NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted? What other actions would you support? What if those actions were not supported by the UN? What about the issue that the UN objects to even calling the situation in Sudan genocide? Don't just complain about the problem, let's start suggesting some solutions.

Yes. The US could do it. But, we should bill the original colonial power over Sudan for the job.

Since the EU is a collective government, we should spend whatever it takes, and bill the EU.

Yes. The US could do it. But, we should bill the original colonial power over Sudan for the job.

Since the EU is a collective government, we should spend whatever it takes, and bill the EU.

Slippery slope. You know how many countries we could be held responsible for flubbing up?

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted?
If all other options had been exhausted, obviously military action would be the only option.

Yes. The US could do it. But, we should bill the original colonial power over Sudan for the job.

Since the EU is a collective government, we should spend whatever it takes, and bill the EU.
The EU, a collective government? Do you imagine Europe to be some kind of united superstate?

Slippery slope. You know how many countries we could be held responsible for flubbing up?

Sudan.

BTW: Yes, I'm for it. But ideally it should be a UN initiative.
(Yes, I know that's very unlikely to happen.)

I would absolutely support a military intervention in Darfur. I think we could provide a strong incentive for the Sudanese government to stop the genocide by destroying all of their aircraft, including the helicopter gunships that they use to support the janjaweed.

I honestly can't decide. :(

No-they would have to have stockpiles of nukes there,leaking radioactivity, plus cansiters of sarin, anthrax and smallpox, all under the direct control of someone who has used them on babies and been documented at least 6 times in the past. Every other nation on earth would have to agree and we would have to sign documents promising not to influence the liberated peoples in any way with the evils of democracy and capitalism. We would swear an oath to repair every piece of property that happened to be scratched by a bullet and basically, disappear afterwards without a trace. We would have to accomplish this action in roughly 12 hours because more than that we would be "mired down" and start attracting insurgents that want us gone.

I would absolutely support a military intervention in Darfur. I think we could provide a strong incentive for the Sudanese government to stop the genocide by destroying all of their aircraft, including the helicopter gunships that they use to support the janjaweed.

I agree. I think this would be a far more supportable use of force than Iraq or some of the military actions under Clinton (no, please, let's not debate Iraq, GWB or Clinton).

attacking darfur for crimes against humanity will only anger other nations that do crimes it would also drain are forces in a nation that could never be of any help (as much as you like to think about suffering mattering it really isn’t useful especially in a election)

But yes I would serve my country to the death no matter what

The EU, a collective government? Do you imagine Europe to be some kind of united superstate?


I dont, but if you listen to the european posters in here long enough, this is the impression you'd get.

I honestly can't decide. :(

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's so complicated. Will this make us seem imperialistic (since UN support isn't likely forthcoming)? Will we actually be able to make things better there? How much would it cost in lives and money? Can we do this without killing people? Can we use tactical solutions as mentioned above like destroying the means by which they commit genocide? Etc.

Yes, action should be taken right now to fix the situation in the Sudan. I know a number of people personally who came from that aread and have been persecuted (all have spent time in refugee camps) and they say that the people there would welcome the help with open arms.

a) The EU isnt a superstate or anything like it.

b) After generating a broad international consensus, i believe that western powers should intervene in darfur, to stop the genocide, nothing more.

c) Since the EU doesnt have a military body (Yet), we should employ the US has our mercenaries, and foot the bill to solve the problem.

If all other options had been exhausted, obviously military action would be the only option.

The EU, a collective government? Do you imagine Europe to be some kind of united superstate?

Since the premise of NATO is outdated (though still effective as an organization compared to the UN), and the EU constitution only needs to be ratified, it makes sense for the EU to form a single army and a single government over time.

So, in the future, French nationalism will make about as much sense as Nebraska nationalism.

Maybe it isn't like that yet - but it sure will be soon. In my lifetime.

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted? What other actions would you support? What if those actions were not supported by the UN? What about the issue that the UN objects to even calling the situation in Sudan genocide? Don't just complain about the problem, let's start suggesting some solutions.

Generally speaking yes, although I am aware of the fact that the U.S. military is currently strained beyond the breaking point, most of our allies militaries are already heavily invested in places like Afghanistan, and it would step on the African Union's toes.

I've asked this question on other forums, and the general reply I got back was that military force could be useful (our Apache's would be quite handy at taking out janjaweed militias and their gunship support, for instance), but we would have real difficulty dealing with the post-war situation. So all in all, I'm on the favorable side of unsure. Part of me screams out that we should be rolling tanks in there and blasting every janjaweed straight to hell, but I'm also aware of the fact that it would also be our responsibility to rebuild that nation afterwards, and I'm not sure that we currently have the capacity to do that.

Since the premise of NATO is outdated (though still effective as an organization compared to the UN), and the EU constitution only needs to be ratified, it makes sense for the EU to form a single army and a single government over time.

So, in the future, French nationalism will make about as much sense as Nebraska nationalism.

Maybe it isn't like that yet - but it sure will be soon. In my lifetime.

/hijack

No-they would have to have stockpiles of nukes there,leaking radioactivity,
Sudan does not have nukes, it does have Sarin and possibly VX, both given to them by Saddam, however

Sudan does not have nukes, it does have Sarin and possibly VX, both given to them by Saddam, however

No, John Kerry said we have to have a permission slip from the French President before we can intervene anywhere.

Generally speaking yes, although I am aware of the fact that the U.S. military is currently strained beyond the breaking point, most of our allies militaries are already heavily invested in places like Afghanistan, and it would step on the African Union's toes.

I've asked this question on other forums, and the general reply I got back was that military force could be useful (our Apache's would be quite handy at taking out janjaweed militias and their gunship support, for instance), but we would have real difficulty dealing with the post-war situation. So all in all, I'm on the favorable side of unsure. Part of me screams out that we should be rolling tanks in there and blasting every janjaweed straight to hell, but I'm also aware of the fact that it would also be our responsibility to rebuild that nation afterwards, and I'm not sure that we currently have the capacity to do that.

Couldn't we do things like attacking the gunships and militias in a show of force, to encourage them to behave without a full out attack. Kind of like Libya?

Yes, obviously any kind of help possible should be given. People who say its impossible or 'a slippery slope to having to help everyone for anything' are weak, cowardly and greedy

Couldn't we do things like attacking the gunships and militias in a show of force, to encourage them to behave without a full out attack. Kind of like Libya?

Well, that will stop people from being shot and raped, but it won't stop people from starving now that the janjaweed have taken all their food. So no, if your goal is to stop the killing, I'm not sure it will.

(our Apache's would be quite handy at taking out janjaweed militias and their gunship support, for instance)
What makes the damn Apaches so special? What about the Navajo? The Cree are really fast runners you know...we could draw enemy fire... :D
/hijack

What makes the damn Apaches so special? What about the Navajo? The Cree are really fast runners you know...we could draw enemy fire... :D

As I recall, they were good at drawing fire, but not so good at taking casualties. It's murder, I tell you.

What makes the damn Apaches so special? What about the Navajo? The Cree are really fast runners you know...we could draw enemy fire... :D
/hijack
Maybe so, but how far can you throw a hellfire missile?

Well, that will stop people from being shot and raped, but it won't stop people from starving now that the janjaweed have taken all their food. So no, if your goal is to stop the killing, I'm not sure it will.

I'm just saying it's a start. We could show that the world is not okay with what is going on in Darfur and we're not going to sit by anymore. If nothing else it would force the UN to discuss it in more than a passing way. I think you have to stop the active killing first, and then focus on the dying part.

Maybe so, but how far can you throw a hellfire missile?


they've been known to effectively deploy a tomahawk...

I think we have reached the point where we can't object. The lives of innocents are at stake and their government is doing nothing to stop it! The international community should stop sitting on its hands before we get another Rwanda.

But, we must exhaust all options. We know that there are lives at stake, but we should do this in the most diplomatic way possible. But, there comes a time when diplomacy has to be shoved aside in the name of justice.

No, John Kerry said we have to have a permission slip from the French President before we can intervene anywhere.


Someone could threaten to smack the french pres for a permission slip. The germans might be a little tougher though. Eveything would have to be in order.

they've been known to effectively deploy a tomahawk...
Good point. If you ever have to kill a tank take a Native American along.

Good point. If you ever have to kill a tank take a Native American along.
Or a Native Canadian ;)

Sorry Jocabia, I'll stop now!

I think we have reached the point where we can't object. The lives of innocents are at stake and their government is doing nothing to stop it! The international community should stop sitting on its hands before we get another Rwanda.

But, we must exhaust all options. We know that there are lives at stake, but we should do this in the most diplomatic way possible. But, there comes a time when diplomacy has to be shoved aside in the name of justice.

