In Congo, 1,000 die per day: Why isn't it a media story?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
canucker @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:23 am
What's the big deal... 
Scape @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:09 am
Well I find "The US should bail out the world even though all they get is flak" is a passive defense for the US foreign policy. IE a red herring to throw a monkey wrench into discourse thus outing anyone who would suggest a course of action as 'anti-American'. No Lily your not doing that but the subject of the discussion was pushed from 'why is the Congo being ignored' to 'why is the US ignoring the Congo' Now the reason why I singled out Lily was to ferret this out so to be able to focus exclusively upon the idea of why the issue itself (millions dead and nothing done) is being given a pass and being seen as ok. It's not 'ok' or even remotely close.
Now do I habour ire towards Lily? No, but I do have ire for those who would use the cover from the camouflage from deflecting the issue at hand and making it another American bashing fest and then erecting straw men arguments to justify extreme hawkish positions.
I want to focus on 2 issues 1) why is the INTERNATIONAL media giving Congo a pass and 2) what can/should Canada do? I wish to excluded the US from the discussion as it detracts from the issue. True for the sake of argument I may be ignoring a huge elephant in the room but I really want to understand why this is being given a pass even here in Canada.
hwacker @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:33 am
Scape Scape:
Well I find "The US should bail out the world even though all they get is flak" is a passive defense for the US foreign policy. IE a red herring to throw a monkey wrench into discourse thus outing anyone who would suggest a course of action as 'anti-American'. No Lily your not doing that but the subject of the discussion was pushed from 'why is the Congo being ignored' to 'why is the US ignoring the Congo' Now the reason why I singled out Lily was to ferret this out so to be able to focus exclusively upon the idea of why the issue itself (millions dead and nothing done) is being given a pass and being seen as ok. It's not 'ok' or even remotely close.
Now do I habour ire towards Lily? No, but I do have ire for those who would use the cover from the camouflage from deflecting the issue at hand and making it another American bashing fest and then erecting straw men arguments to justify extreme hawkish positions.
I want to focus on 2 issues 1) why is the INTERNATIONAL media giving Congo a pass and 2) what can/should Canada do? I wish to excluded the US from the discussion as it detracts from the issue. True for the sake of argument I may be ignoring a huge elephant in the room but I really want to understand why this is being given a pass even here in Canada.
Now do I habour ire towards Lily? No, but I do have ire for those who would use the cover from the camouflage from deflecting the issue at hand and making it another American bashing fest and then erecting straw men arguments to justify extreme hawkish positions.
I want to focus on 2 issues 1) why is the INTERNATIONAL media giving Congo a pass and 2) what can/should Canada do? I wish to excluded the US from the discussion as it detracts from the issue. True for the sake of argument I may be ignoring a huge elephant in the room but I really want to understand why this is being given a pass even here in Canada.
All I have to say is "WHERE IS THE UN"
The world has a body to deal with this, Canada is onboard with this group, where are they?
Martin stood up and embraced this group so what’s the problem.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:22 am
About 3,000-4,000 people per day die in the USA. Big deal.
Old age, cancer, auto accidents, crime, suicide, it all adds up.
Africa has problems and the best thing the West can do is leave them alone unless someone is willing to colonize and administrate their countries for them. This is a proven path to at least some kind of stability.
Witness the fact that Kenya and South Africa are the most stable African nations and that they are the two African nations who most closely emulate the United Kingdom who taught them good governmental traditions.
By the by, I do NOT want to see the USA doing this. Why reinvent the wheel? If the UK is successful at stabilising African nations the UN should just empower and finance UK control of problem nations like Congo.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:45 am
Also, I find it disingenuos for the same people who criticize the USA for invading Iraq to advocate that the USA invade African nations for humanitarian reasons. The net effect of the USA invading an African nation would be to unify the warring Africans against the invading Americans.
Thanks, but no thanks. Africans can do their dying and killing all on their own without help from the USA.
Scape @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:59 am
lily lily:
Scape Scape:
Now the reason why I singled out Lily was to ferret this out so to be able to focus exclusively upon the idea of why the issue itself (millions dead and nothing done) is being given a pass and being seen as ok. It's not 'ok' or even remotely close.
What does that have to do with me? How is singling me out going to accomplish that?
You put the onus on the US by saying why are we waiting for the US to do something. Thus the last 2 pages have been on just that.
lily lily:
scape scape:
Now do I habour ire towards Lily? No, but I do have ire for those who would use the cover from the camouflage from deflecting the issue at hand and making it another American bashing fest and then erecting straw men arguments to justify extreme hawkish positions.
