CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Things Get Worse in the Congo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things Get Worse in the Congo

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/congo.htm" target="_blank">Fairly good background site.</a>

<a href="http://www.theirc.org/health/mortality_2001.cfm" target="_blank">Estimated 2.5 million deaths from 1998 to 2001.</a>

From <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id=B8CCC5B2-6D65-48B5-A49D-FAFA6BD1CDC6" target="_blank">here</a>.

UN scrambling for force to stop Congo bloodbath
Canada considers troops:

Thousands flee ethnic fighting as bodies litter streets

Steven Edwards
National Post

Thursday, May 15, 2003

UNITED NATIONS - As thousands fled renewed fighting yesterday between ethnic militias in northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada said it will consider providing troops for a possible UN intervention force.

UN officials said 2,500 crack peacekeeping troops with a mandate to shoot could stop the violence and prevent a sharp rise in an already high death toll.

France has said it is willing to provide a battalion of about 800 soldiers, but many other Western countries capable of fielding well-trained and well-equipped troops at short notice already have major commitments in other parts of the world.

Canada's biggest overseas deployments are in Afghanistan, Bosnia and the Persian Gulf.

The UN call for new troops to beef up forces already in the Congo raised chilling comparisons with the 1994 plea by Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, to be given just 5,000 more well-trained troops on the eve of that country's genocide. After the UN Security Council failed to respond to Mr. Dallaire, 800,000 people died as extremist Hutus slaughtered Tutsis and anyone who sympathized with them.

Bill Graham, the Foreign Minister, said yesterday it was "certain" Canada would study the feasibility deploying to the Congo, despite Canada's commitments elsewhere.

John McCallum, the Defence Minister, agreed Canada "could potentially" intervene in the Congo, but said there were also many other options available to the government. "We have to balance those various options against both our available resources and the priorities of the government," he said.

Dead bodies yesterday littered the streets of Bunia, focus of the latest fighting in the Congo.

Fighting between armed militias linked with the rival Hema and Lendu tribes has wrought havoc in the town and surrounding region over the past week. The UN, which has only eight humanitarian workers in Bunia after evacuating a larger crew, says there are hundreds dead, but adds it has no idea of the fate of people in the countryside.

Carolyn McAskie, the UN's deputy emergency relief co-ordinator, yesterday described the humanitarian situation as "extremely dangerous, even desperate."

Some 50,000 are fleeing south to Beni, while 3,000 have sought protection at the UN's Bunia headquarters, and 5,000 are crammed into the town's airport grounds. "They're under no roof. They're huddled in the compound," Ms. McAskie said.

The UN has provided them with plastic sheeting to shelter them from seasonal rains, and is feeding them with high protein biscuits. But with water cut off to the town, latrines do not work, raising fears of disease.

"There are indications of dysentery," Ms. McAskie said. There has also been an outbreak of measles.

Fighting erupted after Uganda withdrew some 3,000 troops from the area, leaving a power vacuum.

Although Uganda brought calm to the region, its presence sparked strong protests from its regional rival Rwanda, which threatened to re-invade eastern Congo for the third time in a decade.

Both countries are among five regional powers that have occupied parts of the resource-rich country in recent years on pretexts of either defending their own national security from rebel armies, or supporting the Congo's central government in Kinshasa.

The UN already has a large peacekeeping force in the Congo, including some 800 mainly Uruguayan troops in Bunia. But with a mandate that restricts the amount of force they can use, they were not able to quell the ethnic violence in the town after the Ugandans left.

The call now is for the Security Council to dispatch a force of troops from Western countries with a mandate to use all necessary force.

"We have to use force," said Meg Carey, deputy director of the Africa Division of UN Peacekeeping Department. "The [current] peacekeeping operation is lightly armed and is basically guard units. They're defending themselves and defending [UN] headquarters doing their best in that regard. But what [we need] is the rapid deployment of an enforcement measure."

Among the few Western countries without major overseas commitments is France, which did not participate in the war against Iraq.

But its historical involvement in central Africa has earned it a reputation for favouring certain ethnic groups over others, leading Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, to suggest that an intervention force be more broad.

A request has gone out to Britain which, like France, is a leading former colonial power in Africa. But its forces are heavily committed to Iraq. It also has peacekeeping troops in Sierra Leone.

