PDA

View Full Version : Good article..


Joe Seahawk
06-12-2007, 05:00 PM
Thought I'd share..

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003740623_sundaymanweller10.html

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 05:52 PM
Good read, Mr. Manweller. Good find, Mr. Seahawk.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 06:00 PM
So one person lacks the insight of knowing what stopping a genocide would entail, therefore we shouldn't do it because we have messianic tendencies.

Gotcha.

There are such things as proper allocation of military resources. Iraq wasn't and never was one. Sudan is.

There is a difference between the two. His conflation of them is ridiculous, as is the rehashing of Plato's forms of gov't as though it was something new.

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 06:04 PM
There are such things as proper allocation of military resources. Iraq wasn't and never was one. Sudan is.
What is in American interests in intervention in Sudan?
Seems to me it's a parallel of modern day Iraq, and would be every bit the quagmire, with nothing on which for us to hang our hats justifying our intervention.

Hydrae
06-12-2007, 06:17 PM
I said before we even went into Iraq that the way to "conquer" the Middle East was to ship them capitalism. Within a generation they will be too busy watching their new televisions and the latest reality show fad to bother with blowing each other up!

Baby Lee
06-12-2007, 06:19 PM
I said before we even went into Iraq that the way to "conquer" the Middle East was to ship them capitalism. Within a generation they will be too busy watching their new televisions and the latest reality show fad to bother with blowing each other up!
Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!!!

Cochise
06-12-2007, 06:29 PM
What is in American interests in intervention in Sudan?
Seems to me it's a parallel of modern day Iraq, and would be every bit the quagmire, with nothing on which for us to hang our hats justifying our intervention.

I am sympathetic to the humanitarian situation there. But it seems to me to reverse what the arguments against Iraq were. That the problem people were no threat to the United States, that we had no compelling national interest there, that we'd never get out and it'd be a quagmire, etc.

I think this shows you what some liberals think of the military - that the normally understood purpose of the military should be discarded and armed forces should instead be used on boy scout missions as some kind of welfare-like job corps.

Now, if I thought we were capable I'd be more than happy to have us everywhere in the world solving every problem at once. But we have to pick our battles - and how should we do that? Well, a compelling national interest would be a good criteria, I guess.

But hey, with our intervention policy having been such a smashing success in Sudan's neighbor, Somalia, just a few years ago - why wouldn't we dive right in?

mlyonsd
06-12-2007, 07:19 PM
There are such things as proper allocation of military resources. Iraq wasn't and never was one. Sudan is.



WTF?

go bowe
06-12-2007, 09:50 PM
WTF?where, when, who, what?

enquiring minds and all...

patteeu
06-12-2007, 09:55 PM
Thanks, Joe Seahawk. That's a really good article. It makes a lot of sense to me. :thumb:

go bowe
06-12-2007, 10:01 PM
What is in American interests in intervention in Sudan?
Seems to me it's a parallel of modern day Iraq, and would be every bit the quagmire, with nothing on which for us to hang our hats justifying our intervention.isn't darfur in sudan?

aren't other countries/un getting involved now in a peacekeeping force?

imo, if we were goiing to intervene we should try to protect the refugees first and foremost...

we shouldn't take sides, just protect the refugees and make sure that assistance which was intended for the refugees goes to the refugees...

speaking of africa, we should probably arm and equip the eithiopian army and let them do the dirty work for us in somalia...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 10:40 PM
What is in American interests in intervention in Sudan?
Seems to me it's a parallel of modern day Iraq, and would be every bit the quagmire, with nothing on which for us to hang our hats justifying our intervention.

So there isn't a sizeable militia force committing daily atrocities that an organized military effort could curtail?

This isn't about rebuilding the infrastructure of a country and installing a pro-US puppet state to augment the masculinity of a political cabal, it's about stopping a genocide.

Nobody gave a f*ck in Rwanda either, just like there are no "compelling" reasons for the US to involve itself here....

I wonder why....

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:15 PM
I wonder why....

Because there's nothing in our national interest to be gained.

Should Baby Lee be typing slower?

Logical
06-12-2007, 11:23 PM
Because there's nothing in our national interest to be gained.

Should Baby Lee be typing slower?
Because the US would not want to stop a genocide from occuring. So much for the theory we are a nation of Christian principles.ROFL

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:33 PM
Because the US would not want to stop a genocide from occuring. So much for the theory we are a nation of Christian principles.ROFL

We are a nation born of Christian ideals, but our government is entirely secular and should remain so.

Logical
06-12-2007, 11:35 PM
We are a nation born of Christian ideals, but our government is entirely secular and should remain so.

So we should not do the Christian thing? Kind of makes the notion that we are a nation of Christian Ideals a joke. By the way I am not saying this is your feeling.

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:37 PM
So we should not do the Christian thing?

Absolutely not.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 11:40 PM
Absolutely not.

Yeah. It's not like they're white people.

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:44 PM
So we should not do the Christian thing? Kind of makes the notion that we are a nation of Christian Ideals a joke.

I didn't say that. I said that we are a nation born of Christian ideals.

Government should not adopt Christian ideals as policy. When it comes to government I prefer clear national interest.

This is old stuff, but here goes: I don't want my Jesus wrapped in the American flag. It's beneath Him. I don't want my country to put 50 crosses in the blue field of its flag. My country isn't worthy of that kind of pretension.

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:44 PM
Yeah. It's not like they're white people.

And it's not like they have oil.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-12-2007, 11:53 PM
So we should not do the Christian thing? Kind of makes the notion that we are a nation of Christian Ideals a joke. By the way I am not saying this is your feeling.

How about we just do the ethical thing and stop a genocide.

I think what this debate really outlines is something akin to what Cochise is saying, but it's not merely that liberals think the military is a "boy scout" force....

It's that liberals are actually seeking to better mankind, and that the conservatives in this country really don't give a f*ck about anything other than "national interest" vis-a-vis power and economic exploit.

I apologize for the reductive, binary nature of this construction, but I'm wondering how people can be so callous as to not care about what happens to an entire race of people simply because it's not in the "best interests" of one specific nation state (as though we always acted in our best interests anyway).

ClevelandBronco
06-12-2007, 11:55 PM
How about we just do the ethical thing and stop a genocide.

I think what this debate really outlines is something akin to what Cochise is saying, but it's not merely that liberals think the military is a "boy scout" force....