Then I'll ask again - why did you single me out? I didn't bring the US into this, nor was I suggesting it was up to the US to do something, nor do I have an extreme hawkish position. The excuses you've given for naming me specifically don't apply to me - so why choose me as your example?
As you can see from the responses generated from your inquiry you did indeed bring the US in to this. We can see the result: it's the same old tired argument. They don't want US soldiers to do the dying for Africans who can't get their act together. That is the camouflage for hawkish positions. In other words: we can do what we want but we don't have to clean up the mess because we can blame any number of things rather than take account that the exploitation of Africa is why it is so unstable in the 1st place.
So why is it that international media gives this a pass and what can Canada do about it? The UN has been suggested but as the Bolton appointment has shown (And he will be appointed via a recess appointment) the US wants to cut the funding to the UN in half and make the UN an extension of US foreign policy. So saying that is Canada's best option to do something for the Congo via the UN is disingenuous to say the least.
The situation in Africa is wildly out of control dwarfing the crisis of Rwanda, Somalia and Yugoslavia yet we are not there. This is inconsistent with the values of Canadians over the last 50 years. The reason why there has been no reaction is nobody knows about it. I am asking why don't we (who's responsibility was it to inform the public of such crisis and give it the profile it demands) and what can Canada do about it given that we are hopelessly overstretched and under budget military that is disintegrating before our eyes from years of chronic underfunding? We can't lead a coalition there and the UK HAS been advocating for aid for Africa and received something like 640 million from the US for it when they asked 35 billion. The US is useless at this point we need to come up with a response that excludes them at this point.
Constantinople @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:17 pm
What's all the whining about? Whose thread hasn't been hijacked here before?
It's not like this is the first time...or the last.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:40 pm
Scape Scape:
the US wants to cut the funding to the UN in half
...unless the UN implements reforms that I'm sure you'd agree with. The USA is not dictating policy to the UN, but we are saying that if you want our money then you'd best expect us to demand accountability for it.
The UN does not have to accept our money. They can always kick us out for non-payment of dues and then they can move to Ottawa or Toronto.
You can have them.
Myself, I have long wanted the USA out of the UN. I especially felt this position was just when Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights. The other, rather simple issue to me, is that if the rest of the world wants to pass UN resolutions against the USA then let them. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when my tax dollars are paying for assholes from pisspot countries to make fun of my country on the floor of the UN.
Screw that. If the world hates the USA so much then the world can take the UN and move somewhere else to make their point.
Scape @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:59 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
...unless the UN implements reforms that I'm sure you'd agree with. The USA is not dictating policy to the UN, but we are saying that if you want our money then you'd best expect us to demand accountability for it.
This issue is he who pays the piper should also call the tune. The UN accountability is far more than the Pentagons at this point with cost overruns for projects running into the Trillions. Example the F-22 or the DD(X). Reforms that NO ONE in the US is demanding. The spending problems in the US are chronic and it is nothing more than corporate welfare disguised as defence spending.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:29 pm
The Pentagon covers up black budget items with cost overruns in other items. What may look like an obscene cost to you for the F-22 may simply be how the Pentagon is paying for Area 51 this year. Don't get too excited about Pentagon cost overruns.
But as far as the UN goes, the UN has been openly hostile to the US in a number of ways and the party in control of the USA right now is a bit sick of it. The reforms are a way of retaliating. Which I'm fine with.
The UN hates us but loves our money.
We're not going to play that shit anymore.
Constantinople @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:30 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The UN hates us but loves our money.
We're not going to play that shit anymore.
We're not going to play that shit anymore.
Damn straight.
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:38 pm
(Bart hijacks thread disclaimer)
So, Constantinople, what the hell happened to Indy?
Constantinople @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:41 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
(Bart hijacks thread disclaimer)
So, Constantinople, what the hell happened to Indy?
So, Constantinople, what the hell happened to Indy?
He knew others needed the chance to shine again.
Scape @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:46 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The Pentagon covers up black budget items with cost overruns in other items. What may look like an obscene cost to you for the F-22 may simply be how the Pentagon is paying for Area 51 this year. Don't get too excited about Pentagon cost overruns.
Trillion dollar cost overruns is a cheque the US can not afford to pay indefinitely and expect to stay on top. The military spending has no discipline and no one to say NO except for the economy that will tank from running in the red and creating mammoth deficits owed to China.
$1:
The Pentagon has more than 80 major new weapons systems under development, and critics say that's a lot more programs than it can afford. The combined cost of those systems, already $300 billion over budget, is a staggering $1.47 trillion and climbing.
