George Clooney at odds with China's policy

[IllinoisDave]

The PRC isn't as activist as the US. They've been a somewhat coherent nation for 5000 years...as a society, they've seen it all. They've seen wealth/power come, and wealth/power go. At times, they have suffered from disease, famine, war at least as much as any other nation. And as recently as just over 100 years ago, the cause of said suffering was Europe (with a little bit of US mixed in). No one helped China then, why should they help clean up European colonial messes now?

 

In the end, I think I mostly agree with the non-intervention approach. The West, particularly the US, tends to feel it has to do something because people are suffering...and then we proceed to do something that ends up making things worse. Or making people dependent on future handouts. One of the main reasons Africa is messed up is because of European exploitation. The 2nd most major reason is because the West (including the US) sent lots and lots and lots of guilt money to buy expiation, and all it did is create a system of corruption and enrich unscrupulous leaders.

 

China's method may not help, but it doesn't hurt, either. The only way a nation can get straightened out is if the people itself want to get straightened out. The people have to unify behind a goal and achieve it; there's nothing that can't be done better on your own than with condescending Western "sympathy".

As usual you make very strong points AM. But I do think you're last paragraph wraps things up a little too simply. Do you not think the non-Arabs who are the target of the Gov't/Jangaweed want their situation straightened out? Do you really think they have the ability/resources to straighten it out themselves? The vast majority of those victims are simple farmers/herders who have very little with which to defend themselves against the government-backed Jangaweed militias.

 

Should the rest of the world continue to just sit by again and take your non-interventionist stance while ethnic cleansing takes place on a massive scale?

[A Mafan]

The PRC isn't as activist as the US. They've been a somewhat coherent nation for 5000 years...as a society, they've seen it all. They've seen wealth/power come, and wealth/power go. At times, they have suffered from disease, famine, war at least as much as any other nation. And as recently as just over 100 years ago, the cause of said suffering was Europe (with a little bit of US mixed in). No one helped China then, why should they help clean up European colonial messes now?

 

In the end, I think I mostly agree with the non-intervention approach. The West, particularly the US, tends to feel it has to do something because people are suffering...and then we proceed to do something that ends up making things worse. Or making people dependent on future handouts. One of the main reasons Africa is messed up is because of European exploitation. The 2nd most major reason is because the West (including the US) sent lots and lots and lots of guilt money to buy expiation, and all it did is create a system of corruption and enrich unscrupulous leaders.

 

China's method may not help, but it doesn't hurt, either. The only way a nation can get straightened out is if the people itself want to get straightened out. The people have to unify behind a goal and achieve it; there's nothing that can't be done better on your own than with condescending Western "sympathy".

As usual you make very strong points AM. But I do think you're last paragraph wraps things up a little too simply. Do you not think the non-Arabs who are the target of the Gov't/Jangaweed want their situation straightened out? Do you really think they have the ability/resources to straighten it out themselves? The vast majority of those victims are simple farmers/herders who have very little with which to defend themselves against the government-backed Jangaweed militias.

 

Should the rest of the world continue to just sit by again and take your non-interventionist stance while ethnic cleansing takes place on a massive scale?

I don't know. Who speaks for the "rest of the world"?

 

And what exactly does the "rest of the world" want done?

 

Because I'm thinking that letting a bunch of UN bureaucrats trade food for sex won't help the Sudanese that much. Or sending in UN troops that help as much as the Danish troops did when they stood by and allowed hundreds of Muslim to be slaughtered while they stood by...that didn't do much good, either.

 

That's the problem, in my opinion: There's too much of "do something!", and not enough consideration of what that something really should be.

 

Millions of people die every year. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong), that more people die in car accidents in the US in one year than of violence in the Sudan. That doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing until we solve the car accident problem. What I mean is that the only way we could eradicate car accidents would be to completely outlaw cars. So what do you want to do to stop violence in Sudan? Outlaw freedom of speech of assembly? Imposing Drop a hydrogen bomb? Either solution is a little extreme.

