainly did not say nor mean that the poor don’t exist or that we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate become more independent & productive members of society.

This issue is a matter of perspective. The fact that you/we live in a first world country and yet still have people living in poverty is inexcusable however, the fact remains that economically, it is necessary for there to be a certain proportion of people to live under these conditions in order to provide jobs for all those that get paid to worry about them.

In order to remove this problem, the whole structure of society must be changed, and change doesn't happen very quickly.

[classicman]

Ali, I think it is impossible to remove ALL poverty. Just like utopia or perfection do not exist.