It's that liberals are actually seeking to better mankind, and that the conservatives in this country really don't give a f*ck about anything other than "national interest" vis-a-vis power and economic exploit.

I apologize for the reductive, binary nature of this construction, but I'm wondering how people can be so callous as to not care about what happens to an entire race of people simply because it's not in the "best interests" of one specific nation state (as though we always acted in our best interests anyway).

It's a job for the UN. And if this isn't a job for the UN, then the UN has no legitimate job at all.

Logical
06-12-2007, 11:59 PM
How about we just do the ethical thing and stop a genocide.

I think what this debate really outlines is something akin to what Cochise is saying, but it's not merely that liberals think the military is a "boy scout" force....

It's that liberals are actually seeking to better mankind, and that the conservatives in this country really don't give a f*ck about anything other than "national interest" vis-a-vis power and economic exploit.

I apologize for the reductive, binary nature of this construction, but I'm wondering how people can be so callous as to not care about what happens to an entire race of people simply because it's not in the "best interests" of one specific nation state (as though we always acted in our best interests anyway).

I am trying to appeal to their biases, ethics don't mean much to anyone anymore, unfortunately.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 12:00 AM
...I'm wondering how people can be so callous as to not care about what happens to an entire race of people simply because it's not in the "best interests" of one specific nation state (as though we always acted in our best interests anyway).

Uh huh.

You're the citizen of the world, Humus. Ask the world to charge in.

Logical
06-13-2007, 12:02 AM
I didn't say that. I said that we are a nation born of Christian ideals.

Government should not adopt Christian ideals as policy. When it comes to government I prefer clear national interest.

This is old stuff, but here goes: I don't want my Jesus wrapped in the American flag. It's beneath Him. I don't want my country to put 50 crosses in the blue field of its flag. My country isn't worthy of that kind of pretension.So we are only a Christian nation when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, in other words when it is convenient.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 12:06 AM
So we are only a Christian nation when it comes to abortion, stem cell research, in other words when it is convenient.

Absolutely not. We're not a Christian nation under any circumstances whatsoever. Good grief. If we were a Christian nation abortion, adultery, worshiping false gods, taking the name of the Lord your God in vain, et al. would be outlawed.

Sometimes Christian voters get their way, however, and you just have to live with the effects of that. Sometimes you don't get your way. It happens.

stevieray
06-13-2007, 12:07 AM
Uh huh.

You're the citizen of the world, Humus. Ask the world to charge in.

The only common denominator between Sudan and Iraq to the left fringe liberals is another chance to bash Bush.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 12:11 AM
The only common denominator between Sudan and Iraq to the left fringe liberals is another chance to bash Bush.

Because only "left fringe liberals" respect the value of a human life.

Look dude, it's not about bashing Bush, it's about bashing the people of this country who don't give a f*ck.

Clinton did nothing about Rwanda, and that to me is still an unforgivable transgression--by far the worst mistake of his presidency--it shouldn't be a partisan issue at all--it just so happens that the vast majority of people who actually care about this happen to be---GASP---liberal.


But again, no one gives a f*ck, because it was only a bunch of savage n*ggers getting hacked to death with machetes.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 12:14 AM
Because only "left fringe liberals" respect the value of a human life.

I'm not surprised that you posted that. It's a good line.

Do you believe it?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 12:15 AM
I'm not surprised that you posted that. It's a good line.

Do you believe it?

I"m really hoping you didn't miss the irony, but after some of the responses in this thread, I don't know if I should be willing to dole out any credit for any degree of perception.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 12:21 AM
I"m really hoping you didn't miss the irony, but after some of the responses in this thread, I don't know if I should be willing to dole out any credit for any degree of perception.

You are an angry man, Hamas.

BTW: You should probably review the definition of "irony." It's a term that's used too often, and usually incorrectly.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 12:22 AM
You are an angry man, Hamas.

BTW: You should probably review the definition of "irony." It's a term that's used too often, and usually incorrectly.

It's not like I have a Masters in Literature or anything...and I have no concept of rhetorical devices since I teach argumentative writing.

stevieray
06-13-2007, 12:24 AM
But again, no one gives a f*ck, because it was only a bunch of savage n*ggers getting hacked to death with machetes.

would that be like saying we don't give a damn if "savage bubba" rapes people in our prisons?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 12:26 AM
would that be like saying we don't give a damn if "savage bubba" rapes people in our prisons?

:wayne: to the king of the non-sequitur.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 12:38 AM
It's not like I have a Masters in Literature or anything...and I have no concept of rhetorical devices since I teach argumentative writing.

Still, I think you mean fundamental disagreement, even though you'd like to call it irony.

I'm not surprised that you teach argumentative writing. It looks like you know how to try to change a written conversation into an argument that occurs on your turf, with you controlling the meaning of terms.

We bomb people "because they're brown." Good way to move the discussion onto your home field. Some of us just aren't going to bite on the bait, Hamas.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 12:41 AM
Still, I think you mean fundamental disagreement, even though you'd like to call it irony.

I'm not surprised that you teach argumentative writing. It looks like you know how to try to change a written conversation into an argument that occurs on your turf, with you controlling the meaning of terms.

We bomb people "because they're brown." Good way to move the discussion onto your home field. Some of us just aren't going to bite on the bait, Hamas.

Irony:“incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."

Given the "culture of life" in this country and the "millions of dead" argument consistently brought up by the right, don't you find it just a might ironic that the "culture of life" doesn't extend to a very real genocide?

stevieray
06-13-2007, 12:45 AM
:wayne: to the king of the non-sequitur.


does your premise consist of not caring what happens to a group of people, or is it simply based on race?

Logical
06-13-2007, 01:08 AM
Still, I think you mean fundamental disagreement, even though you'd like to call it irony.

I'm not surprised that you teach argumentative writing. It looks like you know how to try to change a written conversation into an argument that occurs on your turf, with you controlling the meaning of terms.

We bomb people "because they're brown." Good way to move the discussion onto your home field. Some of us just aren't going to bite on the bait, Hamas.No we bomb people becaues their country has oil and we don't really give a f*ck about those people, they are pawns to be manipulated.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 01:08 AM
Irony:“incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."

Given the "culture of life" in this country and the "millions of dead" argument consistently brought up by the right, don't you find it just a might ironic that the "culture of life" doesn't extend to a very real genocide?

Who in this thread has mentioned anything about a "culture of life?" I thought that the argument we were making against you was based on clear national interest.