 

Let's say you're right and the people want help...what price are they willing to pay to get help? Martial law for 2 decades? Even greater dependency on Europe's social welfare system? The collapse of their economy? The rise of an even worse dictator? You cannot guarantee that these things won't happen, because unintended consequences happen all the time.

 

Who decides all this? The "rest of the world"? US urban area academics and entertainers? Belgium?

 

Are the Sudanese begging George Clooney (Pleaese, Obi-George Ke-Clooney, you're our only hope!) to help? Or is he assuming an awful lot? I vote the latter.

 

I'm old enough now to be suspicious of anyone who claims there is a crisis but expects other people to take the risks and pay the price. I'll consider it a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis act like it's a crisis.

 

When George Clooney stands in front of a tank, I'll take him seriously. When he gives enough of his own money so that he has to live off of $50k a year, I'll take him seriously.

 

Let me repeat that for emphasis: When everyone who says something must be done is willing to risk their own safety/security (instead of someone else's), then I'll believe it's a big deal.

 

I'm not advocating non-intervention. I'm advocating personal responsibility and clear objectives and methods to reach those objectives for clear and finite reasons. And then doing what needs to be done without worrying about what anyone else thinks, says, or does.

 

I think that's sorely lacking in this situation.

[IllinoisDave]

The PRC isn't as activist as the US. They've been a somewhat coherent nation for 5000 years...as a society, they've seen it all. They've seen wealth/power come, and wealth/power go. At times, they have suffered from disease, famine, war at least as much as any other nation. And as recently as just over 100 years ago, the cause of said suffering was Europe (with a little bit of US mixed in). No one helped China then, why should they help clean up European colonial messes now?

 

In the end, I think I mostly agree with the non-intervention approach. The West, particularly the US, tends to feel it has to do something because people are suffering...and then we proceed to do something that ends up making things worse. Or making people dependent on future handouts. One of the main reasons Africa is messed up is because of European exploitation. The 2nd most major reason is because the West (including the US) sent lots and lots and lots of guilt money to buy expiation, and all it did is create a system of corruption and enrich unscrupulous leaders.

 

China's method may not help, but it doesn't hurt, either. The only way a nation can get straightened out is if the people itself want to get straightened out. The people have to unify behind a goal and achieve it; there's nothing that can't be done better on your own than with condescending Western "sympathy".

As usual you make very strong points AM. But I do think you're last paragraph wraps things up a little too simply. Do you not think the non-Arabs who are the target of the Gov't/Jangaweed want their situation straightened out? Do you really think they have the ability/resources to straighten it out themselves? The vast majority of those victims are simple farmers/herders who have very little with which to defend themselves against the government-backed Jangaweed militias.

 

Should the rest of the world continue to just sit by again and take your non-interventionist stance while ethnic cleansing takes place on a massive scale?

I don't know. Who speaks for the "rest of the world"?

 

And what exactly does the "rest of the world" want done?

 

Because I'm thinking that letting a bunch of UN bureaucrats trade food for sex won't help the Sudanese that much. Or sending in UN troops that help as much as the Danish troops did when they stood by and allowed hundreds of Muslim to be slaughtered while they stood by...that didn't do much good, either.

 

That's the problem, in my opinion: There's too much of "do something!", and not enough consideration of what that something really should be.

 

Millions of people die every year. I'm thinking (although I could be wrong), that more people die in car accidents in the US in one year than of violence in the Sudan. That doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing until we solve the car accident problem. What I mean is that the only way we could eradicate car accidents would be to completely outlaw cars. So what do you want to do to stop violence in Sudan? Outlaw freedom of speech of assembly? Imposing Drop a hydrogen bomb? Either solution is a little extreme.

 

Let's say you're right and the people want help...what price are they willing to pay to get help? Martial law for 2 decades? Even greater dependency on Europe's social welfare system? The collapse of their economy? The rise of an even worse dictator? You cannot guarantee that these things won't happen, because unintended consequences happen all the time.