Germany has heavy peacekeeping commitments around the world while Belgium, the former colonial master in the Congo, is detested by many Congolese.

sedwards@nationalpost.com

© Copyright 2003 National Post

post #2 of 45
This is disturbing. It´s really sad how many wars are in Africa all the time. There is never progress in those nations involved. Just poverty and misery.
post #3 of 45
Quote:
Among the few Western countries without major overseas commitments is France, which did not participate in the war against Iraq.
a big duh there. France with no military commitments. I hope the French go and "try' to stop the fighting. I'm sure the U.N. will want the U.S. to go but we be a bit busy, maybe in a year. Time to see if the U.N. has any teeth left to stop this.
post #4 of 45
Is there such thing as 2500 crack UN peacekeeping troops?
post #5 of 45
Doubt it.

Most monkey shit fights at the zoo are more organized than the UN. That's why they are always crying to the US and UK to "help" them out.
post #6 of 45
The US and UK are part of the UN. I know it's hard for many conservatives to grasp the idea, but the UN is NOT a separate entity, it's not a government and it's not autonomous.
post #7 of 45
Quote:
there is no mastronikolas:
The US and UK are part of the UN. I know it's hard for many conservatives to grasp the idea, but the UN is NOT a separate entity, it's not a government and it's not autonomous.
I never said they were not. They were instrumental in the FOUNDING of the UN. It's just that the US and the UK seem to be the only 2 players in the game with any stones to do anything about anything.

So, hence, when something needs to be done, they whine to the "big two" to take it upon themselves to get stuff squared away.

My point is, the US and UK are not the only members of the UN. If they want something done, somebody else should get off their ass.

There's what, 50+ some odd countries in Africa? Seems to me that if they were so concerned about this "travesty", they could maybe, oh, WORK TOGETHER to solve this. Instead of expecting some "benevolent big brother" to step in and save them.

Same crap with Iraq. They should have stood up for themselves. We should not have had to go do that. Unlike the Congo, at least in Iraq we could control the oil, once we won, to make it worth our while.

If you or I hire a bodyguard, in real life, to protect us. We are expected to pay them.

Economy of scale, my friends.

If you expect us to solve all of your problems, pay us. Or get off your ass and do it yourself.

post #8 of 45
Thing is, the UN isn't a global ass-kicking corporation, like some conglomeration of international superheroes or some bullshit like that. It's supposed to be a humanitarian organization, looking after the common good.

The way the US and the UK tried to subvert these goals and turn them to support their aggression against Iraq is the real source of shame and dysfunction here. Part of the UN's purpose is to prevent such wasteful and destructive behavior, this exploitation of the weak by the strong. It's by no means a perfect system, but the actions of the US and UK only serve to weaken it further.
post #9 of 45
Clearly, only Amy from the hit film CONGO can sort this dispute out.
post #10 of 45
Quote:
Englebert:
Thing is, the UN isn't a global ass-kicking corporation, like some conglomeration of international superheroes or some bullshit like that. It's supposed to be a humanitarian organization, looking after the common good.

The way the US and the UK tried to subvert these goals and turn them to support their aggression against Iraq is the real source of shame and dysfunction here. Part of the UN's purpose is to prevent such wasteful and destructive behavior, this exploitation of the weak by the strong. It's by no means a perfect system, but the actions of the US and UK only serve to weaken it further.
Yeah, but the UN has been back-peddling on situations like Iraq for years. The same is true with N. Korea, Africa, and Yugoslavia. If you make a resolution, stick with it. Don't play the game of, "Well, we need a new resolution cause Joe Dictator didn't cooperate with the last one."

There are some shit governments out there with terrible people in charge. People like that love playing the back peddling game, cause eventually they look better than the guys who finally stand up to them. Suddenly, it becomes, "What did I do to deserve this? Your such a bully."

The UN was designed to work things out slowly and peacefully, but it was still supposed to find solutions. Frankly, all it does now is provide a global arena for pissing contests between countries. Until they decide to do what they say, the UN is nothing but a paper tiger. All talk, but of no real significance.

