How 7.4 Tons of Venezuela’s Gold Landed in Africa—and Vanished

[donttread]

That is the old choice with regards to foreign policy. Should it be based on vital national interests. Or should it be based on humanitarian / moral concerns.

I am a realist in foreign policy. So the former is the proper basis of foreign policy. The latter is dangerous and naive.

Perhaps , but basing it upon the former while PRETENDING to be doing it for the latter is open deceit pf the people.

[Peter1469]

Perhaps , but basing it upon the former while PRETENDING to be doing it for the latter is open deceit pf the people.

OK.

[donttread]

OK.

In other words if that's the reason we make war the government should just own it. Instead of talking about "liberating the people"

[Rationalist]

South Africa was a different sort of issue. You had a minority population of Europeans who created a human rights crisis on the basis of race. Blacks had no voting rights, thus no ability to change the government short of bloody revolution. That's a situation where others should step in.

I wouldn't say that's any worse than what happened in Syria or Bosnia. There are a lot of crises that are based on either racial or ethnic strife. Yemen is yet another conflict like that. In fact, Saddam's rule over Iraq involved primarily Baathist Sunni rule over a Shiite majority. So you could even say that removing him or sanctioning him had a humanitarian rationale.

[Rationalist]

Perhaps , but basing it upon the former while PRETENDING to be doing it for the latter is open deceit pf the people.

True, although this is pretty much the same strategy we've used for about a century now.

[Dr. Who]

I wouldn't say that's any worse than what happened in Syria or Bosnia. There are a lot of crises that are based on either racial or ethnic strife. Yemen is yet another conflict like that. In fact, Saddam's rule over Iraq involved primarily Baathist Sunni rule over a Shiite majority. So you could even say that removing him or sanctioning him had a humanitarian rationale.

It's not so much the domination of a minority in government but the fact that the majority had no voting rights. In the case of South Africa, doing nothing politically would have made it easier for the minority whites to retain power and may have ultimately resulted in a very violent uprising. Economic sanctions sent a message that the minority government could not count on any allied assistance in the event of major civil war where most of their armed forces were comprised of minorities upon whose loyalty the government could not rely. IOW, absent soldiers from Europe and/or America the minority population would have been ethnically cleansed.

Yemen is a sovereign state that is being attacked by the Saudis in violation of about a million UN agreements. Saddam's rule was brutal but notwithstanding the Baathist control, the government was very secular and adept at keeping keeping a lid on all the potential terrorists, since there were many factions that would have otherwise tried to violently carve out their own fiefdoms. Iraq is an artificial country created by the west in order to maintain foreign access to oil.

Iraq is now a terrorist disaster zone with a huge humanitarian crisis. I can't say they are better off. However there was no humanitarian consideration in the removal of Saddam - he was removed because he was challenging the US petro dollar.

[Mister D]

The South African military was mostly white for obvious reasons.

[Rationalist]

It's not so much the domination of a minority in government but the fact that the majority had no voting rights. In the case of South Africa, doing nothing politically would have made it easier for the minority whites to retain power and may have ultimately resulted in a very violent uprising. Economic sanctions sent a message that the minority government could not count on any allied assistance in the event of major civil war where most of their armed forces were comprised of minorities upon whose loyalty the government could not rely. IOW, absent soldiers from Europe and/or America the minority population would have been ethnically cleansed.

Well, we've basically come full circle with South Africa at this point. The cleansing that's happening now is with regard to white farmers, which has been consistently downplayed by most mainstream media because it reveals a story that runs counter to most progressive narratives. It's not hard to see the reality of what's happening when looking at how many white refugees that Australia has been taking in.

The apartheid regime was bad, but if Julius Malema ever becomes the head of state, South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe. It's already bad enough that the farms are being "redistributed" slowly. That's the same kind of mistake that Zimbabwe made as well.