The irony exists only in your mind, Hamas. Not in the words in this thread.

Now there is irony in your argument (“incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."), but not in anything anyone else has said yet.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 01:52 AM
Who in this thread has mentioned anything about a "culture of life?" I thought that the argument we were making against you was based on clear national interest.

The irony exists only in your mind, Hamas. Not in the words in this thread.

Now there is irony in your argument (“incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."), but not in anything anyone else has said yet.

Obviously you weren't picking up on the allusions.


How many of the dissenters in this thread would identify as "pro-life", and why?

How many supported the idea of "liberating" Iraq and freeing people like the Kurds from the human rights atrocities of Saddam, and yet turn a blind eye to this?

The irony is *that* simple.

ClevelandBronco
06-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Obviously you weren't picking up on the allusions.

Cool. When nobody actually said what you want them to have said, call it "allusions" instead of irony. I love literary devices, especially when they're tossed about inside your own mind, then scattered about as accusations in your posts as if they've actually happened.

How many of the dissenters in this thread would identify as "pro-life", and why?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider abortion to be premeditated murder. Why? Because I define human life differently from you, Hamas, and I think the U.S. has a clear national interest in stopping the practice.

How many supported the idea of "liberating" Iraq and freeing people like the Kurds from the human rights atrocities of Saddam, and yet turn a blind eye to this?

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't send the U.S. military solely to protect the Kurds, and I damned sure wouldn't send the U.S. military to Sudan.

The irony is *that* simple.

I'm not seeing it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:37 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider abortion to be premeditated murder. Why? Because I define human life differently from you, Hamas, and I think the U.S. has a clear national interest in stopping the practice.
.

So a zygote > millions of Sudanese, and there's no irony in your stance, and despite the fact that you hold the exact behavior that I was alluding to, I'm inventing it in my head.

Got it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2007, 02:53 AM
I really outta get some sleep...since I just finished working burning the midnight oil again.

Here's my stand on Dafur. I do feel for them and sometimes I wish something could be done. Then I remind myself, of how I intially felt watching the movie Hotel Rwanda. I watched that and during the entire movie I was "wtf why didn't we do anything...why didn't someone do more?"

Watching all those people getting knived up and human bodies everywhere all over the street....was horrific. So then I come home, and I decide to go online and look up the whole history...when I read that the ones being slaughtered this time were the ones who did the same at an earlier time. One side was just as bad as the other. Good grief! It was rooted in ethnic conflict, much of it sponsored by it's former colonists due to it's preference for on tribe and those guys made out more than the others et. etc. etc. Long held deep hatreds have existed.

So you can win a war but it doesn't mean you'll win the peace. Military only holds it off. There's the catch, afaic, these conflicts are a symptom of something going on in an area that has never been addressed in a long term fashion that we often can never fully understand because we DO NOT understand their realities and mind set. We're very different.

I've read different things about Dafur and it has some of these issues. It's a conflict. Besides the fact that there is some misreporting of the situation oversimplifying it and the word genocide is a word that gets thrown around too often and too lightly.

So those are my reasons for staying out of it. If we take a side, we will just make a new enemy too. It's unfortunate, but it's not worth it.

BucEyedPea
06-13-2007, 03:03 AM
Oh and I loved the article. I've often said democracy does not equal freedom...and using leads to legal plunder and wealth resdistribution.
I would have, preferred that the author have used the term "market capitalism" as too often what passes for capitalism today is mercantilism.( aka cartels, corporatism). It's an old, old game.

Baby Lee
06-13-2007, 08:20 AM
But again, no one gives a f*ck, because it was only a bunch of savage n*ggers getting hacked to death with machetes.
Admit it, you had to think about baseball to avoid blowing your n-bomb load as long as you did. You were aching the whole time.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 09:43 AM
I love the gymnastics about why the people in Darfur matter but the people in Iraq didn't.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

Cochise
06-13-2007, 09:44 AM
Admit it, you had to think about baseball to avoid blowing your n-bomb load as long as you did. You were aching the whole time.

I couldn't wait for it either.

Well, you know us silverado driving, overall wearing slack-jaws, we hate black people but we love arabs and muslims like the dickens'

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 10:04 AM
I couldn't wait for it either.

Well, you know us silverado driving, overall wearing slack-jaws, we hate black people but we love arabs and muslims like the dickens'

No. You don't give a f*ck about anything but yourself. You want to eat cheeseburgers and play the lotto and not be bothered with thinking about anything other than what you are told to think.

Baby Lee
06-13-2007, 10:13 AM
Because the US would not want to stop a genocide from occuring. So much for the theory we are a nation of Christian principles.ROFL
So, we shouldn't leave Iraq? :p

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 10:16 AM
I totally agree with hamas on this. It is disgusting an cowardly of the US government not to intervene and send in US troops unilaterally to stop the violence in Darfur. I could care less about the dick less UN because they can't fix shit.

The US Holocaust Museum has declared this a genocide since 04 and yet the US government hasn't done anything to stop the killing. Let us not also forget that Sudan is a country that sponsors AQ and has in the past actually housed Bin Laden unlike Iraq. Sudan is a terrorist state yet the US leaves them alone. I wonder why?

http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/contents/01-overview/

If the Holocaust in Germany was happening today would you support the use of US forces to stop it? The way some of you talk probably not because Iraq is so much more important.


http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/
In Darfur, My Camera Was Not Nearly Enough
By Brian Steidle — Washington Post, Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page B02


Our helicopter touched down in a cloud of camel-brown sand, dust and plastic debris. As the cloud gradually settled into new layers on the bone-dry desert landscape, we could make out the faces of terrified villagers. "Welcome to Sudan," I murmured to myself, grabbing my pen and waterproof notebook.

A former Marine, I had arrived in Sudan's Darfur region in September 2004 as one of three U.S. military observers for the African Union, armed only with a pen, pad and camera. The mandate for the A.U. force allowed merely for the reporting of violations of a cease-fire that had been declared last April and the protection of observers. The observers sometimes joked morbidly that our mission was to search endlessly for the cease-fire we constantly failed to find. I soon realized that this was no joke.

The conflict had begun nearly 1 1/2 years earlier and had escalated into a full-scale government-sponsored military operation that, with the support of Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, was aimed at annihilating the African tribes in the region. And while the cease-fire was supposed to have put a stop to that, on an almost daily basis we would be called to investigate reports of attacks on civilians. We would find men, women and children tortured and killed, and villages burned to the ground.

Brian Steidle
Note: Brian Steidle, a former U.S. Marine, was a member of the African Union team monitoring the conflict in Darfur, where he took hundreds of photographs documenting atrocities.

The first photograph I took in Darfur was of a tiny child, Mihad Hamid. She was only a year old when I found her. Her mother had attempted to escape an onslaught from helicopter gunships and Janjaweed marauders that had descended upon her village of Alliet in October 2004. Carrying her daughter in a cloth wrapped around her waist, as is common in Sudan, Mihad's terrified mother had run from her attackers. But a bullet had rung out through the dry air, slicing through Mihad's flesh and puncturing her lungs. When I discovered the child, she was nestled in her mother's lap, wheezing in a valiant effort to breathe. With watery eyes, her mother lifted Mihad for me to examine.

Most Sudanese villagers assume that a khawadja -- a foreigner -- must be a doctor. And my frantic efforts to signal to her to lay her struggling daughter back down only convinced her that I had medical advice to dispense. It broke my heart to be able to offer her only a prayer and a glance of compassion, as I captured this casualty with my camera and notepad. I pledged, with the linguistic help of our team's Chadian mediator, that we would alert the aid organizations poised to respond.

"This is what they do," the mediator -- a neutral party to the conflict -- screamed at me. "This is what happens here! Now you know! Now you see!" I was unaware at that time that when the aid workers arrived the next day, amid continued fighting, they would never be able to locate Mihad.

Mihad now represents to me the countless victims of this vicious war, a war that we documented but given our restricted mandate were unable to stop. Every day we surveyed evidence of killings: men castrated and left to bleed to death, huts set on fire with people locked inside, children with their faces smashed in, men with their ears cut off and eyes plucked out, and the corpses of people who had been executed with gunshots to the head. We spoke with thousands of witnesses -- women who had been gang-raped and families that had lost fathers, people who plainly and soberly gave us their accounts of the slaughter.

Often we were the witnesses. Just two days after I had taken Mihad's photo, we returned to Alliet. While talking to a government commander on the outskirts of the town, we heard a buzz that sounded like a high-voltage power line. Upon entering the village, we saw that the noise was coming from flies swarming over dead animals and people. We counted about 20 dead, many burned, and then flew back to our camp to write our report. But the smell of charred flesh was hard to wash away.

The conflict in Darfur is not a battle between uniformed combatants, and it knows no rules of war. Women and children bear the greatest burden. The Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps are filled with families that have lost their fathers. Every day, women are sent outside the IDP camps to seek firewood and water, despite the constant risk of rape at the hands of the Janjaweed. Should men be available to venture out of the camps, they risk castration and murder. So families decide that rape is the lesser evil. It is a crime that families even have to make such a choice. Often women are sexually assaulted within the supposed safety of the IDP camps. Nowhere is really safe. If and when the refugees are finally able to return home and rebuild, many women may have to support themselves alone; rape victims are frequently ostracized, and others face unwanted pregnancies and an even greater burden of care.

The Janjaweed militias do not act alone. I have seen clear evidence that the atrocities committed in Darfur are the direct result of the Sudanese government's military collaboration with the militias. Attacks are well coordinated by Sudanese government officials and Arab militias, who attack villages together. Before these attacks occur, the cell phone systems are shut down by the government so that villagers cannot warn each other. Whenever we lost our phone service, we would scramble to identify the impending threat. We knew that somewhere, another reign of terror was about to begin.

Helicopter gunships belonging to the government routinely support the Arab militias on the ground. The gunships fire anti-personnel rockets that contain flashettes, or small nails, each with stabilizing fins on the back so the point hits the target first. Each gunship contains four rocket pods, each rocket pod contains about 20 rockets and each rocket contains about 500 of these flashettes. Flashette wounds look like shotgun wounds. I saw one small child's back that looked as if it had been shredded by a cheese grater. We got him to a hospital, but we did not expect him to live.

On many of the occasions we tried to investigate these attacks, we would find that fuel for our helicopters was mysteriously unavailable. We would receive unconvincing explanations from the Sudanese government's fuel company -- from "we are out of fuel" to "our fuel pumps are broken." At the same time, government helicopters continued to strafe villages unimpeded.

Those villagers who were able to escape flocked to existing IDP camps, where they would scrounge for sticks and plastic bags to construct shelter from the sun and wind. In even these desperate situations, however, the Sudanese government would not give up its murderous mission. First it would announce the need to relocate an IDP camp and assess the population of displaced people, often grossly underestimating the numbers. Then after international aid organizations had built a new, smaller camp, the government would forcibly relocate the population, leaving hundreds to thousands without shelter. It would bulldoze or drive over the old camps with trucks, often in the middle of the night in order to escape notice. It would then gather up and burn the remaining debris.

The worst thing I saw came last December, when Labado, a village of 20,000 people, was burned to the ground. We rushed there after a rebel group contacted us, and we arrived while the attack was still in progress. At the edge of the village, I found a Sudanese general who explained why he was doing nothing to stop the looting and burning. He said his job was to protect civilians and keep the road open to commercial traffic and denied that his men were participating in the attack. Then a group of uniformed men drove by in a Toyota Land Cruiser. The general said they were just going to get water, but they stopped about 75 yards away, jumped out, looted a hut and burned it. The attacks continued for a week. We have no idea how many people died there but tribal leaders later said close to 100 were missing.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 11:02 AM
The US Holocaust Museum has declared this a genocide since 04 and yet the US government hasn't done anything to stop the killing.

I'd rather finish the job in Iraq. Wouldn't we be creating terrorists if we invade and occupy Sudan? :shrug: ;)

StcChief
06-13-2007, 11:29 AM
Good find. Joe.

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 11:29 AM
Wouldn't we be creating terrorists if we invade and occupy Sudan? :shrug: ;)

Nice try patteeu. We have been down this road before. Sudan houses terrorists in their country and have for years. They gave the US a couple of terrorists to get us off their back in 2005 but they are back on the list.


http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.

Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. Currently there are five countries designated under these authorities: Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

Sudan harbors members of the Baghdad-based Abu Nidal Organization, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and others. These terrorists do not carry out attacks within Sudan but plan and support terrorism elsewhere. Hamas and Hezbollah have reportedly maintained training camps in Sudan. The National Islamic Front, the strict Islamist party that governs much of Sudan, does not consider any of these groups terrorist organizations.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 11:32 AM
Nice try patteeu. We have been down this road before. Sudan houses terrorists in their country and have for years. They gave the US a couple of terrorists to get us off their back in 2005 but they are back on the list.