That aside, I did have my problems with the US/UK "liberation" of Iraq. Not because they circumvented the UN, but a valid motive was never there.
post #11 of 45
Have they really been back-pedalling on Iraq, though? Or did they just let it fall through the cracks like so much crap that they've overlooked in the world. I'm not going to argue that the UN is nearly as effective a body as it should be, but I don't at all believe that they were wrong in trying to mediate the allies' push for war on Iraq by getting the inspections back on track and trying to give them adequate time to do what they were supposed to do.
post #12 of 45
Quote:
Englebert:
Have they really been back-pedalling on Iraq, though? Or did they just let it fall through the cracks like so much crap that they've overlooked in the world. I'm not going to argue that the UN is nearly as effective a body as it should be, but I don't at all believe that they were wrong in trying to mediate the allies' push for war on Iraq by getting the inspections back on track and trying to give them adequate time to do what they were supposed to do.
Back-pedalling, slipping through cracks. It all seems pretty much the same to me. When you can see it happening in front of you and you do nothing, there is a problem. Like that in Africa.

I had no problems with them trying to get inspectors in and solve things peacefully. I had problems with them setting deadlines and when the deadlines passed and the resolution's stipulations had not been complied with, they simply complained that more resolutions were needed. That is fucking stupid. If you set a date and a list of things to do, make sure it gets done on time. Otherwise, there should be consequences, not just more talk about getting things done.

I don't know about everyone else, but if my parents told me to do something by a certain time, and it wasn't done by that time there were consequences for me. The some members of the UN seem to want to ignore that whole consequences aspect and just play the verbal run-around game.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Beer Die:
Yeah, but the UN has been back-peddling on situations like Iraq for years. The same is true with N. Korea, Africa, and Yugoslavia. If you make a resolution, stick with it. Don't play the game of, "Well, we need a new resolution cause Joe Dictator didn't cooperate with the last one."
And that's my biggest problem with the UN. They would rather be everybody's friend than an enforcer. As a result, resolutions are as worthless as the paper they are on, and you just have to goof around under the radar of nations like the US and UK to avoid punishment. If the UN were to learn that sometimes you have to go in with guns and do something instead of letting people back out, it would be a lot more credible.
post #14 of 45
Quote:
The UN was designed to work things out slowly and peacefully, but it was still supposed to find solutions. Frankly, all it does now is provide a global arena for pissing contests between countries. Until they decide to do what they say, the UN is nothing but a paper tiger. All talk, but of no real significance.
Irrelevant Debating Society...period.

They should move the whole damned organization to The Hague and turn the building over to middle-income housing.
post #15 of 45
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
And that's my biggest problem with the UN. They would rather be everybody's friend than an enforcer. As a result, resolutions are as worthless as the paper they are on, and you just have to goof around under the radar of nations like the US and UK to avoid punishment. If the UN were to learn that sometimes you have to go in with guns and do something instead of letting people back out, it would be a lot more credible.
It's the United Nations, not freaking NATO. It's not supposed to be an enforcer. It's supposed to establish world opinion so that the nations of the world may act on it. (World opinion, we should note, extends slightly beyond the US and UK.) It's not a military body, it's an international diplomatic forum. The UN becomes weak when its members disregard its resolutions, not when it fails to successfully invade and occupy third-world nations.

If the UN had existed in 1914, WWI quite possibly would not have occurred, at least not on such a horrific scale. And the failure of the US to support the League of Nations helped cause WWII. So how exactly is the UN irrelevant, again?
post #16 of 45
If only those dumb Congolese had found massive oil wells. They aren't Muslims are they? I mean, then the US would get involved.

Why isn't Grifter reupping so he can help lead the charge for peace? Isn't that the motto of this country now? Peace through war?
post #17 of 45
Quote:
LlamaRama:
It's the United Nations, not freaking NATO. It's not supposed to be an enforcer. It's supposed to establish world opinion so that the nations of the world may act on it. (World opinion, we should note, extends slightly beyond the US and UK.) It's not a military body, it's an international diplomatic forum. The UN becomes weak when its members disregard its resolutions, not when it fails to successfully invade and occupy third-world nations.

If the UN had existed in 1914, WWI quite possibly would not have occurred, at least not on such a horrific scale. And the failure of the US to support the League of Nations helped cause WWII. So how exactly is the UN irrelevant, again?
If the UN isn't supposed to be an enforcer, why do they have a security council and pass resolutions telling nations to do x or y or else? Why do they pretend they enforce things? Either you do, or you don't.

Creating treaties such as the NPT should not be the doing of an international debating society, because there will be no carrots/sticks to ensure that nations adhere to the treaty. It makes the treaty worthless at best and dangerous at worst because some people will act as though it means something.