You cant fool us-we are still bickering over Iraq. Entire populations of people being starved, executed raped and tortured isnt a good enough reason for the US to meddle there. Its none of our business, remember?
They have uncovered several pits full of remains in Iraq-one had 1,500, mainly women and children that were machine gunned and then bulldozed over. (I'd like to think they all had a fair trial first) This wasnt a good enough reason for Iraq. It wont be good enough for Darfur.

(Please note my sarcasm and frustration here. I would love for us to systematically annihilate any oppressive regime and allow a period of peace for the people to reform a working system of their own. This is always our intent. But we are always criticized and our motives are questioned by those who would rather sit around considering things a bit loner til the US gets the job done.)

You know, here's the sad part, if this was a thread about GWB or about Iraq there would be 100 posts filled with outrage by now. But Darfur, no one cares. It's one of many examples of the genocide that plagues our generation and like all the others we just watch. I would to see one post explain why the international community sits by and watches.

You know, here's the sad part, if this was a thread about GWB or about Iraq there would be 100 posts filled with outrage by now. But Darfur, no one cares. It's one of many examples of the genocide that plagues our generation and like all the others we just watch. I would to see one post explain why the international community sits by and watches.
In my defence:

I've talked about this topic quite a bit. Kind of like the topic of Iraq, or the US, or abortion or religion etc, I'm kind of talked out about it. No one has really said anything so far that has been different than what I've already seen others say. I DO care, but I'm at a stalemate, and I have nothing else to add yet. So I don't.

The rest of you bastards are unfeeling monsters though!

No-they would have to have stockpiles of nukes there,leaking radioactivity, plus cansiters of sarin, anthrax and smallpox, all under the direct control of someone who has used them on babies and been documented at least 6 times in the past. Every other nation on earth would have to agree and we would have to sign documents promising not to influence the liberated peoples in any way with the evils of democracy and capitalism. We would swear an oath to repair every piece of property that happened to be scratched by a bullet and basically, disappear afterwards without a trace. We would have to accomplish this action in roughly 12 hours because more than that we would be "mired down" and start attracting insurgents that want us gone.

See! This guy gets it! What's so hard to understand about it for the rest of you? Oh! But you forgot... The country also has to be sitting on top of a huge oil reserve that the US would have absolutely no interest in, or sinister designs upon, what so ever! *wink! wink! nudge! nudge!* :D

Don't worry Mr. Jong Il! You may have nooks but we still haven't found any oil in your back yard so it's all cool! ;)

You know, here's the sad part, if this was a thread about GWB or about Iraq there would be 100 posts filled with outrage by now. But Darfur, no one cares. It's one of many examples of the genocide that plagues our generation and like all the others we just watch. I would to see one post explain why the international community sits by and watches.

Because they are not really interested. The only reason they're pissed about Iraq is not because of Iraq's sovereignty, but because of all those sweet weapons and oil deals they had going. Now the US gets it all. So they're pissed.

Sudan doesn't have anything that the US or Europe wants. It's a hole.

Full of uncivilized people, too.

So whenever you hear a US or European say, "we're here for the people" it's either propaganda or some deluded soldier who actually believes that's the reason for being there.

The UN is a farce - so is all this "diplomatic effort". Diplomacy is another word for formally not doing anything at all.

Because they are not really interested. The only reason they're pissed about Iraq is not because of Iraq's sovereignty, but because of all those sweet weapons and oil deals they had going. Now the US gets it all. So they're pissed.

Sudan doesn't have anything that the US or Europe wants. It's a hole.

Full of uncivilized people, too.

So whenever you hear a US or European say, "we're here for the people" it's either propaganda or some deluded soldier who actually believes that's the reason for being there.

The UN is a farce - so is all this "diplomatic effort". Diplomacy is another word for formally not doing anything at all.
Sudan has oil. France and China buy oil from Sudan. Russia sells them weapons. All three countries shield Sudan from UN sanctions.

It does have something that Europe wants. It has oil.

The propaganda motivated by greed is what's keeping us out of Sudan.

Because they are not really interested. The only reason they're pissed about Iraq is not because of Iraq's sovereignty, but because of all those sweet weapons and oil deals they had going. Now the US gets it all. So they're pissed.

Sudan doesn't have anything that the US or Europe wants. It's a hole.

Full of uncivilized people, too.

So whenever you hear a US or European say, "we're here for the people" it's either propaganda or some deluded soldier who actually believes that's the reason for being there.

The UN is a farce - so is all this "diplomatic effort". Diplomacy is another word for formally not doing anything at all.

So... The rest of the world is just jealous that the Yankees are profiteering under the guise of "Freedom"? What else is new? Though for some, you may have to replace the word jealousy for outraged... Meh!
However, "Full of uncivilized people, too."? Gee, aren't we full of ourselves uncy Sam!? Who made you the judge of "them poor backwards heathens"? :rolleyes:

You know, here's the sad part, if this was a thread about GWB or about Iraq there would be 100 posts filled with outrage by now. But Darfur, no one cares. It's one of many examples of the genocide that plagues our generation and like all the others we just watch. I would to see one post explain why the international community sits by and watches.


I care. I thank God daily that I am not raising my kids in a desperate land. By luck,I was born in the US and with basic efforts, we enjoy a really good standard of living.
It could be different- I could be holding a starving sick child that I cant do a damn thing about. I could have all my possessions in a bag in the dirt. I could have had my family slaughtered by ruthless, high scumbags.
So- If the US announced they were going to Sudan to eliminate these scum bags and allow the people to start over, I would be glad. But I would cringe waiting to hear why people think we REALLY went there, because the real reason is never good enough for the shitbirds that sit and think it over a little more.

Doesn't the Sudan also have diamonds?

Sudan has oil. France and China buy oil from Sudan. Russia sells them weapons. All three countries shield Sudan from UN sanctions.

It does have something that Europe wants. It has oil.

The propaganda motivated by greed is what's keeping us out of Sudan.

Well then. I bet I could solve this problem in 30 minutes if I was President.

I would get on TV, and say that I'm going to hit Sudan with 24 Trident missiles (that's a lot of warheads), and turn the place into a radioactive wasteland from which no one will recover oil.

I will do it in 30 minutes, unless France, China, and Russia agree to send their forces to depose the current government of Sudan, jail every member of the Sudanese military and militias, and bring the displaced people back to their homes and rebuild their homes and feed them until they can grow crops again.

Or I'll make it very, very untenable as a place to drill for oil - ever again.

See! This guy gets it! What's so hard to understand about it for the rest of you? Oh! But you forgot... The country also has to be sitting on top of a huge oil reserve that the US would have absolutely no interest in, or sinister designs upon, what so ever! *wink! wink! nudge! nudge!* :D

Don't worry Mr. Jong Il! You may have nooks but we still haven't found any oil in your back yard so it's all cool! ;)


We still dont have tankers of oil from Iraq making a beeline for the US. At this point, we should, considering what we've had to put up with.

In my defence:

I've talked about this topic quite a bit. Kind of like the topic of Iraq, or the US, or abortion or religion etc, I'm kind of talked out about it. No one has really said anything so far that has been different than what I've already seen others say. I DO care, but I'm at a stalemate, and I have nothing else to add yet. So I don't.

The rest of you bastards are unfeeling monsters though!

I'm not talking about anyone specifically. It just seems like no one can really defend the other side on this one so how does anyone defend the lack of action on this issue?

Sure, blasting the hell out of dictators and the like would be fun, but...

You know, after what happened in Irak, it's dangerous. Sure, we could save lives, but the US killed a great deal of civilians by attacking Baghdad and Fallujah and that's not great at all. If you want to help people who are oppressed, you'll have to keep your bombs away from them, I mean, why didn't the US attack military installations rather than go straight for civilian areas? OK, I know, it was to blow the hell out of Saddam faster. Good, I don't even care about if this whole war was done for oil (I think it was the true reason, but if it can blast a dictator away at the same time, who cares, right?), but the real problem is that now it's a complete mess. Look at the ressources spent, at the death toll and the like. I agree we've got to stop genocide, but we must be careful not to sink down to the level of those who commit them. I'm sure the US could be a great help and could save many people, but, face it, they blew it in Irak, they've got thousands of military and civilians (some say over one hundred thousand civilians, I think), Abu Ghraib, things like Fallujah, suicide-bombers everywhere, and so on. What can the rest of the world expect after this?

I don't know if any of this makes sense, but, to answer the question, yes, I'ld be for military action if there were ABSOLUTELY no other options, and if it was correctly planned (try not to blow as many civillians as you save, this time) and for the right reasons (save people, not put another dictator in power).

