this is the type of socialism that scares me

Date 03-06-2009 15:43

Hogan,
How is that socialism?

This definition comes from dictionary.com:
so-cial-ism / [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] -noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I didn't see anything in that piece to the effect that Sudan had expelled these aid groups because the state was going to take over control of distribution of aid - it's just payback for the ICC arrest warrant.

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 03-06-2009 18:18

the UN is doing something about something?
i thought that bus left the station years ago.
besides with all the abortion money going over seas maybe there wont be a population issue anymore.
36,500,000 per year world wide.
Now this should be a war crime.
So the un cares about these people and their human rites (all to save a life or funding whatever)
Although its true these people need help and we should help them, but...................
The UN is all over this issue screaming warcrimes and the battle cry!!!!!!!!!!!!! save the people!!!!!!!!!
and from the second face of the UN they critisize Poland for not allowing people to murder babies.
The un is pimple on the face of the earth.
sword rattling

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 03-06-2009 15:49

[deleted]

By hogan

Date 03-06-2009 16:12

Maybe I should have explained my view a little better. While I agree with both of you about the Sudanese government, I was referring to the UN. To make claims of "war crimes" for refusing aid is what I question. The problems in Sudan definitely need to be addressed. I do believe that there is a need for the UN/AU to step in. But forced aid under the threat of war crimes?

By DaveBoyer (*****)

Date 03-07-2009 06:46

Bryon, I agree that something should be done. Something needed to be done to Sadam in Iraq too, but look at the mess We got into when We finally did something about it. Regime change isn't always as easy as it might sound, and getting the rest of the world to participate isn't easy either.

By js55

Date 03-08-2009 20:07

Bryon,
Doing something about problems around the world isn't left or right. If someone thinks so I am anxious to hear their arguments.
Doing something about it unilaterally when the rest of the world refuses to step up to the plate (often because they know we will do something so they don't have to), seems to be more consistent with the right while the left seems content to discuss it ad naseum in the United Nations, or at least reluctant to do anything unless the UN gives their blessing.
This is a fairly recent development. Even as late as Kennedy democrats were not afraid to take action unilaterally, and had a long history of doing so. Alas, the days of those kind of democrats disappeared after the Vietnam War. Now the thinking seems to be that if we can't get the UN to commit with us we must be wrong.

By Metarinka (****)

Date 03-06-2009 18:36

I'm confused how this is socialism. The red cross was even allowed into Germany during WWII. This is just another twist in an area that has been in constant turmoil for decades and who does not have a real government. A concept most of us in the US have a hard time understanding as we've lived under a very stable government that controls all our territories.