Quickhits - Alot going on for a Saturday
(AP) The GAO chief makes a widely covered speech speaking of economic disaster and deficits. Ten days before the election, the Republicans on the block, and he's making this speech?
(Reuters) Chad says that Sudan is bombing in Chad. (I think it's time to start paying attention to NE Africa. There's a growing instability around Islamic militias. Ethiopia and Eritria are fighting a proxy war in Somalia, Sudan/Darfur, Sudan/Chad.)
(Reuters) 8 with Al Qaeda ties arrested in Yemen for smuggling weapons into Somalia.
(Reuters) Chad says that Sudan is bombing in Chad. (I think it's time to start paying attention to NE Africa. There's a growing instability around Islamic militias. Ethiopia and Eritria are fighting a proxy war in Somalia, Sudan/Darfur, Sudan/Chad.)
(Reuters) 8 with Al Qaeda ties arrested in Yemen for smuggling weapons into Somalia.
posted by mikevotes at
6:26 PM
4 Comments:
It's way past time. As far as I'm concerned, we should have sent troops to Africa, not Iraq.
By
Unknown, at 12:48 AM
Well, we did attempt to overthrow Somalia. Too many articles back there for me to link, but the evidence seemed to indicate to me that Rumsfeld/DoD attempted to arm and back some of the local warlords in an attempt to stave off the Islamic militias. I found it very interesting at the time because it was Rumsfeld/DoD trying to hamhandedly take over what has traditionally been a CIA job (part of the turf war) and they screwed it up.
If you're referring instead to Darfur, I'm really not sure what you do there. The Sudanese government seems very committed to this genocide, and the Chinese are, at the very least, staying neutral to build the oil relationship. If you send troops there, it would likely be another Nato force and would have to be huge because it would be unwelcome and would be fighting a semi indigineous governmnet backed militia movement. It could be done, but it would be a big operation with likely alot of incidents.
I don't have a direct answer for Darfur, but I think China is the best available leverage point. The problem is, this administration is not willing to pay the negotiating price (probably a softer stance on Iran or N. Korea.)
I'm sorry, I wish I had a better answer, but so long as the Sudanese are getting trade out of the Chinese and the militias are getting regional support, I don't see how you solve this. (And the people of Darfur do not really have military background, so arming them up is not an answer either.)
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 7:20 AM
I am thinking of Darfur. I would not disagree with your explination of the situation.
It's an irony for the neo-cons (I consider Bush/Cheney neo-cons) that their ideology explains an invasion of Iraq, but not for Darfur.
They want to convince the American people that their military actions are based on what's morally right, that people have a right to freedom and domacracy.
They stood in the face of world opinion against invading Iraq and said it was morally right to topple Sadam. If the world wasn't going to help us, then we would go it alone because it was the moral and right thing to do.
It would seem that Darfur would be a situation the neo-cons would say; screw China we are going to stop what's going on in Darfur, because it is the moral thing to do.
One of the first things that bothered me about Bush was; one week after 9/11 he said in a speech that he was going to eliminate evil from the world, that all people of the world had a right to freedom and democracy, and announced that he would attact terrorism around the world.
This seemed a dilusional statement to me; and tried to use the emotions of fairness, morality, and our ideal of justice to gain support for his military decisions, which were purely political.
So world opinion be dammed, diplomatic and political relations with China be dammed; their idology declares that we should simply step into the Darfur situation and install democratic rule to stop the killing and restore peace.
In my opinion it is dangerous and wrong to try to install democracy and freedom at the point of a gun.
It is wrong to try to dominate the world, no matter what political philosophy is behind the military action.
I believe that is just what Bush and the neo-cons want to do. They believe their ideology to be so superior, that it is ok to use force to ensure the rest of the world lives by their political ideology.
People should be free, but if that freedom is forced by a gun, then it is no more freedom than the socialists, communists, or any other system that has been forced on people throughout History.
It's easy to show examples of a democratic system making lives easier, but because of culture, religion, or just not wanting to be dictated to by America; some people in the world reject, condem, and fight against American military intervention in their countries.
Life is a daily effort to survive. Each political situation around the world gives people their own daily hardships to overcome.
If I could convince the people of China that a democratic system would make their lives easier; would they agree to let America invade their country to install democracy? I doubt it.
By
Unknown, at 1:17 PM
That's a really interesting point about morality and ideology.
But the neocons aren't about morality. The Project for a New American Century was exactly that, a plot/policy for the US to maintain it's world position at the point of a gun. They couch the wars in moralistic language because the Straussian philosophy believes in the power of myth to shape culture.
That's why this group is so big on pushing religion. It gives them a readily available reservoir of symbolism through which to manipulate public opinion. Religion is a good thing in general, but it is being exploited for political ends.
Also, the Chinese are a good example because they don't have the sense of history that the empires of Athens and Rome were the foundation of civilization. Their reality is shaped on a whole different set of understanding.
That goes for the Islamic middle east, too, and Africa.
By
mikevotes, at 3:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home