How do you deal with the starvation of innocent children?

[TEPO]

Perhaps the UN is inefficient. Perhaps the United States should do it.

We do know that the people living in the Horn of Africa have traditionally been tribal peoples, yet they are today situated within Nations. It’s all wrong. There should be a study done on ethnic cultures and religions and those divisions should be set up into tribal States. Then all those tribes should designate a leader who will represent their tribal state in communicating peacefully with leaders of the other tribal states, in that a Union of peace will be kept and maintained in the region.

In the meantime, the US and the EU will set up advanced irrigation systems and provide livestock, tools and machinery so that the tribes can continue on peacefully. There will be no reason for one tribe to rob or pillage another since they will all be equally built up.

Also, a small “free area” will be designated as a marketplace for trade between the tribes. This way the homes and villages of the tribes can remain protected during intertribal trade.

…at that point, we would offer no further western or other influences upon them and allow them to carry on in their own natural state.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Are you joking? The entire thrust of your thread and all the other threads you have started on the same topic is that nobody should live happy lives while there are poor and starving people in the world! In short you are saying we should all be miserable like you.

No quote! I thought so.

Yet once again, let me state my position: I believe we should treat the starving as our real brothers and sisters. This, I would think, involves true empathy. So yes, we should feel some of their pain and suffering. But I also believe we should be joyful in spirit as we carry our crosses in this life.

 

[TEPO]

Seriously though guys, don’t you think God would bless the West if we returned the tribal people of Africa back to their original tribal state and helped establish peace in the region? They would after all regain self sufficiency again and we would have done a very good deed.

They should have never been influenced the way they were in the first place -the root cause of their problems. We’ve (our ancestors) done them wrong, so it’s up to us to fix it!

 

[Kamaduck]

Seriously though guys, don’t you think God would bless the West if we returned the tribal people of Africa back to their original tribal state and helped establish peace in the region? They would after all regain self sufficiency again and we would have done a very good deed.

They should have never been influenced the way they were in the first place -the root cause of their problems. We’ve (our ancestors) done them wrong, so it’s up to us to fix it!

So… You mean like a massive-scale repeat of what we’re doing in the middle east, right? Only without any sort of justification involving terrorists. We’d just barge in because, hey, America knows best!

We can’t return them “back to their original tribal state”. I understand that the continent is the way it is because of European interference, but we can’t simply set them back hundreds of years and pretend those things never happened. Fixing governments is not so easy, especially now that they have so much technology. You can’t just take all that away and ask them to return to the ways of their ancestors- would you take kindly to people saying your natural state was obviously feudalism, and forcing you to become a serf without a wifi connection?

People have tried to turn back time before- the country of Liberia was once populated by freed slaves who were sent back to Africa from America, to return things to the way abolitionists reasoned they ought to be. The country has come out of a civil war in the past decade, is incredibly poor and is no better off than any other region.

I’m not sure how your solution would even work. We can’t forcibly take control of an entire continent and remove every existing government. Even if it were economically feasible, I’m sure people in many countries would rightly see it as even more uncalled-for interference. We can’t simply undo our mistakes. The people of Africa are not ours to command. Certainly I think we should help them, but forcibly removing all of their governments and making them live like they did thousands of years ago isn’t something I can get behind.

 

[TEPO]

So… You mean like a massive-scale repeat of what we’re doing in the middle east, right? Only without any sort of justification involving terrorists. We’d just barge in because, hey, America knows best!

We can’t return them “back to their original tribal state”. I understand that the continent is the way it is because of European interference, but we can’t simply set them back hundreds of years and pretend those things never happened. Fixing governments is not so easy, especially now that they have so much technology. You can’t just take all that away and ask them to return to the ways of their ancestors- would you take kindly to people saying your natural state was obviously feudalism, and forcing you to become a serf without a wifi connection?

People have tried to turn back time before- the country of Liberia was once populated by freed slaves who were sent back to Africa from America, to return things to the way abolitionists reasoned they ought to be. The country has come out of a civil war in the past decade, is incredibly poor and is no better off than any other region.

I’m not sure how your solution would even work. We can’t forcibly take control of an entire continent and remove every existing government. Even if it were economically feasible, I’m sure people in many countries would rightly see it as even more uncalled-for interference. We can’t simply undo our mistakes. The people of Africa are not ours to command. Certainly I think we should help them, but forcibly removing all of their governments and making them live like they did thousands of years ago isn’t something I can get behind.

I think you’re thinking too far into it. Just look at the basic concept that ‘politics’ is ALWAYS the problem in these originally tribal societies. The national life does not come from them, and they have trouble adapting to it. The Nation seems to be the problem and who’s to say that technology cannot survive in a tribal society or even a tribal world? Not everyone needs to be part of innovation. Perhaps their talents are with something else, something they have to offer us. Perhaps there are things we could learn from them -those of tribal societies, that we never thought of before. Unforeseen gems that are unimaginable to us now.

