Why not save the children?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by lafever, Aug 27, 2011.

  1. lafever

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,179
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    When is NATO going to go into countries like Somalia and save the children? Is a living being not enough reason to intervene, or does there have to be oil or something of value? But wait, aren't countries like Somalia rich in uranium and oil, so why does the genocide continue?
    When did saving children from militant dictators who starve children in mass genocide not become a priority?

    http://www.indexmundi.com/somalia/natural_resources.html

    http://articles.janes.com/articles/...t-North-Africa/Natural-resources-Somalia.html
     
    #1 lafever, Aug 27, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2011
  2. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    There's nothing in Somalia. They are almost too poor to have dirt. I would guess they are likely the poorest country in the world, and definitely don't have the infrastructure of, say, Bangladesh, where they are poor, but cooperate.
    I think where we lost caring about helpless kids was somewhere in the three or four wars we are fighting. I think Americans are good people, just a little resource pinched at the moment. I know those eyes on the Somali kids haunt me to death, but I am in the process of filing for bankruptcy. I think there are millions of men and women just like me in this country, who have hearts, but have gone belly up.
    I think their conditions are the worst in the world, and moreso lately. Women walk a hundred miles with their kids for food, just to get turned away, or abused. It sounds like hell on Earth.
    You have a big heart, lafever.
     
  3. lafever

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,179
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    Quote from an August 23rd, 2011 article by CNN's Ken Menkaus
    How to end Somalia's famine and Weaken the Insurgents

    "In 2009 al Shabab banned almost all international aid agencies, claiming that they were western spies and that their food assistance was a conspiracy to drive Somalia farmers out of business.
    The group not only prevented aid distribution but also forbade famine victoms from fleeing to Kenya, even going so far as to deny the existance of a famine."

    -Ken Menkaus, Professor of Political Science at Davidson College.​
     
    #3 lafever, Aug 28, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2011
  4. lafever

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,179
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    U.S.
    According to the CIA World Factbook they have more valuable natural resources than Bangladesh, check it out for yourself.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2111.html
     
  5. B_enzia35

    B_enzia35 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    We send a lot of aid in food over there. Where does it go? Warlords' hands.

    They fix their shit first, then we wouldn't have to.
     
  6. Patchos

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Australia
    Won't somebody think of the children???
     
  7. I23

    I23 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess NATO isn't going to be doing very many extracurricular activities like Somalia and other basket case countries for quite a while, if ever...

    You've got to remember that NATO only has the forces its member states want to allow it for a certain campaign, and its member states are already contributing forces for Afghanistan, Libya, and other operations, and many also did for Iraq, which didn't leave a good aftertaste in the mouthes of many of their publics or the politicians those publics elect... NATO was also pretty much put together for defending Western Europe back in the Cold War and whilst that's not so relevant now, you've got to remember a lot of it's new, more Easterly member states still joined for what it used to be, not necessarily to get involved in military expeditions on other continents. The ability to compel them to put up troops and resources for this may not be there (I'm a bit rusty on current NATO roles and the agreements in place).

    The US and the UK in particular have enough on their plate with Afghan when you consider you generally need 3 times the number of troops you want to deploy, to deploy that number sustainably over a time period of years. Other small nations might not have as many troops in theatre but they have smaller armed forces with smaller budgets and in many cases more public opinion against the war. Everyone is in the middle of this economic sh1tstorm, Germany has significant constitutional limitations on how just how warlike it's forces can actually be, many in the US probably would object to becoming involved again given what happened in Somalia in 1993, any UK or French involvement would probably be accused of neocolonialism due to their histories in Africa, and I don't see much enthusiasm in anyone's population for getting involved in yet another war in yet another far off land.

    Even if something did happen, we would have to be very sure of making it happen fast. We couldn't afford it to be another Iraq or Afghan going on now for an indefinite number of years, not with our other commitments right now. If we could guarantee it would all be done and dusted in a few months, maybe. But you can never guarantee that. Remember that Afghan, Iraq and Libya were all supposed to be done and dusted in short order, and the locals were supposed to be welcoming coalition troops with open arms for freeing them of the last bosses of those places. How did that work out for us?

    If I could see any organisation taking some action it might be the UN. The EU, although it now has a military remit, hasn't exactly used it much, and the EU's forces are by and large the same national forces that NATO would have had to call on. Except without the help of, crucially, the US. Maybe the UN could pull something together given that they have a lot of different member states (I'm thinking Russia and China as the big boys) but I'm not sure the West really wants Chinese boots on the ground in Africa given the intense Chinese investment already in that continent, and I'm not sure that Russia, China and others would even be up for it. Why should they be? Operating under a UN mandate also drastically limits what those forces can and cannot do, think more peacekeeping, observe and report rather than warfighting against the warlords there. Remember Srebrenica?

    Yes it sucks (understatement of the century I'll admit) and it needs to be sorted, but with everyone in the situation they are in, unfortunately I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I think the likely best we can hope for is a sort-of-Libya scenario there where the population of Somalia realises they do not want to live this way anymore and rise up against the warlords, hopefully with help from us in a few select areas, but given how Libya has dragged on and a lack of certainty about what sort of new direction the 'Arab Spring' countries will collectively take and what it means for the West, I wouldn't hold my breath even for this.
     
  8. dandelion

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    7,868
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    Verified:
    Photo
    If you look at history about the only people interested in invading a country because of its people were those who operated slavery and intended using the people captured as slaves. The Germans in ww2 liberated several countries with German speaking populations so they could become part of Germany again. Various other groups were sent as forced labour, or if particularly disliked, exterminated. The most frequent thing to happen when one country intervenes in another is that the people will be exploited or ill treated even more than before.

    As a further generality, the one thing people dislike even more than being oppressed by their own leaders is being exploited, or even ruled benevolently, by some outsider. If, for example, the US now suddenly gets interested in Libya and interferes to set up the government it prefers, you can be sure it will lead to trouble in the future.

    When it comes down to it, do you think your son should be sent off to a foreign country to be shot so that someone elses son MAY have a better life?

    As you say, if there was lots of money or oil or whatever which could be stolen, then again history confirms that governments will happily overlook the question of how many of our own children will die to capture it. In international politics life is very cheap indeed. This is invariably the rule throughout history.
     
  9. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is such a thing as the African Union you know, with it's own military force.

    It's about time African leaders stopped behaving like a children & sorted out their own mess.

    This is their problem - their growing pains.

    The West has supported Africa with food & medical aid to such an extent that its population has doubled to a billion in 27 years, & quintupled in 60!

    If you want to save the children in Africa- stop them having so many kids. There'll be 1.9 billion in 2050
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8366591.stm

    Don't tell me things won't get worse with even more people, & a predominantly teenage population with no work, no future, & with even more limited access to food & water resources.

    All those wars & famines or even AIDS don't make a difference to the population growth, which is at least part of the reason for their problems.
     
    #9 B_crackoff, Aug 28, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2011
  10. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,916
    Likes Received:
    638
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    Do you want to fight and perhaps die in Somalia? Do you want to be conscripted? Do you want to pay higher taxes forevermore? Somalia would need a massive occupying force for decades and enormous investment. And why stop at Somalia? Many countries in the world are pretty dire and children are dying.

    Libya has been a rare example of a limited intervention with UN legitimacy which appears to have achieved its goal. I'm in favour of doing what we can do and will work.
     
  11. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    We tried intervening in Somalia before: remember how that went?
     
  12. Horrible

    Horrible New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    438
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    THIS.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted