NationStates Jolt Archive

The region of Darfur in western Sudan is going through a human rights crisis of epic proportions, and so far the international community has done little to head off what is turning into genocide. Arab janjawid milita have been raping and killing mostly black Sudanese since 2003 in a bid to oust them from their homes. Lately, their favourite form of abuse has been the rape of women and children as young as 8. More that 1,000 lives are being lost PER WEEK, and the UN has not stepped in. What I would like to know is why we as an international community sat by and watched Rwanda bathe itself in blood, and are now repeating the same mistake with the Sudan? Are we only willing to intervene (Kosovo...) when the victims are white? Is the U.S so focused on Iraq (where yes, human rights abuses were occuring, but were not used as a reason for the invasion anyway) that it will ignore a chance to stop atrocities occuring NOW? What should we do about this????

We should do nothing. The govt said it doesn't want us and everytime we try to do something the rest of the world tells us we should mind our business. Do nothing. I am tired of being the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. I say we just let them have at it and get out of everywhere, pull our troops out, pull our money out, everything. And stay out of the Sudan.

All I can say is this. THANK YOU TONY BLAIR! From what I have been reading in the past few days. Mr. Blair will be sending in British troops to the Sudan. More nations that are so gosh darn concerned about human rights should get on board. Most likely in the end it will just be England, Canada and the USA carrying the load. The French will never help as they like to oppress the minorities in their own country. You cannot deny it France. You keep the Muslims in your country confined to crappy areas and crappy jobs.

We should do nothing. The govt said it doesn't want us and everytime we try to do something the rest of the world tells us we should mind our business. Do nothing. I am tired of being the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. I say we just let them have at it and get out of everywhere, pull our troops out, pull our money out, everything. And stay out of the Sudan.


You do have a very valid point. If we do something we will be hated. If we do nothing we will be hated.

You keep the Muslims in your country confined to crappy areas and crappy jobs. Sounds about right to me.

We should do nothing. The govt said it doesn't want us and everytime we try to do something the rest of the world tells us we should mind our business. Do nothing. I am tired of being the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the world. I say we just let them have at it and get out of everywhere, pull our troops out, pull our money out, everything. And stay out of the Sudan.

That would be fine if the U.S would actually DO that... stay out of everything I mean. I think we all know that isn't going to happen, so why not use your massive military for something that may not be just in your own interests for once? Sure, the Sudan doesn't have a lot of oil or anything the U.S currently wants, so I guess it isn't whetting Bush's appetite. Nonetheless, if the U.S wants to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation as a upholder of human rights, it should be working with the international community (possibly, preferably through the UN) to stop these blatant human rights abuses! I'm not talking about invading (like Iraq)... I'm talking about peacekeeping... does anyone remember that option? Though to be honest, I think peacekeepers need a bit more bang for their buck... they're sitting ducks in those blue helmets and rubber bullets....

In any case, these are people, who through no fault of their own are being targeted and systematically terrorised. You should be fighting your war on terrorism in places like this! Just think about the women in your life... the children you know... now imagine them being raped and murdered because of their skin colour. Why is it only bearable when it's strangers???

You keep the Muslims in your country confined to crappy areas and crappy jobs.
Kinda like the US and it's negroes.

The region of Darfur in western Sudan is going through a human rights crisis of epic proportions, and so far the international community has done little to head off what is turning into genocide. Arab janjawid milita have been raping and killing mostly black Sudanese since 2003 in a bid to oust them from their homes. Lately, their favourite form of abuse has been the rape of women and children as young as 8. More that 1,000 lives are being lost PER WEEK, and the UN has not stepped in. What I would like to know is why we as an international community sat by and watched Rwanda bathe itself in blood, and are now repeating the same mistake with the Sudan? Are we only willing to intervene (Kosovo...) when the victims are white? Is the U.S so focused on Iraq (where yes, human rights abuses were occuring, but were not used as a reason for the invasion anyway) that it will ignore a chance to stop atrocities occuring NOW? What should we do about this????

Well... I believe the US is trying to get a UN resolution passed declaring it genocide. But some other countries don't want to use such harsh language, especially since genocide means they're obligated to intervene.

(This is from me watching BBC, so hopefully it's accurate)

Sudan is a crisis spot, but it is too early to tell if it is genocide. Don't forget, some Arab tribes are being persecuted, too.
But anyihow, I believe that the UN is taking up the issue now. Both Houses in Congress have done their own work, and have passed resolutions condemning it as genocide (although this label may be premature). In any case, the Sudanese government, as far as I'm concerned, has lost its right to exist. They're in a horrific civil war with a shaky cease-fire, and are hurting any tribe that even thinks of resisting. This is now an oppritunity for the UN to regain credibility. My suggestions on operations:
1. Have the Security Concil call for regime change, and authorize the use of force if necessary.
2. Commence bombing of Khartoum, Sudanese military instalations in the south, and Janjaweed troops in the west.
3. Send in two divisons to finish the Sudanese, occupy Khartoum, and secure refuggee pathways to Chad. The longterm goal, of course, is for repatriation and returning to their villages.
4. Partition Sudan into three independent nations: northern, southern, and western. Have a UN mission in each of them, and help them rebuild their security forces. Most of all, however, try to establish a democratic tradition for each country.

Kinda like the US and it's negroes.
I have black friends that live in nice suburban homes. Tell them about how they are disadvantaged due to rascism.

All I can say is this. THANK YOU TONY BLAIR! From what I have been reading in the past few days. Mr. Blair will be sending in British troops to the Sudan. More nations that are so gosh darn concerned about human rights should get on board. Most likely in the end it will just be England, Canada and the USA carrying the load. The French will never help as they like to oppress the minorities in their own country. You cannot deny it France. You keep the Muslims in your country confined to crappy areas and crappy jobs.

Lets look at the record...

What has america done post gulf war 2 in africa(1991):Somalia

France in the same category: Somalia, Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ivory coast, more...

Lets look what these non helpful french are doing...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm

Also, dont talk about oppresion. Go to California, my home state. Go into a mcdonalds. Just proved my point right there I think.

Sudan is only important seeming because its getting lots of news coverage. Its not like 16 simultaneous peacekeeping missions by the UN is enough, they have to cover this one because the media decided to cover it.

I say leave it alone. The government doesnt want help. Deploying more troops than the tons already deployed is draining.

I have black friends that live in nice suburban homes. Tell them about how they are disadvantaged due to rascism.
I know muslims who's families live in France in nice villa's/ suburbans.
Tell them about how they are disadvantaged due to rascism. :rolleyes:

The U.S. should do absolutely nothing. It is time to return to the non-interventionism envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

Sudan is only important seeming because its getting lots of news coverage. Its not like 16 simultaneous peacekeeping missions by the UN is enough, they have to cover this one because the media decided to cover it.

I say leave it alone. The government doesnt want help. Deploying more troops than the tons already deployed is draining.

The government doesn't want help because it's trying to kill its own people. No wonder they don't want the UN in there. They might have to actually stop helping the militia.

Kinda like the US and it's negroes.
That used to be the case. Now they can live wherever they want to live. Well except in some areas where the KKK is highly active

And are you forgeting about SOMALIA PEOPLE? The USA had no interest in that country. There was no oil. So your arguments about the USA having to gain something are really messed up.

I know muslims who's families live in France in nice villa's/ suburbans.
Tell them about how they are disadvantaged due to rascism. :rolleyes:
My bad. I thought you were serious. I have to take things at face value nowadays, because you know how many in the world love a chance to pounce on the US.

That used to be the case. Now they can live wherever they want to live. Well except in some areas where the KKK is highly active

And are you forgeting about SOMALIA PEOPLE? The USA had no interest in that country. There was no oil. So your arguments about the USA having to gain something are really messed up.
And the resource arguement is mute, too. There is oil in Sudan. In fact, it's one of the reasons that the civil war restarted in 1983.

Lets look at the record...

What has america done post gulf war 2 in africa(1991):Somalia

France in the same category: Somalia, Liberia, Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Ivory coast, more...

Lets look what these non helpful french are doing...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm

Also, dont talk about oppresion. Go to California, my home state. Go into a mcdonalds. Just proved my point right there I think.

Sudan is only important seeming because its getting lots of news coverage. Its not like 16 simultaneous peacekeeping missions by the UN is enough, they have to cover this one because the media decided to cover it.

I say leave it alone. The government doesnt want help. Deploying more troops than the tons already deployed is draining.


Oh It seems you forgot some important things that the US has done. SENDING HELP TO IRAN after those earthquakes that killed over 25,000. Sending in men and materials to south america after flooding destroyed village after village.

So what if alot of african americans are working at Mcdonalds in your home state. IT"S A JOB IS IT NOT?

I've already stated my opinions on Sudan; they involve large, overwhelming, unprecedented amounts of manpower and equipment from our side to sit between the rebels and the villages and townships that are in danger of being slaughtered.

My bad. I thought you were serious. I have to take things at face value nowadays, because you know how many in the world love a chance to pounce on the US.
I was seriouse. Since that Knight character was trying to bash France for the muslim slums. And at the same time he seemed to be forgetting the negro, and others, slums in the US.

And the resource arguement is mute, too. There is oil in Sudan. In fact, it's one of the reasons that the civil war restarted in 1983.


I have to say this. The reason I don't think the US is going to get involved is this. We cannot take another shot to the nose and lose more face in the international community. So again. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I was seriouse. Since that Knight character was trying to bash France for the muslim slums. And at the same time he seemed to be forgetting the negro, and others, slums in the US.


I was forgetting Nothing. The difference is in that France they are making laws to hold down the muslims. Like not letting the women wear that viel in schools. I don't see the USA having that. I know that every country has their slums and do there best to hide them, but when you start making laws that restrict what people can wear. That is way over the line.

That would be fine if the U.S would actually DO that... stay out of everything I mean. I think we all know that isn't going to happen, so why not use your massive military for something that may not be just in your own interests for once? Sure, the Sudan doesn't have a lot of oil or anything the U.S currently wants, so I guess it isn't whetting Bush's appetite. Nonetheless, if the U.S wants to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation as a upholder of human rights, it should be working with the international community (possibly, preferably through the UN) to stop these blatant human rights abuses! I'm not talking about invading (like Iraq)... I'm talking about peacekeeping... does anyone remember that option? Though to be honest, I think peacekeepers need a bit more bang for their buck... they're sitting ducks in those blue helmets and rubber bullets....

In any case, these are people, who through no fault of their own are being targeted and systematically terrorised. You should be fighting your war on terrorism in places like this! Just think about the women in your life... the children you know... now imagine them being raped and murdered because of their skin colour. Why is it only bearable when it's strangers???

Please..don't even go there..while the Massacre was going on in Rwanda, how many of the international community went to their aid to end the slaughter?...If not for NATO troops..of which they didn't go in til the US committed it's numbers Bosnia would still be a killing ground.

Now..if the international community is so horrified..let THEM do the dying, let THEM put their money where their mouth is..I keep hearing on how the EU has a bigger GNP and all that..let their checkbooks be opened..let THEIR troops get killed...we'll stay out of it because we just can't affored to be the pidgeon any longer...we have enough on our plate...Where is the almight African Union huh?..over 39 nations..can't THEY handle the Sudan?..I mean, don't they all have armies, available capital...hell...look at South Africa, one of the most prosperous countries for natural resources, platinum and gold, they should have enough funds to do the job?

Please..don't even go there..while the Massacre was going on in Rwanda, how many of the international community went to their aid to end the slaughter?...If not for NATO troops..of which they didn't go in til the US committed it's numbers Bosnia would still be a killing ground.

Now..if the international community is so horrified..let THEM do the dying, let THEM put their money where their mouth is..I keep hearing on how the EU has a bigger GNP and all that..let their checkbooks be opened..let THEIR troops get killed...we'll stay out of it because we just can't affored to be the pidgeon any longer...we have enough on our plate...Where is the almight African Union huh?..over 39 nations..can't THEY handle the Sudan?..I mean, don't they all have armies, available capital...hell...look at South Africa, one of the most prosperous countries for natural resources, platinum and gold, they should have enough funds to do the job?


Very valid points. Maybe we should step back and let others carry the ball for a change. The problem with this is that alot of those countries do not have the military and civillian resources needed to help out. While the EU as a whole may have a larger GNP.. which one of those countries is going to risk losing their own people? Sadly I don't see anything happening.

I was seriouse. Since that Knight character was trying to bash France for the muslim slums. And at the same time he seemed to be forgetting the negro, and others, slums in the US.
Look, first of all, negro is not a word blacks like being called. It's now akin to ******. Second, the do live in slums, but personally, I think it is their work ethic. Most black Haitians and African immigrants that come here become quite successful after only a generation, while many native blacks are rather poor. I'm not being a rascist, for indeed, most blacks are doing fine. I'm just stating it the way it is. Bill Cosby would agree with me, too.

Oh It seems you forgot some important things that the US has done. SENDING HELP TO IRAN after those earthquakes that killed over 25,000. Sending in men and materials to south america after flooding destroyed village after village.

So what if alot of african americans are working at Mcdonalds in your home state. IT"S A JOB IS IT NOT?

UN help to Iran after those earthquakes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358685.stm

I wasnt able to find any information on american aid to south americans for floods. I did find aid to south africa for floods, which were also aided by the UN.

Also, I said mexicans. Not blacks. Mexicans in california are very kept down.

Look, first of all, negro is not a word blacks like being called. It's now akin to ******. Second, the do live in slums, but personally, I think it is their work ethic. Most black Haitians and African immigrants that come here become quite successful after only a generation, while many native blacks are rather poor. I'm not being a rascist, for indeed, most blacks are doing fine. I'm just stating it the way it is. Bill Cosby would agree with me, too.


That is right. Mr. Cosby just blasted african americans in Chicago a few weeks back. Saying they were lazy and always using excuses on why they are not getting ahead. He made some valid points, but alot of people did not see it that way.

I have to say this. The reason I don't think the US is going to get involved is this. We cannot take another shot to the nose and lose more face in the international community. So again. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
In the short term, yes. However, if a democracy can be installed in any of the three nations, and they become prosperous, then it'll do a lot to reform North Africa to the world's liking, and possibly the Middle East. Besides, the US is wholly justified this time, because an actual "genocide" is occuring NOW. It was the same thing during Gulf War I. If we went to Baghdad then, I think the world wouldn't have minded.

Please..don't even go there..while the Massacre was going on in Rwanda, how many of the international community went to their aid to end the slaughter?...If not for NATO troops..of which they didn't go in til the US committed it's numbers Bosnia would still be a killing ground.

Now..if the international community is so horrified..let THEM do the dying, let THEM put their money where their mouth is..I keep hearing on how the EU has a bigger GNP and all that..let their checkbooks be opened..let THEIR troops get killed...we'll stay out of it because we just can't affored to be the pidgeon any longer...we have enough on our plate...Where is the almight African Union huh?..over 39 nations..can't THEY handle the Sudan?..I mean, don't they all have armies, available capital...hell...look at South Africa, one of the most prosperous countries for natural resources, platinum and gold, they should have enough funds to do the job?


They are the ones losing the troops, and spending their money. Its america who needs to pick up the slack.

Look, first of all, negro is not a word blacks like being called. It's now akin to ******.
Well, thats too bad then.
Second, the do live in slums, but personally, I think it is their work ethic.
Same with most of the muslims in France or here in the Netherlands.

That is right. Mr. Cosby just blasted african americans in Chicago a few weeks back. Saying they were lazy and always using excuses on why they are not getting ahead. He made some valid points, but alot of people did not see it that way.
I find him rather brave, personally. He said that standing next to Jesse Jackson. But then again, I see him being protected a bit, due to his skin color. If he was white, he'd be labeled a rascist. It's said, really. I, being white, would love to say the same things, because I feel sorry for our fellow black citizens, and I feel that many are holding themselves back. But alas, anyone who tries to help (and that doesn't bring it in the form of handouts) is called rascist.

UN help to Iran after those earthquakes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3358685.stm

I wasnt able to find any information on american aid to south americans for floods. I did find aid to south africa for floods, which were also aided by the UN.

Also, I said mexicans. Not blacks. Mexicans in california are very kept down.


My apologizes. I mixed two posts together. As for the south american floods. The US did sent relief supplies and heavy machinery. I know that for a fact since my uncle went down there. It might not have been a government agency though.

As for the Mexicans in California. Yes you are right there. My cousin lives out in California and the only jobs they seem to get are working in the fields and it makes her sick.

