Kenya in Crisis

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Speak for yourself, tw.

I requoted our extremists who see no profit in going there. Why is Brianna defending those whose underlying political agenda is based in hate and violence?

Meanwhile, moderates will recognize Kenya as a country undergoing some turmoil. This is far from Rwanda and Brunei deja vue. At least not yet. Counter productive would be other nations interfering at this point. If Kenyans solve this problem, then 50 burned victims in a church could become memorialized as what happens when extremists are permitted to exercise their usual solutions to everything - violence.

Kenyans and only Kenyans currently are our best hope for a lasting solution here. Kenyans must be permitted time to solve their own problems. If major actions are required as became necessary in the Balkans, then such actions will require the UN - in direct contradiction to those who just reposted Rush Limbaugh extremist rhetoric.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

What he means is no oil available - therefore let them burn. We hate them because they have nothing for us.

Bosnia is the perfect example of how diplomacy works and how problems should be solved. The wacko extremists among us will deny this only because they hate Clinton and Clinton showed how problems can be solved. Clinton did it right; therefore it must be wrong – the Rush Limbaugh diatribe. Use political rhetoric rather than reality to determine what to do (and then blame the UN).

Shame is that Kenya only ten years ago was a model of African stability. A nation of warm relations to and a strong attachment to America. What has changed? According to TheMercenary, we don't care. They don't have anything we need. Therefore they are scumbags who should be left to rot on their own. Amzing the contempt TheMercenary has for one of America’s closest friends.

TheMercenary has advocated hate - the real agenda of politics that even blame the UN for all world problems.

The Unibomber tw resurfaces...

[piercehawkeye45]

I see the problem as forcing two nationalistic ethnic groups in the same political state.

I have two questions. First, what can we realistically do? Second, if we did stop the genocide, would we really have solved anything?

If we do stop the killings, we are not getting rid of the conditions that led to the killings, so by just stop killings, we are just pushing back the genocide to a later date where it will probably just be even worse. Big catch 22.

It’s a great pity.

I was hitch-hiking through Africa in the late 70’s and Kenya was one of the true gems of East Africa. In Nairobi an aged, white man (a remnant of the colonial times) gave me a lift in his Wolseley. He told me that he hoped he’d be dead “before the old man” (Kenyatta) because he figured that Kenyatta was the only thing standing between sanity and chaos. Maybe he was right.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

My sampling of Kenya's vibe in mid 1985 told me President Daniel Arap Moi was running an undemocracy -- a mildly critical remark about him from me netted me a very white-eyed nervous look from a concierge. That sort of thing cropping up in casual public conversation is not a good sign. English-language papers ran great numbers of articles of an officialese flavor, all Arap Moi, all the time, most of the front page, as if this paper were some party organ. Another bad sign.

Cutting genocidal groups off at the ankle strikes me as more of a deterrent than Pierce is willing to credit it being: "they started doing that and the whole bunch of them got thrown in jail/shot/fixed." This tends to take the fuze out of the powderkeg, whether or not it removes the keg. At worst, it buys time to address the more tractable of the root conditions necessary for genocides, particularly an imbalance of firepower -- the easiest side of the genocide triangle to eliminate. There is nothing in particular about genocide that makes delaying it conducive to anything demonstrably more severe that I've ever heard of.

Tw is far too willing to say "We hate..." -- it's more illustrative of tw's own cast of thought than of anyone else's, singular or collective. Maladroit. Bosnia really wasn't a perfect example of anything well done, what with its ethnic cleansing and suchlike diversions. We should not be expected by anyone (sane) to give it a top grade because a Democratic President had to deal with it. That would be blatant prejudice.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...a mildly critical remark about him from me netted me a very white-eyed nervous look from a concierge.

Freudian slip?


(hee hee!)

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Brianna

Freudian slip?


(hee hee!)

You're kidding, Bri.

There was white showing all the way around the iris, and nervous glances to either side to check on who might be listening. Fortunately, the lobby was empty but for us two.

[piercehawkeye45]

But who is going to throw them in jail? The United States? The United Nations? I don't know if that is even possible and then you have to deal with the aftereffects of us coming in there.

And that wouldn't take out the fuze, it would just stop it from burning.

[piercehawkeye45]

Bush doesn't care about Brown people either, just that they are more important politically.

[classicman]

Since YOU brought it up - Yes tw, I will take your diparaging tone as an affront. I have read hundreds of your posts from years back to the present. You write with a pompous tone. Whether that is intended or not - that is your deficiency. I am not the only one to see it, I am just more vocal about it. We all have things to work on to improve ourselves in life. Perhaps this could be yours.

As to the real discussion. Yes I have read both your posts in this thread very carefully. I am well aware of your different opinions. That is why I found it interesting that BOTH OF YOU came to the same conclusion through very different thought processes.
Amazing actually that the two of you both think we should stay out of there and let them figure it out for themselves.
There is a lot of irony in your last post - guess you didn't read mine well enough.

Originally Posted by classicman

..... you ..... think we should stay out of there and let them figure it out for themselves.

I wouldn't have the slightest doubt (if such reports were to come to light) that the American CIA are responisible for the whole problem from the very beginning. Implementing political unrest (in another country) would be keeping in true form with standard CIA procedure if such unrest might lead to increased American influence and (ultimately) American control.

The British Empire relied on "Divide and Rule" tactics. The Americans rely on "Destroy and Reconstruct".

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Aretha's doctor

I wouldn't have the slightest doubt (if such reports were to come to light) that the American CIA are responisible for the whole problem from the very beginning. Implementing political unrest (in another country) would be keeping in true form with standard CIA procedure if such unrest might lead to increased American influence and (ultimately) American control.

The British Empire relied on "Divide and Rule" tactics. The Americans rely on "Destroy and Reconstruct".

Everything is America's fault - as usual.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by classicman

Everything is America's fault - as usual.

Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.

And you think I'm joking...

But seriously, we have fucked up many countries.

Originally Posted by William Blum

“Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes... In the process, the U.S. caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.” (Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blum#Quotations

[ZenGum]

And on a similar note, some folks claim that the rise of LSD was due to the CIA using it to distract the anti-war movement:

In the book Acid Dreams, authors Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain explore the way drugs destroyed the focus of the anti-war movement, pointing to links between major drug-dealers and the Central Intelligence Agency.

(Mentioned in passing here.)

Given some of the things the CIA did do, I wouldn't rule out anything.
I'd love to work for the CIA. You get to do all sorts of crazy shit.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Nope, just problems that have occurred after 1945.

You're not far from the truth. Considering most of what's happened since then I must admit that I have similar thoughts.

One incident that's still a question mark for me though is Korea. I'm inclined to believe that the Americans were "the good guys" there but I'm afraid to say it out loud for fear of getting a ton of agro from those who are more "in the know" than I am. What's your opinion?