lol.........yay! I got mail. Yay!Bubbalo wrote:
Oh, please, when was the last time the US defended anyone out of the goodness of their hearts?
You'll have to tell me more about Zyklon...Bubbalo wrote:
So.............you're blaming Islam and Sharia law for the fact that ME governments misuse and misinterpret it to their advantage?
And I suppose Zyklon B is to blame for the holocaust?
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the interpretation of Islam and Sharia Law are to blame, and the tendency for people to abuse power even more than normal when religion is used to justify the abuse.
It's not specifically an Islam thing; it's a theocratic thing. Religious governments just don't work as well as most secular ones.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-06 18:40:35)
I excluded them from that specific comment because:Turquoise wrote:
Selfishness isn't specifically a Western thing. As Kmarion showed, China and Russia top the West's Machiavellianism. Iran is pretty good at that kind of thing as well.
Russians have less control over their government than the West, and tend to be more concerned with security.
Chinese have no control over their government, so their concerns are irrelevant.
Well, doesn't playing the good guy involve stabilizing Iraq? Being the good guy would be staying in Iraq until it is stable. I think that's a horrible idea myself, but I've never been particularly concerned with playing the good guy.Bubbalo wrote:
So, you're going to defend yourself by saying that other countries, who either have much smaller militaries or are among the worst human rights abusers, are doing the same? Nobody has said that European nations should be sitting it out. But the fact is that the US has the strongest globally deployable force, and they're willing to use it without UN sanction, and they aren't helping, yet they still expect to be viewed as the good guys.Turquoise wrote:
Well, it's not like China and Russia don't have militaries. It's not like Europe doesn't have the cash to support funding for the development of their own humanitarian forces.Oh, please, when was the last time the US defended anyone out of the goodness of their hearts?Turquoise wrote:
Enough with this hero mentality shit.
Still, if we play the good guy in Iraq, then we don't have enough resources to play the good guy in Darfur at the same time.
I'm not making a statement about their people either -- I'm making it about their governments, like you were about mine.Bubbalo wrote:
I excluded them from that specific comment because:Turquoise wrote:
Selfishness isn't specifically a Western thing. As Kmarion showed, China and Russia top the West's Machiavellianism. Iran is pretty good at that kind of thing as well.
Russians have less control over their government than the West, and tend to be more concerned with security.
Chinese have no control over their government, so their concerns are irrelevant.
Okay.Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to tell me more about Zyklon...
Which doesn't change the fact that Sharia law doesn't say anything about the things they do.Turquoise wrote:
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the interpretation of Islam and Sharia Law are to blame, and the tendency for people to abuse power even more than normal when religion is used to justify the abuse.
Well, that depends on what you're trying to achieve.Turquoise wrote:
It's not specifically an Islam thing; it's a theocratic thing. Religious governments just don't work as well as most secular ones.
dosent neccissarly mean they are the same sect. Did you think of that? Shittes hate sunnis, sunnis hate shittes, every1 hates the kurdsapollo_fi wrote:
Nope.ATG wrote:
The genocide is being commited by Muslims against non-Muslims.
The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General states: "The various tribes that have been the object of attacks and killings do not appear to make up ethnic groups distinct from the ethnic group to which persons or militias that attack them belong. They speak the same language (Arabic) and embrace the same religion (Islam)" (p. 129).
We went into Iraq on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction.. after we discovered that there were none, it was to "free the people"Turquoise wrote:
We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.
I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility. Then again, I don't see Iraq as it either. I think maybe this is just another case of nature taking its course. A certain amount of death and destruction has to occur to keep the human population manageable.
What makes Iraqis more important than people being killed in Darfur?