I find him rather brave, personally. He said that standing next to Jesse Jackson. But then again, I see him being protected a bit, due to his skin color. If he was white, he'd be labeled a rascist. It's said, really. I, being white, would love to say the same things, because I feel sorry for our fellow black citizens, and I feel that many are holding themselves back. But alas, anyone who tries to help (and that doesn't bring it in the form of handouts) is called rascist.
thats the point, the white people cant say or they are called racist and the situation gets worse, some one like cosby says it and people listen up

Well, thats too bad then.

Same with most of the muslims in France or here in the Netherlands.
And I agree with that. Many immigrants, for example, are lured to San Francisco by promises of generous welfare. However, I do feel that in France, the government is running a smear campaign on Muslims. In any case, that's not true in the Netherlands and the UK, and they make up most of the nation's impoverished.

That is right. Mr. Cosby just blasted african americans in Chicago a few weeks back. Saying they were lazy and always using excuses on why they are not getting ahead. He made some valid points, but alot of people did not see it that way.


In fact, if you look at Boondocks over the past week, he talked about what Cosby said.
You can see it here:
http://www.uclick.com/client/spi/bo/2004/07/19/index.html

EDIT: wait a sec. :confused: This got offtopic. We're talking about Sudan here! And i'm confusing this with the Boondocks thread :D

I find him rather brave, personally. He said that standing next to Jesse Jackson. But then again, I see him being protected a bit, due to his skin color. If he was white, he'd be labeled a rascist. It's said, really. I, being white, would love to say the same things, because I feel sorry for our fellow black citizens, and I feel that many are holding themselves back. But alas, anyone who tries to help (and that doesn't bring it in the form of handouts) is called rascist.


That is very true. My friend Darrell warned me never to even think about getting involved for it would only bring me grief. It is really sad that we cannot just for a moment forget all about race and just help one another like we did on September 11th 2001.

Think about that day people. It didn't matter what country you were from that day. For that day everyone on the planet wasn't black, white, or asian. We were all human beings that day. Is that so wrong?

I was forgetting Nothing. The difference is in that France they are making laws to hold down the muslims. Like not letting the women wear that viel in schools. I don't see the USA having that. I know that every country has their slums and do there best to hide them, but when you start making laws that restrict what people can wear. That is way over the line.
It's only forbidden in schools. So are crosses, Jewish skull caps and other religiouse items. Seperation of church and state. Like in Turkey, eversince the 1920's. I don't see you whining bout the Turks.

thats the point, the white people cant say or they are called racist and the situation gets worse, some one like cosby says it and people listen up
Actually, I think many blacks were willing to shun him. Although I did notice that the more enlighted black clergy (unlike Jesse Jackson) thought that Cosby had his points.

I'm not just bashing the U.S here... that's why I talked about the international community in the title... though the U.S is a powerhouse in terms of its military and its pull in the UN (I know it might not seem that way after Bush's bid to get support for the invasion of Iraq). We as an international community need to decide when we will intervene in a humanitarian crisis... and do so not based on the basic principle that ALL peoples have the right to life. I agree the African Union and the EU should step in too, but the U.S could do some real good here, especially after the questionable deployment in Iraq. My own county, Canada, needs to step in here too. Are we in this day and age going to continue to use our armies for our own interests, or are we willing to step up and take care of each other? My position on military intervention is not solidified, mostly because the level of intervention is different depending on whether it's the UN deploying or NATO etc, but I do think as a group we have the power to at least lesson the atrocities. Phew. Yuck.

My apologizes. I mixed two posts together. As for the south american floods. The US did sent relief supplies and heavy machinery. I know that for a fact since my uncle went down there. It might not have been a government agency though.

As for the Mexicans in California. Yes you are right there. My cousin lives out in California and the only jobs they seem to get are working in the fields and it makes her sick.

Well..seeing as how 12 million are primarily illegals who shouldn't be there in the first place..I guess the only jobs they can get are ones where they are paid under the table and off the radar..so it seems like it's their choice to not go thru the lawful ways to emigrate to the US....and as far as put down there..the entire state bends over backwards..bilingualism for children, government information in Spanish...DMV's where no one speaks English (had that happen in Miami, FL though to be fair)..Emergency rooms which must by law treat them...they are eligible for Medicaid programs which quite frankly are responsible for the bankrupting of many of the ER's the illegals go to for healthcare.

It's only forbidden in schools. So are crosses, Jewish skull caps and other religiouse items. Seperation of church and state. Like in Turkey, eversince the 1920's. I don't see you whining bout the Turks.
That's because it's too late to help them. At least under the Ottoman Empire, there was some toleration for Christianity. Now there seems to be none for any religion. At least, however, neither France nor Turkey has gone to the private level yet.

And I agree with that. Many immigrants, for example, are lured to San Francisco by promises of generous welfare. However, I do feel that in France, the government is running a smear campaign on Muslims. In any case, that's not true in the Netherlands and the UK, and they make up most of the nation's impoverished.
They are not smearing any worse then other nations. Turkey outlawed veils decades ago. And now that France did the same it's suddenly a smear campaign?

Now..if the international community is so horrified..let THEM do the dying, let THEM put their money where their mouth is..I keep hearing on how the EU has a bigger GNP and all that..let their checkbooks be opened..let THEIR troops get killed...we'll stay out of it because we just can't affored to be the pidgeon any longer...we have enough on our plate...Where is the almight African Union huh?..over 39 nations..can't THEY handle the Sudan?..I mean, don't they all have armies, available capital...hell...look at South Africa, one of the most prosperous countries for natural resources, platinum and gold, they should have enough funds to do the job?
Thats fine by me, I'd send them tommorow if it was up to me.

I'm not just bashing the U.S here... that's why I talked about the international community in the title... though the U.S is a powerhouse in terms of its military and its pull in the UN (I know it might not seem that way after Bush's bid to get support for the invasion of Iraq). We as an international community need to decide when we will intervene in a humanitarian crisis... and do so not based on the basic principle that ALL peoples have the right to life. I agree the African Union and the EU should step in too, but the U.S could do some real good here, especially after the questionable deployment in Iraq. My own county, Canada, needs to step in here too. Are we in this day and age going to continue to use our armies for our own interests, or are we willing to step up and take care of each other? My position on military intervention is not solidified, mostly because the level of intervention is different depending on whether it's the UN deploying or NATO etc, but I do think as a group we have the power to at least lesson the atrocities. Phew. Yuck.
But you seem to forget that the US, Canada, and other nations are trying to push a resolution through the UN concerning Sudan. Already, however, both Houses in the US Congress passed their own resolution that call the crisis in Sudan as genocide.

They are not smearing any worse then other nations. Turkey outlawed veils decades ago. And now that France did the same it's suddenly a smear campaign?

It is legal to wear those symbols in private schools however.

This is seperation of state and church, not segregation. I am completely for chirac's position on this.

That's because it's too late to help them.
Just send in the US army to liberate the poor opressed muslims.

At least, however, neither France nor Turkey has gone to the private level yet.
Eeehh...what?

They are not smearing any worse then other nations. Turkey outlawed veils decades ago. And now that France did the same it's suddenly a smear campaign?
Yes. It is reminiscint on how the Soviet Union under Lenin started treating religion. Ayn Rand warned about things like this, and I have to say that, in today's world, her points apply more than ever.

Well..seeing as how 12 million are primarily illegals who shouldn't be there in the first place..I guess the only jobs they can get are ones where they are paid under the table and off the radar..so it seems like it's their choice to not go thru the lawful ways to emigrate to the US....and as far as put down there..the entire state bends over backwards..bilingualism for children, government information in Spanish...DMV's where no one speaks English (had that happen in Miami, FL though to be fair)..Emergency rooms which must by law treat them...they are eligible for Medicaid programs which quite frankly are responsible for the bankrupting of many of the ER's the illegals go to for healthcare.


Fair enough. I don't think we should punish the children though. At least nobody is for putting up machine guns and gunning them down as they cross the border.

It is legal to wear those symbols in private schools however.
Yes, yes. I forgot to make that distinction.

This is seperation of state and church, not segregation. I am completely for chirac's position on this.
I just wish more states would follow this example.

No, I haven't forgotten the efforts already being made:). I just wanted to spark the debate into international intervention, because so many are for it one moment, then against it the next.

Emergency rooms which must by law treat them...they are eligible for Medicaid programs which quite frankly are responsible for the bankrupting of many of the ER's the illegals go to for healthcare.
Yeah, cos its better that they die than we find ourselves out of pocket :roll:

Yes. It is reminiscint on how the Soviet Union under Lenin started treating religion. Ayn Rand warned about things like this, and I have to say that, in today's world, her points apply more than ever.
And what exactly are you trying to say?
That this will make us all commies?

