So crime is out of control in South Africa, soldiers are eating their slain enemies in Liberia, political opponents are being burned alive in Zimbabwe, and in Sierra Leone a rebel leader's trademark is to chop off hands and feet. Brutal violence, rampant mayhem, and horrific atrocities from one end of Africa to another. Why?
I keep telling you people, the wars of the future will be in Africa. Where are we in this? Where is the world? Liberate the oppressed, keep the peace! Where are our empty slogans now? The nations of the world have a moral imperative to end this madness, and every second wasted is another pound on our souls.
That's not going to happen without a major change in the way things are run in the west. Western nations do not generally intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons.
See, this is why expeditions to places like Iraq are bad. Now the international tolerance for intervention is so low that even if we did hop in to a place like Zimbabwe, no one would buy that it was for the right reasons.
Zimbabwe will have to wait. They're far too busy attempting to remove the British monarchy at the moment.
Much as I hate to deprive you of comedy value, I should point out that the UN is not trying to remove the UK monarchy. Three of the... what? 192? Member states have tabled a motion suggesting this. It's like a couple of US Senators tabling a motion to "kill all niggers!". Sure, they can do it. Ain't going nowhere, though.
George W. Bush agrees! AFRICOM was stood up during the Bush Administration. And during the previous Bush's administration, we landed a force to provide humanitarian assistance and restore order in Somalia. Now what we were doing between those two administrations; during the Rwanda genocide, you'd have to ask someone else about that. Oh, and interestingly enough, we are having to be very careful as we stand up AFRICOM, because the African nations have made it clear that they don't want a heavy US military presence on the continent and we have no desire to engage in unilateral action there. I'm guessing WF's favorite Communist crack baby said this one, because it is resentful of America and has utterly no basis in reality. 1) Refer to the relief operation in Somalia, mentioned above. 2) Refer to all the aid we flew into Burma, just a couple weeks ago. 3) Refer to the entire freakin' Amphibious Ready Group, that diverted from its planned mission to sit just outside of Burmese waters, loaded with relief supplies, just waiting for the go-ahead on the part of the Burmese government to come in and provide assistance. 4) About 45 seconds with Google would likely pull up any of the number of humanitarian relief missions the US has done in the Pacific, every couple years.
I was speaking of military intervention, not humanitarian relief. But don't let that get in the way of your self-congragulation.
There are isolated examples. What I said was that it isn't a general trend. Of course, it's possible to try to spin even acts of overt aggression as humanitarian, but in most cases, that's just propaganda.