Didn't you see the Al Gore clip earlier in the thread? We knew in 1991 that Iraq was training terrorists, using chemical weapons on civilians, and seeking nuclear weapons.

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 11:44 AM
Didn't you see the Al Gore clip earlier in the thread? We knew in 1991 that Iraq was training terrorists, using chemical weapons on civilians, and seeking nuclear weapons.

In this thread? I don't see it unless I am totally blind. If you are talking about the video posted in a different thread no I haven't seen it.

Anyway I am not basing going into Darfur to stop the terrorists this is a humanitarian mission to stop hundred of thousands of innocent lives from being taken from this world.

Should the Sudanese government be taken out sure it should but priority number 1 should be to stop the killing.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 11:51 AM
In this thread? I don't see it unless I am totally blind. If you are talking about the video posted in a different thread no I haven't seen it.

Anyway I am not basing going into Darfur to stop the terrorists this is a humanitarian mission to stop hundred of thousands of innocent lives from being taken from this world.

Should the Sudanese government be taken out sure it should but priority number 1 should be to stop the killing.

What about the mass graves in Iraq link that I posted? Did you see that one? How many people did Saddam kill during his regime?

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 11:59 AM
What about the mass graves in Iraq link that I posted? Did you see that one? How many people did Saddam kill during his regime?

Yes I saw that one. Saddam was accused of killing 250000 or 500000 or even a million of his own people over 35 years. Though there is really no proof that he killed that many and I am in no way diminishing those killed.

If the reason to go to war with Iraq was purely humanitarian then I might have felt differently about it but it wasn't the #1,2 or 3 reason why. It was down towards the bottom of the list.

Contrast that with Sudan 1983-2007. Arab/Muslims killed over 2,000,000 Africans.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 12:19 PM
Yes I saw that one. Saddam was accused of killing 250000 or 500000 or even a million of his own people over 35 years. Though there is really no proof that he killed that many and I am in no way diminishing those killed.

If the reason to go to war with Iraq was purely humanitarian then I might have felt differently about it but it wasn't the #1,2 or 3 reason why. It was down towards the bottom of the list.

Contrast that with Sudan 1983-2007. Arab/Muslims killed over 2,000,000 Africans.

The reasons were manifold, among them that his regime was seeking WMD, as almost every politician of the late 90s corroborated, that his regime was brutal, oppressive and belligerent, that it was in non-compliance with the Gulf War 1 ceasefire... you can name plenty of reasons. You can just look at the one the media trumpets if you want, but for anyone who was listening, there were several.

And, if I understand the situation correctly in Sudan, it's not a case of arab/muslims killing africans, my understanding was that both sides in the conflict were Muslims and the people suffering in the region are too.

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 12:40 PM
The reasons were manifold, among them that his regime was seeking WMD, as almost every politician of the late 90s corroborated, that his regime was brutal, oppressive and belligerent, that it was in non-compliance with the Gulf War 1 ceasefire... you can name plenty of reasons. You can just look at the one the media trumpets if you want, but for anyone who was listening, there were several.

And, if I understand the situation correctly in Sudan, it's not a case of arab/muslims killing africans, my understanding was that both sides in the conflict were Muslims and the people suffering in the region are too.

I agree there was many reasons to attack Iraq and Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed and gassed his only people.

Have you read up on Kim Jong Il? He is a million times worse than Saddam he is almost Hitler like with his people and has killed or starved at least a million of his people. Plus he actually has nuclear weapons and he has the most motive to give those to terrorists. Why don't we attack NK?

As far as Darfur is concerned it is Arabs killing Africans.

Underdevelopment and poverty were the reasons for the initial uprising of the black African population against the central government in Khartoum, which in turn led to reprisals on the part of the Arab militia.

The conflict began in the arid and impoverished region early in 2003 after a rebel group began attacking government targets, saying the region was being neglected by Khartoum.

The rebels say the government is oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.

Darfur, which means land of the Fur, has faced many years of tension over land and grazing rights between the mostly nomadic Arabs, and farmers from the Fur, Massaleet and Zagawa communities.

Today, the old roles are playing out at their most extreme in Sudan's Darfur region, with murderous results: Arab horseman clutching AK-47s raze non-Arab African villages and drive off and kill the villagers, in what rights groups call an ethnic-cleansing campaign backed by Sudan's Arab-led government.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 12:48 PM
I agree there was many reasons to attack Iraq and Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed and gassed his only people.

Have you read up on Kim Jong Il? He is a million times worse than Saddam he is almost Hitler like with his people and has killed or starved at least a million of his people. Plus he actually has nuclear weapons and he has the most motive to give those to terrorists. Why don't we attack NK?

As far as Darfur is concerned it is Arabs killing Africans.

African muslims killing other african muslims, is it not?

And, I assume you don't really want us to attack NK, you are just floating a balloon. But I think the answer is that recently progress was made on the diplomatic front, was there not? North Korea met with the US and China in Beijing like a month ago. The two sides are talking. Obviously, sanctions and UN resolutions made no progress with Saddam.

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 01:02 PM
African muslims killing other african muslims, is it not?

And, I assume you don't really want us to attack NK, you are just floating a balloon. But I think the answer is that recently progress was made on the diplomatic front, was there not? North Korea met with the US and China in Beijing like a month ago. The two sides are talking. Obviously, sanctions and UN resolutions made no progress with Saddam.

No it is african muslims killing africans .

Arab horseman clutching AK-47s raze non-Arab African villages and drive off and kill the villagers, in what rights groups call an ethnic-cleansing campaign backed by Sudan's Arab-led government.

If NK had the bomb sure I would attack it no problem. My point was there is more brutal dictators in the world than Saddam was. As far as the NK deal didn't this administration just give them money like Clinton did?

Cochise
06-13-2007, 01:25 PM
If NK had the bomb sure I would attack it no problem.

I think everyone is pretty certain they do or they will shortly.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:42 PM
No it is african muslims killing africans .



If NK had the bomb sure I would attack it no problem. My point was there is more brutal dictators in the world than Saddam was. As far as the NK deal didn't this administration just give them money like Clinton did?

And here is part of the problem. The people who are against providing assistance to Darfur largely know nothing about the conflict, including such basics as the ethnicities of the participants.