Yes. It is reminiscint on how the Soviet Union under Lenin started treating religion. Ayn Rand warned about things like this, and I have to say that, in today's world, her points apply more than ever.


I don't know if the French would go that far. I would hope not.

I find him rather brave, personally. He said that standing next to Jesse Jackson. But then again, I see him being protected a bit, due to his skin color. If he was white, he'd be labeled a rascist. It's said, really. I, being white, would love to say the same things, because I feel sorry for our fellow black citizens, and I feel that many are holding themselves back. But alas, anyone who tries to help (and that doesn't bring it in the form of handouts) is called rascist.Its not about race its about class. He thinks that because he's black, he has authority to speak about the nature of urban and working class black people. Quite frankly, its appalling. He has more in common with wealthy white millionaires than he does with the majority of black people (the majority that are working class or living in poverty)

All he has sucessfully done, to my mind, is prove that its an issue of classism, not racism. Still the same prejudices, still being levelled at the same people, now it just has a new name.

whoa.. and to think that this topic started off about the Sudan. We have all gotten way off track.

And what exactly are you trying to say?
That this will make us all commies?
No. I'm suggesting that, at some level, these nations are trying to be controlling. For more than one time in its history, Turkey has been threatened to be ejected from NATO because of its human rights record. It is now much more liberalized, and that silly ban on veils will probably be lifted soon. But I don't know if France is headed that way or not. At least under Chirac, it wouldn't surprise me. But then again, Chriac is old. He'll be out of office by 2007, I should think. It'd amaze me if he wants to run again.

Its not about race its about class. He thinks that because he's black, he has authority to speak about the nature of urban and working class black people. Quite frankly, its appalling. He has more in common with wealthy white millionaires than he does with the majority of black people (the majority that are working class or living in poverty)

All he has sucessfully done, to my mind, is prove that its an issue of classism, not racism. Still the same prejudices, still being levelled at the same people, now it just has a new name.
He didn't grow up in the best of conditions, however.

Yeah, cos its better that they die than we find ourselves out of pocket :roll:

(1) They shouldn't be here in the first place and you want me to feel sorry for someone that is committing a crime by being in my country illegally?...

(2) If they bankrupt the local ER's the illegals go to...whom is going to treat them?

(1) They shouldn't be here in the first place and you want me to feel sorry for someone that is committing a crime by being in my country illegally?...

(2) If they bankrupt the local ER's the illegals go to...whom is going to treat them?


Now that is a problem, but is there a humane solution?

It is now much more liberalized, and that silly ban on veils will probably be lifted soon.
They have been more liberalized cause the US is trying to strongarm the EU to make them a full member asap.
And I seriously doubt it will be lifted.

He didn't grow up in the best of conditions, however.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001070/bio
Philly was an industrial backwater in the forties, and it certainly had a lot of black slums. Besides, a bartender doesn't sound like a rich person's job.
You people sure have a way of crying foul all the time.

They have been more liberalized cause the US is trying to strongarm the EU to make them a full member asap.
And I seriously doubt it will be lifted.
Well what's wrong with that? It'd be in the best interest of everyone if Turkey was admitted into the EU. They have a large economy, are rapidly liberalizing, and it'd be an oppritunity to show that Islam and Democracy can work together. Denying Turkey's entry into the EU would be shooting yourselves in the foot. Besides, they are a member of NATO. Are the two fundementally different? Both heavily rely on Europe, and they are both, to some extent, defense organizations.

They have been more liberalized cause the US is trying to strongarm the EU to make them a full member asap.
And I seriously doubt it will be lifted.


You have a point. The US should not try and strongarm the EU to let in Turkey. I also don't think that the veil law will re repeled. I think it is there until they get a new president.

You have a point. The US should not try and strongarm the EU to let in Turkey. I also don't think that the veil law will re repeled. I think it is there until they get a new president.

As Euclid stated...why is the EU being standoffish to Turkey's application? A stable secular nation where the primary faith is Islam?...It's like an open door into the Middle East..a foothold...take it an run I say.

Sudan is a crisis spot, but it is too early to tell if it is genocide. Don't forget, some Arab tribes are being persecuted, too.
But anyihow, I believe that the UN is taking up the issue now. Both Houses in Congress have done their own work, and have passed resolutions condemning it as genocide (although this label may be premature). In any case, the Sudanese government, as far as I'm concerned, has lost its right to exist. They're in a horrific civil war with a shaky cease-fire, and are hurting any tribe that even thinks of resisting. This is now an oppritunity for the UN to regain credibility. My suggestions on operations:
1. Have the Security Concil call for regime change, and authorize the use of force if necessary.
2. Commence bombing of Khartoum, Sudanese military instalations in the south, and Janjaweed troops in the west.
3. Send in two divisons to finish the Sudanese, occupy Khartoum, and secure refuggee pathways to Chad. The longterm goal, of course, is for repatriation and returning to their villages.
4. Partition Sudan into three independent nations: northern, southern, and western. Have a UN mission in each of them, and help them rebuild their security forces. Most of all, however, try to establish a democratic tradition for each country.
Now, just to make sure we have a semblance of the original subject, here's my initial arguements. Tell me what you think.

As Euclid stated...why is the EU being standoffish to Turkey's application? A stable secular nation where the primary faith is Islam?...It's like an open door into the Middle East..a foothold...take it an run I say.


I don't have an answer for you on that. I don't think we should pressure them into accepting Turkey though. If Turkey becomes a powerhouse then it is the EU who loses out. Then maybe they will beg Turkey to join them.

Now, just to make sure we have a semblance of the original subject, here's my initial arguements. Tell me what you think.


I like options 1 and 4.

(1) They shouldn't be here in the first place and you want me to feel sorry for someone that is committing a crime by being in my country illegally?...

(2) If they bankrupt the local ER's the illegals go to...whom is going to treat them?
(1) Yes

(2) You could *shock* fund the ER's properly, so that people can get the treatment they need without the hospitals going broke because of it.

Well what's wrong with that?
That the Americans shouldn't stick their nose where it doesn't belong. You don't see the EU telling America they should admit Mexico or something like that.


It'd be in the best interest of everyone if Turkey was admitted into the EU.
I'm sure it's in Turkey's best interest. As for the rest of us, hell no.
They have a large economy,
A large economy? :D
and it'd be an oppritunity to show that Islam and Democracy can work together.
What? EU membership is a garentuee(sp) that they won't become fundamentalists?

Denying Turkey's entry into the EU would be shooting yourselves in the foot.
Allowing them to enter would be us shooting ourself in the foot and the head.

Besides, they are a member of NATO. Are the two fundementally different? Both heavily rely on Europe, and they are both, to some extent, defense organizations.
So what? So is Canada.
NATO is an American organisation. Created to tie the member states to the US. It should be dissolved.
And the EU isn't a defense organisation.

(1) Yes

(2) You could *shock* fund the ER's properly, so that people can get the treatment they need without the hospitals going broke because of it.


In Californias case though they cannot afford to give anymore money to the ER's. They are broke enough as it is. How do you rememdy that issue?

As Euclid stated...why is the EU being standoffish to Turkey's application? A stable secular nation where the primary faith is Islam?...It's like an open door into the Middle East..a foothold...take it an run I say.
You take it then.

(1) Yes

(2) You could *shock* fund the ER's properly, so that people can get the treatment they need without the hospitals going broke because of it.

How would you feel if Frenchmen by the shipload starting to flood into England without going thru the proper immigration policies?...Would you fund them all?

And ER's already are funded based on "normal" contingencies..but illegals go there just for a cold,taking up much needed material, manhours, and personnel..they go there because they know ER's are hamstrung by Federal Law....

You take it then.

But prey tell,just what is your position on denying Turkey membership? What reason please?

You take it then.

Hey thats a novel idea.

That the Americans shouldn't stick their nose where it doesn't belong. You don't see the EU telling America they should admit Mexico or something like that.


I'm sure it's in Turkey's best interest. As for the rest of us, hell no.

A large economy? :D

What? EU membership is a garentuee(sp) that they won't become fundamentalists?


Allowing them to enter would be us shooting ourself in the foot and the head.