I care. I thank God daily that I am not raising my kids in a desperate land. By luck,I was born in the US and with basic efforts, we enjoy a really good standard of living.
It could be different- I could be holding a starving sick child that I cant do a damn thing about. I could have all my possessions in a bag in the dirt. I could have had my family slaughtered by ruthless, high scumbags.
So- If the US announced they were going to Sudan to eliminate these scum bags and allow the people to start over, I would be glad. But I would cringe waiting to hear why people think we REALLY went there, because the real reason is never good enough for the shitbirds that sit and think it over a little more.

So go intervene in more areas where there is no monetary benefit to doing so! Intervene in more areas where you didn't help get the bad buy into power in the first place! Start with Darfur then North Korea and so on! It'll cost you though...

Sudan has oil. France and China buy oil from Sudan. Russia sells them weapons. All three countries shield Sudan from UN sanctions.

It does have something that Europe wants. It has oil.

The propaganda motivated by greed is what's keeping us out of Sudan.

And there's the heart of the matter. I just wonder how France and such defend no action when they are in the UN. They certainly don't use this reasoning.

Sure, blasting the hell out of dictators and the like would be fun, but...

You know, after what happened in Irak, it's dangerous. Sure, we could save lives, but the US killed a great deal of civilians by attacking Baghdad and Fallujah and that's not great at all. If you want to help people who are oppressed, you'll have to keep your bombs away from them, I mean, why didn't the US attack military installations rather than go straight for civilian areas? OK, I know, it was to blow the hell out of Saddam faster. Good, I don't even care about if this whole war was done for oil (I think it was the true reason, but if it can blast a dictator away at the same time, who cares, right?), but the real problem is that now it's a complete mess. Look at the ressources spent, at the death toll and the like. I agree we've got to stop genocide, but we must be careful not to sink down to the level of those who commit them. I'm sure the US could be a great help and could save many people, but, face it, they blew it in Irak, they've got thousands of military and civilians (some say over one hundred thousand civilians, I think), Abu Ghraib, things like Fallujah, suicide-bombers everywhere, and so on. What can the rest of the world expect after this?

I don't know if any of this makes sense, but, to answer the question, yes, I'ld be for military action if there were ABSOLUTELY no other options, and if it was correctly planned (try not to blow as many civillians as you save, this time) and for the right reasons (save people, not put another dictator in power).

How many of those people were killed by insurgents strapping bombs to themselves and the like? How do you avoid that?

In fact, nevermind /hijack

And there's the heart of the matter. I just wonder how France and such defend no action when they are in the UN. They certainly don't use this reasoning.
They defend it by minimizing the number dead. A UN estimate placed deaths at "only" 70,000 because it didn't count people who were killed in their villages and people killed on their way to refugee camps. It only counted people who were killed in the camps. The actual figure is closer to 300,000.

This disaster has been going on a VERY long time, and the UN can't seem to be bothered with doing anything about it. I would support the US going in but ONLY!!!! in a support role. A good many charity dollars from individuals already are sent there, so I know that fiscally, we ARE already involved.

I just think we shouldn't be so eager to send in the troops. In other words, let someone else start the ball rolling this time. I feel we interfere too much in other countries and get kicked in the privates for it all the time. Let Canada, or Germany, or the UK, France, or Japan -- or hey, how about other African nations? put together some kind of plan for relieving the many problems in Sudan.

They defend it by minimizing the number dead. A UN estimate placed deaths at "only" 70,000 because it didn't count people who were killed in their villages and people killed on their way to refugee camps. It only counted people who were killed in the camps. The actual figure is closer to 300,000.

How does 70,000 sound okay to anyone? It's simply amazing to me that anyone can dismiss the actions of this governments in Afghanistan, Sudan and Rwanda. And we wonder why some believe the UN is outdated.

This disaster has been going on a VERY long time, and the UN can't seem to be bothered with doing anything about it. I would support the US going in but ONLY!!!! in a support role. A good many charity dollars from individuals already are sent there, so I know that fiscally, we ARE already involved.

I just think we shouldn't be so eager to send in the troops. In other words, let someone else start the ball rolling this time. I feel we interfere too much in other countries and get kicked in the privates for it all the time. Let Canada, or Germany, or the UK, France, or Japan -- or hey, how about other African nations? put together some kind of plan for relieving the many problems in Sudan.

I hate saying this to friggin' moderators, but well put.

So go intervene in more areas where there is no monetary benefit to doing so! Intervene in more areas where you didn't help get the bad buy into power in the first place! Start with Darfur then North Korea and so on! It'll cost you though...


What "monetary benefit" are we gettin gfrom Iraq again?

North Korea seems to be a threat to China & Japan more than the US. I'm interested to see what they plan to do. Wouldnt they feel slighted if the US barged in and smashed North Korea and pulled Kim il Jong out of a spider hole?

And there's the heart of the matter. I just wonder how France and such defend no action when they are in the UN. They certainly don't use this reasoning.


No action suits them much better. Action makes you what they like to call, a "cowboy".
They can just sit a and watch a little while longer. Give it a little more thought. After all-what if its really "just" 70,000 dead and not 300,000, we wouldnt want to do anything drastic, now would we?

No action suits them much better. Action makes you what they like to call, a "cowboy".
They can just sit a and watch a little while longer. Give it a little more thought. After all-what if its really "just" 70,000 dead and not 300,000, we wouldnt want to do anything drastic, now would we?

It's amazing how to some people that argument sounds so logical.

It's amazing how to some people that argument sounds so logical.


You are agreeing with me,right?

Personally, if it was 100 people its disgusting.

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted? What other actions would you support? What if those actions were not supported by the UN? What about the issue that the UN objects to even calling the situation in Sudan genocide? Don't just complain about the problem, let's start suggesting some solutions.
Yes, along with non-profit humanitarian aid. And screw what the UN says, they're useless

You are agreeing with me,right?

Personally, if it was 100 people its disgusting.

I agree. I'm fairly certain if the US went into France and killed a thousand people that France would have something to say about this, but 70,000 black people in a black country - Ahhh, who cares?

It's amazing how all the most violent places on this earth just so happen to be places where extremely valuable natural resources are in abundance. Venezuela, Iraq, Sudan, the Congo, South Africa, etc.

Perhaps the causes of modern violence are in some way related to land value. And if we know what causes such violence then we know how to abate it.

Just a passing thought...

I agree. I'm fairly certain if the US went into France and killed a thousand people that France would have something to say about this, but 70,000 black people in a black country - Ahhh, who cares?


Sadly, when people have no voice-and no weapons, they are easy to slaughter. I dont know enough about their neighboring countries either. Does anyone know if they concerned?

Sadly, when people have no voice-and no weapons, they are easy to slaughter. I dont know enough about their neighboring countries either. Does anyone know if they concerned?

I can't look it up today, I'm out the door, but I'll look into it tomorrow.

I hate saying this to friggin' moderators, but well put.

:( We're people too, ya know... we have brains... and feelings.... *snif*

Or a Native Canadian ;)

Sorry Jocabia, I'll stop now!
Still part of the American continent. :p Technically the canadians are americans too. :D

I just think we shouldn't be so eager to send in the troops. In other words, let someone else start the ball rolling this time. I feel we interfere too much in other countries and get kicked in the privates for it all the time. Let Canada, or Germany, or the UK, France, or Japan -- or hey, how about other African nations? put together some kind of plan for relieving the many problems in Sudan.

Yeah right. Then who could they blame if things got difficult? You forget the number one rule when it comes to the media and world politics. No matter what happens, it is either the US's fault or there is no actual problem.

Its not like anyone expects the other countries in the world to actually shoulder some burden. And God forbid either the African or Middle Eastern countries actually expend some effort and clean up their own backyards.

Yeah right. Then who could they blame if things got difficult? You forget the number one rule when it comes to the media and world politics. No matter what happens, it is either the US's fault or there is no actual problem.

Its not like anyone expects the other countries in the world to actually shoulder some burden. And God forbid either the African or Middle Eastern countries actually expend some effort and clean up their own backyards.

Yes, because we can see how many thousands of americans have been in africa in the last decade, while France and the African union hasnt done anything. Honestly, America has no leg to stand on in africa(We knew about the problem in sudan, and north korea, before we invaded Iraq. Priorities, anyone?)

Well then. I bet I could solve this problem in 30 minutes if I was President.

I would get on TV, and say that I'm going to hit Sudan with 24 Trident missiles (that's a lot of warheads), and turn the place into a radioactive wasteland from which no one will recover oil.

I will do it in 30 minutes, unless France, China, and Russia agree to send their forces to depose the current government of Sudan, jail every member of the Sudanese military and militias, and bring the displaced people back to their homes and rebuild their homes and feed them until they can grow crops again.

Or I'll make it very, very untenable as a place to drill for oil - ever again.

Actually, if you did that, that wouldnt persuade anyone to do anything, because these nations would have no support from their people to be blackmailed into such actions, even if it is the moral thing to do. Most likely, you would see the world retaliate with a massive trade halt, from China and europe, possibly others. This would cripple the US economy. Its political suicide to do anything like that...but being civilian bystanders who are just writing prose on the internet, its fine to say anything you want.

Yes, because we can see how many thousands of americans have been in africa in the last decade, while France and the African union hasnt done anything. Honestly, America has no leg to stand on in africa(We knew about the problem in sudan, and north korea, before we invaded Iraq. Priorities, anyone?)

FRANCE? You mean the country that requested that no one refer to what is going on in Sudan as genocide? That country? We knew about the Sudan and Clinton suggested the UN take action. Do you remember who was against it? I'll give you a hint, they're probably eating croissants.

Hell no I wouldn't support it. To be blunt, I'm freaking sick of the U.S. trying to play globocop.

Yes. The US could do it. But, we should bill the original colonial power over Sudan for the job.

Since the EU is a collective government, we should spend whatever it takes, and bill the EU.


LMAO!!!!! That's funny, and soooooo typical stupid American. Thanks for proving to know nothing about Europe roflmao!!!

Intervene? What for? If they want to kill each other, let them.

I can't say I care much about Sudan anyway. And well, they already said they don't want to hand over suspected warcriminals. I wonder how the UN wants to get those. Possibly by pouting at them for a few months or years.

Nuking Sudan? ROFL!!!! How more stupid can it get? Who'd be the bigger warcriminal then?

Kind of funny, nobody gave a shit about Ruanda back in the days. Nothing new though. Typical for the west, once ressources are in the game the west starts to whine and scream.

Hell no I wouldn't support it. To be blunt, I'm freaking sick of the U.S. trying to play globocop.

Me too. Suggest an alternative that doesn't include allowing mass genocide to continue. Or is your loathing of the US more important than mass genocide?

LMAO!!!!! That's funny, and soooooo typical stupid American. Thanks for proving to know nothing about Europe roflmao!!!

Intervene? What for? If they want to kill each other, let them.

I can't say I care much about Sudan anyway. And well, they already said they don't want to hand over suspected warcriminals. I wonder how the UN wants to get those. Possibly by pouting at them for a few months or years.

Nuking Sudan? ROFL!!!! How more stupid can it get? Who'd be the bigger warcriminal then?

Kind of funny, nobody gave a shit about Ruanda back in the days. Nothing new though. Typical for the west, once ressources are in the game the west starts to whine and scream.

And you seem to not give a shit about Sudan now. This is exactly the problem. If someone showed up at your house and started killing everyone that looked like you, I'm pretty sure you would want the international community to care. But, hey, these people don't look like you so why bother caring, right?

:( We're people too, ya know... we have brains... and feelings.... *snif*

;) It just that sometimes (*cough* Cog *cough*) the moderators egos make it difficult to even fit in the chatroom.

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted? What other actions would you support? What if those actions were not supported by the UN? What about the issue that the UN objects to even calling the situation in Sudan genocide? Don't just complain about the problem, let's start suggesting some solutions.
How's this for a solution?

There are thousands of military veterans in the US who still possess the skills they acquired while in the armed forces. Many of us would me more than willing to act as a defense force for the people of Darfur, as well as in many other places in Africa. Arm us, come up with some logistical support for us, and send us "once more unto the breach." :)

*high fives Jocabia*

You cant fool us-we are still bickering over Iraq. Entire populations of people being starved, executed raped and tortured isnt a good enough reason for the US to meddle there. Its none of our business, remember?
They have uncovered several pits full of remains in Iraq-one had 1,500, mainly women and children that were machine gunned and then bulldozed over. (I'd like to think they all had a fair trial first) This wasnt a good enough reason for Iraq. It wont be good enough for Darfur.

(Please note my sarcasm and frustration here. I would love for us to systematically annihilate any oppressive regime and allow a period of peace for the people to reform a working system of their own. This is always our intent. But we are always criticized and our motives are questioned by those who would rather sit around considering things a bit longer til the US gets the job done.)^ I absolutely agree with you, Carnivorous Lickers! :(

I am very undecided.... I would love for the U.S. to get involved and help save these poor people. :( But then you would have the world wanting to kill the Americans, yet again, for trying to help save people.

You know, if we ignore the problem in Darfur it will go away. Just wait until the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government kill everyone in the region and then there will be peace.

I think I've just discovered the UN's plan for Sudan.

No-they would have to have stockpiles of nukes there,leaking radioactivity, plus cansiters of sarin, anthrax and smallpox, all under the direct control of someone who has used them on babies and been documented at least 6 times in the past. Every other nation on earth would have to agree and we would have to sign documents promising not to influence the liberated peoples in any way with the evils of democracy and capitalism. We would swear an oath to repair every piece of property that happened to be scratched by a bullet and basically, disappear afterwards without a trace. We would have to accomplish this action in roughly 12 hours because more than that we would be "mired down" and start attracting insurgents that want us gone.

Really kicked the shit of out that strawman didn't you?

How dare he sit there all imaginary and everything! :rolleyes:

Yes, because we can see how many thousands of americans have been in africa in the last decade, while France and the African union hasnt done anything. Honestly, America has no leg to stand on in africa(We knew about the problem in sudan, and north korea, before we invaded Iraq. Priorities, anyone?)
America didn't really cause any of the problems in Africa. We never had collonies there. Maybe the European nations who did have African collonies should pay Africa back by helping their former collonial subjects to build functioning governments and industries.

How's this for a solution?

There are thousands of military veterans in the US who still possess the skills they acquired while in the armed forces. Many of us would me more than willing to act as a defense force for the people of Darfur, as well as in many other places in Africa. Arm us, come up with some logistical support for us, and send us "once more unto the breach." :)

That's an interesting solution. I question if that would be very long-term, however. I still think taking out some of the instruments of destruction they use (helicopters and whatnot) would help a lot. Not cheap, but it lets them know the world is not just sitting by and accepting the fate of these poor people.

The UN will not get involved because the outcome will not be worth the effort put into it and don't forget religion. The Muslim north has taken control of the government and trying to kill off the Christian south. With the political climate in the UN is not going to act against a Muslim nation. Don't forget the UN voted Sudan to head the Human Rights division.

Osama Bin Laden was trading young girls for AK-47s on a one to one basis. Young Sudanese girls were sold and still are sold into slavery in the Middle East.

The EU is not going to do it. The US is not going to do it. Pan Africa is not going to do it. I say everyone throws in and hires PMCs (private military companies) like Executive Outcomes or North Bridge Services to protect the innocents and engage/destroy attackers.

The Secretary General of the UN talked with Executive Outcomes and estimated 200,000 lives would be saved by placing 1,500 EO Operatives in Sudan at the cost of $100 US million. EO's service were never used.

1995-97 They were paid $20 million a year in Sierra Leone. Elections took place and the diamond market was stabilized. Contrast this to the UN effort who used 18,000 soldiers at a cost of over $1 Billion US dollars and failed to resolve anything for 3 years. Private Capitalism solved the problem with the RUF and can in Sudan if handled properly.

Yes, because we can see how many thousands of americans have been in africa in the last decade, while France and the African union hasnt done anything. Honestly, America has no leg to stand on in africa(We knew about the problem in sudan, and north korea, before we invaded Iraq. Priorities, anyone?)

Yes, the French are so great there. That's why a friend of mine has actually seen with her own eyes large scale protests in Ivory Coast asking for the US to come in and make the French leave.

That's an interesting solution. I question if that would be very long-term, however. I still think taking out some of the instruments of destruction they use (helicopters and whatnot) would help a lot. Not cheap, but it lets them know the world is not just sitting by and accepting the fate of these poor people.
If someone can help with logistical support, I know I can come up with enough veterans willing to do six-month tours on indefinite rotation to make a big difference. Some of the veterans are Special Forces types with a lot of latent idealism too, who would love nothing better than to kick ass in a good cause. :)

If someone can help with logistical support, I know I can come up with enough veterans willing to do six-month tours on indefinite rotation to make a big difference. Some of the veterans are Special Forces types with a lot of latent idealism too, who would love nothing better than to kick ass in a good cause. :)

You know the great thing about it not being the general military is there wouldn't be any that crap about how unfair it is and whatnot. As if all of us didn't sign up with the understanding that we were specifically being trained for these types of operations.

Yes, the French are so great there. That's why a friend of mine has actually seen with her own eyes large scale protests in Ivory Coast asking for the US to come in and make the French leave.
That can't possibly be right. The French are beloved everywhere, especially in their former collonies. And everyone also knows that the USA is universally hated by all.

