It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Displaced people highest in a decade

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Displaced people highest in a decade


www.news.com.au

ARMED conflicts and violence displaced more than 26 million people within their own countries in 2007, the highest number in more than a decade, an international monitoring body says.

And while there is growing international attention to the plight, there has been no breakthrough in reducing their numbers or improving their situation, said specialists from the Norwegian Refugee Council.

The council's internal displacement monitoring centre estimated that the number of such displaced people reached 24.5 million in 2006. But that figure continued to grow in 2007.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I think its shocking that we (the West) can spend billions on war, but we allow this to happen to more than 26 million people.

How do we justify this?

CT

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
hang on.. so the responsibility fall us on us why?

the west already donates pretty much all the worlds aid.

ps. i am not in support of the ridiculous amounts of money spent on war and war tech.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemonkey
 




hang on.. so the responsibility fall us on us why?


Because we claimed the moral high ground. How can we continue to do so if 26 million human beings are 'displaced.'


Last year, the number of displaced people rose sharply in Iraq where there were almost 2.5 million victims by year-end


Can we at least agree on responsibility for that number? But what about the rest. What if it where you?



the west already donates pretty much all the worlds aid.


Yeah. Because no one else can afford it. Its simple as that.

CT



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey
hang on.. so the responsibility fall us on us why?

the west already donates pretty much all the worlds aid.

ps. i am not in support of the ridiculous amounts of money spent on war and war tech.


Easily, if the US wants to continue playing world police, then we must pay for our actions. Now, we should not have to pay for those that we did not displace, but anyone who was displaced because of our illegal millitary actions needs to be compensated, as we took their homes and lives away, therefore we need to restore it, maybe with some of that money we spend on "War"



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

I think its shocking that we (the West) can spend billions on war, but we allow this to happen to more than 26 million people.

How do we justify this?


We don't. We ignore it until we can ignore it no longer, then we throw money at it. Over and over and over again. Why are resources going into anything else at all while people are without reliable food, water and shelter? Because from top to bottom the system is corrupt.

We, here on ATS, know better than most what war is really about. It has nothing to do with patriotism and protecting our way of life, the brave men and women who fight in wars are not doing it for their country they are private armies representing corporate interests. The motives and media defined motivations, for war have not changed much since the 12th century crusades.

Since the second world war, wars have been fought not on the battlefield but in the towns, cities and villages of our so-called enemies. We have helped to fund civil wars and uprisings, and installed puppet regimes in the aftermath of coups. In the long and the short of it, we in the west, our governments and the corporations that fund them, are responsible for much of the misery that exists in the world today. Every day hundreds die as a direct and indirect result of UK or US policy. They are nothing more than collateral damage and the more that die or disappear, the less compensation that will be eventually be required.

At the Nuremberg Trials, the head of the US Prosecution, Robert Jackson fought to have the charge of Waging Aggressive War made against the Nazi heirarchy. On this charge men were hung. Since that time the US has waged agressive war repeatedly. The UK too, but the British team were opposed to the charge, so we just about escape the charge of hypocrisy. Why have the international courts failed to respond to this? Why do the rules of law only ever apply to the vanquished?

The people of Iraq will be beaten down until they have no resistance left and then they will be provided with a suitable leader, a corporate darling, someone the boys can do business with. Much money will then be invested into Iraq to rebuild the economy and the infrastructure. As at every stage of this programme corruption pervades, it will remain to be seen for how long stability is maintained - this time. And so it goes.

Any country that has a resource of any value, that is not already strongly controlled by corporate interests is a viable target. In areas of Africa, where the mineral resources are rich, civil unrest prevents these resources from reaching the marketplace. By limiting supply to a level below demand, they keep the price high. It all works in their favour.

The west will not involve itself in the resolution of these disputes until they require those resources to enter the market or until they own those resources and can therefore fix prices. They will of course intercede if those conflicts look likely to be resolved, they will provide weapons and expertise if necessary to keep the natives restive.

It is all a little jaded and sadly no foreseeable conclusion is in sight, not while our governments operate outside of our jurisdiction and we, as the electorate, allow them to. All the while people like us, who once had hopes and aspirations not too different from our own, are without the provision of basic needs. Through no fault of their own their lives and homes were taken from them. While the corporations report fat profits, it is us that will dig in our pockets to help those people, because 'there but for the grace of god go I.'



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Finn1916

Easily, if the US wants to continue playing world police, then we must pay for our actions. Now, we should not have to pay for those that we did not displace, but anyone who was displaced because of our illegal millitary actions needs to be compensated, as we took their homes and lives away, therefore we need to restore it, maybe with some of that money we spend on "War"


Then we owe absolutely nothing because none of our millitary actions have been illegal. (note: I am in no way saying we haven't had some incidents involving individual soldiers breaking the law.) Saddam Hussein and the Taliban took those peoples' homes and lives away when they decided to harbor and support terrorists and repeatedly violate sanctions. Want someone to pay up, look for them... oh wait, most of them are dead now, my bad.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




Then we owe absolutely nothing because none of our millitary actions have been illegal. (note: I am in no way saying we haven't had some incidents involving individual soldiers breaking the law.)


Really? Abu Ghraib? Extraordinary Rendition? These are not the actions of individual soldiers.



Want someone to pay up, look for them... oh wait, most of them are dead now, my bad.


Yeah. And the numbers are still rising. What does that tell you?

CT



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join