So what? So is Canada.
NATO is an American organisation. Created to tie the member states to the US. It should be dissolved.
And the EU isn't a defense organisation.
Actually, I wish we would admit Mexico, but that's a different story. The EU is a defense organization. Why is there a rapid reaction force sitting around in Brussels?
Turkey should be admited as their economy is the 17th largest in the world. With some further developement, they may excel as a new trading state. Empires use to covet the Bosporous because of it's unique trading oppritunities. Even today, it has promise as a transshipping point for oil and gas. I guess, however, that this empire is one of the few not interested in the Bosporous. Is there even a precedent for this behavior?

But prey tell,just what is your position on denying Turkey membership? What reason please?
Just a few months ago we got 10 new members. Who will cost us billions for the next 40 years or so. Turkey alone would cost us as much as these 10.
Millions of Turks would then pack and move west. For some reason no one seems to be concerned bout this. Where in the case of Hungary Germany and Austria were realy concerned bout millions of Hungarians flooding us.
The nice people that plantet the bombs in Istanbul would have a much easier time honoring us with a visit. So would criminal organisations form that region. As would other hip terrorists from the Middle East. Turkey has a pretty long border. And, oh yeah, Turkey is 98% in Asia.

Actually, I wish we would admit Mexico, but that's a different story. The EU is a defense organization. Why is there a rapid reaction force sitting around in Brussels?
Turkey should be admited as their economy is the 17th largest in the world. With some further developement, they may excel as a new trading state. Empires use to covet the Bosporous because of it's unique trading oppritunities. Even today, it has promise as a transshipping point for oil and gas. I guess, however, that this empire is one of the few not interested in the Bosporous. Is there even a precedent for this behavior?

Is that true about the rapid reaction force? If so.. what the hell?

How would you feel if Frenchmen by the shipload starting to flood into England without going thru the proper immigration policies?...Would you fund them all?Fund all what? Frenchmen?

You're obviously a little fuzzy on our immigration policy, its not that difficult for members of the EU to move freely within any of the countries for almost any length of time without documentation of any sort.

And ER's already are funded based on "normal" contingencies..but illegals go there just for a cold,taking up much needed material, manhours, and personnel..they go there because they know ER's are hamstrung by Federal Law....Improper use of ER's isn't a problem limited to illegal immigrants. Obviously its increased because of them, but that'd be the same if there were

Fund all what? Frenchmen?

You're obviously a little fuzzy on our immigration policy, its not that difficult for members of the EU to move freely within any of the countries for almost any length of time without documentation of any sort.[b]I/m asking hypothetically..prior to the EU if that will make a good reference, you have the sovereignity of your nation to be concerned bout...then millions of Frenchmen who don't pay taxes, who abuse your healthcare system, and refuse to assimilate into British society make every effort to cross the British Channel and take up residence in England.

Improper use of ER's isn't a problem limited to illegal immigrants. Obviously its increased because of them, but that'd be the same if there were

As for the ER abuse..they are the largest factor though.

In Californias case though they cannot afford to give anymore money to the ER's. They are broke enough as it is. How do you rememdy that issue?
I'm not well up the problems facing California actually. I sorta think though, from a very uninformed, basic point of view, that if they are the 5th largest economy in the world, there should be some money somewhere, right? Or am I missing something?

Actually, I wish we would admit Mexico, but that's a different story. The EU is a defense organization. Why is there a rapid reaction force sitting around in Brussels?
The EU is a political and economic organisation. The WEU, West European Union, is a defense organisation. And the rapid reaction force is sitting around cause our leaders are to dumb to leave NATO.
Turkey should be admited as their economy is the 17th largest in the world.
I kinda doubt it's 17. But hey, I don't care how high they are on the ladder. They shouldn't be admitted. Especially because the US wants them to be admitted.

With some further developement, they may excel as a new trading state. Empires use to covet the Bosporous because of it's unique trading oppritunities. Even today, it has promise as a transshipping point for oil and gas. I guess, however, that this empire is one of the few not interested in the Bosporous. Is there even a precedent for this behavior?
Again, make them a US state then. Then the US empire can have the Bosporus.

The EU is a political and economic organisation. The WEU, West European Union, is a defense organisation. And the rapid reaction force is sitting around cause our leaders are to dumb to leave NATO.

I kinda doubt it's 17. But hey, I don't care how high they are on the ladder. They shouldn't be admitted. Especially because the US wants them to be admitted.

Again, make them a US state then. Then the US empire can have the Bosporus.

LMMFAO the US EMPIRE? LISTEN IF WE WANTED It. EUROPE WOULD BE OURS. WE don't want it. Nor do we want the middle east. There is only one Nation that the US has ever taken over and KEPT. That would be Hawaii.

The region of Darfur in western Sudan is going through a human rights crisis of epic proportions, and so far the international community has done little to head off what is turning into genocide. Arab janjawid milita have been raping and killing mostly black Sudanese since 2003 in a bid to oust them from their homes. Lately, their favourite form of abuse has been the rape of women and children as young as 8. More that 1,000 lives are being lost PER WEEK, and the UN has not stepped in. What I would like to know is why we as an international community sat by and watched Rwanda bathe itself in blood, and are now repeating the same mistake with the Sudan? Are we only willing to intervene (Kosovo...) when the victims are white? Is the U.S so focused on Iraq (where yes, human rights abuses were occuring, but were not used as a reason for the invasion anyway) that it will ignore a chance to stop atrocities occuring NOW? What should we do about this????

Well the US can only do so much at a time not to mention people here will just complain if we do. The UN has once again failed to meet its purpose of enforcing international law of human rights. This kind of stuff is also happening in africa becuase some one said that if you have sex with a virgin it cures aids so basicly babies as young as one year are getting raped as well. The UN needs to get its head out of its ass and prove that it doesn't need us to do everything. I mean isn't this what the UN was made for? To stop this kind of stuff? What are the neighboring nations doing about this?

LMMFAO the US EMPIRE? LISTEN IF WE WANTED It. EUROPE WOULD BE OURS. WE don't want it. Nor do we want the middle east. There is only one Nation that the US has ever taken over and KEPT. That would be Hawaii.
I was talking bout Turkey.

I'm not well up the problems facing California actually. I sorta think though, from a very uninformed, basic point of view, that if they are the 5th largest economy in the world, there should be some money somewhere, right? Or am I missing something?


Yes California does have the 5th largest economy in the world. I don't know if they have any funds available because of all those years that they overpaid for electricity. Maybe they should cut back on some of the basics. But then again.. where do you start? I'd start by making all elected officials take a paycut :)

I'm not well up the problems facing California actually. I sorta think though, from a very uninformed, basic point of view, that if they are the 5th largest economy in the world, there should be some money somewhere, right? Or am I missing something?

I dont think that california has an economy greater than germany(the 5th largest economy in the world)...

Then again, My family makes 120k a year... But its not like white caucasians are a majority...

I'm asking hypothetically..prior to the EU if that will make a good reference, you have the sovereignity of your nation to be concerned bout...then millions of Frenchmen who don't pay taxes, who abuse your healthcare system, and refuse to assimilate into British society make every effort to cross the British Channel and take up residence in England.<quotes sorted>

I'm sorry Salishe, there still wasn't an actual question there, just a hypothetical list of problems. Are you asking if I would be happy about that happening? Possibly not, I think that people within the country should pay taxes, and I don't like it when some groups isolate themselves from others as I believe it leads to racial and ethnic tension.

But would I still think that they should get medical treatment if they're ill? Absolutely. I don't begrudge that to anyone. I think that its bad that they're not contributing anything towards the NHS, not paying any taxes, but not so bad that I'd prevent them help when they need it.

<quotes sorted>

I'm sorry Salishe, there still wasn't an actual question there, just a hypothetical list of problems. Are you asking if I would be happy about that happening? Possibly not, I think that people within the country should pay taxes, and I don't like it when some groups isolate themselves from others as I believe it leads to racial and ethnic tension.

But would I still think that they should get medical treatment if they're ill? Absolutely. I don't begrudge that to anyone. I think that its bad that they're not contributing anything towards the NHS, not paying any taxes, but not so bad that I'd prevent them help when they need it.

Well..then you feel the same way many Californians feel..no one of course wants to see someone denied medical treatment...but if your bankrupting the only facilities that can take you..refuse to assimilate...pay no taxes, and are in the country illegally then how else do you think the citizens would feel?

I dont think that california has an economy greater than germany(the 5th largest economy in the world)...

Then again, My family makes 120k a year... But its not like white caucasians are a majority...


As of 2002 California had the worlds 5th largest economy

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html

Yes California does have the 5th largest economy in the world.