Military officials routinely understate the anticipated costs of weapons, says Wheeler. "That $35 million wasn't even the whole cost back then... That was just what they called the 'flyaway costs.' It didn't include research and development... That's the behavior that is so common and typical it's standard behavior."
That 'standard behavior' is a practice known as 'plug and pray': "They plug how many they can buy with the amount of money they have," says David Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "Then they pray that they'll get more money in order to be able to buy more.
"The biggest problem is that someone will have a dream about something that we would like to be able to do," he adds. "Then we have a lot of problems that we end up working out later in the process. Which means it costs a lot more money."
Military officials routinely understate the anticipated costs of weapons, says Wheeler. "That $35 million wasn't even the whole cost back then... That was just what they called the 'flyaway costs.' It didn't include research and development... That's the behavior that is so common and typical it's standard behavior."
That 'standard behavior' is a practice known as 'plug and pray': "They plug how many they can buy with the amount of money they have," says David Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "Then they pray that they'll get more money in order to be able to buy more.
"The biggest problem is that someone will have a dream about something that we would like to be able to do," he adds. "Then we have a lot of problems that we end up working out later in the process. Which means it costs a lot more money."
A military without discipline is not a military and when it comes to spending my dog has better accounting skills. Compare that to the UN and the case for 'reform'. It is not a case to make the UN accountable at all. It is demanding how it will go about its various mandates and if the money isn't there, it can't do it. This is about control, something sorely lacking on the US side.
$1:
The system, says Wheeler, is out of control "because nobody is controlling it." From the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, to the Secretary of Defense, the members of the House and the Senate Arms Serves Committee to the Defense Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate - everyone has at least one finger in the pie.
Rationalization is in short supply in the US military.
Post script. So any answers to the original questions posed?
BartSimpson @ Mon Jun 20, 2005 2:11 pm
Scape Scape:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The Pentagon covers up black budget items with cost overruns in other items. What may look like an obscene cost to you for the F-22 may simply be how the Pentagon is paying for Area 51 this year. Don't get too excited about Pentagon cost overruns.
Trillion dollar cost overruns is a cheque the US can not afford to pay indefinitely and expect to stay on top. The military spending has no discipline and no one to say NO except for the economy that will tank from running in the red and creating mammoth deficits owed to China.
$1:
The Pentagon has more than 80 major new weapons systems under development, and critics say that's a lot more programs than it can afford. The combined cost of those systems, already $300 billion over budget, is a staggering $1.47 trillion and climbing.
Military officials routinely understate the anticipated costs of weapons, says Wheeler. "That $35 million wasn't even the whole cost back then... That was just what they called the 'flyaway costs.' It didn't include research and development... That's the behavior that is so common and typical it's standard behavior."
That 'standard behavior' is a practice known as 'plug and pray': "They plug how many they can buy with the amount of money they have," says David Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "Then they pray that they'll get more money in order to be able to buy more.
"The biggest problem is that someone will have a dream about something that we would like to be able to do," he adds. "Then we have a lot of problems that we end up working out later in the process. Which means it costs a lot more money."
Military officials routinely understate the anticipated costs of weapons, says Wheeler. "That $35 million wasn't even the whole cost back then... That was just what they called the 'flyaway costs.' It didn't include research and development... That's the behavior that is so common and typical it's standard behavior."
That 'standard behavior' is a practice known as 'plug and pray': "They plug how many they can buy with the amount of money they have," says David Walker, who runs the Government Accountability Office, the budget overseer for Congress. "Then they pray that they'll get more money in order to be able to buy more.
"The biggest problem is that someone will have a dream about something that we would like to be able to do," he adds. "Then we have a lot of problems that we end up working out later in the process. Which means it costs a lot more money."
A military without discipline is not a military and when it comes to spending my dog has better accounting skills. Compare that to the UN and the case for 'reform'. It is not a case to make the UN accountable at all. It is demanding how it will go about its various mandates and if the money isn't there, it can't do it. This is about control, something sorely lacking on the US side.
$1:
The system, says Wheeler, is out of control "because nobody is controlling it." From the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, to the Secretary of Defense, the members of the House and the Senate Arms Serves Committee to the Defense Appropriations Committee in the House and the Senate - everyone has at least one finger in the pie.
Rationalization is in short supply in the US military.Post script. So any answers to the original questions posed?
Again, when you factor into this equation that a myriad of secret bases and secret projects and secret missions are financed with these accounting irregularities you'll realize why the problem is never resolved.
Because it isn't a problem at all. It's just how things get done.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next