Guest American Woman Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Cheers, AW. I'm aware of the value of not having folks sleeping under the local bridge. But, these commercials often do make a point of showing the flies. Since you seem to confirm not all these folks are fly covered, it seems that you should be angry at them, not me, for lying. I'm just jaded by too much World over the years to care too much more seeing the results after 40+ years. Hey, DoP - good day to you. Fact is, I haven't confirmed that there are no flies - because there are. What I find derogatory is describing the people by that reality in the way that it's being done. I hardly think the commercials are so much "mak[ing] a point of showing the flies" as they are making a point of not getting rid of the flies. The flies are there. That's the reality. So if anything, the commercials are making a point of showing it the way it is. The "save the flies" comments, IMO, are disgusting. Again. If we can turn some of these children on to us - if we can be the ones who are there for them - then we benefit. It doesn't have to involve a humanitarian mindset to see that. Quote
carepov Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 My question would be how many of those legitimate refugees actualy come to Canada? I have nothing against helping refugees, the problem is when those that come to Canada by and large are not the once that need the most help. Good question, I will look it up and am sure it will make for a good discussion. I dont think there is a shortage of sympathy in our country or in the world in general, the problem is that most people do not turn smpathy in to action. The west in general is risk averse, for example a PK mission in Rwanda, the Hutu's knew that killing 10 Belgians would almsot certainly guarantee the withdrawal of the Belgian troops, the Belgians themselvs might have had sympathy but they like every other western nation determined that the lives of a few dozen of their soldiers was not a price they were willing to pay even if it meant saving the lives of over 800,000 thousand innocent men, women and children. People had sympathy but it didnt make a bit of difference. I 100 % disagree. The best word to describe the West's attitude towards the Tutsis was: apathy. I think that Romeo Dallaire would take my side of this debate. If we can get sympathy in to our international relations then we can make a change until then sympathy plays no part. To get sympathy into our international relations will take more sympathetic people - of course sympathy plays a part! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Sympathy cards say "I am sorry for your loss", not "I will die for you". Interventions by nations are driven by self interest, not sympathy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Sympathy cards say "I am sorry for your loss", not "I will die for you". Interventions by nations are driven by self interest, not sympathy. Sympathy cards are not comparable to actions. Certainly nations send out the equivalent to "sympathy cards," too - often with an accompanying donation after a catastrophe. So what, exactly, is your point - as individuals do sometimes risk death to help those in need? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Hey, DoP - good day to you. Fact is, I haven't confirmed that there are no flies - because there are. What I find derogatory is describing the people by that reality in the way that it's being done. I hardly think the commercials are so much "mak[ing] a point of showing the flies" as they are making a point of not getting rid of the flies. The flies are there. That's the reality. So if anything, the commercials are making a point of showing it the way it is. The "save the flies" comments, IMO, are disgusting. Again. If we can turn some of these children on to us - if we can be the ones who are there for them - then we benefit. It doesn't have to involve a humanitarian mindset to see that. There are more people than ever in Africa. Nation building by the West of any sort is viewed as colonialism by intervention. To some powerful groups that includes aid workers. Forces outside the West are usually the ones stopping progress from happening in these places. Not my not caring as much as thou. Desires from the West often fire the conflicts. Diamonds...rare earth metals, etc. Mass immigration of refugees only imports their problems...or in the case of Islam (an iconoclastic, supremacist, religious, political system set on ultimately taking over all) that the West (whatever that has become) tried to keep out for some historical reason. But, you knew that. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 29, 2012 Report Posted June 29, 2012 Sympathy cards are not comparable to actions. Certainly nations send out the equivalent to "sympathy cards," too - often with an accompanying donation after a catastrophe. So what, exactly, is your point - as individuals do sometimes risk death to help those in need? I guess what I'm saying or agreeing to is the idea that "sympathy" is not good enough for tangible action and change. One of the problems with sympathy is the paternal projection of values to a completely foreign culture and circumstance, as if "flies" were one of their principal concerns, when they are not. Hell, many of us are old enough to remember when living with flies was an accepted/tolerated part of life....in North America! Humanitarian aid makes for great photo ops and does help in the short term, but lasting improvement can only occur or be judged by local standards, not fat westerners with iPhones. Something as simple as a reliable supply of potable water goes a long way. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted June 30, 2012 Report Posted June 30, 2012 Case in point. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/29/somalia-canadian-aid-workers-kidnapped.html Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
carepov Posted June 30, 2012 Report Posted June 30, 2012 Case in point. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/29/somalia-canadian-aid-workers-kidnapped.html Case in point for what? What would you recommend to be done with these 500,000 people? Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 30, 2012 Report Posted June 30, 2012 Case in point for what? What would you recommend to be done with these 500,000 people? Nothing we can do, you want to help them we have to provide security before we can provide any form of aid. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