I dont think that california has an economy greater than germany(the 5th largest economy in the world)...
Seems to be some disagreement here. I've heard that California does in fact, on its own, have the 5th largest economy in the world. If this is untrue, get me stats, otherwise we'll proceed with my assumption.

I don't know if they have any funds available because of all those years that they overpaid for electricity. Maybe they should cut back on some of the basics. But then again.. where do you start? I'd start by making all elected officials take a paycut :)
Thats right, I remember about the electricity thing. I still don't know exactly what the deal is with that, but it was something to do with a public-private partnership that screwed it all up, right?

I think a special celebrity tax might generate some revenue for LA, don't you think? A half a million dollars for every major motion picture where your name appears on the poster for it, or something.

Then again, My family makes 120k a year... But its not like white caucasians are a majority...
I don't know what point you're making here.

Well..then you feel the same way many Californians feel..no one of course wants to see someone denied medical treatment...but if your bankrupting the only facilities that can take you..refuse to assimilate...pay no taxes, and are in the country illegally then how else do you think the citizens would feel?I don't think I'd be over the moon, but if we started only giving medical treatment to people whom I liked and approved of, there would be a lot of doctors not doing very much.

What are you saying anyway? That we should treat these people or we shouldn't?

Seems to be some disagreement here. I've heard that California does in fact, on its own, have the 5th largest economy in the world. If this is untrue, get me stats, otherwise we'll proceed with my assumption.


Thats right, I remember about the electricity thing. I still don't know exactly what the deal is with that, but it was something to do with a public-private partnership that screwed it all up, right?

I think a special celebrity tax might generate some revenue for LA, don't you think? A half a million dollars for every major motion picture where your name appears on the poster for it, or something.


I don't know what point you're making here.


I'll give the link to the stats again :)

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html

Those numbers are wrong for other nations, It may be right about californias numbers though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp

According to this, california would be the 10th largest, under russia.

Those numbers are wrong for other nations, It may be right about californias numbers though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp

According to this, california would be the 10th largest, under russia.


We could trade website statistics all day long. Who is to say which site is right and which site is wrong? We cannot.

That site claims that chinas gdp is under 1.3t dollars, obviously wrong.

The EU is a political and economic organisation. The WEU, West European Union, is a defense organisation. And the rapid reaction force is sitting around cause our leaders are to dumb to leave NATO.

I kinda doubt it's 17. But hey, I don't care how high they are on the ladder. They shouldn't be admitted. Especially because the US wants them to be admitted.

Again, make them a US state then. Then the US empire can have the Bosporus.
Aha! The only reason you don't want it to be a member of the EU is because the US is supporting it. Now come on, is that a wise policy to follow? Not doing anything just to make the US angry?
BTW, I lied. It's the 22nd. It's still good, and with a little further developement, it may be just as prosperous and powerful as the nations in Western Europe.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Those numbers are wrong for other nations, It may be right about californias numbers though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp

According to this, california would be the 10th largest, under russia.
I actually heard that if Californiai were its own nation, it'd be the fifth largest economy on the planet.

Aha! The only reason you don't want it to be a member of the EU is because the US is supporting it. Now come on, is that a wise policy to follow? Not doing anything just to make the US angry?
BTW, I lied. It's the 22nd. It's still good, and with a little further developement, it may be just as prosperous and powerful as the nations in Western Europe.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

He said especially, not only.

Also, maybe california would, but all I know is that his numbers were off in places.

Man you people are funny, all of you. This thread started as a question about helping Sudan and somehow it turned into a bashing people because they are American/European. This crap gets annoying. Can't have an actual dicussion about any topic without the bashing. Somehow this went from the Sudan to Turkey to California, just answer the damn question and leave the other sniping and bickering to another post where you are encouraged to bash Americans/Europeans. If you cannot discuss THIS topic without resorting to bashing someone from another nation just because then you are showing signs of intellectual laziness. American *jingoism* European *jingoism* it all gets annoying. No wonder our countries hate each other, snipe snipe snipe snipe snipe.
My original position has been stay out of it. We are not wanted by thir govt and everytime we do get involved we get bitched at, when we don't we get bitched at. So I say no. It is none of our business.

Man you people are funny, all of you. This thread started as a question about helping Sudan and somehow it turned into a bashing people because they are American/European. This crap gets annoying. Can't have an actual dicussion about any topic without the bashing. Somehow this went from the Sudan to Turkey to California, just answer the damn question and leave the other sniping and bickering to another post where you are encouraged to bash Americans/Europeans. If you cannot discuss THIS topic without resorting to bashing someone from another nation just because then you are showing signs of intellectual laziness. American *jingoism* European *jingoism* it all gets annoying. No wonder our countries hate each other, snipe snipe snipe snipe snipe.
My original position has been stay out of it. We are not wanted by thir govt and everytime we do get involved we get bitched at, when we don't we get bitched at. So I say no. It is none of our business.
I tried to steer it back on topic, but it always gets off. It's the nature of the forum. Anyhow, let me pull out my original arguement.

Sudan is a crisis spot, but it is too early to tell if it is genocide. Don't forget, some Arab tribes are being persecuted, too.
But anyihow, I believe that the UN is taking up the issue now. Both Houses in Congress have done their own work, and have passed resolutions condemning it as genocide (although this label may be premature). In any case, the Sudanese government, as far as I'm concerned, has lost its right to exist. They're in a horrific civil war with a shaky cease-fire, and are hurting any tribe that even thinks of resisting. This is now an oppritunity for the UN to regain credibility. My suggestions on operations:
1. Have the Security Concil call for regime change, and authorize the use of force if necessary.
2. Commence bombing of Khartoum, Sudanese military instalations in the south, and Janjaweed troops in the west.
3. Send in two divisons to finish the Sudanese, occupy Khartoum, and secure refuggee pathways to Chad. The longterm goal, of course, is for repatriation and returning to their villages.
4. Partition Sudan into three independent nations: northern, southern, and western. Have a UN mission in each of them, and help them rebuild their security forces. Most of all, however, try to establish a democratic tradition for each country.
Here it is.

Kinda like the US and it's negroes.
this is nothing more than just crap. bet you have never lived amoung a large population of blacks as a minority

That would be fine if the U.S would actually DO that... stay out of everything I mean. I think we all know that isn't going to happen, so why not use your massive military for something that may not be just in your own interests for once? Sure, the Sudan doesn't have a lot of oil or anything the U.S currently wants, so I guess it isn't whetting Bush's appetite. Nonetheless, if the U.S wants to live up to its self-proclaimed reputation as a upholder of human rights, it should be working with the international community (possibly, preferably through the UN) to stop these blatant human rights abuses! I'm not talking about invading (like Iraq)... I'm talking about peacekeeping... does anyone remember that option? Though to be honest, I think peacekeepers need a bit more bang for their buck... they're sitting ducks in those blue helmets and rubber bullets....

In any case, these are people, who through no fault of their own are being targeted and systematically terrorised. You should be fighting your war on terrorism in places like this! Just think about the women in your life... the children you know... now imagine them being raped and murdered because of their skin colour. Why is it only bearable when it's strangers???
lol now this is funny. and just why are we still in kosavo? and what is the difernce between peace keeping when the goverment does not want you there and invading?

Look, first of all, negro is not a word blacks like being called. It's now akin to ******. Second, the do live in slums, but personally, I think it is their work ethic. Most black Haitians and African immigrants that come here become quite successful after only a generation, while many native blacks are rather poor. I'm not being a rascist, for indeed, most blacks are doing fine. I'm just stating it the way it is. Bill Cosby would agree with me, too.

we moved a lot when i was a kid. i went to 12 difernt schools. most where balanced racely but one was all white and one my little brother and myself where the only whites. and i can tell you from frist hand experiance it is there social attitude that keeps them back. they dont think they can succede so many dont even try. the U.S has come a very long way in the last 30 years but they have to think they can move up the ladder before they do

Isn't this sickening? Not only did we veer far off subject (which I confess to being guilty of), but no one wants to get back to the subject.

this is nothing more than just crap. bet you have never lived amoung a large population of blacks as a minority
Actually I have. And is there a point you want to make?

we moved a lot when i was a kid. i went to 12 difernt schools. most where balanced racely but one was all white and one my little brother and myself where the only whites. and i can tell you from frist hand experiance it is there social attitude that keeps them back. they dont think they can succede so many dont even try. the U.S has come a very long way in the last 30 years but they have to think they can move up the ladder before they do
I know, it's sad. In a way, some of our institutions are still rascist. They hold blacks back by defending their social habits from criticism. They probably don't realize what they're doing themselves, but I'm sure that if some of them opened their minds a bit, they'd realize that they've given blacks a crutch too long for their own good.