The UN wouldn't have stopped either WWI or WWII. This is an especially apt point with WWII, where the League of Nations was supposed to have stopped it (or would have with US help). Yes, WWII would have been avoided if the League stood up to Hitler in 36, when he reentered the Rhineland. Would the league have done that if the US was a member? I tend to think no. It was the responsibility of the French, as the people next door, to enforce that border. The US could have made as much noise as they wanted, but in the end, we would not have been able to project force into that area to stop Hitler from moving in there. It was appeasement that caused WWII, not the US.
post #18 of 45
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
If the UN isn't supposed to be an enforcer, why do they have a security council and pass resolutions telling nations to do x or y or else? Why do they pretend they enforce things? Either you do, or you don't.

...

The UN wouldn't have stopped either WWI or WWII. This is an especially apt point with WWII, where the League of Nations was supposed to have stopped it (or would have with US help). Yes, WWII would have been avoided if the League stood up to Hitler in 36, when he reentered the Rhineland. Would the league have done that if the US was a member? I tend to think no. It was the responsibility of the French, as the people next door, to enforce that border. The US could have made as much noise as they wanted, but in the end, we would not have been able to project force into that area to stop Hitler from moving in there. It was appeasement that caused WWII, not the US.
Theoretically, member nations, especially the Big Five, are supposed to obey the directions of the UN, because they comprise the bulk of the body's power base. Obviously, this is not always true in practice, but developed nations very rarely openly and flagrantly defy UN wishes. When they do, they damage the cooperative structure of the body. The more important the nation, the greater the extent of the damage. As such, the UN is weakened by the mutiny of its powerful members, not by the lack of strong central authority.

WWI was rooted in a Byzantine web of secret alliances and pacts, and ignited by a single act of violence that quickly spun out of control. (The Germans were hardly more to blame than the Allies; there was no clear-cut morally superior side as there was in WWII.) Had a world body existed in which all the nations involved could approach the conflict and negotiate a more diplomatic solution, this tragedy could have perhaps been avoided (hence Wilson's strong push for the creation of a League of Nations to prevent further wars).

WWII began when several totalitarian states were able to freely expand across much of Europe with organized resistance. A unified world government would have likely had the strength to oppose a handful of nations, no matter how powerful they became. Unfortunately, no such government had ever existed, because the U.S., already the world's most powerful nation, had embraced isolationism and never joined the League of Nations. Without a unified front, Britain and France rested their hopes in appeasement, rather than confront the Nazi war machine. Only after WWII did the U.S. realize the folly of its ways and successfully support a world government.

So yes, WWI and WWII could have both been prevented by the UN.
post #19 of 45
Ok, the UN was never intended to be a government, global or otherwise. The European Union is more of a global government than the UN will ever be.

The problem for the Congo is many members in the UN(including the five permanent members of the security council) take the attitude of "Why should we help? It's not our problem, and we won't get anything from it anyway." This is also why the US was willing to go into Iraq, and why France and Russia were vocal in their opposition. Each party had something to gain(US) or lose(France and Russia). Once again things in life always boil down to MONEY. Even the high and mighty UN follows the rules of economics. If a country doesn't gain something, other than knowing it did the morally correct thing, they would rather stay the fuck out of situations like the Congo.
post #20 of 45
Quote:
LlamaRama:
Theoretically, member nations, especially the Big Five, are supposed to obey the directions of the UN, because they comprise the bulk of the body's power base. Obviously, this is not always true in practice, but developed nations very rarely openly and flagrantly defy UN wishes. When they do, they damage the cooperative structure of the body. The more important the nation, the greater the extent of the damage. As such, the UN is weakened by the mutiny of its powerful members, not by the lack of strong central authority.

WWI was rooted in a Byzantine web of secret alliances and pacts, and ignited by a single act of violence that quickly spun out of control. (The Germans were hardly more to blame than the Allies; there was no clear-cut morally superior side as there was in WWII.) Had a world body existed in which all the nations involved could approach the conflict and negotiate a more diplomatic solution, this tragedy could have perhaps been avoided (hence Wilson's strong push for the creation of a League of Nations to prevent further wars).

WWII began when several totalitarian states were able to freely expand across much of Europe with organized resistance. A unified world government would have likely had the strength to oppose a handful of nations, no matter how powerful they became. Unfortunately, no such government had ever existed, because the U.S., already the world's most powerful nation, had embraced isolationism and never joined the League of Nations. Without a unified front, Britain and France rested their hopes in appeasement, rather than confront the Nazi war machine. Only after WWII did the U.S. realize the folly of its ways and successfully support a world government.