DogOnPorch Posted June 30, 2012 Report Posted June 30, 2012 (edited) Case in point for what? What would you recommend to be done with these 500,000 people? That aid workers are not safe as per my post. Re: people. Not siphon off what remaining talent that is left to our fair land for one. Why? What's your plan? Edited June 30, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
carepov Posted June 30, 2012 Report Posted June 30, 2012 Re: people. Not siphon off what remaining talent that is left to our fair land for one. This comment makes no sense to me. These people are refugees - they have already lost their homeland. Why? What's your plan? My plan is to first feel sorry for them then to feel superior to all of you that don't (joke). Seriously, I would like to acknowledge the good work being done by the aid agencies, I'm assuming mostly UN in this case, and help them do better. Improved security would obviously be a priority. In due process, I would like to see Canada resettle a fair share (roughly the same numbers that we admit now) of these people and welcome them. As much as it would be great to solve the root cause and prevent the refugee problem - I have no idea how. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 1, 2012 Report Posted July 1, 2012 Again, I agree but that was not my point. All I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." Do you agree? No, it takes more than a few shipments of food, and a truck load of cash to over come most of these problems. people suffering is a huge money generating bussiness, as large as the Military complex, make it un profitable then maybe you'll have a chance to make it just. Don't let those NGO fool you they may claim they are unprofitable organizations, goggle their top employees and find out what they are getting paid...even the UN has plenty of bad apples, Money drives this whole industry....it also attracts some very unsavoiry people....want to end world hunger find the will to gather the supplies up and deliver them directly to those that need them, at gun piont if you have to.....if you don't you will fail. The world does not have the stomach to confront these monsters with military force, we tried that in Somolia how'd that work out for us.... Also, of course a country can (and should) develop a will to act based on self-interest and humanitarian reasons. Name one that has. did we stay in somolia, to help millions from starving, what did we do in Rwanda.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
DogOnPorch Posted July 1, 2012 Report Posted July 1, 2012 This comment makes no sense to me. These people are refugees - they have already lost their homeland. Says you. My plan is to first feel sorry for them then to feel superior to all of you that don't (joke). Yup...I figured that part out. Seriously, I would like to acknowledge the good work being done by the aid agencies, I'm assuming mostly UN in this case, and help them do better. Improved security would obviously be a priority. In due process, I would like to see Canada resettle a fair share (roughly the same numbers that we admit now) of these people and welcome them. As much as it would be great to solve the root cause and prevent the refugee problem - I have no idea how. So are you providing the "improved security" or am I? Why do you want to bring people to Canada that are security issues in the first place? I'd prefer YOU move there and do all your good works there. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest American Woman Posted July 1, 2012 Report Posted July 1, 2012 ....I'd prefer YOU move there and do all your good works there. You do have a point, as the only way to improve the lot of the citizens of such countries is to 'improve' the country itself and/or educate and help the citizens within. My view has always been that the government could provide such service in the same way it does military service; participation voluntary. University incentives are used to join the military, why not have student loan forgiveness for such service as an incentive for university graduates who sign up in fields of their study? Quote
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 No, it takes more than a few shipments of food, and a truck load of cash to over come most of these problems. I agree and never said otherwise. people suffering is a huge money generating bussiness, as large as the Military complex... I call "bullshit"! Do you actually think that aid even comes close to $1,546,529,200,000 or 2.2% of global GDP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures make it un profitable then maybe you'll have a chance to make it just. Don't let those NGO fool you they may claim they are unprofitable organizations, goggle their top employees and find out what they are getting paid...even the UN has plenty of bad apples, Money drives this whole industry....it also attracts some very unsavoiry people.... There are good people and bad, there are good organizations and bad... How about we pick one NGO and discuss? want to end world hunger find the will to gather the supplies up and deliver them directly to those that need them, at gun piont if you have to.....if you don't you will fail. Perhaps in some cases but regardless - if you want to end world hunger then it would imply that you sympathize with hungry people. The world does not have the stomach to confront these monsters with military force, we tried that in Somolia how'd that work out for us.... "Also, of course a country can (and should) develop a will to act based on self-interest and humanitarian reasons." Name one that has. did we stay in somolia, to help millions from starving, what did we do in Rwanda.... Obviously Somalia was a disaster and we left - but what was the original "will to act" based on? Kuwait? Liberia? East Timor? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Libya? Haiti? The motives of any intervention are always debatable and the success in terms of humanitarian objectives is mixed. Again all I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." -Having more sympathy in international relations will: 1. help drive us towards actions that reduce suffering 2. help prevent actions that cause an increase in suffering Quote