 

Who decides all this? The "rest of the world"? US urban area academics and entertainers? Belgium?

 

Are the Sudanese begging George Clooney (Pleaese, Obi-George Ke-Clooney, you're our only hope!) to help? Or is he assuming an awful lot? I vote the latter.

 

I'm old enough now to be suspicious of anyone who claims there is a crisis but expects other people to take the risks and pay the price. I'll consider it a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis act like it's a crisis.

 

When George Clooney stands in front of a tank, I'll take him seriously. When he gives enough of his own money so that he has to live off of $50k a year, I'll take him seriously.

 

Let me repeat that for emphasis: When everyone who says something must be done is willing to risk their own safety/security (instead of someone else's), then I'll believe it's a big deal.

 

I'm not advocating non-intervention. I'm advocating personal responsibility and clear objectives and methods to reach those objectives for clear and finite reasons. And then doing what needs to be done without worrying about what anyone else thinks, says, or does.

 

I think that's sorely lacking in this situation.

Well, you're entitled to your cynicism. Good luck with that.

[Smitty]

His cynicism is well earned. In the last fifty years, I believe that the US has bungled more than it has improved conditions.

 

But this is about getting China to act, or do something, rather than getting the US to do something, as we are busy with two theaters of war, and numerous other insurgencies.

 

Can China affect some sort of change just by applying some sort of pressure on the Sudanese government? No invading armies, just pressure. Could it work? Could people be saved by something like that? I don't know, but isn't it worth it to try?

[Corbin]

I think some of the problem is when you get people like George Clooney speaking out. Saying that China or who ever needs to change something that is outside of their country, people are getting sick of hearing them. Is it wrong of people like George Clooney to speak out, no it isn't. What seems to happen is they speak out, but don't want to really do anything themselves.

 

I have seen many of our so call fixes turn into nightmares that it makes me think that America sticks it's nose into to many places it doesn't belong. I'm sure that China doesn't want the same headaches that we have caused for ourselves.

[warpedbored]

I think some of the problem is when you get people like George Clooney speaking out. Saying that China or who ever needs to change something that is outside of their country, people are getting sick of hearing them. Is it wrong of people like George Clooney to speak out, no it isn't. What seems to happen is they speak out, but don't want to really do anything themselves.

 

I have seen many of our so call fixes turn into nightmares that it makes me think that America sticks it's nose into to many places it doesn't belong. I'm sure that China doesn't want the same headaches that we have caused for ourselves.

In George Clooney's case I think he was taking a big risk. He could have lost his watch company gig by speaking up about it since they are an olympic games advertiser. This takes courage in my book. I don't necessarily agree with him but I admire his standing up for what he believes

[IllinoisDave]

His cynicism is well earned. In the last fifty years, I believe that the US has bungled more than it has improved conditions.

 

But this is about getting China to act, or do something, rather than getting the US to do something, as we are busy with two theaters of war, and numerous other insurgencies.

 

Can China affect some sort of change just by applying some sort of pressure on the Sudanese government? No invading armies, just pressure. Could it work? Could people be saved by something like that? I don't know, but isn't it worth it to try?

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided.

 

This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.

[A Mafan]

His cynicism is well earned. In the last fifty years, I believe that the US has bungled more than it has improved conditions.

 

But this is about getting China to act, or do something, rather than getting the US to do something, as we are busy with two theaters of war, and numerous other insurgencies.

 

Can China affect some sort of change just by applying some sort of pressure on the Sudanese government? No invading armies, just pressure. Could it work? Could people be saved by something like that? I don't know, but isn't it worth it to try?

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided.

 

This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.

Please believe me, I'm not trying to start a fight.

However:

You fail to address the horrors of UN intervention across the world. The best-meaning attempts to help people turn into the worst abuses of power and corruption.

 

But when I point that out, you just dismiss me as cynical.