So yes, WWI and WWII could have both been prevented by the UN.
Let's say the UN was around in WWI and WWII, just hypothetically, with Japan representing the far east, as it was far more influential a power up through WWII. The other members (the US, Russia, France, Britain) can stay intact, although a very good case could be made for both Germany and Austria-Hungary having veto-wielding seats before WWI, especially with Germany being the preeminent power on the European continent at the time. If there was no German/Austrian veto, the UN would have gathered together and condemned the Austrian move on Serbia. They would have said "if you do this, we will do this." That is awfully similar to what Russia, Britain, and France said to Germany and Austria in WWI. I don't see anything else happening, because the US would have still stayed out of it until 1917, in part because we would have been more concerned with our hemisphere and passed the buck to the European powers.

WWII would have still happened because the Soviet veto would have paralyzed any motion to condemn or stop the Germans, with or without the United States around. Even if we say there was just the League of Nations+US, the US would have passed the buck to the Europeans again, because we would have been more concerned with our internal problems than with what was happening in Europe. With the pressure on European powers, it would have again fallen to France to enforce the de-militarization of the Rhineland, and they would have still allowed it to happen.
post #21 of 45
So the UN should field an official army?

Right now, it's as strong as it's strongest nations allow it to be. When the US had resolutions levelled against it, it simply stopped paying its bills. Now when we need political capital, we force the UN into resolutions that we want to enforce, but who enforces the ones against us? No one since the US is the strongest nation member.

In effect, we already rule the UN. We dictate policy and we don't follow the ones we don't like such as NPT treaties, environment protection treaties, or war crime tribunals. They simply don't suit our interests as a dominating neo-imperialist power.

We don't support shit like a congo invaison cause it doesn't project our power into a region that's worth it. Africa offers us nothing so a few million people don't really matter. I mean, who loses sleep over this? The cost of life is cheap, but we as Americans should realize that our wealth comes from keeping third world nations down. I don't think people do. We do as we please and we should not disguise that fact because people working under the illusion that we're the good guys dilutes our power.
post #22 of 45
Economics has not changed since the days of Roman rule. We need to continually grow or else we'd be shrinking. To maintain this, we must spread our businesses and interests across the globe and bring resources back home for the american public to consume. And we use every diplomatic and miltary weapon we have to do this. So the american public can continue its lives of luxury. At its most basic, it is very similar to all the other great hegemonies since Rome. We must maintain our superiority. No one can touch us now and won't for a long while. Our greatest threat is our own internal politics. Infighting by extremist factions as we see here in this very forum. As our population fragments into increasingly specific special interest groups, more and more gridlock will appear in government. The only outcome will be a second american civil war.
post #23 of 45
Can we survive the peace? It's usually worst than trying to survive a war. In a war, we know who the enemy is and people are united in seeking victory. In peace, everyone has a different idea of how everyone else should live thier lives. It will eventually come to a point where neither side can get legislation through to accomplish even a portion of their goals. Some would say, it's already happening in government, that it moves way too slowly. Well, that's because we're a democracy, and all sides must have their say and their input diluting any unilateral action that is being discussed.

As history has proved, people eventually become sick of this and long to affect permanent change by ways other than politics.
post #24 of 45
Look at this forum as an example. We pride ourselves on democracy, but does anyone really like what is needed to affect change? People like Devin must convince people like Kronos of a certain measure in order to gain a slight majority. Can this ever be done? The moment something is posted for discussion here, I can see 200 posts into the future. Everyone's response is so completely predictable. No one changes their mind or is here for actual discussion. Everyone screams trying to convince the other side, but in the end, it all ends the same way. Both sides reject opposing arguements and no consesus on anything can be reach.

This is the failure of democracy, happening right before you.

So due to this, all legislatoin attempts to pander to everyone and makes no one happy. Devin and Kronos can never be neighbors. They are simply too different with different outlooks on life and different sympathies. And both are so passionate that neither would back down. They would take their fights to the extreme if needed as both have presented arguments for using violence to acheive political objectives. This is the basis for the failure of democracy.

*Names used were only to further illustrate points, not to imply that they are correct or incorrect in their views.
post #25 of 45
Beer Die, you are correct. "World government" is something of a misnomer.

Trying to project specific scenarios into WWI or WWII-era politics is a useless exercise. Obviously, if a body such as the UN had existed at that time, it would exist in an altered form. (The veto powers, for example, would not be the same.) Historical precedent, however, seems to indicate that the UN prevents more wars than it starts.

