Paper tigers and terrorist paupers

[TMA_1]

I am just wondering.

Have any of you noticed the selection of enemies we attack? Obviously there are some that demand to be taken to justice, like with the twin tower attacks. Others though are done from my point of view political reasons. Look at Albania for example; the muslim Albanians were attacked by the Christian serbs because of the long fighting between the two groups. Thousands were killed and there are still some skirmishes even now. How about Africa though? In the Congo, constant tribal warfare has decimated entire cultures, entire societies. Countries enhabiting central and northern Africa face muslim oppression and dictatiorship. Villages of Christian and Pegan peoples are slaughtered if they dont convert.

Look at south america, though we do try to help in unsubstancial ways, they havent ever changed. As soon as western influence was invited to central and south america, there has been a power struggle. Constant coups and assassinations occure, while the infighting and civil wars kill innocent bystandards.

Why is it that we focus so much on nations that dont suffer nearly as bad as others do? I am not saying that we shouldnt help nations with "smaller" problems, is just that we need to set priorities like in an emergancy room or out in the field of battle with medics. Not only do the western governments fail, but global entities as well. The U.N. has never really built up its power structure, N.A.T.O. does not involve itself outside certain portions of the world, and it seems that we are almost as defensively unhelpful as the League of Nations.

Whats worse, even civil organizations mess up. They select the information we wish to see, often what the government wants them to broadcast. You have entire news companies working not to give information to the people, but to earn money, period. There is no sense of earning money for a good cause.

I could go on and on with this, but does anybody agree here? I mean it is kinda sad to see these situations going on. This kind of stuff makes me wish we could accept a form of communal living.

[Anathema]

Yes, it's stupid to say the least that there was such a huff about Iraq while the situation in the Congo is so much worse. To me, it seems that human rights are rarely top priority or the primary reason for intervention and that they only enter the picture when we intervene for another reason, like in Iraq.

And I agree about what you said about the media. I think governments should put more fund into public channels or other forms of media so that money is no longer a reason to withhold information.

[TMA_1]

exactly. Though the government could be a danger for controlling the media, and could bring bias into it, I think that money is an even worse medium for bringing in personal and socio-economical dispositions into a strictly independant arena.

[Sardauker-Kirov]

In Congo, the military sometimes kills people for no reason.

If someone runs for example, some of the soldiers will either beat him to death or fire a bullet right through the guy's body.

And that ain't no lie, I've seen a video clip of it.

A few Congo soldiers was beating up a guy with the back of the rifle, the guy's head was smashed to a pulp.

When they walked away, the people just laughed like the guy was a insect of some sort.

It's really sick....

[nemafakei]

And by 'we', are you referring to mostly the US, or all western countries (or leaving it open...)?

Hm. Have you noticed the correlation between moustaches and distrust by the US? Few US presidents in recent times have had them, most enemies have.

[TMA_1]

hehe, better not grow one, Ill just grow a beard. lol

anyways sorry for that, should have made it clearer. I meant the western world in general. sorry about that.

[nemafakei]

A major complaint I have is the problem that aid money and resources is not co-ordinated fully between charities: it is not focused for greatest effect. That is to say that we keep people in poor countries just a bit more than barely alive, but do not target a major upheval of any one place at a time, so that that place can start creating aid for others. And aid most often goes tothe most high-profile cases, rather than where it is most badly needed. For example, monetary aid received by certain charities for Iraq (a country occupied by forces which (if properly thought about, should have) restored facilities and so on pretty quickly) would have served to vastly improve a whole region.

And military intervention is used in places where needed little, and not where profit is not high: example being the starvation of Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and (it seems) chaos in the Congo (though Iknow little detail of recent happenings)

[Digital Guerrilla]

And aid most often goes to the most high-profile cases, rather than where it is most badly needed. For example, monetary aid received by certain charities for Iraq (a country occupied by forces which (if properly thought about, should have) restored facilities and so on pretty quickly) would have served to vastly improve a whole region.

Nema you are one of the few people I have heard express this insightful unbias view.