Agreed.Turquoise wrote:
Bingo... People understandably bitch about our interventionism, but to then turn around and expect us to help out with this is just hypocritical. I say we give them the isolationism they want from us, and THEY can do the dirty work from now on.usmarine2005 wrote:
There are other capable countries in the world who could do something........Turquoise wrote:
We're too busy with Iraq to do anything about this.
The U.N. never gets anything done. The politics of the situation can be argued to no end, all the while thousands are still dying in Darfur.Turquoise wrote:
The U.N. has that capacity right now. Have they chosen to do so? No. So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.Turquoise wrote:
I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility.
If we stopped being so active, we could wean the world off of our interventionism, and then, these countries would clean up their own damn messes.
End the genocide first, argue about the politics second.
What the fuck do politics even have to do with this? Just put aside the fucking political differences and help the people.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
Last edited by Hurricane (2007-06-06 18:19:05)
I know where you're coming from, but I've reached the point of cynicism where I believe that these people will continue killing each other until the end of time. So much of Africa is a hellhole of poverty, disease, and famine. Maybe this is nature's way of telling us that some population control is in order....Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
The U.N. never gets anything done. The politics of the situation can be argued to no end, all the while thousands are still dying in Darfur.Turquoise wrote:
The U.N. has that capacity right now. Have they chosen to do so? No. So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.
If we stopped being so active, we could wean the world off of our interventionism, and then, these countries would clean up their own damn messes.
End the genocide first, argue about the politics second.
Ask a company of Marines to go help, and they would be there in a heartbeat. Ask a politician...............Hurricane wrote:
What the fuck do politics even have to do with this? Just put aside the fucking political differences and help the people.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
Firstly, he was being executed for converting from Islam, not for being Christian. But Sharia law doesn't support that either.Turquoise wrote:
Then why is that Afghanistan cited Sharia Law a year or so ago as the reason for why they wanted to execute a Christian convert then?Bubbalo wrote:
Sharia law doesn't say that.
http://www.wfn.org/2006/03/msg00355.html
He was only spared because of the worldwide attention brought to the trial.
Has it occurred to you that the Afghan government changed their interpretation of Sharia law to suit them?
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask a company of Marines to go help, and they would be there in a heartbeat. Ask a politician...............Hurricane wrote:
What the fuck do politics even have to do with this? Just put aside the fucking political differences and help the people.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
Apart from the fact that you chose to ignore Darfur and put it on your plate, the UN doesn't have the capacity to do anything, because they don't possess any military forces, and can only make statements and advisements.Turquoise wrote:
The U.N. has that capacity right now. Have they chosen to do so? No. So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.Turquoise wrote:
I know it sounds callous, but honestly, I don't see Darfur as our responsibility.
The people who said "never again" apparently didn't realize that the Holocaust was just a more organized and recent version of what we've been doing to each other as a species for a long time now. More genocides will occur no matter what. Whether or not we should intervene should mostly be a matter of what relevancy it has to our own economic and security interests.Hurricane wrote:
What the fuck do politics even have to do with this? Just put aside the fucking political differences and help the people.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
Govt represents the people in this country. Which sad to say is more concerned with their bank accounts than anything else.Hurricane wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.
I disagree. If our government truly cared about their bank account, we wouldn't have a massive deficit with the dollar's value spiraling down the shitter.Hurricane wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask a company of Marines to go help, and they would be there in a heartbeat. Ask a politician...............Hurricane wrote:
What the fuck do politics even have to do with this? Just put aside the fucking political differences and help the people.
edit: Yes I know there are politics involved with the whole genocide, but come the hell on the UN needs to do its fucking job it was created for. "Never again" we said about something like the Holocaust.
The issue isn't that you intervene, it's that you intervene when it suits you then try to play the good guy. You don't intervene in places like Darfur because it doesn't suit you, then you go into Iraq and wonder why everyone thinks you have an ulterior motive.Turquoise wrote:
Bingo... People understandably bitch about our interventionism, but to then turn around and expect us to help out with this is just hypocritical. I say we give them the isolationism they want from us, and THEY can do the dirty work from now on.
Same as any Western nation.usmarine2005 wrote:
Govt represents the people in this country. Which sad to say is more concerned with their bank accounts than anything else.
My mistake; I was implying that the people in our government only care about their personal bank account. Just look at the media + politics.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
I disagree. If our government truly cared about their bank account, we wouldn't have a massive deficit with the dollar's value spiraling down the shitter.Hurricane wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask a company of Marines to go help, and they would be there in a heartbeat. Ask a politician...............