Also, it would be foolish to claim that the UN is not extremely political and often motivated by self-interest. I'm merely claiming that it is a preferable alternative to WWIII and an effective world peacekeeping body. The concept behind the UN is sound and has been realized to a reasonable degree of success. As a result, it does more good than harm and should be preserved, not dismissed.
post #26 of 45
And I doubt Devin means to change Kronos's mind, or Kronos means to change Devin's mind. They're simply trying to best the other as to sway the opinions of as many silent onlookers as possible. I'm sure we have all, at some point, read posts in this forum that sway our opinion somehow. We simply keep quiet on those issues we don't feel as strongly about.
post #27 of 45
Quote:
LlamaRama:
And I doubt Devin means to change Kronos's mind, or Kronos means to change Devin's mind. They're simply trying to best the other as to sway the opinions of as many silent onlookers as possible. I'm sure we have all, at some point, read posts in this forum that sway our opinion somehow. We simply keep quiet on those issues we don't feel as strongly about.
And this is the true power behind open debate. It isn't to change the mind of the other person debating, but more to convince those listening of your view points. Well said Llama
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Imperator GAC:
So the UN should field an official army?
Does this mean you want the UN to have an army? It really couldn't have an army in its current from anyway, but for the sake of arguement. This would require the UN to begin taxing or finding some way to pay its new army. With taxes and an army, it begins to look more like a World Government than a place to resolve conflicts peacefully. GAC, do you want a world government as opposed to the UN in its current form?
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Imperator GAC:
Economics has not changed since the days of Roman rule. We need to continually grow or else we'd be shrinking. To maintain this, we must spread our businesses and interests across the globe and bring resources back home for the american public to consume. And we use every diplomatic and miltary weapon we have to do this. So the american public can continue its lives of luxury. At its most basic, it is very similar to all the other great hegemonies since Rome. We must maintain our superiority. No one can touch us now and won't for a long while. Our greatest threat is our own internal politics. Infighting by extremist factions as we see here in this very forum. As our population fragments into increasingly specific special interest groups, more and more gridlock will appear in government. The only outcome will be a second american civil war.
Exactly, economics is the key. For one to prosper another must exist in poverty. Of course, this then leads to arguements about the superiority/inferiority of capitolism and its impact on the world. Which is completely off-topic.
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Beer Die
[QBAnd this is the true power behind open debate. It isn't to change the mind of the other person debating, but more to convince those listening of your view points. Well said Llama[/QB]
And so what happens then. We have an army of Kronos and an army of Devins, both on opposing sides of issues that cannot be reconciled. Eventually, one side will attempt to influence the issue using means other than discussion and politics to break the stalemate. On issues such as abortion, there will always be people protesting the laws regarding it whether we allow it or not. If we ban it, NOW protests, if we allow it, religion protests. It's no win when opposing sides exist.

Should we have a world government?

I see things on a very broad level. I believe our goal as a race should be to attain a peace that all can live with, but to accomplish this, we must elimanate the differences that cause grievances. Only when nearly all the individuals in any given population are satisfied will there be an end to war.

In this regard, my thoughts completely leave the realm of politics. I believe that we should establish a society where the entire population knows what it's goals are and to work toward acheiving it. Today, we have too many people work for too many different things. We need to homogenize our ideals and goals.

To accomplish this, I suggest the dreaded engines of Eugenics. We bring the population of the Earth to a level sustainable by the environment that won't cause any long term damage. That is, we maintain a level where all may live as comfortable as the average american does. We would begin with a controlled reduction of the general population with concerns given towards maintaining racial uniquenesses.

Once everyone is satisfied economically, they would have much to lose and would think twice before going to extremes to solve their problems.
Now I realize I'm simplfying things a bit, but I could provide far more details on this, but I fear most who have read to this point are already somewhat put off by these ideas.
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Beer Die:
Exactly, economics is the key. For one to prosper another must exist in poverty.
I don't think that's the case. I believe that a rising tide lifts all boats.
post #32 of 45
We have 300 million people in the US and we already consume half of the world's resources and produce more than half of the world's garbage. And still, we have poor people in this country. If 6 billion people were to live as we live, the earth would be stripped of resource in short order. Imagine each of the 6 billion people on the planet owning a car and a house.