Sad, really.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 02:49 PM
No. You don't give a f*ck about anything but yourself. You want to eat cheeseburgers and play the lotto and not be bothered with thinking about anything other than what you are told to think.

LMAO What do you know about me?

Which is it? N-words or cheeseburgers?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 02:55 PM
LMAO What do you know about me?



You're ignorant.

Baby Lee
06-13-2007, 02:57 PM
LMAO What do you know about me?

Which is it? N-words or cheeseburgers?
I know your lip gloss be poppin'
http://www.lilmamaonline.com/images/LilMama-Biopic.jpg

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 03:02 PM
And here is part of the problem. The people who are against providing assistance to Darfur largely know nothing about the conflict, including such basics as the ethnicities of the participants.

Sad, really.

It is simple really alot of people really don't care what happens in Darfur.

Indeed it is sad.

Baby Lee
06-13-2007, 03:05 PM
It is simple really alot of people really don't care what happens in Darfur.

Indeed it is sad.
There is a difference between 'not caring' and thinking our involvement will neither improve the situation long term nor advance our own interests.
As BEP pointed out, those getting attacked today were attacking and subjugating their attackers in the last go-around.
Taking sides will foster a sense of justification for one side, and a sense of resentment in the other, and it's on like Donkey Kong again the instant we leave. MoF, previous colonial powers aking sides led to the resentments in place today.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 03:07 PM
Nice try patteeu. We have been down this road before. Sudan houses terrorists in their country and have for years. They gave the US a couple of terrorists to get us off their back in 2005 but they are back on the list.

Iraq was on the terror list too.

I've been educated to believe that we create more terrorists by invading and occupying a country than we can hope to capture/kill/reform. Surely we shouldn't ignore the lessons of Iraq and send our boys to be consumed by the Sudanese meatgrinder. ;)

Brock
06-13-2007, 03:14 PM
A perfect illustration of how useless an organization the UN is.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 03:20 PM
Iraq was on the terror list too.

I've been educated to believe that we create more terrorists by invading and occupying a country than we can hope to capture/kill/reform. Surely we shouldn't ignore the lessons of Iraq and send our boys to be consumed by the Sudanese meatgrinder. ;)

Of course we don't want to create terrorists, but that is not to mention having no national interest. Sudan is no threat to the United States. I think that the last thing we should do is destabilize the region and engage in nation-building.

patteeu
06-13-2007, 03:30 PM
I agree there was many reasons to attack Iraq and Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed and gassed his only people.

Have you read up on Kim Jong Il? He is a million times worse than Saddam he is almost Hitler like with his people and has killed or starved at least a million of his people. Plus he actually has nuclear weapons and he has the most motive to give those to terrorists. Why don't we attack NK?

As far as Darfur is concerned it is Arabs killing Africans.

My other posts were (I hope, obviously) tongue-in-cheek, but more seriously, how can someone who just argued for pursuing a humanitarian mission in Sudan but not Iraq use an argument like this where a perceived lack of consistency seems to be the key?

patteeu
06-13-2007, 03:33 PM
Of course we don't want to create terrorists, but that is not to mention having no national interest. Sudan is no threat to the United States. I think that the last thing we should do is destabilize the region and engage in nation-building.

LMAO

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 03:44 PM
There is a difference between 'not caring' and thinking our involvement will neither improve the situation long term nor advance our own interests.
As BEP pointed out, those getting attacked today were attacking and subjugating their attackers in the last go-around.
Taking sides will foster a sense of justification for one side, and a sense of resentment in the other, and it's on like Donkey Kong again the instant we leave. MoF, previous colonial powers aking sides led to the resentments in place today.

I can understand that point BL but at what point does a complete annihilation of a group of people warrant international or US involvement?

BEP was talking about Rwanda not Sudan. If you go look up the history of Sudan they have been an Islamic state since 1885. They were under British\Egyptian rule until they overthrew them and in 1983 they instituted the Islamic Sharia law.

If we want to fight Islamic fascists then Sudan is a good place to go because they are the ones killing innocent Christian women, children and men.

Cochise
06-13-2007, 03:44 PM
My other posts were (I hope, obviously) tongue-in-cheek, but more seriously, how can someone who just argued for pursuing a humanitarian mission in Sudan but not Iraq use an argument like this where a perceived lack of consistency seems to be the key?

I don't think there is much ambiguity to be had on this issue. If we have a moral responsibility to intervene in one instance of human suffering, why not another? Either we should act on all of them, or only act to protect our interests. Which one is it? If you're not a 'national interest' type, then why Darfur but not Iraq? Why did we act in Somalia and not in Rwanda? What about Sri Lanka, isn't there a humanitarian crisis there today as well?

It doesn't matter what kind of parsing you do with who is killing who, what religions people are, what part of the world, or if it's the government or rebels or whatever. Can you be consistent unless you define it one of those two ways?

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 03:46 PM
Of course we don't want to create terrorists, but that is not to mention having no national interest. Sudan is no threat to the United States. I think that the last thing we should do is destabilize the region and engage in nation-building.

There is oil there don't you want more foreign oil? :)

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 03:50 PM
My other posts were (I hope, obviously) tongue-in-cheek, but more seriously, how can someone who just argued for pursuing a humanitarian mission in Sudan but not Iraq use an argument like this where a perceived lack of consistency seems to be the key?

Was Iraq a purely humanitarian mission? No it wasn't and that is what I am proposing for Darfur.

If you go back and look what I posted to Cochise since they instituted Islamic Sharia law in 1983 the Islamics have killed over 2 million people in Sudan.

What else do you need to know?

This isn't about national interests this about doing the moral and correct thing. America used to stand for those ideals so what happened?

dirk digler
06-13-2007, 03:55 PM
I don't think there is much ambiguity to be had on this issue. If we have a moral responsibility to intervene in one instance of human suffering, why not another? Either we should act on all of them, or only act to protect our interests. Which one is it? If you're not a 'national interest' type, then why Darfur but not Iraq? Why did we act in Somalia and not in Rwanda? What about Sri Lanka, isn't there a humanitarian crisis there today as well?

It doesn't matter what kind of parsing you do with who is killing who, what religions people are, what part of the world, or if it's the government or rebels or whatever. Can you be consistent unless you define it one of those two ways?

I think that is a valid point Cochise and i think they need to be decided on a case by case basis.

