State sponsored crime

[Boerseun]

Thanks, Chacmool. Good idea.

 

Bringing it back to the US, and the topic for this thread:

 

If the US is enforcing what the UN is complaining about, because the UN isn't doing anything about enforcing its own resolutions, then what happened in Rwanda, pray tell? The US said they'll 'observe' as hundreds of thousands died when the Tutsis decided they had enough of the Hutus.

 

People were killed en masse, nazi-style, their only crime being their cultural identity. Genocide resulted.

 

For the US to be the 'Force of Good' in this crazy world, it needs to be consistent, in my mind. Now - the only difference between Rwanda and Iraq, was genocide on the one hand, and a country that ignored UN resolutions on the other. Oh yes - the other difference silently crying for attention in a dark and musty corner, is OIL... If the US only steps into the ring militarily in countries/regions/issues from which the US can profit, it creates a very dangerous precedent for any country with a pop gun and an attitude to go out there and take what it wants. But other countries can't do it, 'cause Uncle Sam might just get agitated with Country X invading Country Y if it feels that its interests might be threatened. So, little tinpot states better watch it, 'cause the US is watching.

 

Now - the $64,000 question:

 

Who, pray tell, is watching the Unites States?

 

We're not US-bashing, by all means. But checks and balances have never been a bad idea. Maybe the EU should start wearing the mantle as the US's equal. I just don't think they'll inflate their military that far.

[C1ay]

If the US is enforcing what the UN is complaining about, because the UN isn't doing anything about enforcing its own resolutions...

 

For the US to be the 'Force of Good' in this crazy world, it needs to be consistent, in my mind.

So what you're saying is, "If the US is going to enforce any resolutions why the UN sits on it's butt then the US needs to enforce all of them while everyone else sits on theirs butts", 'All or none' so to speak?

[Harzburgite]

Just fed up with how often the US gets cracked on around here. If we're not being bashed for doing something, we're being bashed for *not* doing something.

Tough. You want to be world leader; that's the price of entry. You can handle it the way Britain did in the 19th century (if the natives don't like it, send a biggeer gun boat), or you could try an updated approach - respect for the integrity of other cultures and viewpoints. As long as you pursue the former then people like me will be sniping from the sidelines. (Metaphorically in my case.)

[Boerseun]

So what you're saying is, "If the US is going to enforce any resolutions why the UN sits on it's butt then the US needs to enforce all of them while everyone else sits on theirs butts", 'All or none' so to speak?

In Korea, South Africa was already referred to as the ******* of the world.

 

Yet, SA sent in its troops in droves, to enforce UN decisions.

 

And so on.

 

The popular belief exists that if the UN does something, the US is paying.

 

Which is true, in a large amount - because countries pay their dues to the UN according to their budgets.

 

Which means, that whenever there's a conflict that the UN tries to resolve, the US will pay the biggest toll in terms of $$$'s.

 

I think maybe you should go and check who else dies side by side with your heroic boys before stating things like 'everyone else sits on their butts'.

 

SA fought in Korea. I wasn't around at the time, but I wouldn't have automatically supported it just because they're 'my guys'. I would've looked at the issue objectively, and then judged.

 

Once again, coming back to the topic, go and read up on your country's involvement in the Angolan war. Then we'll talk about 'State Sponsored Crime' again.

[C1ay]

I think maybe you should go and check who else dies side by side with your heroic boys before stating things like 'everyone else sits on their butts'.

You and I both know theirs plenty of people sitting on their butts doing nothing but complaining.

 

You mentioned the US did nothing in Rwanda. The US is busy right now. Tell me what SA, France, Germany, Russia, China has done to clear up the problems in Rwanda. Can't someone else chip in around the world?

 

There's plenty of things for the UN to do that never gets done. Why should anyone complain about the US picking one or two out of the to-do jar unless they've got their hand in the to-do jar as well?

[Boerseun]

You and I both know theirs plenty of people sitting on their butts doing nothing but complaining.

 

You mentioned the US did nothing in Rwanda. The US is busy right now. Tell me what SA, France, Germany, Russia, China has done to clear up the problems in Rwanda. Can't someone else chip in around the world?

 

There's plenty of things for the UN to do that never gets done. Why should anyone complain about the US picking one or two out of the to-do jar unless they've got their hand in the to-do jar as well?

The problems in Rwanda have been sorted out for quite a while, now. However, coming back to your question, one of the biggest foreign supporters of the genocide victims at the time of the troubles was, ironically, the French Foreign Legion, funny as it may seem at first. And no, Snoopy isn't the only member of the FFL. While the US had impartial 'observers' observing the genocide, the FFL made its hands dirty keeping the killers away from its charges.

 

C1ay, I agree with you that there's a lot for the UN to do.

 

However, the UN is built around the idea of concensus amongst countries.