Yemen is a sovereign state that is being attacked by the Saudis in violation of about a million UN agreements. Saddam's rule was brutal but notwithstanding the Baathist control, the government was very secular and adept at keeping keeping a lid on all the potential terrorists, since there were many factions that would have otherwise tried to violently carve out their own fiefdoms. Iraq is an artificial country created by the west in order to maintain foreign access to oil.

The Houthis overthrew the legitimate government of Yemen and are backed by Iran. What Saudi Arabia is doing is bloody, but if trying to re-establish the legitimate government is in violation of the UN's rules, then it begs the question of what the UN's priorities really are.

Iraq is now a terrorist disaster zone with a huge humanitarian crisis. I can't say they are better off. However there was no humanitarian consideration in the removal of Saddam - he was removed because he was challenging the US petro dollar.

I agree, but I should clarify what I meant. My statement was meant to convey that you could easily argue in support for sanctions and intervention against Saddam for similar reasons to the ones used against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

I think the only reason why sanctions against apartheid in South Africa are now seen favorably is because it worked. Had it failed as miserably as the Iraq invasion did, people would probably view it differently.

[Dr. Who]

[QUOTE=Rationalist;2633784]Well, we've basically come full circle with South Africa at this point. The cleansing that's happening now is with regard to white farmers, which has been consistently downplayed by most mainstream media because it reveals a story that runs counter to most progressive narratives. It's not hard to see the reality of what's happening when looking at how many white refugees that Australia has been taking in.

The apartheid regime was bad, but if Julius Malema ever becomes the head of state, South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe. It's already bad enough that the farms are being "redistributed" slowly. That's the same kind of mistake that Zimbabwe made as well.

Africa has had about 200 years of colonial domination and occupation. It will probably take at least that long to change the attitude that developed as a result - in particular the corruption. Tackling poverty and education will make the greatest changes.

The Houthis overthrew the legitimate government of Yemen and are backed by Iran. What Saudi Arabia is doing is bloody, but if trying to re-establish the legitimate government is in violation of the UN's rules, then it begs the question of what the UN's priorities really are.

The Houthis are fighting against the Saudi (Sunni and especially Wahhabi) religious domination which has been dominating their governments. The Yemenis are allies in the war against the establishment of a middle eastern wide caliphate. If SA wasn't being given political preferential treatment because they are useful to America, this outrage would have been stopped a long time ago.

I agree, but I should clarify what I meant. My statement was meant to convey that you could easily argue in support for sanctions and intervention against Saddam for similar reasons to the ones used against the apartheid regime in South Africa.

You could, unless you understood why Saddam was necessary. As I indicated, the state of Iraq has no business existing and without a Saddam or a facsimile in control, it will, I am fairly sure, separate along historical tribal boundaries. The problem is the part of the population that has progressed beyond petty tribalism and religious animosities. The region is now betwixt and between the past and the future.

I think the only reason why sanctions against apartheid in South Africa are now seen favorably is because it worked. Had it failed as miserably as the Iraq invasion did, people would probably view it differently.

South Africa is not by any economic or social measure a success. It is a work in progress. Things will probably get worse before they get better, but their success or failure will be their own. The deep seated resentment toward whites was earned and as much as many of the white farmers had no part of the past, because they were children at the time, it will take a couple of generations to leave that narrative behind. In the meantime, white farmers are at risk because we are only talking about 25 years since the demise of apartheid. That pain is still very much alive in most of the population.

[Dr. Who]

The South African military was mostly white for obvious reasons.

The whites were in charge, but the far smaller population of whites precluded an infantry comprised of all whites. The lower ranks were also comprised of 'coloreds' and blacks (from neighboring countries). The population of South Africa in 1991 was 38.4 million of which 4,586,838 were white. The entire military was 83,400 soldiers. In an all out civil war, most of the whites would have been slaughtered by those who were working for them - in their homes and on their farms and businesses. They knew they were in an untenable position without foreign assistance.