shame for the world's peace keeping

[jana]

The conflict in Congo is an absolute shame for the world's peace keeping organizations, since they failed in doing their jobs and once again stood by side while the genocide occurred. The war in Congo by 2008 killed 5.4 million people mostly from disease and starvation. Even though the war was officially over in 2003, people's struggles to survive continue till this day. Deaths caused by malnutrition and disease were easily preventable, and that burden should among others be placed on the shoulders of the UN. Is it possible that the outbreaks of fighting could not be prevented? Should UN and similar organizations be replaced by new ones that will actually respect human rights and act upon their conscience? I've read a book called The Age of Nepotism by Vahid Razavi that talks about these kind of topics and covers many issues of today's societies. I recommend it for everyone to read as well as check out the site www.theageofnepotism.com

 

[American]

More proof (as though we needed more) that the UN is worthless.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I don't understand why everyone thinks it's necessary to prevent wars. Our species has been fighting wars its entire history. It is a part of who we are; we need war.

 

[bub]

I don't understand why everyone thinks it's necessary to prevent wars. Our species has been fighting wars its entire history. It is a part of who we are; we need war.

Do we also need genocides and human sacrifices? We've also been doing that for thousands of years

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

We don't need them, but we certainly don't need to stop them.

Tell me what good it does for the people in Country A to stop Country B from ethnically cleansing Oppressed Minority C?

Hell, in most cases, you'd be hard pressed to point out an instance where Oppressed Minority C benefits from UN intervention... much less the people of Country A or Country B.

 

[bub]

We don't need them, but we certainly don't need to stop them.

It's a bit off topic, but what do you think of the US intervention on the Western Front during WWII? On a moral point of view (not taking into account national interests), should the USA have remained independent and let Germany/Russia win?

Tell me what good it does for the people in Country A to stop Country B from ethnically cleansing Oppressed Minority C?

Hell, in most cases, you'd be hard pressed to point out an instance where Oppressed Minority C benefits from UN intervention... much less the people of Country A or Country B.

Yougoslavia?

 

[Red_Dave]

The conflict in Congo is an absolute shame for the world's peace keeping organizations, since they failed in doing their jobs and once again stood by side while the genocide occurred. The war in Congo by 2008 killed 5.4 million people mostly from disease and starvation. Even though the war was officially over in 2003, people's struggles to survive continue till this day. Deaths caused by malnutrition and disease were easily preventable, and that burden should among others be placed on the shoulders of the UN. Is it possible that the outbreaks of fighting could not be prevented? Should UN and similar organizations be replaced by new ones that will actually respect human rights and act upon their conscience? I've read a book called The Age of Nepotism by Vahid Razavi that talks about these kind of topics and covers many issues of today's societies. I recommend it for everyone to read as well as check out the site www.theageofnepotism.com

Well if none of the member states are willing to commit resources then theres not much the UN can do. You can build up as perfect an organisation as you like but if its member states dont actually live up to its commitments then its not going to work. Hence why the league of nations didnt work out.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It's a bit off topic, but what do you think of the US intervention on the Western Front during WWII? On a moral point of view (not taking into account national interests), should the USA have remained independent and let Germany/Russia win?

National interests are my moral point of view. And I'll point out that American national interests were the only reason that we were involved in the Western Front at all.

Besides, the only reason World War 2 occurred was because of the general foolishness and shrill moralizing at the end of World War 1-- where the entire war was blamed on the losers in order to justify punitive and truly ridiculous sanctions against them. Modern "war crimes" are no different.

Yougoslavia?

They were giving as good as they got. Only real benefit there is that the war was ended... but I'm willing to bet that it will spark up again sooner or later.

 

[bub]

And I'll point out that American national interests were the only reason that we were involved in the Western Front at all.

Besides, the only reason World War 2 occurred was because of the general foolishness and shrill moralizing at the end of World War 1-- where the entire war was blamed on the losers in order to justify punitive and truly ridiculous sanctions against them. Modern "war crimes" are no different.

I totally share this analysis

 

[sazerac]

It has been argued that conflict and famine in Africa is a national security issue for the US because it opens an opportunity for extremists to take over a country while it is down.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Tell me what good it does for the people in Country A to stop Country B from ethnically cleansing Oppressed Minority C? --

If Country A faces either: -

• a huge influx of refugees from Oppressed Minority C
• a knock on its industry and economy if the people of Oppressed Minority C form a pool of "guest workers" in Country A
• an aggressive militaristic regime in Country B threatening Country A while Oppressed Minority C may have shared values with Country A and has no military ambitions against its neighbour (Country A)

I have a suspicion the simple moral value of not allowing mass murder doesn't count. From a historical perspective - if all borders around the world had been closed to jewish refugees before and during WW2 we might not have some of the brilliant figures of history that have existed. One prime example being Albert Einstein (oppressed minority C) leaving Country B (Weimar Germany) for Country A who offered him a professorship at Princeton in 1933.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

All good points, and all very practical reasons why a nation might, in its own interests, act to prevent mass murder being committed against members of other nations.

Of course, without the impending mass murder to turn him into a refugee, we would've missed out on having Albert Einstein's genius on our side. If he weren't a member of Oppressed Minority C, he could've stayed in Country B and his scientific prowess would have been used in Country B's war against Country A and its allies.

Makes a very good reason for Country A to not engage in mass murder of its own Oppressed Minorities, and to accept at least some refugees from other Countries' Oppressed Minorities... but it's also a good reason to at least tolerate other Countries' decision to exterminate their Oppressed Minorities.

 

[Real Talk]

National interests are my moral point of view. And I'll point out that American national interests were the only reason that we were involved in the Western Front at all.

Besides, the only reason World War 2 occurred was because of the general foolishness and shrill moralizing at the end of World War 1-- where the entire war was blamed on the losers in order to justify punitive and truly ridiculous sanctions against them. Modern "war crimes" are no different.



They were giving as good as they got. Only real benefit there is that the war was ended... but I'm willing to bet that it will spark up again sooner or later.

you would be a much more itneresting man to talk to if you were born into a culture that was opressed by its nation state, imo.

 

[Real Talk]

Sorry that comes off rpetty lame.
I mean no disrespect. You are itneresting enough to talk to.
I would just like to see how your world view moulds with an anti statist identity outlook.