You know the great thing about it not being the general military is there wouldn't be any that crap about how unfair it is and whatnot. As if all of us didn't sign up with the understanding that we were specifically being trained for these types of operations.
( smile )

I'm a Navy machanic, about to get out in a few months. Not frontline or SF, but I'm still a fair shot, good with machines, and chock full of idealism. Where do I sign up? Engineer Corps. is a "GO."

( smile )

Yeah what's it pay? I can still put one through the pupil from 200 yards.

They have uncovered several pits full of remains in Iraq-one had 1,500, mainly women and children that were machine gunned and then bulldozed over....do you have a Link from an stablished NEWS org. ????

Well then. I bet I could solve this problem in 30 minutes if I was President.

I would get on TV, and say that I'm going to hit Sudan with 24 Trident missiles (that's a lot of warheads), and turn the place into a radioactive wasteland from which no one will recover oil.

I will do it in 30 minutes, unless France, China, and Russia agree to send their forces to depose the current government of Sudan, jail every member of the Sudanese military and militias, and bring the displaced people back to their homes and rebuild their homes and feed them until they can grow crops again.

Or I'll make it very, very untenable as a place to drill for oil - ever again.
I hear a lot of these extremely dramatic "solutions" to world problems. I wonder why no real president ever uses them?

Me too. Suggest an alternative that doesn't include allowing mass genocide to continue. Or is your loathing of the US more important than mass genocide?

The ones who loathe the U.S. are the ones who want us to play globocop.

Yeah what's it pay? I can still put one through the pupil from 200 yards.
Pupil of a private or a state school?

The ones who loathe the U.S. are the ones who want us to play globocop.

I'm not a cop, but I wouldn't be surprised if a man was beating the shit out of his wife and people came to me and asked me to stop him because I was the only one in the room big enough to save her. Quick questions - do you think most people would stop the beating if they could? If they did would they be treated like a international pariah for attempting to do so? Sometimes the right thing to do is so obvious, it's amazing to me that no one does anything. The UN has basically been saying, yes, he's beating his woman but we don't really care until it's two women or ten women or a hundred women... so long as the number we are requesting it to be is always higher than the number it is. Would you stand by and do nothing or would you step up and try to help the helpless? Or would that mean you were 'playing cop'?

do you have a Link from an stablished NEWS org. ????


Just google 1500 bodies in Iraq-there are many.

www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK023432.htm


I dont know if this will work-I've never posted a link

Just google 1500 bodies in Iraq-there are many.

www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK023432.htm


I dont know if this will work-I've never posted a link



It states this is one of "around 300 suspected mass graves" discovered around Iraq. It also mentions one uncovered near Basrah that contained several THOUSAND.

Even if these figures are exaggerated, its still staggering and disgusting.

do you have a Link from an stablished NEWS org. ????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq

OceanDrive face the facts

Just google 1500 bodies in Iraq-there are many.

www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK023432.htm


I dont know if this will work-I've never posted a linkhmmmm... Reuter article....but NOT FROM THE REUTERS OFFICIAL SITE...I wonder why?

true NEWS link:
http://reuters.com/

that why I asked if you have a link FROM AN STABLISHED NEWS ORG.

They have uncovered several pits full of remains in Iraq-one had 1,500, mainly women and children that were machine gunned and then bulldozed over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq

OceanDrive face the facts

all you got on mass-graves..


wikipedia: "After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total, and more are being uncovered to this day. While most of the dead in the graves were believed to have died in the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein, some of them appeared to have died due to executions or died at times other than the 1991 rebellion."

I worked with a Canadian Veteran of Rwanda. Canada and I think the Swedes and a couple Indian troops were there as "Observers". Some of what he has told me about his expereinces in Rwanda actually made me physicaly ill.

There is NO excuse for standing by and allowing atrocities of this nature to continue. The Canadian Forces back then were still the darlings of the UN Peace Keeping initiative, and all the shouting, pleading and demanding the Canadians made of the UN, NOTHING was done. To have a travesty of justice the likes of Rwanada to happen again would be consindered sinful if was a question of personal action, rather than political, as it is by its very nature.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :mad: :mad: :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Shut the hell up and DO SOMETHING is what I have to say the the UN as a collective. You can't fight off rumours of your own obsolescence while standing idly by and making everything you say no more than nonsense. We could float an armada of balloons with the hot air the UN has expended while talking about this issue rather than doing something about the situation.


Maybe if we just made the official America Versus Everyone League Of Nations or some such thing it would be better, but I have as much faith in anything the US Gov't says as most do, meaning very little. We have repeatedly refused to take our chnance to rise above the stench of out own human history. Oh well, live and let learn, as they say. Some have a hard time with the learning part however. They either end up on the short bus or in politics for some reason.

[/URL]

http://www.phrusa.org/campaigns/action_alerts/alert47.html (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ)

[URL]http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0312/07/a04-343731.htm

Is the Associated Press good enough? or Amnesty International?

hmmmm... Reuter article....but NOT FROM THE REUTERS OFFICIAL SITE...I wonder why?

true NEWS link:
http://reuters.com/

that why I asked if you have a link FROM AN STABLISHED NEWS ORG.


There are far too many for me to sift through and find one thats acceptable to you.
How many have to die in this fashion? How much proof does there need to be? Whom does it have to be proven to?

It doesnt matter much to a child who is standing on the edge of a pit with his mother being shot by soldiers.
I cant put to words the contempt I feel for the people that perpetrate crimes like this. ANd the ones that sit and think about it a little more, discuss it a little more-sicken me almost as much.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.main/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3738368.stm

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3138133

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/iraq1104/1.htm

I support military intervention in Sudan, as I supported military intervention in Iraq.

I do, however, think that the military in Sudan ought to be there primarily to defend the refugees, not in an attempt to replace the government. Any attempt to do that just stirs nationalism.

Too long the UN have been content to sit aside saying 'Oh, what CAN we do?'. Just look at the former Yugoslavia. The Dutch troops were left unsupported in the face of Serb troops in Srebrenica.

Yes, I would support it.

The Islamic Sudanese government would have to be erased from existance and replaced with a secularist government. The government and military provide assistance and arms to the muslim militias that do the really dirty work.

The Islamic Sudanese government would have to be erased from existance and replaced with a secularist government. The government and military provide assistance and arms to the muslim militias that do the really dirty work.

If you force the government out, the people will just view it as foreign agression. You need policed elections and sanctions to force the government to disarm the militias.

And UN troops to protect the refugees.

Is the Associated Press good enough? or Amnesty International?yes AP and AI are pretty good...as long as it comes from their official sites:

http://ap.org/

http://amnesty.org/

yes AP and AI are pretty good...as long as it comes from their official sites:

http://ap.org/

http://amnesty.org/

How about cnn, Human rights watch and the BBC? Are you really going to just argue about the sources? It happened, accept it. Or scream at the dark. Your choice.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.main/



finally you are getting some stuff...not anywhere close to 1500 though !

Investigators working at the grave since early April have recovered the remains of 113 people. With the exception of five, all are women and children.

About 15 percent of the bodies had identification cards.


id cards??? I wonder why?

finally you are getting some stuff...not anywhere close to 1500 though !

Did you actually read the article? How about just the first paragraph? I think the number 1500 appears right in the first paragraph. Maybe I have something wrong with my comprehension skills. When they say as many as 1500 bodies that does mean as many as 1500 bodies, doesn't it? Maybe it means not anywhere close to 1500 and they forgot to teach me that in school.

id cards??? I wonder why?

I have an id card. I wonder, why?

id cards??? I wonder why?
I don't know about Iraq during the Saddam years, but here in the USA driver's licences double as ID cards. Maybe the corpses were licensed to drive.

I don't know about Iraq during the Saddam years, but here in the USA driver's licences double as ID cards. Maybe the corpses were licensed to drive.

Shh... proven, documented evidence is not good enough for him/her. Ah, but idle speculation that is completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever is very useful, so long as it says the US/GWB suck.

I don't know about Iraq during the Saddam years, but here in the USA driver's licences double as ID cards. Maybe the corpses were licensed to drive.
actually the article says identification cards...

I figured it was Identification tags...wich would make it interesting.

sisnce we are talking about Saddam and mass Graves...I heard about a 15000 mass grave... the al-Mahawil Mass Graves.

actually the article says identification cards...

I figured it was Identification tags...wich would make it interesting.


Slaughtered women and children. More than one. Less than a million. Shot and buried in pits.
I've said this before-sarcastically-that I'm sure all of these nameless women and children were all tried and convicted of whatever crimes they were guilty of. Then shot. I'm sure some medical official checked to make sure they were all dead before they were buried, but this may have not been necessary since the Iraqi soldiers are renowned for being expert "one shot, one kill" marksmen. So I'm sure there were no children still iving to watch their siblings and mothers buried or mothers clinging to life as soldiers kicked their baby into the hole.
But now-if they had some sort off ID tags, that would make it interesting.

sisnce we are talking about Saddam and mass Graves...I heard about a 15000 mass grave... the al-Mahawil Mass Graves.