We already have environment problems. Imagine everything worst when 6 billion people are demanding oil, 6 billion demanding homes and water, 6 billion demanded all the products and goods we have here in this country. We cannot allow that.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Imperator GAC:
I see things on a very broad level. I believe our goal as a race should be to attain a peace that all can live with, but to accomplish this, we must elimanate the differences that cause grievances. Only when nearly all the individuals in any given population are satisfied will there be an end to war.
How would this be possible? I mean, it is a nice idea, but it seems like there will always be people with different agendas, regardless of what happens. Even the "most fair" system, Communism, ran into this problem because you still have self interest you have to deal with. Even if everyone had, say, a house, car, a/c, and all the food they could eat, there would still be people who would want more than others. We can never eliminate it, and that's why capitalism is still the least worst solution, because it attempts to channel that self interest
<strong>
Quote:
In this regard, my thoughts completely leave the realm of politics. I believe that we should establish a society where the entire population knows what it's goals are and to work toward acheiving it. Today, we have too many people work for too many different things. We need to homogenize our ideals and goals.

To accomplish this, I suggest the dreaded engines of Eugenics. We bring the population of the Earth to a level sustainable by the environment that won't cause any long term damage. That is, we maintain a level where all may live as comfortable as the average american does. We would begin with a controlled reduction of the general population with concerns given towards maintaining racial uniquenesses.

Once everyone is satisfied economically, they would have much to lose and would think twice before going to extremes to solve their problems.
Now I realize I'm simplfying things a bit, but I could provide far more details on this, but I fear most who have read to this point are already somewhat put off by these ideas.
I think that eugenics, in theory, is a good solution, but again, you run into problems like how world population growth is slowing, and will probably top off at 9 billion before shrinking back down, so nature is already taking care of that. As far as everyone being economically satisfied, I don't think it can happen in this world because people are too self interested. Everybody has different opportunity costs, and we will never be able to fully anticipate those, so we will never be able to satisfy everyone fully. Again, I think harnessing self interest is the best route to go instead of trying to mold or suppress it.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Imperator GAC:
We have 300 million people in the US and we already consume half of the world's resources and produce more than half of the world's garbage. And still, we have poor people in this country. If 6 billion people were to live as we live, the earth would be stripped of resource in short order. Imagine each of the 6 billion people on the planet owning a car and a house.

We already have environment problems. Imagine everything worst when 6 billion people are demanding oil, 6 billion demanding homes and water, 6 billion demanded all the products and goods we have here in this country. We cannot allow that.
We may consume half the world's food and other resources, but we also produce half of the world's food. As other economies modernize, they will get more modern techniques for utilizing land and other resources, moving their standards of living upwards. As the US has continued to modernize, we have moved from a heavy polluting early industrial society to a lightly (relatively, according to the size of our economy) polluting industrial society. We will continue to make improvements, including fuel cells, cleaner factory controls, etc that will begin to reverse the damage we did as we were modernizing.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
I don't think that's the case. I believe that a rising tide lifts all boats.
How exactly do we raise the tide for everyone? That would be nice, but I don't see how it is possible. Unless we move to a socialist(I think thats the system I am talking about) type society, there will always be the poor and the rich. The rich use the poor for their own gains.

Even if you could suddenly raise the average annual income of households around the world by $10,000 all you are going to do is make the level of income for the poor rise. They will still be poor, because economics also says that with more money comes inflation. So, the average cost of living will rise $10,000 per year.
post #36 of 45
I understand your point. I, of course, support our current economic model as nothing better is feasible. What I propose is something that is going to have to be done quickly and to some, horribly.

Why would the world population begin shrinking at 9 billion? As long as food and living space are abundant, the population will increase. I can't debate this point further without better information.

Now say the population does top out at 9 billion. The earth cannot sustain such a number and still allow everyone to consume at will like we do in this country. Can you imagine even a quarter of that number rolling around in SUVs? We'd be choking on our atmosphere in no time, assuming that is, there is enough oil to provide energy to the 9 billion demanding it.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Imperator GAC:
I understand your point. I, of course, support our current economic model as nothing better is feasible. What I propose is something that is going to have to be done quickly and to some, horribly.

Why would the world population begin shrinking at 9 billion? As long as food and living space are abundant, the population will increase. I can't debate this point further without better information.