Aha! The only reason you don't want it to be a member of the EU is because the US is supporting it.
I listed more reasons. But yeah. It's a major one for me at least.

Now come on, is that a wise policy to follow? Not doing anything just to make the US angry?
If I didn't want to anger them, by putting US interests before the interests of my continent, I would be a glowing supporter of Turkey's admittance. Which I am not.

BTW, I lied. It's the 22nd. It's still good, and with a little further developement, it may be just as prosperous and powerful as the nations in Western Europe.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Don't let me stop you from developing them with US money.

I listed more reasons. But yeah. It's a major one for me at least.

If I didn't want to anger them, by putting US interests before the interests of my continent, I would be a glowing supporter of Turkey's admittance. Which I am not.

Don't let me stop you from developing them with US money.
Well it isn't the smartest thing not to carry out policy simply because your enemy wants the same. The US and Iran both supported Bosnian rebels. Imagine if we didn't based on the fact that Iran supported them.
Also, the US can send as much aid and investment to Turkey as we want, but it'll change nothing. Why? They need a huge trading partner they can freely trade with, and they need to reform some of their own financial institutions.
In any case, we deviated too far from the original topic, Sudan. Why not we get back to that? I've never heard your opinion on the issue.

Well it isn't the smartest thing not to carry out policy simply because your enemy wants the same.
I'm sorry. But you've got me utterly confused now. I don't want Turkey as a EU member. The US wants Turkey to become a EU member. Not me. So, I'm not in favor of a policy that the US wants. Or maybe misunderstood you?


The US and Iran both supported Bosnian rebels. Imagine if we didn't based on the fact that Iran supported them.
Again. I'm a bit confused. Not sure what your getting at.

Also, the US can send as much aid and investment to Turkey as we want, but it'll change nothing. Why? They need a huge trading partner they can freely trade with, and they need to reform some of their own financial institutions.
I'm not opposed to trade. I'm even in favor of a priviledged status for Turkey in trading matters. But not a membership.
In any case, we deviated too far from the original topic, Sudan. Why not we get back to that? I've never heard your opinion on the issue.
Disarmement of the militia's. That would be the first thing to do. And an African peacekeeping force. Time for them they take more responsibility for their own continent. So they might in time be able to avoid conflicts like this. Or at the very least respond appropriately before it gets realy out of hand.

The region of Darfur in western Sudan is going through a human rights crisis of epic proportions, and so far the international community has done little to head off what is turning into genocide. Arab janjawid milita have been raping and killing mostly black Sudanese since 2003 in a bid to oust them from their homes. Lately, their favourite form of abuse has been the rape of women and children as young as 8. More that 1,000 lives are being lost PER WEEK, and the UN has not stepped in. What I would like to know is why we as an international community sat by and watched Rwanda bathe itself in blood, and are now repeating the same mistake with the Sudan? Are we only willing to intervene (Kosovo...) when the victims are white? Is the U.S so focused on Iraq (where yes, human rights abuses were occuring, but were not used as a reason for the invasion anyway) that it will ignore a chance to stop atrocities occuring NOW? What should we do about this????
Unless I'm mistaking the conflict has been going on for about 20 years now. But only recently it's getting more coverage.

Isn't this sickening? Not only did we veer far off subject (which I confess to being guilty of), but no one wants to get back to the subject.
sadom used chemical wepons on the kurds. was he not trying for genicide? we go there and much of the world crys foul. and he had the ability to be a real problem down the road. so why should the U.S go there with out UN aproval? seems many cant make up there mind about the UN thing. another case of we are damed if we do and we are damed if we dont

sadom used chemical wepons on the kurds. was he not trying for genicide? we go there and much of the world crys foul. and he had the ability to be a real problem down the road. so why should the U.S go there with out UN aproval? seems many cant make up there mind about the UN thing. another case of we are damed if we do and we are damed if we dont
So where were the US when he in fact gassed the Kurds? It's hypocryt to use this as an argument to justify the war when back then you too just twiddled your thumbs and sat back.

I'm sorry. But you've got me utterly confused now. I don't want Turkey as a EU member. The US wants Turkey to become a EU member. Not me. So, I'm not in favor of a policy that the US wants. Or maybe misunderstood you?


Again. I'm a bit confused. Not sure what your getting at.

I'm not opposed to trade. I'm even in favor of a priviledged status for Turkey in trading matters. But not a membership.

Disarmement of the militia's. That would be the first thing to do. And an African peacekeeping force. Time for them they take more responsibility for their own continent. So they might in time be able to avoid conflicts like this. Or at the very least respond appropriately before it gets realy out of hand.
Essentially, I'm arguing that it isn't smart that Europe doesn't do a thing simply because the US wants it to.
Anyhow, you never truely addressed what would be wrong with membership. It would intergrate the European and Turkish economy, as you want. It would force Turkey to completely liberalize its nation, and may be helpful in Middle East policy. And finally, it'd give the EU greater acsess to one kick-ass military. It would certainly be helpful once the EU fully intergrates its defenses, which is drumming up lots of support.

So where were the US when he in fact gassed the Kurds? It's hypocryt to use this as an argument to justify the war when back then you too just twiddled your thumbs and sat back.

trying to follow the UN.

Revolutionsz and Von Witzleben, you are very big idiots. The Jews didn't use terrorism against the British. Do some research or use simple logic before you openyour mouths.

I think you need a lesson on what the term terrorism means.

Essentially, I'm arguing that it isn't smart that Europe doesn't do a thing simply because the US wants it to.
And it's not smart of the US to try and influence what the EU does or doesn't do. And whine about rising anti Amercanism. Cause it's simply not their bussiness.
Anyhow, you never truely addressed what would be wrong with membership.
I did adress it. Sorry if it doesn't satisfy you.
It would intergrate the European and Turkish economy, as you want.
I don't want the economies to be integrated. A priviledged trading status is not a full integration.


And finally, it'd give the EU greater acsess to one kick-ass military. It would certainly be helpful once the EU fully intergrates its defenses, which is drumming up lots of support.
Once our leaders get their heads out of their ares and leave NATO we can build up a European army by ourselves.
For some reason I doubt their military is all that kick ass. Since, as far as I know, most of their materials are leftovers from older European military supplies. I remember that in the 1990's Germany was supplying them with old East German weaponery. But maybe they make that up by sheer numbers.

Revolutionsz and Von Witzleben, you are very big idiots. The Jews didn't use terrorism against the British. Do some research or use simple logic before you openyour mouths.
Thank god your so dang smart. Moron. What do you call the actions of the Haganah then?

And it's not smart of the US to try and influence what the EU does or doesn't do. And whine about rising anti Amercanism. Cause it's simply not their bussiness. [quote]
Why not? Many nations spout about US policy all the time. In fact, the EU, Canada, and Mexico petitioned the Supreme Court to look into the child death penalty, practiced in only one or two states. Whether I agree with the issue or not is a different matter.

[quote]I did adress it. Sorry if it doesn't satisfy you.
You take no prisoners when you debate, don't you?
I don't want the economies to be integrated. A priviledged trading status is not a full integration.
Sure you do. Turkey would greatly benefit the European economy because of its cheap labor force, acsess to vital markets, and an educated populace.


Once our leaders get their heads out of their ares and leave NATO we can build up a European army by ourselves.
This isn't about NATO. This is about intergrating European armies. Turkey may not have the best in Europe, but it certainly has the best in the Middle East (including Israel's). With a little re-equiping, Turkey's military will be able to singlehandedly manage the Black Sea and Middle Eastern theaters for Europe. Just say the word, and they'll do it.

So, anyone support my plan of forceful regime change in Khartoum?

Why not? Many nations spout about US policy all the time. In fact, the EU, Canada, and Mexico petitioned the Supreme Court to look into the child death penalty, practiced in only one or two states. Whether I agree with the issue or not is a different matter.
Asking the resident supreme court to look into such a thing, whether they do it or not is another thing, and trying to force an entire country down other nations throats IMO cannot be compared to another. Don't you think? (I know you don't.)

You take no prisoners when you debate, don't you?
Wouldn't it be boring to debate with people who agree with one another on everything?