Are you trying to make sense and say something useful or are you just trying to hijack my thread?

Are you trying to make sense and say something useful or are you just trying to hijack my thread?
Im trying to somewhat help you :D

here...chew on this one:

Although genuinely accurate numbers are impossible to know, Human Rights Watch (HRW) pegs its best guess at "290,000 'disappeared' and presumed killed [in Iraq, including] the following: more than 100,000 Kurds killed during the 1987-88 Anfal campaign and lead-up to it; between 50,000 and 70,000 Shi'a arrested in the 1980s and held indefinitely without charge, who remain unaccounted for today; an estimated 8,000 males of the Barzani clan removed from resettlement camps in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1983; 10,000 or more males separated from Feyli Kurdish families deported to Iran in the 1980s; an estimated 50,000 opposition activists, including Communists and other leftists, Kurds and other minorities, and out-of-favor Ba'athists, arrested and 'disappeared' in the 1980s and 1990s; some 30,000 Iraqi Shi'a men rounded up after the abortive March 1991 uprising and not heard from since.

More than one. Less than a million. .amazing coincidence...thats precisely the number of girlfriends Clinton has.

Im trying to somewhat help you :D

here...chew on this one:

Although genuinely accurate numbers are impossible to know, Human Rights Watch (HRW) pegs its best guess at "290,000 'disappeared' and presumed killed [in Iraq, including] the following: more than 100,000 Kurds killed during the 1987-88 Anfal campaign and lead-up to it; between 50,000 and 70,000 Shi'a arrested in the 1980s and held indefinitely without charge, who remain unaccounted for today; an estimated 8,000 males of the Barzani clan removed from resettlement camps in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1983; 10,000 or more males separated from Feyli Kurdish families deported to Iran in the 1980s; an estimated 50,000 opposition activists, including Communists and other leftists, Kurds and other minorities, and out-of-favor Ba'athists, arrested and 'disappeared' in the 1980s and 1990s; some 30,000 Iraqi Shi'a men rounded up after the abortive March 1991 uprising and not heard from since.

One, this thread isn't about Iraq. Two, just a minute ago, you were saying how you didn't buy the articles about this. Three, what's your point? Sadaam was a lower form of life. We ALL know this.

Sadaam was a lower form of life. We ALL know this.
Maybe, but Uday was a class act all the way.

One, this thread isn't about Iraq. Two, just a minute ago, you were saying how you didn't buy the articles about this. Three, what's your point? Sadaam was a lower form of life. We ALL know this. where is the 1500 women and children mass grave...I still dont see the link..

and no i didnt introduce Iraq into "your" thread ;)

Come on... Don't tell me you people believe the stuff coming out of the western media.

Its all controlled by conservatives looking to keep GWB in power for the next 20 years. Have any of you ever seen pictures of these "mass graves"? I thought not. They DO NOT EXIST.It's all propaganda.

You idiotic American Neo-cons. I'll sell you a part of the London Bridge for a cut rate price!

...Two, just a minute ago, you were saying how you didn't buy the articles about this. this article is from a source I trust.

Come on... Don't tell me you people believe the stuff coming out of the western media.some of them them are not too bad..

www.bbc.com

www.reuters.com

www.guardian.co.uk/

www.afp.com

http://cbc.ca

etc.

Come on... Don't tell me you people believe the stuff coming out of the western media.

Its all controlled by conservatives looking to keep GWB in power for the next 20 years. Have any of you ever seen pictures of these "mass graves"? I thought not. They DO NOT EXIST.It's all propaganda.

You idiotic American Neo-cons. I'll sell you a part of the London Bridge for a cut rate price!


Nice try, flamer.

where is the 1500 women and children mass grave...I still dont see the link..

They have uncovered several pits full of remains in Iraq-one had 1,500, mainly women and children that were machine gunned and then bulldozed over....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/30/iraq.main/

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Forensic experts are investigating a mass grave thought to contain the remains of as many as 1,500 Kurds killed in the 1980s.
...
Investigators working at the grave since early April have recovered the remains of 113 people. With the exception of five, all are women and children.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it not exist. Now if you want to scream at the dark please go and discuss this in another thread. Reasonable people are adequately convinced that Sadaam was a mass murderer.

Sadaam was a mass murderer.of course he was (just like many US "friends"),

read my posts...if you dont wanna look like an idiot.

of course he was, read my posts.

...if you dont wanna look like an idiot.

I am disputing your claim that none of the "legitimate" posted links support CL's claim. You read the source and said it was what you were looking for, but didn't notice it fully supported CL said? I think you read and understood and are just being intentionally dense for some unknown reason. Now, I would be happy to discuss this in a thread about Iraq, but as this isn't please desist.

I am disputing your claim that none of the "legitimate" posted links support CL's claim. You read the source and said it was what you were looking for, but didn't notice it fully supported CL said? I think you read and understood and are just being intentionally dense for some unknown reason. Now, I would be happy to discuss this in a thread about Iraq, but as this isn't please desist.
A lot of links have been posted...

wich stablished NEWS site supports the "1500 women and Children mass Grave" statement?

wich one?

A lot of links have been posted...

wich stablished NEWS site supports the "1500 women and Children mass Grave" statement?

wich one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8811979&postcount=123

No-they would have to have stockpiles of nukes there,leaking radioactivity, plus cansiters of sarin, anthrax and smallpox, all under the direct control of someone who has used them on babies and been documented at least 6 times in the past. Every other nation on earth would have to agree and we would have to sign documents promising not to influence the liberated peoples in any way with the evils of democracy and capitalism. We would swear an oath to repair every piece of property that happened to be scratched by a bullet and basically, disappear afterwards without a trace. We would have to accomplish this action in roughly 12 hours because more than that we would be "mired down" and start attracting insurgents that want us gone.

The fact that they have, and use these weapons is more a reason to go in and stop them from doing so. If we just cowered in fear every time another nation has dangerous weapons, we would be useless to the world community, and would just be "pussies". Unfortunately, going through the UN would take a long time (what with politics and debate, and corruption and all), but its either that, or we form some sort of coalition with whoever will take action NOW. We shouldnt sign papers to fix every problem, only those who will take action will agree to split basic reconstruction costs.. thats when the UN can come in and basically "pick up after the mess we made".. but at least we solve the problem in Sudan.
12 hours would be an ideal time to go in, attack, and get out... unfortunately, due to the complexity of the attack, it will undoubtfully take much longer. Obviously, precision air attacks would be used, as well as "blitzkrieg-like" attacks on prominant targets... idk this is my take on the situation... but i definately think something should be done... and if the UN cant make up its mind, i think we need to act without it.

Just google 1500 bodies in Iraq-there are many.

www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK023432.htm


I dont know if this will work-I've never posted a link



This link quite clearly described the story.

The fact that they have, and use these weapons is more a reason to go in and stop them from doing so. If we just cowered in fear every time another nation has dangerous weapons, we would be useless to the world community, and would just be "pussies". Unfortunately, going through the UN would take a long time (what with politics and debate, and corruption and all), but its either that, or we form some sort of coalition with whoever will take action NOW. We shouldnt sign papers to fix every problem, only those who will take action will agree to split basic reconstruction costs.. thats when the UN can come in and basically "pick up after the mess we made".. but at least we solve the problem in Sudan.
12 hours would be an ideal time to go in, attack, and get out... unfortunately, due to the complexity of the attack, it will undoubtfully take much longer. Obviously, precision air attacks would be used, as well as "blitzkrieg-like" attacks on prominant targets... idk this is my take on the situation... but i definately think something should be done... and if the UN cant make up its mind, i think we need to act without it.


I was being sarcastic. I'm sick of the whole question. I would support the annihilation of any tyrant that is deliberately doing this to people.

Is a "tyrant" worse than having no governemnt at all, a la somalia, after the American Fu*k up.

They DO NOT EXIST.It's all propaganda.

I assume the Holocaust is a hoax too.

You idiotic American Neo-cons. I'll sell you a part of the London Bridge for a cut rate price!

Go get a job.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8811979&postcount=123
CNN number is 113 (for a Women and Children mass grave) not 1500.

its like stating tha NK has 100 nukes...bases on a CNN article with 7 confirmed Nukes.

Is a "tyrant" worse than having no governemnt at all, a la somalia, after the American Fu*k up.

Well, the UN is welcome to start accepting responsibilities instead of bribes any time. This would certainly allow them to prevent these kinds of 'American Fu*k up's.