I thought Clinton should have went into Rwanda that was a huge mistake IMHO but he did stop what was happening in Bosnia which I think everyone would agree was a good thing.

Right now all the humanitarian organizations say by far Darfur is the most urgent.

I have used this example before if the Holocaust was happening today would you send American troops to stop it or would you say **** em Iraq is more important?

Cochise
06-13-2007, 04:01 PM
What else do you need to know?

This isn't about national interests this about doing the moral and correct thing. America used to stand for those ideals so what happened?

Well then I say that Iraq was not only about national interest, it was about doing the moral and correct thing. So we are right to be in Iraq then, are we not? We deposed the one person living on earth who was responsible for more deaths than probably anyone else.


There's another troubling aspect of this that I haven't even gotten to yet, and that's what I think you warhawks are proposing to do to our military. Everyone knows that they are stretched too thin already, we can't add another front in another country right now. We've already got one country in civil war, do we want two civil wars on our hands?

Why, if you think Darfur is such a good idea then maybe you should join the military! Why aren't you over in Darfur fighting for truth, justice, and the American way? Don't ask me to send my children over there to die in Darfur if you aren't going.


(it's going to take me a while to work through the backlog of all the cases against Iraq that don't apply to Darfur, please excuse me)

Cochise
06-13-2007, 04:03 PM
I have used this example before if the Holocaust was happening today would you send American troops to stop it or would you say **** em Iraq is more important?

Stopping Nazi Germany was a compelling national interest, obviously.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 04:30 PM
It may sound cold but I do not get how this sort of thing is our responsibility. Any more than I understood the reasoning behind Viet Nam and opposed going into Iraq. Afghanstan I agreed with, they were closely linked to 9/11. Otherwise I really don't get how and why we are supposed to be the police for the rest of the world.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2007, 04:35 PM
Otherwise I really don't get how and why we are supposed to be the police for the rest of the world.

Well, a couple thousand years ago the same idea was called the "Pax Romana". See how well that worked? :banghead:

Cochise
06-13-2007, 05:15 PM
It may sound cold but I do not get how this sort of thing is our responsibility. Any more than I understood the reasoning behind Viet Nam and opposed going into Iraq. Afghanstan I agreed with, they were closely linked to 9/11. Otherwise I really don't get how and why we are supposed to be the police for the rest of the world.

Well, Adept mentioned Pax Romana, but one possible explanation could be a sort of Pax Americana concept in that if you spread democracy throughout the world, you theoretically spread resulting peace since democracies rarely make war against one another. Obviously not applicable to all situations, but it may in general be true.

Hydrae
06-13-2007, 05:48 PM
Well, Adept mentioned Pax Romana, but one possible explanation could be a sort of Pax Americana concept in that if you spread democracy throughout the world, you theoretically spread resulting peace since democracies rarely make war against one another. Obviously not applicable to all situations, but it may in general be true.


I loved a book called "Left hand of darkness" that gave the idea that the only way humanity wil stop making war on each other was due to an attack from a third party. Namely aliens of course. I think there is some truth to this though. Humans seem to be genetically prone to war.

Adept Havelock
06-13-2007, 06:29 PM
I loved a book called "Left hand of darkness" that gave the idea that the only way humanity wil stop making war on each other was due to an attack from a third party. Namely aliens of course. I think there is some truth to this though. Humans seem to be genetically prone to war.

Ursula K. Le Guin...gotta love her writing. :thumb:

go bowe
06-13-2007, 07:04 PM
Well, Adept mentioned Pax Romana, but one possible explanation could be a sort of Pax Americana concept in that if you spread democracy throughout the world, you theoretically spread resulting peace since democracies rarely make war against one another. Obviously not applicable to all situations, but it may in general be true.bonus points if you can name the last 2 countries who fought each other (and were democracies)?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-13-2007, 09:47 PM
There is a difference between 'not caring' and thinking our involvement will neither improve the situation long term nor advance our own interests.
As BEP pointed out, those getting attacked today were attacking and subjugating their attackers in the last go-around.
Taking sides will foster a sense of justification for one side, and a sense of resentment in the other, and it's on like Donkey Kong again the instant we leave. MoF, previous colonial powers aking sides led to the resentments in place today.

I'd like to see the hedonistic calculus that justifies the lack of a presence as "not improving things long term". Are they going to kill even more people once we leave? Are they going to step it up into overdrive?

Personally, I really hate the BEP an eye for an eye example/justification. By that token, would it have been ethically defensible for us to allow the Soviets to exterminate the German populace of rank and file citizens as retribution for what the German army did to both them and the Jews/Poles/Slavs in World War II??

Cochise
06-13-2007, 09:47 PM
bonus points if you can name the last 2 countries who fought each other (and were democracies)?

Was this perhaps the Falklands War?

I was thinking to myself, and it's pretty damn hard to come up with a pile of examples.

If you think about where most of the unrest in the world is, it's in areas where representative government is not the norm. Here in the United States we can argue on message boards because through debate and participation we can enact change. jAZ and patteeu can fire electrons at each other instead of bullets. When government doesn't appear to have benevolent objectives and change isn't possible, that's when people feel cornered.

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 02:10 AM
...would it have been ethically defensible for us to allow the Soviets to exterminate the German populace of rank and file citizens as retribution for what the German army did to both them and the Jews/Poles/Slavs in World War II??

You make a tortured point (I thought you were opposed to torture, BTW), but you have to consider that we did not intervene when Stalin was killing millions of Soviet citizens. We did not intervene when Mao was killing millions of China's own citizens. We did not intervene when Pol Pot slaughtered millions of Campuchean citizens. It's not the job of the United States to step in to those kinds of situations unless there's a clear and compelling national interest at stake.

What is happening in Darfur is wrong, clearly, at least to everyone here. That doesn't mean that we should be engaged in it.

It's a U.N. problem. If the U.N. isn't able to address this situation, then the U.N. should be looking for a new address. Stick 'em in Geneva, or something, and withdraw our delegation. What the heck is the point?

BTW, I'll guarantee you that we protected those Germans that we could protect after WWII because it was in our interest to do so, not because it was in their interest.

We surely didn't come to the aid of the Jewish people who were being targeted in Germany and in the countries they'd conquered until we were attacked by the Japanese. Hell, Germany officially declared war on us before we declared war on Germany, IIRC.

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 02:24 AM
Was this perhaps the Falklands War?

I was thinking to myself, and it's pretty damn hard to come up with a pile of examples.

