What do you think is the reason for the UN to move swiftly on the 'war' eastern europe, a thing they never ...

do in Africa? The conflict between Russia and Georgia has been given so much attention. Contrast that with the laizzes fair attitude towards African conflicts.
So, according to you the UN is another name for the "West". Thanks for clarifying.

If the west intervenes in a local or regional conflict in Africa we get our people killed, spend a lot of money, nothing is resolved, and we are accused of being racists.

If the west doesn't intervene in a local or regional conflict in Africa we don't get our people killed, don't spend a lot of money, nothing is resolved, and we are accused of being racists.

Which policy would you suggest we pursue?

-----------------------------------------

By your edit it appears truth hurts.

Be real. You didn't mean the United Nations in your BS rant "question". You meant the west. Do you suppose countries like Bangaldesh can "move swiftly" on anything?

The problem is multi faceted. I think a large part of the problem stems from 'The West' as you call it, not having any idea what tribalism is all about. They ran into that problem in North America and didn't understand it and it is a similar problem in African countries. Judgements are made using the criteria that is understood and tribalism is not understood and so misunderstandings are broadly labelled "racism" and dismissed and often tagged as being politically incorrect.

The media gets a hold of these things, 'educates' it's readers or viewers with the 'politically' acceptable stuff fed to them by politicians who will say what ever is required to keep themselves from appearing stupid and/or uninformed. And they attach catch words that spread faster than the common cold - things like terrorism when in fact it might be freedom fighting on the part of legitimately fighting underdogs looking for a bit of relief and /or freedom. A good example is one I experienced. TV over here in Canada was talking about the fight against Apartheid while showing pictures of necklacing. While it was never said outright, the implication was that the poor man we saw necklaced had something to do with Apartheid. It didn't! It was one tribe's answer to another tribe's apparent misbehaviour. But I will wager that everyone over here who saw it thought it did.

It is done everywhere! In South Africa, the Apartheid people taught their followers that segregation was right. The ANC etc is doing the exact same thing but from the opposite end of the fight.

Somewhere in every argument there is a kernel of truth but time and rhetoric bury that kernel so deep it gets lost to one and all.

Part of the problem with interfering in tribal wars is, aside from the fact that tribalism is not understood, that it ends up similar to interfering in a family fight. You lose no matter what you do or say.

And while there is no doubt that racism is a huge problem, not everything that goes on over there is done for racial reasons. And playing the race card just because you can, can be dangerous, is stupid and really we all are just hurting ourselves by doing it. My list of friends, associates and contacts is very multiracial and I would not have it any other way.I personally consider knowledge very important and I would not have a lot of the storehouse of knowledge I do have if I didn't know these people.

One of the biggest lessons here too is tolerance. Tolerant people are more apt to try to understand another than to just start throwing fists or dirty insults. Tolerance is good when tempered with knowledge and enough assertiveness to keep the really hard core 'ists' in line. There are less fights, both verbal and physical. There is more harmony. Gotta love harmony. I can sleep well at night. I do not have to look forward to a fight when I get up.

Being fanatical about anything is counter productive. Look around you. The fanatically religious are at war. The fanatically racist are at war. The fanatically greedy are at war.

Let me end this almost book length answer on a 'up' note:
Your mission, my dear pitso. should you chose to accept it, is to try to bring understanding to the masses, not by annihilating the opposing forces but by educating them. :o)

It is true you never said the word "West' but you did mention the United Nations which was set up by what is referred to as the "Western Powers". as was it's predecessor, The League of Nations. I can see how people would assume here. About the Russia - Georgia conflict, I have to tell you that for me, at least, it came out of nowhere because until it was on the news the other day, I had no idea there was a problem that had reached the go to war stage. I mean there are always problems there but i had thought they were more under control than they apparently were.I think maybe the U.N. went in here because it's founding fathers are mostly western and the old USSR, are among the original 50 countries to take up membership in the U.N..

Africa had his own kind of problems and is better to be deal ed by Africa
And Nola speaks the truth
If the west intervenes in a local or regional conflict in Africa we get our people killed, spend a lot of money, nothing is resolved, and we are accused of being racists.

If the west doesn't intervene in a local or regional conflict in Africa we don't get our people killed, don't spend a lot of money, nothing is resolved, and we are accused of being racists.

Which policy would you suggest we pursue?
So to sum it up help yourself before you will be helped and stop begging

Why bother asking as we all know the answer. White life is better than black life.