Often people perceive tribalism as barbaric and war filled even outdated and archaic. I’m not so sure that’s always the case. It’s just what we’ve been told by the ancient empires who tried to control them with force. Who knows what was really true.

 

[dshix]

I think you’re thinking too far into it. Just look at the basic concept that ‘politics’ is ALWAYS the problem in these originally tribal societies. The national life does not come from them, and they have trouble adapting to it. The ‘nation’ is the problem and who’s to say that technology cannot survive in a tribal society or even a tribal world? Not everyone needs to be part of innovation. Perhaps their talents are with something else, something they have to offer us. Perhaps there are things we could learn from them -those of tribal societies, that we never thought of before. Unforeseen gems that are unimaginable to us now.

Often people perceive tribalism as barbaric and war filled even outdated and archaic. I’m not so sure that’s always the case.

I think Kamaduck’s point stands. We can’t just step in and “change” things in Africa. The only people who can do that are the Africans themselves. Perhaps we could assist African rebels who are prepared to help institute a new form of government which would help Africa to become a strong, self sustaining nation, but we can’t just do it for them. If we attempt that, we will be forced to keep a standing military in the country until somehow they pick it up from there – and we know they won’t do that if they didn’t already have the initiative to do so if they didn’t try that BEFORE we stepped in.

 

[Timothysis]

You come off as a know-it-all, but you cannot back up anything you say with hard facts.

Gosh, Robert; did not Christ say what I posted about the lilies of the field? Did He also not take delight in them even though they are “here today and gone tomorrow?” If the gospel and Christ’s own words are not hard enough facts for you, then I don’t know what will suffice.

As far as being a “know it all,” you would do well to review some of your own threads and see your own sense of being a know it all when you continuously berate posters for not upholding your positions. YOU are the one who said that the starving exist because society is apathetic, though you don’t include yourself in society. YOU are the one who says that you can’t be happy as long as you know the needy exist and questions how anyone else can be. YOU are the one who claims to be correct about the issue even though this thread has run to six pages and no one else backs your position. Now tell me; who is the know it all in this thread?

 

[Kamaduck]

I think Kamaduck’s point stands. We can’t just step in and “change” things in Africa. The only people who can do that are the Africans themselves. Perhaps we could assist African rebels who are prepared to help institute a new form of government which would help Africa to become a strong, self sustaining nation, but we can’t just do it for them. If we attempt that, we will be forced to keep a standing military in the country until somehow they pick it up from there – and we know they won’t do that if they didn’t already have the initiative to do so if they didn’t try that BEFORE we stepped in.

Exactly, it’s not our decision to make. If people in African countries wanted to revolt against a dictator and had a plan to make a country with a governmental structure that would be less prone to corruption, then I would say we should support them, whether through the use of military forces or just economic support. (Unfortunately, it’s rarely that clear-cut in real life- we often fear that the rebels will be just as bad as, if not worse than, the people they replace.) But taking control and forcing a new governmental structure on them, just because we who have never lived there think it’s for the best, is completely unacceptable. I don’t have an opinion on the benefits of tribes vs. nations, but I do think that people should be allowed to govern themselves. If we try to do it for them, they won’t have proper representation, and we’ll incur even more debt. Our track record with restructuring nations isn’t exactly spotless, and we’ve never even attempted it on something as massive as a continent. I can’t see it going well.

I’m not an expert on happenings in African countries, but I expect that there are at least some positive organizations run by people who live there, and some governments that are comparatively OK. It’d be much better for us to support those than to break down the whole structure of their society all over again. It’s less radical of a change, but a radical change would risk devolving into dystopia or chaos.

 

[TEPO]

Exactly, it’s not our decision to make. If people in African countries wanted to revolt against a dictator and had a plan to make a country with a governmental structure that would be less prone to corruption, then I would say we should support them, whether through the use of military forces or just economic support. (Unfortunately, it’s rarely that clear-cut in real life- we often fear that the rebels will be just as bad as, if not worse than, the people they replace.) But taking control and forcing a new governmental structure on them, just because we who have never lived there think it’s for the best, is completely unacceptable. I don’t have an opinion on the benefits of tribes vs. nations, but I do think that people should be allowed to govern themselves. If we try to do it for them, they won’t have proper representation, and we’ll incur even more debt. Our track record with restructuring nations isn’t exactly spotless, and we’ve never even attempted it on something as massive as a continent. I can’t see it going well.

I’m not an expert on happenings in African countries, but I expect that there are at least some positive organizations run by people who live there, and some governments that are comparatively OK. It’d be much better for us to support those than to break down the whole structure of their society all over again. It’s less radical of a change, but a radical change would risk devolving into dystopia or chaos.

