Recently, 14 opposition party members were imprisoned in Zimbabwe. Today they were freed on bail. Reading this article, I wonder why the U.S. isn't helping Zimbabwe in any effective way. Perhaps it is because we have spread ourselves thin in the middle east. But the other main reason, I would say, is that the U.S. has no interest in anything Zimbabwe has to offer. Our country heads over into the Middle East with little initial political opposition because we know that the region has oil to offer. We won't go to help the Zimbabwean people simply because they have nothing to offer us. The typical American idea of an exchange is for one person to do one thing and they can expect a return. I, perhaps being a little radical on this topic, encourage the shifting of this idea to not expecting a gift back. Let us help others not for an immediate payment back, but to give from the goodness of our hearts. The greed behind political decisions is disturbing, it needs to change. Any thoughts of my opinion? I'm not sure that it is completely developed into my firm belief, but it is just what I have been thinking about recently.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124162623144692263.html
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
DON'T PANIC! This blog is authored by Seniors at Aragon High School, San Mateo, CA.
Don Roll
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
My Very Grumpy Book Review1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
December 20, 20244 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SaturTabs8 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why is money so hard?12 hours ago
-
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(624)
-
▼
May
(23)
- Texting Becoming an Issue
- US Govenment holding majority of GM Stock
- Maddow Calls Out Obama On His "Prolonged Detention...
- Prop. 8 Court Ruling
- Saving others through Autopsies of the fallen
- "A Blatant Violation of International Law"- Obama
- Resume Immigration Talks with Cuba
- Emissions Political Cartoon
- Simple Walking Test-- Tell You Your Mortality Rate
- World Economies Plummet
- Abortion Speech at Notre Dame
- Senate Refuses to Allow Closing of Gitmo
- End to a 25 Year Civil War- May 19, 2009
- Obama’s New Car Emissions Standards
- Resource Blessing
- Rush Limbaugh Destroyed by Stephen Colbert
- Zimbabwe
- Legalization of Marijuana and what we can learn fr...
- Interesting Conspiracy Theory- New World Order
- Now that that crazy old flu thing is fading, we ca...
- Media's Grip on Society
- Wolves no longer protected in Northern Rockies
- Biden's remarks about travel seem to have earned h...
-
▼
May
(23)
19 comments:
Yeah I kind of agree that the U.S. has other things to deal with but we can not do everything. I'd understand if absolutely nothing was going on with our nation and we have everything running smoothly but we don't. I am all for helping people in need and I think that is one area that this country can approve in. I know we have resources and I hope we are using them for good causes instead of selfish causes. But I agree that we give to receive and it is not right. We need to be more selfless.
Yes, I understand what your saying about us being involved in so much right now. But what are the motives of our leaders in what we are currently involved in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran tension etc...)? If you notice, we are wrapped up a lot in the Middle East when there are people in terrible amounts of pain in Sudan, Zimbabwe and other countries. I would say that the only reason that we are so engaged in the Middle East is because of our desire for oil. Of course, our being in Afghanistan is not due to the greed for oil, but to capture Bin Laden, who is likely not even there anymore.
I agree that it is wrong to only help others if you expect something in return. There are many ways America can help out in Zimbabwe. The most effective would obviously be sending troops over there to help out, but we all know that will not happen. The other thing they can do is send aid in the form of money, supplies, and/ or clothing. Even if they have nothing to give back, this is a noteworthy cause and, I believe at least, money well spent. However, we also have to be careful who we help, especially when it comes to simply providing them with supplies to help themselves. Look at what happened in Afghanistan and the Middle East when we gave them weaponry to combat the Soviet Union. They praised us for helping them get out of the hole, but later became our enemies, stocked with an armory provided by us. With that being said, sending money and supplies is a quick and easy way, but you have to be cautious about what you send and to who you send it to. The obvious best choice would obviously be to send troops over, but with the current affairs in the Middle East, and the fact that America sending in troops, and not some other neighboring country with adequate military power, would be overkill, in my opinion. Africa has been a tricky subject in global affairs and it will remain a tricky subject. With all of the guerrilla forces present within Africa and rebellious factions, Africa might be a hot-pot of turmoil waiting to erupt. I just feel like Africa is an area that needs to be thought about more thoroughly before we simply jump in there and take it upon ourselves to drastically help out. We do not want another Middle East.
I get that we can't be the world's police, but in cases like Sudan and Zimbabwe we don't want another Rwanda to happen where we didn't help and then things got awful and then we were too late. We seem to repeat mistakes alot. There are many paralells between the Iraq war and the Vietnam war and we saw Vietnam unravel as a disaster yet we are still in Irag making the same mistakes.
As much as I think it is important help out other countries like Zimbabwe, I feel we need to focus on fixing our own problems first before diving into other countries' problems. If we can't even help ourselves, what makes us suitable to help others? In our current situation, giving money or sending troops or just getting entangled in Zimbabwe would add another burden to our already overly-burdened shoulders.