I don't see much "achievement" on the part of religious governments. Anyway, Sharia Law is useless in general, because everytime it's applied, it's twisted for abusive interests, just like Communism. What may look good on paper doesn't mean shit if the application sucks.Bubbalo wrote:
Okay.Turquoise wrote:
You'll have to tell me more about Zyklon...Which doesn't change the fact that Sharia law doesn't say anything about the things they do.Turquoise wrote:
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the interpretation of Islam and Sharia Law are to blame, and the tendency for people to abuse power even more than normal when religion is used to justify the abuse.Well, that depends on what you're trying to achieve.Turquoise wrote:
It's not specifically an Islam thing; it's a theocratic thing. Religious governments just don't work as well as most secular ones.
I guess this is something new? Darfur was paradise before 2001 correct?CommieChipmunk wrote:
What makes Iraqis more important than people being killed in Darfur?
Unfortunately the sad reality is both of them are Security Council members which makes these reports irrelevant.usmarine2005 wrote:
Putowned.Kmarion wrote:
Amnesty International has filed a report showing the Russians and Chinese continuing to support the massacres by selling weapons/equipment. Putin wants to chastise the United States for putting radar stations in Chechnya while he continues to provides the means used to slaughter and displace millions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCr … SL08674431
The report
http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/AFR5 … 401907.pdf
Page 7
The bulk was transferred from
China and Russia, two Permanent Members of the Security Council. The governments
of these supplier countries have been, or should have been, aware through the
published and unpublished reports of the UN Panel of Experts to the UN Sanctions
Committee on Sudan as well as the detailed report by Amnesty International
published in November 2004 16 that several types of military equipment including
aircraft have been deployed by the Sudanese armed forces and militia for direct
attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks in Darfur, as well as for logistical
support for these attacks.
Conclusion and recommendations
Amnesty International is deeply dismayed by the fact that certain governments,
including two Permanent Members of the Security Council – China and Russia - are
allowing ongoing flows of arms to parties to Sudan that are diverted for the conflict in
Darfur and used there and across the border in Chad to commit grave violations of
international law. Governments that ratify international human rights treaties have a
particular obligation to ensure that such treaties are upheld and that the human rights
of the population living within the state are protected. Yet the Sudanese government
has participated in massive breaches of international humanitarian and human rights
law in Darfur and armed opposition groups in Darfur continue to carry out grave
abuses of human rights.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Pretty much.Kmarion wrote:
Unfortunately the sad reality is both of them are Security Council members which makes these reports irrelevant.
We pretended to enter for that reason. We really entered for the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.CommieChipmunk wrote:
We went into Iraq on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction.. after we discovered that there were none, it was to "free the people"Turquoise wrote:
We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.
I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility. Then again, I don't see Iraq as it either. I think maybe this is just another case of nature taking its course. A certain amount of death and destruction has to occur to keep the human population manageable.
What makes Iraqis more important than people being killed in Darfur?
That being said, Darfur doesn't satisfy any of our economic needs or dollar hegemony needs, so we don't care what happens to these people.
It's rare for our government to really care about the suffering of others. One of the few occasions where we did care was when we sent that massive amount of aid to the tsunami victims. That was purely humanitarian.
We're not in Iraq because the government cares about Iraqis; we're there because the military contractors are making a shitload of money for their benefactors in the government.
Again... we should kick Russia and China off of the Council if we want the U.N. to be even remotely useful. They may be economically and militarily significant, but their governments are rotten to the core.usmarine2005 wrote:
Pretty much.Kmarion wrote:
Unfortunately the sad reality is both of them are Security Council members which makes these reports irrelevant.
I fully realize that, but going by the reasons they give.. we should be in Darfur as well.Turquoise wrote:
We pretended to enter for that reason. We really entered for the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.CommieChipmunk wrote:
We went into Iraq on the basis that there were weapons of mass destruction.. after we discovered that there were none, it was to "free the people"Turquoise wrote:
We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.
I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility. Then again, I don't see Iraq as it either. I think maybe this is just another case of nature taking its course. A certain amount of death and destruction has to occur to keep the human population manageable.
What makes Iraqis more important than people being killed in Darfur?
That being said, Darfur doesn't satisfy any of our economic needs or dollar hegemony needs, so we don't care what happens to these people.