Yet many Americans backed the assassinations of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden.

It’s the Horn of Africa where militants block and divert rivers to kill children, not the entire continent. Militants kill western food and medical aids who are only trying to save lives -yet we choose to attack already functioning nations in less distress.

Unless the conservatives in the US can get their priorities straight, God will continue allowing more Barack Obama’s to lead our nation until we are led completely into failure and collapse. IOW, if we’re not doing His will, He will strip us of our power -as it won’t be needed anymore.

 

[Kamaduck]

Yet many Americans backed the assassinations of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden.

It’s the Horn of Africa where militants block and divert rivers to kill children, not the entire continent. Militants kill western food and medical aids who are only trying to save lives -yet we choose to attack already functioning nations in less distress.

Unless the conservatives in the US can get their priorities straight, God will continue allowing more Barack Obama’s to lead our nation until we are led completely into failure and collapse. IOW, if we’re not doing His will, He will strip us of our power -as it won’t be needed anymore.

Well, as I said, there was the concern of terrorism. They wanted to kill us. We have no such justification for interfering in the Horn of Africa. And if we’re going to point out what we’ve recently been doing in the Middle East, we should probably point out that that project didn’t go so well for the people living there. Or for us.

If there is a resistance movement in the horn of Africa, then how about we learn about it and see if it’s wise to support them instead of taking over like we own the place?

 

[TEPO]

Well, as I said, there was the concern of terrorism. They wanted to kill us. We have no such justification for interfering in the Horn of Africa. And if we’re going to point out what we’ve recently been doing in the Middle East, we should probably point out that that project didn’t go so well for the people living there. Or for us.

If there is a resistance movement in the horn of Africa, then how about we learn about it and see if it’s wise to support them instead of taking over like we own the place?

Christians are being slaughtered in the Horn of Africa, I’ll look for links after I charge my phone. The Bishops there have been calling for help but nobody listens just the same way people tend to turn a blind eye to the starvation issue.

I’ll get back later on this.

…also, the idea of tribalism should have been discussed during the restructuring of Iraq. It’s an idea that hasn’t been discussed on whether it’s something that might create peace in the region.

 

[Kamaduck]

Christians are being slaughtered in the Horn of Africa, I’ll look for links after I charge my phone. The Bishops there have been calling for help but nobody listens just the same way people tend to turn a blind eye to the starvation issue.

I’ll get back later on this.

Christians being slaughtered is a difficult issue in terms of governmental aid. If I understand, that happens in places that are majority Muslim. We would need to pressure governments to crack down on human rights violations. I’m not against that in any way. We could further support the churches and religious orders there, and give them the aid they need to function, or to care for the people who need it. There are certainly things we could do to help.

But if we, a majority Christian nation, barge in and wrest control away from Muslim people, do you really think they won’t resent us? Won’t try to drive us out? It sounds like it’ll go about as well for us as our interference in the Middle East did, only even worse because there would be no excuse for occupying the country. I don’t think it’s right to send any more American soldiers into danger if we don’t have a plan with a reasonable chance of success.

I look forward to reading any further information you can give us. I’d look it up myself, but I don’t know what countries you’re referring to, and that makes it difficult. I’d especially like to know what the bishops are calling for, since I’m sure they understand the situation much better than people outside the country do.

 

[Kamaduck]

OK, I couldn’t help myself. The country that occupies the Horn of Africa is Somalia (yes, I had to look it up).

This report is from 2011, and talks about Church officials asking for aid in the form of money for food. It’s mainly about starvation, with no mention of Christians being killed. There is also no apparent plan, just paying to feed people (which is good, of course, but will not solve the underlying problems).

This is a more comprehensive look at the recent history of Somalia. It seems the country has been in civil war for some time, originally between clans that want to be independent of each other, but it was made worse because of the additional conflict introduced by Muslim exremists. Ethiopian troops tried to help stabilize the country, but as soon as they pulled out, the Muslim extremists tried to take over again. Neighboring nations actually called for a blockade in 2010 in order to keep the radical Muslims from getting any more weapons- and it seems like that may have contributed to the lack of food.

The problem is that all of the involved sides commit human rights violations in the name of whatever they see as the greater good. Whoever we supported would likely be responsible for war crimes, and it’s questionable whether the civilians would be protected. I suppose I’d say that rule by the president is preferable to rule by Muslim extremists, but it may be far from ideal, and it won’t solve the problem of warring clans.

This is the wikipedia article about the Somali civil war, and contains even more information. I haven’t read it all yet, but I’m sure it would give us even more context. It has maps that include the different regional, unofficial governments of Somaliland and Puntland, which I suppose TEPO would like to see become independent. Apparently the conflict did lessen in intensity when they weren’t forced to share a government, but the Muslim radicals and efforts to combat them with a central government made things fall apart again.

