Sri Lanka's killing Fields

[Purple]

and USA, and UK and so on and so on, all have Rwandan blood on their hands.

Only is that they didn’t stop the French arming, financing and eventually even putting hundreds of troops on the ground to aid the genocide (before the “Operation Turquoise” fiasco that allowed the Hutu militia and Hutu Army to escape into Zaire and continue the fight, destabilise the region and plunge Zaire/Congo into the bloodiest war since the Second World War).

I don't know who the good guys are, because at one point the Taliban were the good guys, so was Bin Laden. As Sunny said there are no good guys.

We have a long tradition in Ireland of supporting violent extremist fundamentalists around the world who attack civilians (Che Guevara, Castro, Hamas, the PLO etc) so it’s somewhat surprising that more of us don’t still support the Taliban.

The USA doesn't get involved unless it serves their interests and they control NATO. Bosnia could have been stopped much earlier and without the attrocities, but the US didn't want to get involved (there was no pay off for them), but Europe couldn't react without a NATO agreement. So we had to sit by and watch genocide while Tony Blair had to beg Clinton to overrule his senior military team.

The EU didn’t want to get involved in Bosnia and Russia would have stopped any UN action by using its veto. The EU could have acted if it wanted to; the UK, France and Italy have the air power and means to do what was done by the Americans. As I’m sure you know the Pentagon don’t set policy in America and either does any other military team. Their function is to advise on and then implement the President’s policy (after approval by Congress).

No good guys, just misplaced good intentions from states who got their genocidal ethnic cleansing phases over and done with a century or less past, most of which just hand power over to the next genocidal maniac.

The sins of the fathers don’t live forever.

It's fatalism, but we can never really solve or prevent these situations. Our involvement will only every cause equal or worse unintentional consequences.

I completely disagree. Bosnia is a good example of what happens when it’s done right. Germany and Japan post Second World War are also good examples as is South Korea.

The one guaranteed thing all governments, democtratic and dictated know is that for all their military and police might, it is tiny in comparisson to the overall population. And if they stand up in unison, no political power can stop them.

The difference is that a democratic government is the people.

The west and its enemies has tried to fuel these, arm these, mobilise these and it has always come back to bite them, it has always led to further attrocities.

There are many examples of this but there are also many counter examples. Doing nothing is a cop-out so at the very least while we do nothing we should not criticise those that do something.

 

[Latrade]

I'm not sure where this is going, we started out in agreement but ended up disagreeing. I suppose my main point is the fatalist approach of any interference will make it worse.

Rwanda: USA standing by and doing nothing even in the face of slow obvious genocide speaks volumes. As the white knight it portrays itself as it could have stopped that immediately if it chose to. But there was nothing in it for them.

Bosnia: The UK led the charge in stopping Bosnia, but it was a NATO call for European affairs, not UN. That's why Europe wanted a European response army under Lisbon so that it could deal with another Bosnia without having to grovel to the US.

But what does it solve anyway? You can't drag a people along with some blue helmets and air strikes to change their misguided hatred of each other.

The point I made on the historical point of view wasn't so much judging these countries based on the sins of their fathers, but from the point of view that it took them years, decades, etc to work through and establish peace and to tollerate and to do so on their own.

Yes, these attrocities will occur and yes so will despotism, but we can't impose a system or values on a people who aren't ready for it, they have to get there by themselves in their own time. Eventually a generation will emerge that doesn't have the hang ups and views of their fathers and it will improve.

 

[Purple]

I suppose my main point is the fatalist approach of any interference will make it worse.

I disagree. Ham-fisted intervention will make it worse but if the populace needs help to free itself and can then manage its own affairs then it can and does work.

Rwanda: USA standing by and doing nothing even in the face of slow obvious genocide speaks volumes. As the white knight it portrays itself as it could have stopped that immediately if it chose to. But there was nothing in it for them.

I agree that the USA did nothing but it seems strange to single them out for criticism and not those who actively supported the genocide.

Bosnia: The UK led the charge in stopping Bosnia, but it was a NATO call for European affairs, not UN. That's why Europe wanted a European response army under Lisbon so that it could deal with another Bosnia without having to grovel to the US.

“Grovel” is a bit strong. There was nothing stopping EU states from forming a coalition to launch air strikes. In the end the USA footed the bill in monetary and manpower terms (as usual).

But what does it solve anyway? You can't drag a people along with some blue helmets and air strikes to change their misguided hatred of each other.

No, but you can drag them apart and put a line of steel between them.

The point I made on the historical point of view wasn't so much judging these countries based on the sins of their fathers, but from the point of view that it took them years, decades, etc to work through and establish peace and to tollerate and to do so on their own.

I agree. The notion of owing allegiance to a nation rather than a king or clan is a recent thing even in Europe.

Yes, these attrocities will occur and yes so will despotism, but we can't impose a system or values on a people who aren't ready for it, they have to get there by themselves in their own time.

The idea is to allow one group or nation who wish to live under those values from being attacked by internal or external forces who wish to stop them.

 

[Latrade]

Is it time for the pacifying "agree to disagree" statement? It's too easy for me to judge everything with the benefit of hindsight and point and say if we hadn't done that, or that, or even that, it'd be grand. But it does seem that no matter what we've done, it's always ended up with a just as bad situation.

But what I do know is that no one on any side of the political divide really seems to know the answer either. Right, Left, Secular, Religious, whatever, all their solutions, all their interventions, all their ideas have amounted to just more pain.

So it is tough to see or read about and not intervene, but just maybe that lack of action is ultimately for the greater good and long term peace and stability.

Besides, and only half joking, but the fastest route to peace is economic prosperity. Globalisation could do more for political stability and peace than any bomb or army we can send over.

 

[Sunny]

Besides, and only half joking, but the fastest route to peace is economic prosperity. Globalisation could do more for political stability and peace than any bomb or army we can send over.

True. McDonalds theory of war would prove that. Wonder is that still true.

 

[Purple]

Besides, and only half joking, but the fastest route to peace is economic prosperity. Globalisation could do more for political stability and peace than any bomb or army we can send over.

Totally agree. The flow of capital into China and India etc has done more for the have-not's than Communism ever could.