-
Posts
-
@forumhostpb wrote:
To be entirely fair … there are few pensioners who are forced to make that choice these days – although it makes a good story.
Compare that with your average African country where the general populace doesn’t have a choice to make, They just starve to death or alternatively AIDS/HIV gets them. Of course it’s most important that the leaders have their fleets of limousines and bodyguards, their palaces, their state banquets every day …. oh and I nearly forgot – their hand made suits from Gieves & Hawkes.
Oh and yes Bat – Saddam Hussein really did feed people (or preside over it being done by his son Uday hHussein) into shredders whilst the next in line watched and waited their turn.
Mind you that is the Hi-Tech method. In African countries, they get a man to smash in the skull of another with a club and then a third one smashes in the skull of the second and so on until they are all dead.
Yes I know … what about the last man. He is either shot – or goes first the next day.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were making a bloody good case for military intervention by the ‘civilised world.’
Not really Esme. Look, if other countries choose (over time) to run themselves in a particular way …. then that’s their business – not ours. Nor is it anybody elses.
I say that with the caveat that they don’t pose a threat to our country, either in economic terms or in military terms.
In the case of the majority of African countries, they have run themselves along tribal lines for hundreds of years. We may turn up our liberal noses and tut tut over our cups of Lapsong Souchong tea at the thought of it ….. but it is their country and their choice – not ours.
For them it is quite ‘normal’ for starvation and disease to cut swathes through the population. The so-called leaders don’t give a damn (particularly if those starving are not from their tribe). Military invasion??? Forget it. Economic sanctions.??? So you punish the ‘people’ in order to assuage liberal Western conciences. I don’t think so.
Let them get on with it. Thousands will starve to death or die of disease. The survivors will carry on and a new tribal leader will emerge and the cycle will start all over again.
Dont you think people born in privaliged parts of the World should be trying their best in some way at some level to help these “savages” grow out of these ways eventually though.
I dunno if people can just wash their hands and say fuc/k it let em get on with It’s none of our buisness.
@Bad Manners wrote:
Dont you think people born in privaliged parts of the World should be trying their best in some way at some level to help these “savages” grow out of these ways eventually though.
I dunno if people can just wash their hands and say fuc/k it let em get on with It’s none of our buisness.
Well therein lies the rub. I don’t see them as ‘savages’ – simply people with totally and entirely different values to those that we call ‘civilised’.
Seen through their eyes, we probably appear ‘savages’ what with our so-called Western culture of drug taking, public drunkeness, promiscuity, complete lack of family (tribal???) values. We have adapted to a high pressure way of life where nothing has any real value and everything is either materialistic or transient.
In the West we seem to always want to be interfering in the affairs of other countries that we look down on. I guess that this is the legacy of liberal thinking.
Bottom line is that whatever well meaning do gooders try to achieve, it will – as always in Africa – come to nothing. Life (or death) for them will go on quite irrespective of our interference.
Despite my name and as unpolitical as i am, my opinion from a mere occasional news watcher, i agree we should let them live their lives how they choose and concentrate on our own country and its problems, we dont have the right to dictate how they should choose to live their lives, but that said someone should take Mugabe out first, then let em get on with it lol, war !! ? nope just a single sniper will do. Hopefully then Morgan Tsvangirai can get voted in and do a better job.
OK so you murder Mugabi – not very liberal BTW – and another despot springs into place. All that happens is that a leader from a different tribe takes over to the total benefit iof HIS tribesmen. The corruption, starvation, and disease will still go on …. except that it is a different tribe that will be on the wrong end of it all.
This has always been the problem with Western liberal thinking … somehow we think that we know best what is good for African countries. We just can’t seem to understand that life is so cheap there. The tribal leadrs don’t care if thousands (if not millions) die just as long as they remain in power and continue with their luxurious lifestyles.
@forumhostpb wrote:
Not really Esme. Look, if other countries choose (over time) to run themselves in a particular way …. then that’s their business – not ours. Nor is it anybody elses.
I say that with the caveat that they don’t pose a threat to our country, either in economic terms or in military terms.
In the case of the majority of African countries, they have run themselves along tribal lines for hundreds of years. We may turn up our liberal noses and tut tut over our cups of Lapsong Souchong tea at the thought of it ….. but it is their country and their choice – not ours.
For them it is quite ‘normal’ for starvation and disease to cut swathes through the population. The so-called leaders don’t give a damn (particularly if those starving are not from their tribe). Military invasion??? Forget it. Economic sanctions.??? So you punish the ‘people’ in order to assuage liberal Western conciences. I don’t think so.
Let them get on with it. Thousands will starve to death or die of disease. The survivors will carry on and a new tribal leader will emerge and the cycle will start all over again.
=D> =D> =D>
@forumhostpb wrote:
Not really Esme. Look, if other countries choose (over time) to run themselves in a particular way …. then that’s their business – not ours. Nor is it anybody elses.
The very attitude we should have adopted towards Iraq.
@forumhostpb wrote:
OK so you murder Mugabi – not very liberal BTW – and another despot springs into place. All that happens is that a leader from a different tribe takes over to the total benefit iof HIS tribesmen. The corruption, starvation, and disease will still go on …. except that it is a different tribe that will be on the wrong end of it all.
This has always been the problem with Western liberal thinking … somehow we think that we know best what is good for African countries. We just can’t seem to understand that life is so cheap there. The tribal leadrs don’t care if thousands (if not millions) die just as long as they remain in power and continue with their luxurious lifestyles.
Like i said i know feck all abt politics and am not overly interested in what goes on in other countries we have enough problems in this one, and maybe ur right another Mugabe will just replace him if we took him out but i just dont like the guy so it would satisfy my blood thirstyness to remove him from the planet lol, but i was maybe stupidly thinking another wouldnt be as bad as him perhaps im wrong in that assumption, and i never professed to liberalism lol
@esmeralda wrote:
@forumhostpb wrote:
Not really Esme. Look, if other countries choose (over time) to run themselves in a particular way …. then that’s their business – not ours. Nor is it anybody elses.
The very attitude we should have adopted towards Iraq.
Yes with the benefit of 20/20 hingsight maybe we should. But remember at the time Saddam Hussein was said to represent a major threat to ‘world peace’ what with his (alleged) WMD and in particular his control over a vast oil resource.
This represented at the time (or was SAID to represent) a major threat to Western economies. After all look at the short and long term damage that high oil prices are doing to us right now.
So we invade; we depose; we try; and we execute. Now we must reap the whirlwind.
There might possibly have been some vague justification for invading Iraq at the time, if only in terms of defending our economy etc. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever in taking military action against Rhodesia (Zimbabwe).
After all if despotic government and mass starvation of a populace was the criterion for action …. we’d be invading more countries than you could shake a stick at.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!