Every government that enforces Sharia Law does that. They just manipulate Islam to serve their own nefarious purposes, which is why any sort of religious law system is full of shit. Adding religion to a law system is just putting another layer of bullshit in place so that you can justify behavior that would normally be seen as insane.Bubbalo wrote:
Firstly, he was being executed for converting from Islam, not for being Christian. But Sharia law doesn't support that either.Turquoise wrote:
Then why is that Afghanistan cited Sharia Law a year or so ago as the reason for why they wanted to execute a Christian convert then?Bubbalo wrote:
Sharia law doesn't say that.
http://www.wfn.org/2006/03/msg00355.html
He was only spared because of the worldwide attention brought to the trial.
Has it occurred to you that the Afghan government changed their interpretation of Sharia law to suit them?
When you realize how much of the Islamic World has their own twisted versions of Sharia Law, you'll understand my disgust of Islamic governments (and religious governments in general). The separation of church and state is the key to evolving as a society, and until the Islamic World realizes that, they will continue to live in a less advanced state from the West.
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?
And I suppose Zyklon B is to blame for the holocaust?
Oh Jesus h Christ.Bubbalo wrote:
Apart from the fact that you chose to ignore Darfur and put it on your plate, the UN doesn't have the capacity to do anything, because they don't possess any military forces, and can only make statements and advisements.Turquoise wrote:
The U.N. has that capacity right now. Have they chosen to do so? No. So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.
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.Bubbalo wrote:
Apart from the fact that you chose to ignore Darfur and put it on your plate, the UN doesn't have the capacity to do anything, because they don't possess any military forces, and can only make statements and advisements.Turquoise wrote:
The U.N. has that capacity right now. Have they chosen to do so? No. So why should we be expected to do anything about it with so much already on our plate?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
If we have the capacity to end a genocide, we should.
...and if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet the Sudanese would be more concerned with their bank accounts if it was us who were starving and killing each other.usmarine2005 wrote:
Govt represents the people in this country. Which sad to say is more concerned with their bank accounts than anything else.Hurricane wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.
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.
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
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.
Exactly, we don't care ENOUGH about our financial stability. We need to be more fiscally responsible for once. Enough with this hero mentality shit. We can barely handle our own checkbooks, much less humanitarian challenges.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
I disagree. If our government truly cared about their bank account, we wouldn't have a massive deficit with the dollar's value spiraling down the shitter.Hurricane wrote:
Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When you get down to it, our government's only concern is their bank account.usmarine2005 wrote:
Ask a company of Marines to go help, and they would be there in a heartbeat. Ask a politician...............
Exactly, no matter what we do, China and Russia will always go the extra mile in evil. It's what extremely corrupt governments and poor societies do.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
This is also why China and Russia shouldn't be on the Security Council.
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.
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.Bubbalo wrote:
The issue isn't that you intervene, it's that you intervene when it suits you then try to play the good guy. You don't intervene in places like Darfur because it doesn't suit you, then you go into Iraq and wonder why everyone thinks you have an ulterior motive.Turquoise wrote:
Bingo... People understandably bitch about our interventionism, but to then turn around and expect us to help out with this is just hypocritical. I say we give them the isolationism they want from us, and THEY can do the dirty work from now on.Same as any Western nation.usmarine2005 wrote:
Govt represents the people in this country. Which sad to say is more concerned with their bank accounts than anything else.
I agree that we usually enter nations for the wrong reasons, but at the same time, it's still hypocritical for the world to expect us to play the good guy, when the rest of the world doesn't do much of it themselves.
Yep. My memory is fuzzy beyond all hope on this one, but wasn't there some humanitarian crisis during the cold war (or if not humanitarian, then middle eastern) that took forever to be resolved because while the US, China, France, and the UK were all on the same page, Russia was opposed to what they tried to accomplish?Turquoise wrote:
Exactly, no matter what we do, China and Russia will always go the extra mile in evil. It's what extremely corrupt governments and poor societies do.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
This is also why China and Russia shouldn't be on the Security Council.
edit: We've sent a fair amount of aid to darfur, and I believe we've supported multiple UN resolutions to help Darfur. In case you didn't notice though, there are two wars going on which are quite the bitch to handle. As much as even the most die-hard world cops hate to admit it, we probably couldn't effectively intervene in Darfur. A multi-national force of, say, Germany, France, and the UK could more than likely hold their own with US money and/or weaponry help.
edit2: That was in response to Bubbalo.
Last edited by Hurricane (2007-06-06 18:40:44)