 

And you shouldn't assume that I agree with you that there's a lot of people sitting doing nothing but 'complaining' - I agree - that might be the impression being created by a lot of people, but have you actually considered that they're not necessarily complaining as such, but simply just not agreeing with you?

 

There's a world of difference there.

[C1ay]

However, the UN is built around the idea of concensus amongst countries.

Well that would be nice if it worked that way. How does it work when the majority decides Iran should be referred to the Security Council for it's nuclear program and China says "whoa there, we're going to veto that."? That doesn't sound like there's ever going to be a concensus as long as someone says they're just going to veto it.

 

Iraq was the same way. After 80 resolutions the UN was getting nowhere and they never would even have a chance since all efforts to crack down were threatened by vetoes from France, Germany, Russia or all three. Now we find out after the fact that France and Russia were actually making out quite well on Iraq's sanctions. They had a financial incentive to veto and no conscience to do the right thing for the Iraqi people. That probably brings things right on topic with some bonafide state sponsored crime.

[Chacmool]

Come on, guys, we're straying off the topic again.

[Chacmool]

Although it might not exactly be state sponsored, I wonder if high crime rates are not at least tolerated by some states. Just think of all the money goverments rake in when it comes to the taxes paid on replacing stolen goods.

[C1ay]

Come on, guys, we're straying off the topic again.

How so? China has threatened to use it's veto power to protect Iran from being challenged on violations to nuclear regulations. How would that not be state sponsored crime?

 

France threatened to use it's veto on issues regarding Iraq and later we found it was reaping profits from assisting Iraq in violating it's UN sanctions through the Oil-For-Food program. How is that not state sponsored crime?

[Biochemist]

Come on, guys, we're straying off the topic again.

Are you saying that France and Russia accepting bribes in exchagne for a Security Council vote is not state sponsored crime?

[infamous]

Now we find out after the fact that France and Russia were actually making out quite well on Iraq's sanctions. They had a financial incentive to veto and no conscience to do the right thing for the Iraqi people. That probably brings things right on topic with some bonafide state sponsored crime.

Truly C1ay, talk about protecting your national interests. I believe that was brought up earlier in this thread. If America's military action, taken after numerous failed UN resolutions can be considered a state sponsored crime, what term are we going to use to define the French and Russian governments actions, that are in reality, acts against the Iraqi people.

[bumab]

I too have been curious about these bribes. I must admit I've only heard the story from an American perspective at this point (some bias, perhaps?), and to this point, it certainly qualifies as state crime.

 

In the origional spirit of the thread- were the average French and Russian citzens aware, complict, or responsible for such acts?

[Qfwfq]

were the average French and Russian citzens aware, complict, or responsible for such acts?

I strongly doubt it.

[bumab]

Me too.

[Boerseun]

I am disappointed in US citizens here unwilling to discuss, objectively, the possibility that the US might not be as virginal in state sponsored crime as they would wish to believe. It seems that whenever a finger is pointed, the argument is countered with a "Yes, but what about country X, Y or Z", completely dodging the US's culpability in any matter raised.

 

Therefore, I propose that we turn the discussion away from modern politics where tempers will fly, towards more historical situations to judge how easy a country/state can take a bite from the apple and fall from grace.

 

For instance: The Allies did win the second World War. Hitler was completely evil. About Hitler there seems to be no doubt, but that's the premise. If you want to extoll on ole' Adolf's virtues, please feel free to do it - just open a new thread. I don't want this thread to be sidetracked with it. Now - here's the question. Was everything the Allies did justified? Hitler was evil, but did that justify the fire-bombing of Dresden? By the end of the war, the Japanese were fighting a defensive war, did that justify nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki - or was there another reason the US bombed them, to show the international world that the US was an irresistable force? If that was the case, what's the moral implications for Uncle Sam? Did 80,000 Japanese pay the price of the US impressing the world? Did it actually have anything to do with the war? Oh heck - I'm not planning on US-bashing, I'm asking an objective question here.

[Qfwfq]

I am disappointed in US citizens here unwilling to discuss, objectively, the possibility that the US might not be as virginal in state sponsored crime as they would wish to believe. It seems that whenever a finger is pointed, the argument is countered with a "Yes, but what about country X, Y or Z", completely dodging the US's culpability in any matter raised.

Quite right. Fortunately, not every US citizen.

 

If you want to extoll on ole' Adolf's virtues, please feel free to do it

Which virtues?

 

Was everything the Allies did justified? Hitler was evil, but did that justify the fire-bombing of Dresden?

Nope, and nope.

 

Did 80,000 Japanese pay the price of the US impressing the world?

No. A bit more than 80,000. It was about that many dead immediately in each of those two towns and many more on their way.

 

Did it actually have anything to do with the war?

Of course not. After they spent all that money on it, they weren't in time to use it on Hitler. Aren't you gonna let them try it out on someone else?