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 Says you. No, says the article that you referenced. So are you providing the "improved security" or am I? We agree that improved security is needed. Why do you want to bring people to Canada that are security issues in the first place? These people are not "security issues". There are 500,000 people that fled their homes in Somalia and are now living in a camp in Kenya. Many are women and children. Some people are "security issues" and we should continue to do our best to leave them behind. We have been doing this for years, and while there are improvements to be made, our system is working well. I'd prefer YOU move there and do all your good works there. This would be to no one's benefit. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) There are good people and bad, there are good organizations and bad... How about we pick one NGO and discuss? How about we discuss how NGO's pick sides in conflicts? NGO's hold a belief that they are helping people and thus continue their counter productive activities of aiding "people" behind the lines of one of the combatants which usually means feeding the troops rather then the people in need. Obviously Somalia was a disaster and we left - but what was the original "will to act" based on?Kuwait? Liberia? East Timor? Kosovo? Afghanistan? Libya? Haiti? Whats your point with this? The motives of any intervention are always debatable and the success in terms of humanitarian objectives is mixed. Because generally intervention is a means to stop violence rather then feed the people. Again all I am saying is: "If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place." Bullsh*t -Having more sympathy in international relations will:1. help drive us towards actions that reduce suffering Explain how that works. 2. help prevent actions that cause an increase in suffering And how can we force certain countries to have more sympathy and stop supporting suffering? Edited July 2, 2012 by Signals.Cpl Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Signals.Cpl Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 These people are not "security issues". There are 500,000 people that fled their homes in Somalia and are now living in a camp in Kenya. Many are women and children. Some people are "security issues" and we should continue to do our best to leave them behind. We have been doing this for years, and while there are improvements to be made, our system is working well. Yes they are, do you think that its a great idea to bring only women and children as refugees? Leave the husbands and fathers behind? How would you elide who gets to come to Canada and who gets to stay behind? And what do we do about the young men who have grownup in Canada and move back to Somalia to join militia's? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 How about we discuss how NGO's pick sides in conflicts? NGO's hold a belief that they are helping people and thus continue their counter productive activities of aiding "people" behind the lines of one of the combatants which usually means feeding the troops rather then the people in need. OK, which NGO does this, could you please give an example? Whats your point with this? I gave examples of missions with humanitarian motives, not necessarily only humanitarian. Some disasters, some successes, mostly debatable results. If we had more sympathy for people suffering - especially for children and other powerless people - the world would be a better and less unjust place. Bullsh*t So you are saying that if we cared more for others nothing would change? Do you think that more sympathy would make the world a worse place? -Having more sympathy in international relations will: 1. help drive us towards actions that reduce suffering 2. help prevent actions that cause an increase in suffering Explain how that works. And how can we force certain countries to have more sympathy and stop supporting suffering? 1. If the West cared about the Tutsis, we could have helped stop the massacre of 800,000 people 2. I meant that we can stop our own actions that increase suffering (e.g. perhaps war in Iraq, selling arms to oppressive regimes...) 3. I have no good answer to your last question... hmmm... Quote
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Yes they are, do you think that its a great idea to bring only women and children as refugees? Leave the husbands and fathers behind? How would you elide who gets to come to Canada and who gets to stay behind? And what do we do about the young men who have grownup in Canada and move back to Somalia to join militia's? I think that we should more or less continue with our current refugee policies with some incremental improvements. How about you, how do you recommend we manage the refugee camp of 500,000 people in Kenya? Edited July 2, 2012 by carepov Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 I think that we should more or less continue with our current refugee policies with some incremental improvements. How about you, how do you recommend we manage the refugee camp of 500,000 people in Kenya? We? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 We? Good point. Pretend that you are the chief advisor to The US President, UN Secretariat and the Leader of Kenya, etc... what would you advise them to do about this camp? Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 Good point. Pretend that you are the chief advisor to The US President, UN Secretariat and the Leader of Kenya, etc... what would you advise them to do about this camp? Sell tickets? Why is the an issue for the US president...does he have distant relatives in the camp? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
carepov Posted July 2, 2012 Report Posted July 2, 2012 Sell tickets? Why is the an issue for the US president...does he have distant relatives in the camp? I guess if 800,000 Rwandans don't matter... Anyways, what would you advise the leaders of Kenya? Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted July 3, 2012 Report Posted July 3, 2012 I think that we should more or less continue with our current refugee policies with some incremental improvements. How about you, how do you recommend we manage the refugee camp of 500,000 people in Kenya? Why is it our responsibility? And how does managing the camp help the people? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.