“Africa may well stabilize at some point too, and it probably won’t be disarmament that accomplishes it. I am skeptical of disarmament as a way to solve the problem, and I think the UN is naive to believe it will work. …”

With an institution as corrupt as the United Nations, we ought not to ascribe naivete to their disarmament motives. I think their motivation is far more sinister. After all, when Libya can chair the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, leading their buddies on that commission from the Sudan and Zimbabwe, we can fairly infer that “human rights” as generally understood in U.S. isn’t high on the U.N. agenda. When Burma, whose generals were busy preventing humanitarian aid from reaching its own cyclone-devastated citizens, can get elected as a vice-president of the General Assembly, as it was recently, we ought not look to the U.N. for any semblance of moral leadership. On anything, and certainly not on the issue of arms.

I think that many African countries were/are capable of a stable system. But they are too tolerant of the big man syndrome and allow them to take power. That is what happened to Zimbabwe when the transition was sabatoged by Carter of US and GR Britain.

That was a very well country under Rhodesian white rule. It is funny but I often see parallels from the destruction of an exceptionally well run country from white to black rule and the similar results in our cities. DC was very well run under Congress. It went to hell in a handbasket under home rule. Atlanta also deteriorated and there are other citiies.

I know there are substantial other factors like the 1960’s cultural revolution in the US etc but the parallels are scary.

I do think having arms dispersed among society helps ensure a lasting order, but that doesn’t happen overnight. It took Europe centuries to move from feudalism, through the enlightenment, and finally toward democratic governance.

Africa may well stabilize at some point too, and it probably won’t be disarmament that accomplishes it. I am skeptical of disarmament as a way to solve the problem, and I think the UN is naive to believe it will work. But I’m also skeptical that it’s a simple matter to get arms into the hands of the right people in conflict areas. With little or no culture of independence and self-government, these societies just don’t have the institutions and ideas needed to use arms to create a workable peace, or a just government.

You can see both extremes at work in Iraq. The Kurds were able to use their own arms to create a functioning society in Northern Iraq, even under Saddam’s rule. It would be silly to disarm the Kurds, since they have the social framework to make that work. The Shia Arabs, on the other hand, who were oppressed by the Sunni minority are now the ones with the arms, and rather than creating a workable plurality, they’ve decided it’s their time for reprisals, and their time to enjoy the benefits of graft and corruption.

America doesn’t own the trademark on a desire for Freedom and prosperity.
Those are human ambitions, not just American.
We just put it into practice better than anyone else, back in our glory days.

Green Berets would probably be needed for any official help, such as arming southern Sudanese villages.

I agree that widespread gun ownership is no guarantee of a civilized society, but the examples of African countries are not good illustrations of “widespread gun ownership”.

I don’t look at America’s heritage as a issue of “romance” as much I think people look to their traditions for a sense of identity. It is who we are. The rights and freedoms we have a not romanticized; they are the core of our being. That is what the UN will never understand; that is why they despise America. Indeed a good portion of the UN is made up of despotic or socialist retreads who are no different than the pragmatists who viewed the coming age of the strongman during the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. Our foundations remain because they are built upon the creed that what God has given us should by no means be infringed.