George Clooney at odds with China's policy

[warpedbored]

Everyone chill or this thread will be short lived. Get back on topic and leave political bickering out of it.

[IllinoisDave]

 

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

Jeez. What have I been missing over there? I better go see.

[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.

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) B)

 

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.

My last post was being written while this post from you was being written, so don't consider my last post a reply, k?

 

I think perhaps we aren't arguing with each other as much as arguing against all the people who ever stood on the opposite side of this issue.

 

In any case, aside from whether your view or mine is more or less correct/mature/cynical, etc, I guess I'd like to just share the Chinese view.

 

One word keeps coming up again and again in describing Chinese SOs (male or female):

Pragmatic.

 

There is no pragmatic reason for China to get involved in Sudan/Darfur. So they won't.

 

China has millions of people living in poverty...maybe more than are in the entire nation of Sudan, dunno. China's only hope of keeping these people fed is to continue doing global business to feed the economy. If the economy slumps, hundreds of thousands of Chinese people suffer. If the economy goes into a depression, the confidence of the Chinese consumer plummets, and things get really bad. You could have hundreds of thousands of Chinese people starving to death. If not millions. China can't grow near enough food to feed their own people. There are places in China without electricity, places in China without enough water to take a bath even once a month (see: Pretty Big Feet).

 

So until China has its own internal problems solved, it has no reason to damage its economy trying to attach morality to its business deals.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that's the right way to see things, but I am saying that's how nearly every Chinese person (including the government) sees it.

 

Oh, and George Clooney? He isn't so willing to sacrifice when it hurts his bottom line.

[A Mafan]

Now...my view?

 

I assume that people generally want to be at peace, i.e., people generally don't want to be killed.

 

Unfortunately, lots and lots and lots of people are more than willing for other people to be killed to gain more power, money, security, sex, etc.

 

These are the jerks that enslave and brutalize other people. Barbarians, if you will.

 

I call them obstacles to peace.

 

So in my opinion, what needs to be done is identify obstacles to peace, and kill them.

 

Not for power, money, security, sex, etc. Just so they stop brutalizing other people for personal gain.

 

Kill, then leave. One (or more) less barbarian(s) in the world.

 

Do that enough times, and the potential barbarians, potential obstacles to peace start to think about other ways to get power, money, security, sex, etc.

 

With the obstacles out of the way or otherwise diverted, the people who want peace and want to work things out can get it done without distraction.

[IllinoisDave]

My last post was being written while this post from you was being written, so don't consider my last post a reply, k?

 

I think perhaps we aren't arguing with each other as much as arguing against all the people who ever stood on the opposite side of this issue.

 

In any case, aside from whether your view or mine is more or less correct/mature/cynical, etc, I guess I'd like to just share the Chinese view.

 

One word keeps coming up again and again in describing Chinese SOs (male or female):

Pragmatic.

 

There is no pragmatic reason for China to get involved in Sudan/Darfur. So they won't.

 

China has millions of people living in poverty...maybe more than are in the entire nation of Sudan, dunno. China's only hope of keeping these people fed is to continue doing global business to feed the economy. If the economy slumps, hundreds of thousands of Chinese people suffer. If the economy goes into a depression, the confidence of the Chinese consumer plummets, and things get really bad. You could have hundreds of thousands of Chinese people starving to death. If not millions. China can't grow near enough food to feed their own people. There are places in China without electricity, places in China without enough water to take a bath even once a month (see: Pretty Big Feet).

 

So until China has its own internal problems solved, it has no reason to damage its economy trying to attach morality to its business deals.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone that's the right way to see things, but I am saying that's how nearly every Chinese person (including the government) sees it.

 

Oh, and George Clooney? He isn't so willing to sacrifice when it hurts his bottom line.

Not sure what your point is with the first sentence...Oh well.

 

I agree with what you're saying about the Chinese view on this issue is. I think I acknowledged that in an earlier post when I mentioned that they are not stupid. I think somewhere I even mentioned that it's all about the money.

 

It's probably the case that no one is going to get China to do anything that may harm their own economic interests. I guess the whole point of this is that people should be allowed to try.

 

I'm fine with China not bankrupting itself trying to get Sudan to stop the genocide. I'm also fine with George Clooney not bankrupting himself in his effort to get China to change it's policy regarding this particular issue.

[DMikeS4321]

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?

 

Well, we COULD go in and insist on regime change.

[DMikeS4321]

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.

 

A-men, A-Mafan!!

[DMikeS4321]

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

 

Perhaps, Smitty, but let's not even talk about the U.N.!

[Smitty]

I never mentioned the UN, this is about using personal influence to get a powerful country to do something.

[A Mafan]

I never mentioned the UN, this is about using personal influence to get a powerful country to do something.

I thought the tenor of the thread swerved pretty quickly into "something must be done, no matter what!" territory. And the UN is usually the next resort of the Something Must Be Done crowd.

 

[shrug]

 

But maybe I'm wrong this time.

[Corbin]

I'm going to say what I am thinking now. As far as George Clooney speaking up to try and get China to put pressure on Sudan I have no problem with. I just think that many times these famous people speak out like this to just make themselves look better. Now I have no first hand proof to back this up with so it is just my opinion.

[DMikeS4321]

I never mentioned the UN, this is about using personal influence to get a powerful country to do something.

I thought the tenor of the thread swerved pretty quickly into "something must be done, no matter what!" territory. And the UN is usually the next resort of the Something Must Be Done crowd.

 

[shrug]

 

But maybe I'm wrong this time.

 

Nope, you're not wrong. I sensed this change in direction as well.

 

As for Smitty, I didn't SAY he mentioned the U.N. Others did, but he didn't. I just thought I'd throw my comment in as a way of balancing his "we've bungled more than we've fixed in the past 50 years". His comment was off topic, but, now that he brought it up (and it passed Mod scrutiny)....

 

I get damned tired of reading stuff like that. It's easy to say but hard to prove; who knows where the world would be right now if not for the U.S. There would be a lot less money in Africa for AIDS, a lot less food in starving countries, China wouldn't be as well off without our consumerism and neither would Germany or Japan, just to mention a few things.

 

I put my rearend on the line for this country in a serious way and I don't like constantly hearing how badly we've screwed things up. I don't think we have and I'm sick of the criticism, especially when it comes from spoiled brats who live in a fantasy world and don't have a clue what we've done for the rest of humanity, i.e. George Clooney, many other rich celebrities, the politicians they front for and a good number of people who have come from our public school system in the past 40 years. That is why I don't care for their critiques of China; I don't think the critics have a clue. They are often wrong about the U.S. so I expect they probably know even less about other countries.

 

It's their right to speak up, but it's my right to say they are self-centered, self-hating, guilt-ridden know-nothings.

 

Best Regards

Edited March 19, 2008 by DMikeS4321 (see edit history)

[Smitty]

I never mentioned the UN, this is about using personal influence to get a powerful country to do something.

I thought the tenor of the thread swerved pretty quickly into "something must be done, no matter what!" territory. And the UN is usually the next resort of the Something Must Be Done crowd.

 

[shrug]

 

But maybe I'm wrong this time.

 

Nope, you're not wrong. I sensed this change in direction as well.

 

As for Smitty, I didn't SAY he mentioned the U.N. Others did, but he didn't. I just thought I'd throw my comment in as a way of balancing his "we've bungled more than we've fixed in the past 50 years". His comment was off topic, but, now that he brought it up (and it passed Mod scrutiny)....

 

I get damned tired of reading stuff like that. It's easy to say but hard to prove; who knows where the world would be right now if not for the U.S. There would be a lot less money in Africa for AIDS, a lot less food in starving countries, China wouldn't be as well off without our consumerism and neither would Germany or Japan, just to mention a few things.

 

I put my rearend on the line for this country in a serious way and I don't like constantly hearing how badly we've screwed things up. I don't think we have and I'm sick of the criticism, especially when it comes from spoiled brats who live in a fantasy world and don't have a clue what we've done for the rest of humanity, i.e. George Clooney, many other rich celebrities, the politicians they front for and a good number of people who have come from our public school system in the past 40 years. That is why I don't care for their critiques of China; I don't think the critics have a clue. They are often wrong about the U.S. so I expect they probably know even less about other countries.

 

It's their right to speak up, but it's my right to say they are self-centered, self-hating, guilt-ridden know-nothings.

 

Best Regards

Maybe my comment was in regards to A Mafan's post. Maybe you consider Korea, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Kurdish uprising after the first gulf war, the government operations in Central America, and Iraq to be success stories? The things you mention have nothing to do with the application of America's military in the last fifty or sixty years. Yes the world would be different with the American military, that's a 'no brainer.'

 

While the link A Mafan provided paints a poor and inconsistent picture of Clooney's character, people using their celebrity to try to change the world is no worse than people using force to change the world.

[A Mafan]

I never mentioned the UN, this is about using personal influence to get a powerful country to do something.

I thought the tenor of the thread swerved pretty quickly into "something must be done, no matter what!" territory. And the UN is usually the next resort of the Something Must Be Done crowd.

 

[shrug]

 

But maybe I'm wrong this time.

 

Nope, you're not wrong. I sensed this change in direction as well.

 

As for Smitty, I didn't SAY he mentioned the U.N. Others did, but he didn't. I just thought I'd throw my comment in as a way of balancing his "we've bungled more than we've fixed in the past 50 years". His comment was off topic, but, now that he brought it up (and it passed Mod scrutiny)....

 

I get damned tired of reading stuff like that. It's easy to say but hard to prove; who knows where the world would be right now if not for the U.S. There would be a lot less money in Africa for AIDS, a lot less food in starving countries, China wouldn't be as well off without our consumerism and neither would Germany or Japan, just to mention a few things.

 

I put my rearend on the line for this country in a serious way and I don't like constantly hearing how badly we've screwed things up. I don't think we have and I'm sick of the criticism, especially when it comes from spoiled brats who live in a fantasy world and don't have a clue what we've done for the rest of humanity, i.e. George Clooney, many other rich celebrities, the politicians they front for and a good number of people who have come from our public school system in the past 40 years. That is why I don't care for their critiques of China; I don't think the critics have a clue. They are often wrong about the U.S. so I expect they probably know even less about other countries.

 

It's their right to speak up, but it's my right to say they are self-centered, self-hating, guilt-ridden know-nothings.

 

Best Regards

Maybe my comment was in regards to A Mafan's post. Maybe you consider Korea, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, the Kurdish uprising after the first gulf war, the government operations in Central America, and Iraq to be success stories? The things you mention have nothing to do with the application of America's military in the last fifty or sixty years. Yes the world would be different with the American military, that's a 'no brainer.'

 

Bay of Pigs was a failure. How did it make the world worse?

Viet Nam was a failure, but it was a failure of the Presidents (who tried to micromanage the war for PR purposes), and Congress (who abandoned South Vietnam by cutting off funding). And while Viet Nam ended up a tactical failure to stop Communism's advance, it was a strategic success, in that no nation fell to communism after Vietnam, and the effort (combined with the invasion of Afghanistan), helped bankrupt the Soviet Union. I'd call that a success, too.

Despite constant disparagement from our media and certain congressional leaders, we are actually succeeding in Iraq. Things are certainly better than under Saddam now.

I consider Korea a success. How can you not, if you compare South Korean quality of life compared to the North?

In any case, our military interventions were:

1) not the military's choice

2) all militarily successful; if there was failure, it was failure of will by "leaders", who followed public opinion instead of leading it.

3) Far better in both intent and result than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

 

Flat out, the US has a far better track record of success than any other nation or organization. But our best successes have come when we took the time to identify the obstacle to peace, and then eliminated that obstacle (not always through killing, sometimes just by removing an individual from power).

 

Celebrities have a right to speak, of course. And I'm sure their heart is in the right place.

 

But I don't believe that the end justifies the means. I don't believe that intent matters more than results. I'm not interested in helping celebrities feel better about themselves.

 

Final point: With an hour of internet research, I bet I can find half a dozen crises going on right now around the world that are as bad as Darfur. But until they catch the eye of Hollywood and academic elites, few people care. I'm guess I'm not interested in getting excited about the Fashionable Crisis of the Week, so telling me that THIS is the one cause all decent people should support just rubs me the wrong way.

[warpedbored]

Back to the topic please. We are not going to have a left vs right arguement here. They always turn sour.