So if this little bit of information doesn’t tip you off, the situation in even this one country is really complex, and there aren’t any easy answers, particularly as long as the Muslim extremists control a sizeable portion of the populace. If we want to help, we have to learn a lot about what the various conflicts even are. And even if we could get Somaliland, Puntland, and the southern part of the country to be stable, it still wouldn’t get rid of the Muslim extremists.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Gosh, Robert; did not Christ say what I posted about the lilies of the field? Did He also not take delight in them even though they are “here today and gone tomorrow?” If the gospel and Christ’s own words are not hard enough facts for you, then I don’t know what will suffice.

As far as being a “know it all,” you would do well to review some of your own threads and see your own sense of being a know it all when you continuously berate posters for not upholding your positions. YOU are the one who said that the starving exist because society is apathetic, though you don’t include yourself in society. YOU are the one who says that you can’t be happy as long as you know the needy exist and questions how anyone else can be. YOU are the one who claims to be correct about the issue even though this thread has run to six pages and no one else backs your position. Now tell me; who is the know it all in this thread?

“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15

 

[Timothysis]

“Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the charity of the Father is not in him.”
-1 John 2:15

Not only are you adept at the art of the dodge, you also have a curious tendency to cherry pick quotes from scripture to suit your need.

Christ loved many of the people mentioned in the gospels; does that mean that "the charity of the Father is not in him?"

 

[Robert_Sock]

Not only are you adept at the art of the dodge, you also have a curious tendency to cherry pick quotes from scripture to suit your need.

Christ loved many of the people mentioned in the gospels; does that mean that "the charity of the Father is not in him?"

What could possibly be wrong with Christ loving people? If you’re saying that Christ’s love for people somehow negates 1 John 2:15, you’re seriously wrong again.

“Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.”
~ Proverbs 21:13

 

[TEPO]

OK, I couldn’t help myself. The country that occupies the Horn of Africa is Somalia (yes, I had to look it up).

This report is from 2011, and talks about Church officials asking for aid in the form of money for food. It’s mainly about starvation, with no mention of Christians being killed. There is also no apparent plan, just paying to feed people (which is good, of course, but will not solve the underlying problems).

This is a more comprehensive look at the recent history of Somalia. It seems the country has been in civil war for some time, originally between clans that want to be independent of each other, but it was made worse because of the additional conflict introduced by Muslim exremists. Ethiopian troops tried to help stabilize the country, but as soon as they pulled out, the Muslim extremists tried to take over again. Neighboring nations actually called for a blockade in 2010 in order to keep the radical Muslims from getting any more weapons- and it seems like that may have contributed to the lack of food.

The problem is that all of the involved sides commit human rights violations in the name of whatever they see as the greater good. Whoever we supported would likely be responsible for war crimes, and it’s questionable whether the civilians would be protected. I suppose I’d say that rule by the president is preferable to rule by Muslim extremists, but it may be far from ideal, and it won’t solve the problem of warring clans.

This is the wikipedia article about the Somali civil war, and contains even more information. I haven’t read it all yet, but I’m sure it would give us even more context. It has maps that include the different regional, unofficial governments of Somaliland and Puntland, which I suppose TEPO would like to see become independent. Apparently the conflict did lessen in intensity when they weren’t forced to share a government, but the Muslim radicals and efforts to combat them with a central government made things fall apart again.

So if this little bit of information doesn’t tip you off, the situation in even this one country is really complex, and there aren’t any easy answers, particularly as long as the Muslim extremists control a sizeable portion of the populace. If we want to help, we have to learn a lot about what the various conflicts even are. And even if we could get Somaliland, Puntland, and the southern part of the country to be stable, it still wouldn’t get rid of the Muslim extremists.

Sorry about this but the situation of Christians continually being massacred in Africa is going on mainly in Nigeria, which is not actually in the Horn of Africa. My mistake.

But Bishop Kaigama has reported on it several times in the past that I’ve read on the Nigerian Conference of Catholic Bishops website. cbcn-ng.org
…some information might be available there.

But just a few days ago the Bishop of Nigeria went public again after yet ANOTHER attack against The MILLIONS of Christians that live there – "Archbishop Kaigama, who also serves as the president of the Nigerian Catholic bishops’ conference, told the Fides news agency “the latest massacre in northern Nigeria does not surprise me anymore, because Boko Haram follows a regular pattern, aimed at terrorizing the population.” en.radiovaticana.va/m_articolo.asp?c=774406

 

[TEPO]

The situation in Nigeria is dire none the less! They need help.

 

[Timothysis]

you’re seriously wrong again.

Says you.

 

[ishii]

Is there really a need for sarcasm?

Yes. Sarcasm can help deal with overly simplistic thread topics.