 

That's why I cannot get behind movements like this. They seem to be emotion-based, rather than a rigorous attempt to intervene at the minimum necessary to help people get started on fixing their own problems.

 

In my study of history, it seems clear that imposing a solution from the outside (which you are advocating) makes things worse 95% of the time. Human interactions are as complex as biological ecologies, and intervention should be just as cautious.

 

Or else you end up causing more suffering than you save.

 

If that's cynical, so be it.

[rogerluli]

His cynicism is well earned. In the last fifty years, I believe that the US has bungled more than it has improved conditions.

 

But this is about getting China to act, or do something, rather than getting the US to do something, as we are busy with two theaters of war, and numerous other insurgencies.

 

Can China affect some sort of change just by applying some sort of pressure on the Sudanese government? No invading armies, just pressure. Could it work? Could people be saved by something like that? I don't know, but isn't it worth it to try?

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided.

 

This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.

Please believe me, I'm not trying to start a fight.

However:

You fail to address the horrors of UN intervention across the world. The best-meaning attempts to help people turn into the worst abuses of power and corruption.

 

But when I point that out, you just dismiss me as cynical.

 

That's why I cannot get behind movements like this. They seem to be emotion-based, rather than a rigorous attempt to intervene at the minimum necessary to help people get started on fixing their own problems.

 

In my study of history, it seems clear that imposing a solution from the outside (which you are advocating) makes things worse 95% of the time. Human interactions are as complex as biological ecologies, and intervention should be just as cautious.

 

Or else you end up causing more suffering than you save.

 

If that's cynical, so be it.

 

If totally bungled "military solutions/interventions" like Iraq have taught us one thing it must be that we...

 

SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE...

 

In case no one has noticed...We're broke and we're still spending on this this kind of thing like drunken sailors... B)

 

And now this thread is going into never-never land where it could become the first thread ever in the MK to get...

[Randy W]

 

If totally bungled "military solutions/interventions" like Iraq have taught us one thing it must be that we...

 

SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE...

 

In case no one has noticed...We're broke and we're still spending on this this kind of thing like drunken sailors...

 

And now this thread is going into never-never land where it could become the first thread ever in the MK to get...

 

 

Of course, we could all just join the PRO-GUN LOBBY in the TC with their campaign to influence (spam) a Cook County election

[warpedbored]

I would like to steer this thread back on topic. It isn't about Iraq or gun control. It is about celebrities trying to influence change in China.

[rogerluli]

 

If totally bungled "military solutions/interventions" like Iraq have taught us one thing it must be that we...

 

SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD IT ANYMORE...

 

In case no one has noticed...We're broke and we're still spending on this this kind of thing like drunken sailors...

 

And now this thread is going into never-never land where it could become the first thread ever in the MK to get...

 

 

Of course, we could all just join the PRO-GUN LOBBY in the TC with their campaign to influence (spam) a Cook County election

 

I do not understand how the mods can allow these endless diatribes about GUNS...This is not political???

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

Good political suggestion Randy diverting attention to TC. The thread about banning guns should set off a rocket for sure.

[IllinoisDave]

His cynicism is well earned. In the last fifty years, I believe that the US has bungled more than it has improved conditions.

 

But this is about getting China to act, or do something, rather than getting the US to do something, as we are busy with two theaters of war, and numerous other insurgencies.

 

Can China affect some sort of change just by applying some sort of pressure on the Sudanese government? No invading armies, just pressure. Could it work? Could people be saved by something like that? I don't know, but isn't it worth it to try?

I agree 100% Smitty. And I'm not advocating the US barge in with troops. It IS about getting China to put political pressure on Sudan because they may be able to do something. If they would try, then a military solution of any kind could possibly be avoided.

 

This thread was about George Clooney advocating that and somehow turned into a screed against the UN and the usual Hollywood bashing for no other reason than it's Hollywood. I'm a little tired,frankly, of people using "Hollywood" as a convenient scapegoat for society's ills.