Is a "tyrant" worse than having no governemnt at all, a la somalia, after the American Fu*k up.

No government existed when we went into Somalia...to feed starving people.

i really think that all the "super powers" should just keep their own affairs and they're own hemisphere. and their media is about as trust worthy as their president is smart.

CNN number is 113 (for a Women and Children mass grave) not 1500.

its like stating tha NK has 100 nukes...bases on a CNN article with 7 confirmed Nukes.

I quoted the friggin' article. They are looking at a huge pile of bodies of which they have extracted 113, 108 of which are women and children. The same article says the total estimate is 1500. You can't just pick and choose. They know the size of the mass grave. They know the rough size of a person. It's fairly simple math. The BBC and HRW agree with the number. In fact, the only one I see disagreeing with the number is you. Interesting...

Well, the UN is welcome to start accepting responsibilities instead of bribes any time.

amen brother

Come on... Don't tell me you people believe the stuff coming out of the western media.

Its all controlled by conservatives looking to keep GWB in power for the next 20 years. Have any of you ever seen pictures of these "mass graves"? I thought not. They DO NOT EXIST.It's all propaganda.

You idiotic American Neo-cons. I'll sell you a part of the London Bridge for a cut rate price!


i know this is kinda off topic, and from a while ago on this thread... but i need to get this off my chest now... my sincerest apologies.

HUH?!?!.. where have you been.. the media is controlled by the most liberal lefties in the world. we havent seen pictures of mass graves because they dont show those on television... have u ever seen other examples of mass graves, and the gorey results of violence on any news channels.. i can tell you already.. NO, you havent. Im sick of hearing all you stupid liberals thinking that the only problem in the world is that you guys dont have enough bicycle paths, and that some endangered species of trees that nobody cares about is dying... snap back into reality.. the world is a terrible place.. it is violent, it is corrupt, it is disgusting. Pay attention to the media... this isnt yellowe journalism... they dont make up stories, they report what they get from intelligence reports... i have no doubt in my mind that there were mass graves in iraq... Saddam had his own family members tortured and in some cases killed, for not agreeing with him... he routinely killed innocent people that he found in the streets ... (online, you can see the iraqi military tieing up a group of 10 people by the ankles in a line.. and pushing the first one off the roof of a building...they all fall down and if any are still alive, the iraqis shoot at them from the roof until they are dead)...

The South Islands

Is Amnesty International a tool of GWB also?

i really think that all the "super powers" should just keep their own affairs and they're own hemisphere. and their media is about as trust worthy as their president is smart.

TROLL. Just for the record, you should proofread if you're going to call people stupid.

i really think that all the "super powers" should just keep their own affairs and they're own hemisphere. and their media is about as trust worthy as their president is smart.

with the title of a global superpower, comes responsibility. it is the responsibility of the superpowers, with their power and prestige, to sway the world community for a certain cause. small nations constantly appeal to the superpowers because when backed by one, they get 1)recognition, 2)respect, and 3)they can get stuff done b/c others will want to back the superpower.

the media is many times biased, and has an agenda to cover, but the wise person will not look @ the bias and opinion, instead look at the information in a situation and make up their own mind. it would not only be stupid (as an isolationist policy) but also very unhelpful to the world, if the super powers kept to themselves.

... the total estimate is 1500......estimates huh?

what are your total estimates of Iraqui women and children murdered since the US invasion.

If we are going to use estimates...lets use the estimates from both sides.

just to be fair...

estimates huh?

what are your total estimates of Iraqui women and children murdered since the US invasion.

If we are going to use estimates...lets use the estimates from both sides.

just to be fair...

I'd be happy to discuss those estimates if this thread was about Iraq.

So, anyway, would anyone care to furth discuss Sudan and the genocide? I'm certain that not everyone here wants to make the claim that ANYTHING going on in Iraq has any bearing on what the right thing to do is regarding the genocide in Darfur. So shall we keep the discussion on topic?

estimates huh?

what are your total estimates of Iraqui women and children murdered since the US invasion.

If we are going to use estimates...lets use the estimates from both sides.

just to be fair...

Zero. Murder is premeditated.
I may as well ask how many people the Canadian Government murders by not being able to keep their better doctors from fleeing the low pay of Canada's health care system. :rolleyes:

If you said killed, I'd not be offended. But "murder" is crossing the line.

The South Islands

Is Amnesty International a tool of GWB also?

In a word... YES.

Most of its infastructure and financing is linked to America. To ensure they don't get shut down by the government, they sugercote the Us humn rights abuses (Guantanimo, Abu Garib), and distort the abuses of competing nations and enemies of the administration (Peoples Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq).

In a word... YES.

Most of its infastructure and financing is linked to America. To ensure they don't get shut down by the government, they sugercote the Us humn rights abuses (Guantanimo, Abu Garib), and distort the abuses of competing nations and enemies of the administration (Peoples Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq).
Please tell us (amnesty members) how they sugarcoat US abuses, while you are at it, please tell us how they distort any other abuses. I'm ready to give up my Amnesty account the minute you do it.

In a word... YES.

Most of its infastructure and financing is linked to America. To ensure they don't get shut down by the government, they sugercote the Us humn rights abuses (Guantanimo, Abu Garib), and distort the abuses of competing nations and enemies of the administration (Peoples Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, Iraq).


you may want to consider laying off the mushrooms for a little while.

I'll give you that showing the various shortcomings of the administration in North Korea is hard for Amnesty to do - due to the fact nobody is allowed in. And I just don't know what YOUR Amnesty mag wrote about Abu Ghraib - I can assure you my issue wasn't favourable... but wtf? As I said, I'll stop my meager aid as soon as you provide me with evidence. I only have 20 euros a month to help people, and if Amnesty is doing shitty job, please stop me!

Zero. Murder is premeditated. .
really?

take a look

http://www.google.com/search?q=premeditated+murder&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

really?

take a look

http://www.google.com/search?q=premeditated+murder&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Um... yeah.
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/articles/ap/o/51/04-21-2005/c29b00073469e83b.html

(AP) - FORT BRAGG, North Carolina-An Army sergeant was convicted Thursday by a military jury of premeditated murder and attempted murder in a grenade and rifle attack that killed two of his comrades and wounded 14 others in Kuwait during the opening days of the Iraq war.

When you take out that ONE story, it goes from 234,000 links to 918.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=premeditated+murder+-Hasan+Akbar%2C

When you remove "Akbar" also (no first name), there are NO HITS.

C'mon did you even read the links on your own first page?

Um... yeah.

When you remove "Akbar" also (no first name), there are NO HITS.


how do you do that? like this?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=premeditated+murder+-Akbar&btnG=Search&meta=

still got 213,000 hits for premeditated murder -Akbar.

Um... yeah.

When you take out that ONE story, it goes from 234,000 links to 918.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=premeditated+murder+-Hasan+Akbar%2C

When you remove "Akbar" also (no first name), there are NO HITS.

C'mon did you even read the links on your own first page?

I migth be wrong...but,

do you really think that 99.9% of "premeditated murder" cases are about Mr Akbar...

think about it.

Its either my logic that is flawed...or the whole internet is mistaken...
your choice :D

>>hint...my logic has a pretty good record.<<

I migth be wrong...but,

do you really think that 99.9% of "premeditated murder" cases are about Mr Akbar...

think about it.

Its either my logic that is flawed...or the whole internet is mistaken...
your choice :D

>>hint...my logic has a pretty good record.<<

The way you worded that search, yep.

Pretty sure that your logic in that link was flawed.

>>hint...next time you put up a google search, read the results for a few pages.

>>..hint 2: no, not really. Your anti-Americanism has a pretty good record. The logic part is open for interpretation.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8797972#post8797972

how do you do that? like this?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=premeditated+murder+-Akbar&btnG=Search&meta=

still got 213,000 hits for premeditated murder -Akbar.

Maybe I was unclear: by removing BOTH akbar, and akbar & hasan akbar, as so:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=premeditated+murder+-Hasan+Akbar%2C+-akbar

PS- More importantly, did you read any of the results you got? I didn't see any for what you posted this about in the first place!

A lot of links have been posted...

wich stablished NEWS site supports the "1500 women and Children mass Grave" statement?

wich one?

The word is "established". This is the third or fourth time you have used "stablished" so I am assuming that it isnt a typo on your part. I am not even going to wonder about "wich"

I migth be wrong...but,

do you really think that 99.9% of "premeditated murder" cases are about Mr Akbar...

think about it.

Its either my logic that is flawed...or the whole internet is mistaken...
your choice :D

>>hint...my logic has a pretty good record.<<

Maybe in your mind, I doubt anyone else in this thread (except for South Islands) would agree with that statement.