To be honest, I think that staying out of foreign affairs like this would be best. If you take a look at what happened in the middle east, there is many people who are unhappy with what the United States is doing. Helping them might create more enemies elsewhere if the US isnt careful. And against Elijah, I dont believe we should help if it does not help us. What is the point in helping other countries. It doesn't seem viable to help and not expect a return. I mean would you want to spend billions of tax money on something that has little relevance to you? It really does not make any sense.
I partially agree with Kevin and Paige, but I also think we are all falling victim to wishful thinking. Paige is right, we can't be the world's police and we don't want another Rwanda to happen, but economies are competitive by nature. As much as we should be helping Zimbabwe because it's the right thing to do, countries can't afford to be giving handouts all the time. It could still mean that, particularly in this case, can help zimbabwe, reciprocation or not, but every country is essentially selfish, we can't help other people if it hurts us.
That's what the UN's there for.
There's quite a few things different points that I'm thinking of, but it would probably result in a 300-400 word essay. One of the main ideas running through my mind being that what our opinion of civil rights are may not be the same in other nations. It's not the strongest argument, but it is an interesting one. In no way am I stating that genocide or tyranny is moral, but that may be the standard in other nations. People may accept that standard, and if they do, who are we to interfere? For example, if the citizens of Iraq were satisfied with Saddam Hussein in power leading their country to more power, is it our right to interfere there in an effort to free the Iraqis from tyrannical dictatorship? Should we even be imposing our views of civil rights on others? What's moral for us may not be moral for other people.
Going off of that, while it is admirable that we in the United States want to help citizens in other countries that are struggling through immoral situations, is it the United States's right to simply barge in and set things straight the way we feel they should be? We're simply another country in the world. We have far more resources and power than other countries, but we're just another country. As an individual nation, even with the artificial label of a superpower, our jurisdiction of concern is the United States and affairs related to the United States, as selfish as that sounds. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and the rest of the third-world countries in the world are not the U.S.'s responsibility.
That being said, the United Nations is there for a reason. The purpose is there, the support is there, but the usage is not. The United States should not be tackling problems like the Middle East and Africa as an individual nation or a 'superpower', but as a united front with other nations under the name of the United Nations. However, like the League of Nations before it, the United Nations just isn't doing all that great of a job due to its limited resources and the complications of what it can and cannot do.
In regards to the Middle East, I'll keep it short. I saw the main entry point for "Middle East Invasion Part II" as the entry into Afghanistan in search of Al-Quaida. That was justified. From there, things just spiraled out of control and the public wasn't paying much attention anymore. Began as affairs related to the United States, turned into a combination of humanitarian saviors/greedy capitalists.
The U.S. can't help very country in the world. Some like it when we don't help. The U.S. just has to chose its battles and I guess getting something in return is a good bonus.
Sadly, Africa requires much more help that America can possibly give. However, there are several ways we can help, as well as several reasons why we should.
Firstly, we can help Zimbabwe by helping legitimize Prime Minister Tsvangirai and putting pressure on international organizations to in turn put pressure on President Mugabe to work with him. South Africa's newly inaugurated president, Jacob Zuma, while not fresh blood, is a new face on the international scene for a country long dominated by the pro-Mugabe Thabo Mbecki. He might be a chance for change (South Africa is very influential with its neighbor, Zimbabwe, as well as in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), which both are part of).
Now, as to why we would want to help stabilize Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe is granted not a terribly resource-rich country. But it borders the largest economy in Africa. If Zimbabwe were to collapse, millions of refugees (on top of the tens of thousands already) would flee south, potentially destabilizing South Africa. Additionally, war in Zimbabwe would likely exacerbate other conflicts in the region, like the one in Congo. Finally, given the recent cholera epidemic there, a total collapse of Zimbabwe could lead to a pandemic across Africa if the disease is not managed properly. Already beset by AIDS and malaria, Africa should not have to worry about cholera as well.
In short, Africa does matter. While Zimbabwe is perhaps not the most important country in Africa, or the most strategically prominent place for the US, it is not in American or global interests to see the aforementioned scenarios occur. All of these can be prevented with the proper policies and attention paid toward Zimbabwe.
I honestly don't know why you believe that the U.S right now can afford to extend aid to other countries. We are spread thing on the excesses in the Middle east, but think about the cost and the fact that American buisness's are failing bringing our own economy into a slump. We do have near infinite money because we have such good credit with the rest of the world, but the National debt can't be stretched too far, and nobody will just give the US money for no return. Which is possibly what we would be doing in Zimbabwe.