Sure you do. Turkey would greatly benefit the European economy because of its cheap labor force, acsess to vital markets, and an educated populace.
Thats a fairytale made up by the pro admittance lobby. If it was in fact so the same effect could be gained with a priviledged tradingstatus without membership. Fact however is that Turkeys main reason to apply is that they want EU subsidies. Which was also the main reason for the Eastern European nations to join ASAP. Why else do you think Portugal, Spain and Greece made such a fuzz about it? Cause they are the main recipients of said subsidies. And they feared that they now would get less with 10 more crappy economies joining in the middle of a recession.




This isn't about NATO. This is about intergrating European armies. Turkey may not have the best in Europe, but it certainly has the best in the Middle East (including Israel's). With a little re-equiping, Turkey's military will be able to singlehandedly manage the Black Sea and Middle Eastern theaters for Europe. Just say the word, and they'll do it.
And NATO is holding it back. The Rapid Intervention Force met with stiff resistence from our American "friends". They could only proceed after they promised it wouldn't affect NATO. The French were on the right track when they pulled away their troops from NATO command. And we don't need, or want in my case, Turkey.

Asking the resident supreme court to look into such a thing, whether they do it or not is another thing, and trying to force an entire country down other nations throats IMO cannot be compared to another. Don't you think? (I know you don't.)

Wouldn't it be boring to debate with people who agree with one another on everything?


Thats a fairytale made up by the pro admittance lobby. If it was in fact so the same effect could be gained with a priviledged tradingstatus without membership. Fact however is that Turkeys main reason to apply is that they want EU subsidies. Which was also the main reason for the Eastern European nations to join ASAP. Why else do you think Portugal, Spain and Greece made such a fuzz about it? Cause they are the main recipients of said subsidies. And they feared that they now would get less with 10 more crappy economies joining in the middle of a recession.





And NATO is holding it back. The Rapid Intervention Force met with stiff resistence from our American "friends". They could only proceed after they promised it wouldn't affect NATO. The French were on the right track when they pulled away their troops from NATO command. And we don't need, or want in my case, Turkey.
These subsidies would help the EU as a whole. Turkey is a nation rich in natural resources, vital to trade, and strategic in defense. And you're telling me that Turkey isn't wanted?
I see you also regret the decision to allow Eastern European nations in the EU. That is a mistake. The Eastern European nations are, admitadly, more dynamic than Turkey (although many don't have the same economic importance). They are allowing businesses in some of the more stagnant Western Economies to flee East. They will gurantee that European exports stay nice and cheap. And of course, they are vital in defense, where operations can be carried out from the Baltic to the Carpathians. Turkey will offer similar advantages, and as I think Europe will find, they are more likely to pay for their subsidies in ten years than even some Eastern European nations.
And for the record, I wish the US would pull out of NATO too, but it'd erase fifty years of any military cooperation. Perhaps it can be replaced by a looser pan-Atlantic security forum.

These subsidies would help the EU as a whole. Turkey is a nation rich in natural resources, vital to trade, and strategic in defense. And you're telling me that Turkey isn't wanted?
Help the EU? By draining even more money out of our already empty pockets?
Yeah, that makes sense.
I see you also regret the decision to allow Eastern European nations in the EU. That is a mistake. The Eastern European nations are, admitadly, more dynamic than Turkey (although many don't have the same economic importance). They are allowing businesses in some of the more stagnant Western Economies to flee East.
Yeah, and by doing so taking our jobs with them. It's all logical. Companies flee to cheaper countries to save salary costs. And then they come back to sell their products. God, I feel so blessed. :rolleyes:
The new nations shouldn't have joined for at least another 10 years.
They will gurantee that European exports stay nice and cheap. And of course, they are vital in defense, where operations can be carried out from the Baltic to the Carpathians.
Since there are so many rogue nations that need containment there.
Turkey will offer similar advantages, and as I think Europe will find, they are more likely to pay for their subsidies in ten years than even some Eastern European nations.
It would take at least 20 years or more to even the level between Turkey's economy and the EU. They would be nothing but a burden. And if the US believes all that let them adopt Turkey. Don't burden us with it. Just offer them more money then Brussel would. That should do the trick.

And for the record, I wish the US would pull out of NATO too, but it'd erase fifty years of any military cooperation. Perhaps it can be replaced by a looser pan-Atlantic security forum.
My priority is the creation of a European defense initiave without any US meddeling. So, no to anykind of trans Atlantic stuff untill we can get that on the way.

Help the EU? By draining even more money out of our already empty pockets?
Yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah, and by doing so taking our jobs with them. It's all logical. Companies flee to cheaper countries to save salary costs. And then they come back to sell their products. God, I feel so blessed. :rolleyes:
The new nations shouldn't have joined for at least another 10 years.

Since there are so many rogue nations that need containment there.

It would take at least 20 years or more to even the level between Turkey's economy and the EU. They would be nothing but a burden. And if the US believes all that let them adopt Turkey. Don't burden us with it. Just offer them more money then Brussel would. That should do the trick.

My priority is the creation of a European defense initiave without any US meddeling. So, no to anykind of trans Atlantic stuff untill we can get that on the way.
I see where this is going, and it'd be fruitless to argue further without deviating farther off topic than we already on. It basically boils down to economic philosophies. I support globalism and outsourcing, as outsourcing will create jobs in the long term. It happened in the US in the 1990s. Factories making printers, modem, and other computer hardware were shipped off to Asia. It looked like the end of the computer industry, but then it lead to more innovation. Microsoft used the oppritunity to develope far better software than previously (if that's possible), Intel made faster chips, Broadband came out, and everything from PDAs to Web phones were developed. In fact, it was one factor leading to the infamous tech bubble, but now, the tech sector has made a strong recovery. As more jobs are outsourced, similar trends will happen. But that's just how I see it, and to me, I'd personally have my eyes glazed over if a third world nation wanted to become a state. Why doesn't Puerto Rico join, dammit!

I see where this is going, and it'd be fruitless to argue further without deviating farther off topic than we already on.
Agreed.

It basically boils down to economic philosophies. I support globalism and outsourcing, as outsourcing will create jobs in the long term. It happened in the US in the 1990s. Factories making printers, modem, and other computer hardware were shipped off to Asia. It looked like the end of the computer industry, but then it lead to more innovation. Microsoft used the oppritunity to develope far better software than previously (if that's possible), Intel made faster chips, Broadband came out, and everything from PDAs to Web phones were developed. In fact, it was one factor leading to the infamous tech bubble, but now, the tech sector has made a strong recovery. As more jobs are outsourced, similar trends will happen. But that's just how I see it, and to me, I'd personally have my eyes glazed over if a third world nation wanted to become a state. Why doesn't Puerto Rico join, dammit!
Globalism is a bad thing. It will, eventually, lead to the loss of the own culture and identity. Now for the US that may not be a major issue. Since most of their culture was "ïmported" at one point or another. And you don't have to be a crazy neo nazi nationalist to be worried bout that.
I'm not generally against outsourcing. But if companies add to a recession by fleeing to low salary countries, or demand more immigrants who will work for less and then expect the unemployed folks back home to buy their products, thats not outsourcing thats salary dumping. (if thats the right term) And I am completely against that.

Agreed.

Globalism is a bad thing. It will, eventually, lead to the loss of the own culture and identity. Now for the US that may not be a major issue. Since most of their culture was "ïmported" at one point or another. And you don't have to be a crazy neo nazi nationalist to be worried bout that.
I'm not generally against outsourcing. But if companies add to a recession by fleeing to low salary countries, or demand more immigrants who will work for less and then expect the unemployed folks back home to buy their products, thats not outsourcing thats salary dumping. (if thats the right term) And I am completely against that.
I guess I can't argue with you, then. It'll become a debate on economic theory and culture, and that can be fruitless. However, you know where I stand, and I know where you stand. We'll find out who'll win this arguement this December, when the EU decides either yeah or neah. But if you won't admit Turkey, can you at least do Bulgaria for me?

I guess I can't argue with you, then. It'll become a debate on economic theory and culture, and that can be fruitless. However, you know where I stand, and I know where you stand. We'll find out who'll win this arguement this December, when the EU decides either yeah or neah. But if you won't admit Turkey, can you at least do Bulgaria for me?
As far as I know Bulgaria and a couple of others are next in line do drain our coffers. Far to soon if you ask me.

As far as I know Bulgaria and a couple of others are next in line do drain our coffers. Far to soon if you ask me.
Then admit Albania, the poorest nation in Europe. Please?