It's rare for our government to really care about the suffering of others. One of the few occasions where we did care was when we sent that massive amount of aid to the tsunami victims. That was purely humanitarian.
We're not in Iraq because the government cares about Iraqis; we're there because the military contractors are making a shitload of money for their benefactors in the government.
As a hegemony, it's not our duty to make sure that every country is democratic and force our beliefs upon others, we should use our power to help people... not for imperialism... thats' why people hate us, probably one of the reasons why 9/11 happened... and will probably lead to the inevitable end of our hegemonic status.
Just so everyone who is interested can familiarize themselves with what is happening now. I encourage you guys to read into the stories.
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/new … t-news-top (Syndicated news feed, you will see repeats)
http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/new … t-news-top (Syndicated news feed, you will see repeats)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
True, but no one ever said the government was consistent in its attempts to feign morality. Anybody with a moderate amount of perception should be able to now see that war is almost never fought for moral or truly compelling reasons. It's really a business more often than any honorable endeavor. There are a myriad of industries with a lot of power over our government that make money off of the deaths of others.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I fully realize that, but going by the reasons they give.. we should be in Darfur as well.
These days, I laugh at the fools who still believe that we entered Iraq for moral or even security reasons.
Hey, I agree. I'm just explaining how the people in power view things. As freethinking individuals, we can see through what the government is doing, but it doesn't change the fact that most Americans are too blinded by patriotism or complacency to realize that we don't intervene usually for moral reasons. We can't accept the fact that we pissed some people in the Middle East off with our meddling in their affairs, and that 9/11 occurred as a result. We'd rather tell ourselves that we have to be the messiah of the world. It sounds more glorious and makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside, even while we let the millions die in Africa.CommieChipmunk wrote:
As a hegemony, it's not our duty to make sure that every country is democratic and force our beliefs upon others, we should use our power to help people... not for imperialism... thats' why people hate us, probably one of the reasons why 9/11 happened... and will probably lead to the inevitable end of our hegemonic status.
Hell, we're not even consistent in our sentimentality.
But that's really what this comes down to.... If we can't be consistent in anything virtuous, we might as well be ruthlessly practical. Trade with the world to the extent that it serves our interests, and stay the hell out of foreign wars. That will truly make us safer than this internationalist bullshit.
Darfur and Iraq be damned....
Point taken. What's stopping anyone else from intervening though? No one moves unless the US does? This is where it gets really frustrating. The world doesn't want anyone to take action unilaterally. However, not only has the UN proven incompetent in getting the victims a speedy relief, two "security council" members are actually working against them.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I fully realize that, but going by the reasons they give.. we should be in Darfur as well.
As a hegemony, it's not our duty to make sure that every country is democratic and force our beliefs upon others, we should use our power to help people... not for imperialism... thats' why people hate us, probably one of the reasons why 9/11 happened... and will probably lead to the inevitable end of our hegemonic status.
BTW as citizens Americans have proven to care. Re-read the OP.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
As citizens, yes, but not most of the citizens of the government.Kmarion wrote:
Point taken. What's stopping anyone else from intervening though? No one moves unless the US does? This is where it gets really frustrating. The world doesn't want anyone to take action unilaterally. However, not only has the UN proven incompetent in getting the victims a speedy relief, two "security council" members are actually working against them.CommieChipmunk wrote:
I fully realize that, but going by the reasons they give.. we should be in Darfur as well.
As a hegemony, it's not our duty to make sure that every country is democratic and force our beliefs upon others, we should use our power to help people... not for imperialism... thats' why people hate us, probably one of the reasons why 9/11 happened... and will probably lead to the inevitable end of our hegemonic status.
BTW as citizens Americans have proven to care. Re-read the OP.
What's so sad about all this is that the average person seems to understand that Darfur would ideally be the only kind of conflict we should enter, but I guess once people enter power and get tied up with the military contractor lobbyists and the arms dealers, they look for reasons to enter wars. As a result, we jump into an entirely unnecessary war (Iraq), while a humanitarian crisis goes on unaffected.