If you think about where most of the unrest in the world is, it's in areas where representative government is not the norm. Here in the United States we can argue on message boards because through debate and participation we can enact change. jAZ and patteeu can fire electrons at each other instead of bullets. When government doesn't appear to have benevolent objectives and change isn't possible, that's when people feel cornered.

Nope. There was a military junta in power in Argentina at the time of the Falklands War, not a democratic government.

The first and last instance I can think of was the War Between the States. The Confederate States of America attacked the United States. Both governments were democratic republics.

Perhaps some of the the Indian wars in the American west would count as well, but that might be a stretch.

Anyone know of another instance?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 02:46 AM
You make a tortured point (I thought you were opposed to torture, BTW), but you have to consider that we did not intervene when Stalin was killing millions of Soviet citizens. We did not intervene when Mao was killing millions of China's own citizens. We did not intervene when Pol Pot slaughtered millions of Campuchean citizens. It's not the job of the United States to step in to those kinds of situations unless there's a clear and compelling national interest at stake.

What is happening in Darfur is wrong, clearly, at least to everyone here. That doesn't mean that we should be engaged in it.

It's a U.N. problem. If the U.N. isn't able to address this situation, then the U.N. should be looking for a new address. Stick 'em in Geneva, or something, and withdraw our delegation. What the heck is the point?

BTW, I'll guarantee you that we protected those Germans that we could protect after WWII because it was in our interest to do so, not because it was in their interest.

We surely didn't come to the aid of the Jewish people who were being targeted in Germany and in the countries they'd conquered until we were attacked by the Japanese. Hell, Germany officially declared war on us before we declared war on Germany, IIRC.

But that begs this question:

Why is inserting ourselves in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, among others, justifiable, yet this is not....

The Khmer Rouge and collectives of Stalin and Pol Pot don't excuse us from this simply because we did nothing then. If anything, there was more of an argument to be made for the "best interests" in the Stalin and Mao examples, as both had powerful armies and could do sufficiently more than bloody the nose of the United States and others in the region.

The Sudanese, Rwandan, Cambodian governments--among others, lack or lacked that ability, and yet still we did nothing.

The bottom line is that if there isn't a sufficent economic interest (see preventing the Soviets a warm water port, the various banana republics, or the pro-Western cabals of the Shah and Pinochet) the United States government doesn't care and never will.

I fail to see how that's a defensible position unless the most important priority in one's life, beyond the well being of others and him/herself, is money.

ClevelandBronco
06-14-2007, 03:56 AM
But that begs this question:

Why is inserting ourselves in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Grenada, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, among others, justifiable...

National interest, sometimes in the form of profits, other times in the form of security, and very often in the form of security to maintain profits.

The Khmer Rouge and collectives of Stalin and Pol Pot don't excuse us from this simply because we did nothing then. If anything, there was more of an argument to be made for the "best interests" in the Stalin and Mao examples, as both had powerful armies and could do sufficiently more than bloody the nose of the United States and others in the region.

The Sudanese, Rwandan, Cambodian governments--among others, lack or lacked that ability, and yet still we did nothing.

The bottom line is that if there isn't a sufficent economic interest (see preventing the Soviets a warm water port, the various banana republics, or the pro-Western cabals of the Shah and Pinochet) the United States government doesn't care and never will.

Now you're getting it. Our government is fundamentally amoral by design. Only our people are guided by morality, and you had damned well better hope that a good many Christians stay at the rudder of your nation.

I fail to see how that's a defensible position unless the most important priority in one's life, beyond the well being of others and him/herself, is money.

I'm not surprised that you fail to see, because you're confusing our people with our government. They are two very different entities.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2007, 06:35 AM
Nope. There was a military junta in power in Argentina at the time of the Falklands War, not a democratic government.

The first and last instance I can think of was the War Between the States. The Confederate States of America attacked the United States. Both governments were democratic republics.

Perhaps some of the the Indian wars in the American west would count as well, but that might be a stretch.

Anyone know of another instance?

I have a whole list of them in a file. Dozens. They even go up through the millenium.

The trick is the definition, since so many call themselves democracies. Iraq even had elections. So the last is the US and Iraq. Even Hitler was elected and their Constitution allowed him to take power in a manner that has happened in other countries with them being considered democracies. The War Between the States, the psuedo naval war with France....there's lots of them. I no longer subscribe to the idea that democracies don't attack or start wars with one another. It's another unexamined myth. I say it's centralized power of states which CAN happen in democracies despite their being named that.

I'm sick today and recouperating from a project that had me up all night the past week. Can't wait to post my list. Maybe it should be another thread?

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-14-2007, 10:00 PM
National interest, sometimes in the form of profits, other times in the form of security, and very often in the form of security to maintain profits.



Now you're getting it. Our government is fundamentally amoral by design. Only our people are guided by morality, and you had damned well better hope that a good many Christians stay at the rudder of your nation.



I'm not surprised that you fail to see, because you're confusing our people with our government. They are two very different entities.

That's not an excuse at all. You can't give the government a pass for their transgressions because they aren't all people writ large.

Would it be acceptable for the government to go to your town and start executing people because they felt that the town was a drain on the economy??

What ever happened to "by the people, for the people?" Or does your moral relativism know no bounds?

go bowe
06-20-2007, 02:56 PM
LMAO What do you know about me?

Which is it? N-words or cheeseburgers?well, that's not much of a choice, epithets or cheeseburgers?

how 'bout we get a psychic to come by and tell us all your secrets?

or maby we should should infiltrate your group...

yes, group...

like a flock of sheep, so to speak... :Poke:

go bowe
06-20-2007, 02:58 PM
Was this perhaps the Falklands War?

I was thinking to myself, and it's pretty damn hard to come up with a pile of examples.

If you think about where most of the unrest in the world is, it's in areas where representative government is not the norm. Here in the United States we can argue on message boards because through debate and participation we can enact change. jAZ and patteeu can fire electrons at each other instead of bullets. When government doesn't appear to have benevolent objectives and change isn't possible, that's when people feel cornered.sorry about the rep thing...

i must have hit the enter key before i finished the message...

oh well, i tried... :shrug:

Baby Lee
06-20-2007, 03:12 PM
I know your lip gloss be poppin'
http://www.lilmamaonline.com/images/LilMama-Biopic.jpg
'Too cool for the room'
or

Too retarded to acknowledge?'

You be the judge.

:p