Ignoring evidence doesn't make it not exist. Now if you want to scream at the dark please go and discuss this in another thread. Reasonable people are adequately convinced that Sadaam was a mass murderer.

This is called Prejudicial language, and is a Logical Fallicy. GJ on blowing your argument out of the water, though.

This is called Prejudicial language, and is a Logical Fallicy. GJ on blowing your argument out of the water, though.

First, you should look up logical fallAcy. If someone ignores evidence I'm not wrong to point it out or to point other things they seem to be arguing against. Second, I'm allowed to use prejudicial language all day long. This is a debate not a court of law. Third, who the hell is GJ?

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

Would you find it acceptable for the military to take action in Sudan if all options had been exhausted? What other actions would you support? What if those actions were not supported by the UN? What about the issue that the UN objects to even calling the situation in Sudan genocide? Don't just complain about the problem, let's start suggesting some solutions.

I take it no one actually wants to have a discussion about SUDAN.

*Charges paddles* clear *touches paddles to chest of thread. Beeping is heard for a moment and then flatline. Charges again* Clear *touches paddles to chest again. Again beeping then nothing* Time of death 1:10 PM CDT

Second, I'm allowed to use prejudicial language all day long. ....
Third, who the hell is GJ?you may be allowed...but it does not help your case.

GJ = Good Job

... so I am assuming that it isnt a typo on your part. ...you are free to assume whatever you want.

I meant established BTW.

the more people that get offed, the less we have to worry aobut

hey u guys should sstop being bitches and go to school ;or work, goddammit

I really hope the US gets involved militarily. Time to kick some more BUTT!!!!

Region Killas']hey u guys should sstop being bitches and go to school ;or work, goddammit

.........nice language, babe!

I take it no one actually wants to have a discussion about SUDAN.

It's the Blame Bush/Blair crowd. The same individuals that crusade for UN stagnation cannot defend the UN's corruption (child sex rings in Africa, Oil for Food Scandal) so they attack the Coalition in Iraq. It's the old wounded bird away from the nest trick.

you may be allowed...but it does not help your case.

GJ = Good Job

Prejudicial language often helps one's case. That's why we call what is going on in Darfur genocide versus just mass-deaths. That's why you called what happened in Iraq murder and not just people dying. And so on... and so on...

It's the Blame Bush/Blair crowd. The same individuals that crusade for UN stagnation cannot defend the UN's corruption (child sex rings in Africa, Oil for Food Scandal) so they attack the Coalition in Iraq. It's the old wounded bird away from the nest trick.

I agree. It's how people get around actually discussing the fact that this is an atrocity. And, unfortunately, many people start with the premise that the US/GWB is bad and work backward from there. I'd like to be mad at them, but US politics encourages it. When's the last time you heard a presidential candidate give the other candidate credit for anything. Kerry didn't say Bush is doing well with the war, but he could do better or GWB made a good decision to go, but we need to change our strategy or anything like that. "It was wrong. Wrong place. Wrong time. Wrong way." or something like that. And Bush did exactly the same thing with Kerry's military record and senate record.

I agree. It's how people get around actually discussing the fact that this is an atrocity.It is an Atrocity...I would support any humanitarian help...

But not the US kind...

Bushites say "we are helping" Afghanistan and "we are helping" Iraq.

If you offer me that kind of "Help"...I would say "NO THANKS"

It is an Atrocity...I would support any humanitarian help...

But not the US kind...

Bushites say "we are helping" Afghanistan and "we are helping" Iraq.

If you offer me that kind of "Help"...I would say "NO THANKS"


Well...they could say they are helping the populatonproblem by killing hundreds of thousands of people.

How about we not interfere. It is the the Sudaneses sp? fault. Either we do not intervene (read: ignore) or we intervene roll in with all our bad-ass (yes very bad-ass) military and mop up and establish an Americna government. The other governments = too shocked to react. And if they arent we'll take them on too (not attack immediatly just be guarded against.)

So,

1 ignore them (and occaisonaly laugh) at the sudanese

OR

2 Roll in with (bad-ass) military. Mop up. Make 51st state.

The flames will be delicous.

*Dark side points gained*

It is an Atrocity...I would support any humanitarian help...

But not the US kind...

Bushites say "we are helping" Afghanistan and "we are helping" Iraq.

If you offer me that kind of "Help"...I would say "NO THANKS"

Odd how Afghanis tend to consider it to be help, particularly Afghani women.

I think you would redefine your definition of help if you were in the position the people in Darfur are. I'm sure if you asked them if they wanted the US military to help them, they would say, no, we don't want your help, we NEED your help.

Well...they could say they are helping the populatonproblem by killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Hundreds of thousands? The US is killing hundreds of thousands? I would love to see evidence of this. Now mind you, you cannot include deaths caused by human bombs and the like used by insurgents. Only deaths by direct military intervention. Scratch that, I'll let you include any increase in deaths due to starvation or disease.

Do I really need to post my obvious opinion? :sniper:

Though I do like the PMC alternative.

I say we hire the Slammers. One or two hover-tanks and a platoon of combat-cars should just about clean up that little pest hole.

Either that or Jocham & the White Mice... but I'm not sure I'm that cruel.

How about we not interfere. It is the the Sudaneses sp? fault. Either we do not intervene (read: ignore) or we intervene roll in with all our bad-ass (yes very bad-ass) military and mop up and establish an Americna government. The other governments = too shocked to react. And if they arent we'll take them on too (not attack immediatly just be guarded against.)

So,

1 ignore them (and occaisonaly laugh) at the sudanese

OR

2 Roll in with (bad-ass) military. Mop up. Make 51st state.

The flames will be delicous.

*Dark side points gained*

I'm glad you spent a lot of time and energy researching before you wrote your first post. It was well-thought and well-written. Very impressive.

http://news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=479952005

Check the link if you think there's no need for military intervention in Darfur.
Kids shouldn't see things like this. Kids in Darfur see this and worse.

Yes. The US could do it. But, we should bill the original colonial power over Sudan for the job.

Since the EU is a collective government, we should spend whatever it takes, and bill the EU.
That would two former colonial powers: Great Britain and Egypt. They each share a half of the responsiblity cause they are equally responsible.

I'm glad you spent a lot of time and energy researching before you wrote your first post. It was well-thought and well-written. Very impressive.

1. Possibility= not sarcastic.
Response = Thank you.

2. Possibility = sarcastic.
Response = I pride my self on the well thought.

Oh and that link..

:rolleyes:
Crazy Sudanese tthey can't even draw well because they are so scared... kind of funny but live vidoe would have been more so. I give it a 2 out of 5.


*Random thought*
They should start using snipers...

Oh no, it's the opinion of a lefty. Better stop reading this post.... now.



I think military intervention in Sudan is much, much more ethical than military intervention in Iraq ever was. The reasons for going to war in Iraq were shoddy at best. But, with Sudan, we have public genocide. It's obvious that this is happening, and any way to stop it is a good thing.


That said, I do not think the responsibility falls on the US. I think it falls on the entire UN.

If military action is the only way, so be it. If there is a less deadly method, don't rush to war.

I still say "No". If they want to kill each other so badly, let them. If they start attacking foreigners though, kick their ass.

As long as we don't act like total dicks and bomb the place to shreds (Like we did in Iraq), I'd support military intervention.

NOTE: Another good website is http://www.savedarfur.org

And I think if someone intervense in Sudan, then that one has to intervene EVERYWHERE where such (or similar) problems arise, otherwise it'd be a "bit" unfair.

Next stop... Uzbekistan (however you spell it in English).

I still say "No". If they want to kill each other so badly, let them. If they start attacking foreigners though, kick their ass.

It's not that "they want to kill each other so badly." It's that one side is systematically killing the other side and it's out of control.

One Sudanian tribe is killing another without remorse. It's called genocide.

"Government-backed militias, known collectively as the Janjaweed, are systematically eliminating entire communities of African tribal farmers. Villages are being razed, women and girls raped and branded, men and boys murdered, and food and water supplies targeted and destroyed."

And I think if someone intervense in Sudan, then that one has to intervene EVERYWHERE where such (or similar) problems arise, otherwise it'd be a "bit" unfair.

Next stop... Uzbekistan (however you spell it in English).

The Darfur genocide is worse than most things happening out there.

As long as we don't act like total dicks and bomb the place to shreds (Like we did in Iraq), I'd support military intervention.

NOTE: Another good website is http://www.savedarfur.org

The Coalition didn't bomb Iraq to shreds. Much of that was damage inflicted from Gulf War 1 that was never repaired, some of it was done by us now, and some was done by the terrorists.

I'm all for intervention in Darfur, but it has to be a UN mission. I'm sick of the UN sitting on it's *ss (Jugoslavia, Rwanda... just about every time except Korea) and then complaining about how things went when the US gets involved.