Now say the population does top out at 9 billion. The earth cannot sustain such a number and still allow everyone to consume at will like we do in this country. Can you imagine even a quarter of that number rolling around in SUVs? We'd be choking on our atmosphere in no time, assuming that is, there is enough oil to provide energy to the 9 billion demanding it.
The 9 billion number was extrapolated by looking at how things have gone in Europe, North America, and Japan. They all exploded earlier, but at this point they are not having enough children to even replace the population. This will be a terrible drag on most economies, although the US is being saved by immigration. The people who came up with this projected the third world using the same curve, and said they would fall below replacement level when the world was at 9 billion. By using advances in technology, I think we could easily sustain 9 billion on the planet.
post #38 of 45
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
We may consume half the world's food and other resources, but we also produce half of the world's food. As other economies modernize, they will get more modern techniques for utilizing land and other resources, moving their standards of living upwards. As the US has continued to modernize, we have moved from a heavy polluting early industrial society to a lightly (relatively, according to the size of our economy) polluting industrial society. We will continue to make improvements, including fuel cells, cleaner factory controls, etc that will begin to reverse the damage we did as we were modernizing.
Really all we have done is move our heavy polluting aspects of industry to developing nations and those with relax environmental laws. It is the same thing as throwing your garbage down the street. It doesn't eliminate the garbage, but it sure does make it easy for you to forget about it. Eventually, it will become harder for you to "hide" your garbage problem, though. So, while the US has cleaned up pollution inside its borders, we really have done little to clean up pollution on the whole.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
sorro reloaded:
The 9 billion number was extrapolated by looking at how things have gone in Europe, North America, and Japan. They all exploded earlier, but at this point they are not having enough children to even replace the population. This will be a terrible drag on most economies, although the US is being saved by immigration. The people who came up with this projected the third world using the same curve, and said they would fall below replacement level when the world was at 9 billion. By using advances in technology, I think we could easily sustain 9 billion on the planet.
I think it is a bad idea to just say, "It is ok if we have X population, cause our technology will save us." This sets yourself up for failure, and with billions of lives at stake that is quite a risk.

I do agree with your assesment that the world population will eventually stop growing, although I thought I read that it was more like 10 billion. At that point, I guess 1 billion isn't much of a difference.
post #40 of 45
The faith in technology I have trouble understanding. Right now, mass-producing of technology is a massive source of pollution all by itself. So when will this stuff start cleaning itself (and the rest of the planet) up? And are you sure it won't just, like, wipe out say half a billion people in the process?
post #41 of 45
Quote:
Englebert:
The faith in technology I have trouble understanding. Right now, mass-producing of technology is a massive source of pollution all by itself. So when will this stuff start cleaning itself (and the rest of the planet) up? And are you sure it won't just, like, wipe out say half a billion people in the process?
I had the same thought. I am not anti-technology, but on some level we need to be independent of technology. Total dependence is dangerous(ie. Matrix).
post #42 of 45
Yeah, I think a healthy skepticism is necessary on the technology issue. Particularly as regards bio-technology, as the folks who push the "new tech as a solution to everything" line all seem to be people associated with the industry.
post #43 of 45
Now we have reports of cannibalism as well:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/05/21/congo.fighting/index.html" target="_blank">230 Bodies found in streets</a>

Maybe if they had oil there, Bush would give a damn...
post #44 of 45
The number is 10 billion, not 9, but that's relatively insignificant.

It is possible for the planet to support 10 billion people, but not using our current systems. If we reach that point with our current economies, governments, and without the suitable technology, there will almost definitely be a massive environmental collapse soon after. Billions could die, we would almost totally deplete the planet of many of its resources, and human life could devestated for centuries to follow.

For us to support life at that point, major environmental reforms have to be made, massive agricultural advances have to be made, and our use of nearly every resource has to be cut down and held down.

Also, there's no such thing as a rising tide in economics. Imagine you have a pie and six people. You give two people three-quarters of he pie, and the remaining four the leftovers. Now, the rising tide theory assumes that the two with large slices will then bake more pies, which can then be distributed amongst the four. A fine theory, until you realize that there aren't enough resources available to continually bake new pies, and that new people are added to the scenario on a regular basis. So the larger a slice one person has, the smaller the slices of the other people.

And finally... eugenics to homogenize debate and remove dissent? Does anyone here find this more than a little disturbing?

(Edited for poor HTML use.)

post #45 of 45
We've de-railed this thread pretty badly... maybe we should start a new thread if we want continue this debate...?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Things Get Worse in the Congo