Thread: America: Silent Witness to Genocide

Originally Posted by tsurara

....

So why is it that we are so aware of the Holocaust and are taught so much about it in our textbooks? Why don't most Americans know all that much (if anything) about Darfur, Laos, Tibet, Turkey, Bosnia, Rwanda and Myanmar?

Why did we feel it so terribly necesary to intercede in Iraq and Afganistan while we literally watched the slaughter of over a million people in Rwanda ? Why do virtually no Americans know about the current situation in Darfur? Why is China hosting the Olympics only 50 years after a government sponsored bloodbath in Tibet?

...

If America is indeed the "protector" of the world, or the "police" of the world, why do we only intervene when oil, money or political power is involved?

Discuss....

Let me ask you a question as well. Do you really want the US or even the UN to become the police of the world?

I know I for one don't want the UN to police me. Not with Cuba and China on the Human Rights Council and China is on the National Security Council as one of the 7 members who can veto any motion they want. It has become impossible to censure just about any country for either security or human rights violations since member countries of both committees who are guilty of the same thing shut it down. The US representative tries regularly and as far as I know has yet to succeed in something like 7 years. It's like using the fox to guard the hen house.

So that just leaves the US (or another major country) which then leads to issues of sovereignty. Yes we are involved in the middle east because we have political interests there. What is wrong with that? What right would we have to walk into an area that we have no political interest in and conquer the country just because we don't like how they are doing things? Where do you draw the line? Genocide and Human Rights violations? How are you to do that when the neighbors of countries these things happen in not only don't care they do whatever they can to keep major superpowers away from it. It is almost as annoying as Germany playing both sides of the fence on Iran with their "we don't believe that we should get involved *psst* Hey, US, go ahead and bomb them for us."

Fact is no one country can or should police anything in another country unless it impacts their national security and the UN is to corrupt to effectively police anything but their own political agenda's. The invasion of Iraq involved a coalition of over 35 different countries troops and the support of even more. If you can get together that kind of support for one of your other causes then by all means something can get done. If not what country can go it alone? The US? I fear that many European countries believe just that and are expecting the US to do it for them so they can sit cozy on their little self righteous pedestals.

Originally Posted by ketaro

I wasn't referring to casualties. You said that America never had lost a war. That's why i brought up the Vietman war; a war that America suffered a lot of damage and on top of that lost to the Vietcong.

I didn't say anything about losing a war didn't I?

Fact is no one country can or should police anything in another country unless it impacts their national security and the UN is to corrupt to effectively police anything but their own political agenda's. The invasion of Iraq involved a coalition of over 35 different countries troops and the support of even more. If you can get together that kind of support for one of your other causes then by all means something can get done. If not what country can go it alone? The US? I fear that many European countries believe just that and are expecting the US to do it for them so they can sit cozy on their little self righteous pedestals.

I think it's a stance the USA adopted themselves. And spreading freedom and democracy around the world has been one of the big American things to do hasn't it?
They probably acquired a taste for it since WW2.

Arrianna said almost exactly the point I was tryin' ta get at. The U.S. is strechin' itself too thin, politically and militarily. We can not cure the ailes of the world, only do what we can. And that's part of the problem, we try ta do what we can'. Yet I think that our govt. is realizin' that we have limitations, this; in my opinion; is one of the reasons why they target countries that will benefit not only the country in ques.; but also the U.S. 'Cause the U.S. is the world's superpower, it is in a "d@mned if u do, d@mned if u don'" situation. This is 'cause of its position as the "world's superpower" many countries look ta it for guidance, protection, and leadership. Many, includin' americans themselves, don' understand that our country's in a very strained situation, it's like a balancin' act on the edge of a knife. Yes, we went inta Iraq for other reasons besides jus' moral, unfortunately; wars cost money. I'm not tryin' ta defend or condemn the Iraqi war, I'm jus' sayin' that there's more that goes inta a war other than jus' political and/or moral. And 'cause the U.S. is the "world's superpower," all eyes r on us. People, even here in the U.S., r quick ta judge any decisions made, mankind is quick ta knock off any1 that they put on a pedestal.

Originally Posted by Hassun

I think it's a stance the USA adopted themselves. And spreading freedom and democracy around the world has been one of the big American things to do hasn't it?

Because helping people to decide their own government and future is so horrible?

The thing about "Democracy" is that it cannot be imposed. If people aren't willing to stand up for themselves and rule themselves you cannot make them. Maybe when you become ruler of the world that will change.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Because helping people to decide their own government and future is so horrible?

The thing about "Democracy" is that it cannot be imposed. If people aren't willing to stand up for themselves and rule themselves you cannot make them. Maybe when you become ruler of the world that will change.

'Helping' and 'World Police' often lay very close to each other. And of course they sure as hell don't help just because they think it's righteous. Nothing for free.

And me the ruler of the world? Goodbye world.

Originally Posted by Arrianna

Because helping people to decide their own government and future is so horrible?

The thing about "Democracy" is that it cannot be imposed. If people aren't willing to stand up for themselves and rule themselves you cannot make them. Maybe when you become ruler of the world that will change.

Then why have we failed to act on Myanmar? Apparently people care enough about having their own democracy to march in the streets in front of soldiers who are shooting them.

I would argue that our ideals of "helping others" are really just a cover to justify "helping ourselves". There is nothing we want in Myanmar: so it isn't worth the trouble.

Originally Posted by tsurara

Then why have we failed to act on Myanmar? Apparently people care enough about having their own democracy to march in the streets in front of soldiers who are shooting them.

Ok, so WHO exactly do you want to do something and WHAT exactly do you want them to do?