My personal feelings on this are that people our age tend to be idealistic about situations like this. I'm guilty of it too--I would love it if the US would give handouts to every nation in the world. Unfortunately this is neither practical nor realistic. One of the reasons the US is now a superpower is because it has always acted in a way that benefits it somehow. It is not human nature to give without a thought of reward. Honestly, though, I think one of the best ways the US can help the world at the moment is by fixing its own problems. If the US collapses, there are going to be a lot more problems than there are now. I'm worried though--most empires in history haven't lasted more than a few hundred years. Are we nearing our time?
I disagree with a lot of you in that I think the best thing for the United States is just to stay out of it. Why meddle in something that has nothing to do with us? Especially if we don't get anything out of it? Call me selfish, but if we do not benefit from aiding a country in the slightest and have the potential to piss off any of Zimbabwe's enemies by helping, what's the point? I think we should just mind our own business, as it isn't our country's responsibility to cure the world's problems. We have our own problems in our own country to deal with right now, and with a recession at hand, we aren't in the best position to be giving out any kind of aid to Zimbabwe. Like Carmence said, it will only put an unnecessary burden on America.
I think that it's easy for us to see injustice and immediately expect action. I do think that Zimbabwe needs help, and ideally, the United States, and other countries, would provide some aid. But, I can see why we don't. Zimbabwe does matter, but unlike the Middle East, it isn't considered a threat to our national security. But, does that mean that we shouldn't help? Our government already set its priorities, and Zimbabwe isn't at the top of the list.
I'm also not sure that Mugabe would allow us or other countries to help. After all, he did blame his country's misery on the west.
And how can we help Zimbabwe without helping the other African countries? What about Somalia, or Sudan,or Sierra Leone? So many countries on that continent need help, and the situation is quite complicated. Do we help one country and not another? Anyways,I don't think that we will help Zimbabwe anytime soon.
I don't think that this particular issue is something that the U.S. has any right, or need, to get involved in. In an ideal world, the US could police the world’s activity, and the entire world would use the same ideals that we promote. In the US, imprisoning opposition party members seems completely absurd. However, this problem is not in the US, and I don’t believe that this is our issue to get involved in. The Zimbabwe courts and governments should handle the situation the way that they think is best. We should not attempt to get involved in this instance.
I also agree that the US probably chose not to get involved with this issue because Zimbabwe does not offer necessary resources like the Middle East does. Although this appears selfish, I feel like this reasoning is justified. The US has to choose the battles that it is going to fight, and it makes sense that they would choose those that they will benefit from.
Yes I empathize with the idea of everyone giving form the goodness thier hearts, but I don't really think that with the state our economy we should be giving out any charity yet. The government or media should do what it must to get the public's attention to zimbabwe and ask for their help, but the government should not be using U.S. tax dollars to help more foreign countries. The fact that zimbabwe doesn't have anything to offer does not really matter to this situation because we aren't looking for trade. Homeless and needy people in our country should be helped first, but maybe the people in zimbabwe are more deserving I don't know...
Yes I empathize with the idea of everyone giving form the goodness thier hearts, but I don't really think that with the state our economy we should be giving out any charity yet. The government or media should do what it must to get the public's attention to zimbabwe and ask for their help, but the government should not be using U.S. tax dollars to help more foreign countries. The fact that zimbabwe doesn't have anything to offer does not really matter to this situation because we aren't looking for trade. Homeless and needy people in our country should be helped first, but maybe the people in zimbabwe are more deserving I don't know...
Ok so not only is it true that the U.S. mostly only gets involved in international affairs when the government can benefit from it in some way, but at the same time our own country is in the worse shape that its been in a while. Not only are we involved in a war that has lasted eight years too long, but our economy is spiraling and the future of our environment is looking grim at best. If our government is to get involved in something international it should be on behalf of the environment. People suffering is horrible, but if we worked together to reduce fossil fuel dependency there would be less of a desire to get involved in the middle east and countries that are struggling because of poverty and political injustice will naturally get more attention and have better living conditions. The dependence on oil is not only destroying our planet, but it destroys the quality of live for emerging countries that are resource rich and take advantage of the dominant countries dependence on oil. The whole situation is unjust and our country has never had a record of helping those who truly need our help. Most of the time when we get involved in foreign affairs we tend to create more conflict and build "democratic" institutions that not only fail but at times are only created to be removed by the same government that instituted the change in the first place (our government.) It's not right but its never right and I honestly would be genuinely surprised if our government got involved in a foreign injustice without receiving some benefit in return.
I agree that it seems the U.S. is more willing to help when there is something for us to gain, but if you really think about it, it's in human nature. Most people would be willing to support helping all of these countries, but people are MORE willing if there's something to gain as well, kind of like a bonus. There are so many horrible, horrible tragedies and events in the world, and as much as we would like to help them all, we can't just wage war on every country because that would be too much to handle. I think the government is currently handling the largest-scale problems, and then when those are solved, they would direct their attention to the other several problems. I do feel for the people in Zimbabwe though, that's absolutely horrible. :(
Post a Comment