Still, all the sympathy in the world won't change the fact that Iraq is tying us down. It would be the height of stupidity for us to enter Darfur at a time like this.
EDIT: Maybe the one satisfying thing we can get from this is the guilt we can lay upon our detractors in Europe and elsewhere as they do nothing. After Iraq, we can't say shit about human rights and morality in the world, but now that Darfur is continuing onward without much help, neither can the rest of the world.
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-06 19:24:18)
I guess we should be focusing on people like Brian Steidle. He is nothing short of a hero in my mind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Mar19.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … Mar19.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Nothing like a real live corpse on the cover to sell your movies.
Global Grassroots is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, founded by producer Gretchen Steidle Wallace, which offers training and seed funding to help disadvantaged women advance social change. In 2005, Global Grassroots initiated its work in the Darfur refugee camps of Eastern Chad. A portion of proceeds from the film The Devil Came on Horseback will go to Global Grassroots to help Darfur refugees rebuild their lives. www.globalgrassroots.orgunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Nothing like a real live corpse on the cover to sell your movies.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Wow. There is some flagrant ingnorance in this thread.
We should have been in Darfur years ago. Like around 2003. Oh wait....
We should have been in Darfur years ago. Like around 2003. Oh wait....
Being the good guy would be helping people because they need it, regardless of whether you wanted to for other reasons. The fact that the US went into Iraq at the time it did, with the leadup it had, shows that they were going in for their own reasons, and this has only been a bad thing for everyone but tht terrorists. Further, the good guy doesn't torture being with the justification that the bad guy does worse.Turquoise wrote:
Well, doesn't playing the good guy involve stabilizing Iraq? Being the good guy would be staying in Iraq until it is stable. I think that's a horrible idea myself, but I've never been particularly concerned with playing the good guy.
But you aren't playing the good guy in Iraq. You're trying to look like you are, and failing miserably.Turquoise wrote:
Still, if we play the good guy in Iraq, then we don't have enough resources to play the good guy in Darfur at the same time.
Actually, I was making a statement for the people of Western nations, one which categorized them all as more concerned with their checkbooks than anything else.Turquoise wrote:
I'm not making a statement about their people either -- I'm making it about their governments, like you were about mine.
I also note that it's one of the occasions on which I've clearly stated that I don't think Americans are inherently any more good or evil than Franks, Britons, Germans, Aussies, Italians etc., and usmarine conveniently ignored it and responded to a different post.
As I just said, that depends on what it is you want to achieve. If you want to create a dry country, theocracies work great. If you want to make laws which go into the home as well as the public, theocracies are also great. The problem you have is you view achievement as having inherently positive (and, not only that, positive by your morals) definitions. It can just as easily be a negative achievement (e.g. Hitler failed to achieve his goal of killing or exiling all the Jews in the Third Reich).Turquoise wrote:
I don't see much "achievement" on the part of religious governments.
That's like saying that computers are useless because most of the people who use them are just twits who argue on internet forums about things like Sharia law and Communism. It's not the computer, it's the user. It isn't the fault of Sharia law that it has it's cultural centre in a region of the world which has yet to turn into a series of stable Democracies. The same doesn't apply to Communism, where the fault is in the theory (it has to go through a period of centralised government, and who the hell is going to surrender total power?).Turquoise wrote:
Anyway, Sharia Law is useless in general, because everytime it's applied, it's twisted for abusive interests, just like Communism. What may look good on paper doesn't mean shit if the application sucks.
Whereas the US is purely concerned with helping others .Turquoise wrote:
[Again... we should kick Russia and China off of the Council if we want the U.N. to be even remotely useful. They may be economically and militarily significant, but their governments are rotten to the core.
You kick Russia and China of the SC, they'll leave the UN. Without them, half the world will leave, and pretty soon it'll just be an expanded version of NATO.
..or in the 90's...oh wait.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Wow. There is some flagrant ingnorance in this thread.
We should have been in Darfur years ago. Like around 2003. Oh wait....