Please believe me, I'm not trying to start a fight.

However:

You fail to address the horrors of UN intervention across the world. The best-meaning attempts to help people turn into the worst abuses of power and corruption.

 

But when I point that out, you just dismiss me as cynical.

 

That's why I cannot get behind movements like this. They seem to be emotion-based, rather than a rigorous attempt to intervene at the minimum necessary to help people get started on fixing their own problems.

 

In my study of history, it seems clear that imposing a solution from the outside (which you are advocating) makes things worse 95% of the time. Human interactions are as complex as biological ecologies, and intervention should be just as cautious.

 

Or else you end up causing more suffering than you save.

 

If that's cynical, so be it.

First of all, please go back through my posts and find where I advocated sending in UN troops. I've mentioned the UN a total of once up to now. That was in my previous post referring to your anti-UN screed. (now it's four, counting the three in this paragraph)

 

I started out advocating for George Clooney and other's right to use their celebrity/fame/pull or whatever to draw attention to the role China could possibly play in pressuring Sudan to do something about the Darfur crisis. And yes, I believe it is a crisis, as do many others.

 

Only after you suggested that China's method,which by the way had been to do absolutely nothing while reaping huge economic benefits, doesn't hurt either, did I even hint at intervention by anyone other than China and by any means other than economic pressure.

 

YOU brought up the UN and then proceeded into an unsolicited diatribe against it. Now it would be disingenuous of me to not acknowledge that one possible interventionist scenario would be to have the UN get involved. But up to now, I've the only specific suggestion I've talked about is China's putting political and/or economic pressure on Sudan.

 

So let's talk about the UN. The main reason I didn't address your "horrors" is that I do tend to tune out the tired old anti-UN mantra put forth by people like John Bolten and Fox News, just as I tend to tune out the same sort of thing about the "evil Hollywood types" that I hear so often from some of the same people.

 

So while I may be guilty of not addressing what you call "the horrors" of UN missions, you're equally as guilty of cherry-picking the negatives and ignoring the positives. The UN has bungled some missions,some badly. Has it been poorly run at times in the past? Sure. But they're far from the abject failure you portray them as.

 

Here is a link to an article addressing that along with a short quote from the article that says it better than I can. It's from 2005 so the numbers may have changed but the gist is still relevant I think:

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20...z1e24water.html

 

"The problem is that we tend to remember failures and discount success. We remember Rwanda and forget successful operations in El Salvador, Mozambique and Nambia. We focus on Kosovo, where the U.N. mission met stiff resistance, and forget Cyprus, where the United Nations has preserved the peace since 1964. We remember the disaster in Somalia and forget the mission in Kashmir, where the "blue hats" of the United Nations have played a role in keeping the peace between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan since 1949. Today, there are 18 peacekeeping missions in the world with more requests for new missions than the United Nations can handle. If U.N. peacekeeping has failed, why does this demand exist?"

 

I agree with you that outside intervention should not be entered into lightly and only as a last resort. But even if your 95% figure is accurate, that leaves 5%. I would suggest that estimates of upwards of 200,000 dead and 2.5 million driven from their homes http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/11/africa/11darfur.php qualifies Darfur for that 5%.

 

EDIT:

This response to AM took me awhile to write. While doing so, quite a few people posted, including Carl in an attempt to steer back on topic. I agree with him and part of my post addresses that. The rest was not an attempt to ignore Carl, just to respond to AM.

Edited March 18, 2008 by IllinoisDave (see edit history)

[A Mafan]

China has a lot of power, and a great deal of influence in the 3rd world.

 

Celebrities have a great deal of influence on common opinion (right or wrong).

 

There's no reason Clooney can't use his star power to try to influence China into doing something Clooney thinks is right. There's absolutely no reason a common American citizen can't support Clooney in doing so, agree with him, and urge others to add their voices to the issue.

 

Something good might actually happen from it.

 

There. Does that get this thread back on to topic?