NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the UN send peacekeepers? Should countries send peacekeepers, but not under the auspices of the UN? Should sanctions be imposed? Or it should be declared an "internal affair" and allowed to proceed as before? Or something else?

Share your thoughts.

No thoughts?

Iraq-style regime change. Only get someone competent to run it.

I think that a multinational, UN led force should invade Sudan, arrest the people in charge of the country and anyone in connection to the planning or ordering of the current genocide. When we say "Never Again" about genocide, we should god damn mean it.

I think that a multinational, UN led force should invade Sudan, arrest the people in charge of the country and anyone in connection to the planning or ordering of the current genocide. When we say "Never Again" about genocide, we should god damn mean it.

Of course, we won't mean it, unless the person committing genocide is named Saddam. :(

This is an African problem. It is up to the AU to act (or not act). Western intervention has proven time and time again to be counterproductive.

This is an African problem. It is up to the AU to act (or not act). Western intervention has proven time and time again to be counterproductive.

Anytime there are people being unjustly killed, especially genocide, it's everyone's problem.

Its tricky.

Changing the regime, or getting rid of the current leader wouldn't really do much to change the situation I feel. The AU forces that have been incompentent, and I feel any multi-national force (UN or otherwise) would be out of its depth (as well as that, if it was a UN force I believe it has to be 'invited' in by the state to be legal. Otherwise it's merely an 'internal matter'.)

At best, I think split the country into two states: Sudan and Darfur. How economically viable either would be... well, I don't know. But at best, it could solve the problem of the milita's having free reign as they would in essence be invading Darfur. Darfur could ask for multi-national help in patrolling their state, thus solving that problem.

Just my opinion, feel free to pick it apart.

Anytime there are people being unjustly killed, especially genocide, it's everyone's problem.

Incorrect. It is not the west's problem. It is Africa's problem.

The UN is corrupt and complacent. A coalition made up equally of several nations should be sent in purely to stop genocidal activities and not to initiate any regime change.

Anytime there are people being unjustly killed, especially genocide, it's everyone's problem.

seconded, we shouldn't just sit on our thumbs and watch the genocide. We should do something about, I don't really know enough about the situation in darfur(hoping this thread would fix that problem) to pass judgement, but I do know that someone needs to intervene.

I think primarily the AU though supported by the U.N should pressure Sudan but other than that nothing just seal Sudan off until they play nice

Incorrect. It is not the west's problem. It is Africa's problem.

And that's why Hitler happened: it was a European problem.

And that's why Kosovo happened: it was a Balkan problem. But thankfully, they had a regime change on their own and we only had to send some peacekeepeers.

That's why Uganda happened: it was an African problem.

People who keep saying that it's the other person's problem are one of the reasons problems last so long.

Arms drop over the areas where the people who are being genocided live.

Arms drop over the areas where the people who are being genocided live.
We shouldn't force people to fight when there are others than can do it for them.

The UN is corrupt and complacent. A coalition made up equally of several nations should be sent in purely to stop genocidal activities and not to initiate any regime change.

But who wants to do that, especially if there is no clear end-goal in sight?

Look at Iraq (I know, I know- but I'm not using it to 'bash' anyone). At the moment, the situation requires long term commitment. Commitment that is really only ever given by organisations like the UN. The U.S et al are great at wars, but they suck at peacekeeping (not an insult, it's just true).

Here's a thought: If we do intervene and take out, Bashir, Africa and the rest of the Third World will scream, "Imperialism!" If we sit back and do nothing, or don't do enough, they'll accuse us of being "racist" and not caring about their welfare. Which makes it all the more difficult. I think we should make an attempt on Bashir, rather than send troops and escalate the situation, killing more people in the process.

A UN peacekeeping force should be sent I'd like to say yes, but I'm not sure if they could have enough power to do much more than watch black people get killed

Leave it for the AU to handle only viable for 11 more days

A multinational peacekeeping force, besides the UN or AU, should be sent yes, they have a chance of wiping out the janjaweed

Sanctions should be imposed on the Sudan sanctions only ever make the people suffer

Khartoum should be bombed back to the Stone Age unhelpful

A hitman should be hired to take out President Bashir no, he might become a martyr

The world should arm the victims in Darfur so they can defend themselves unrealistic

Sudan needs Iraq-style "regime change" after seeing the results in Iraq, I'm not exactly jumping with enthusiasm for this

Nothing should be done unacceptable, after the holocaust we said "never again. after Rwanda we said "never again". let's not have to say that again.

And that's why Hitler happened: it was a European problem.

no Hitler happened because of numerous political issues and whose aggressiveness was allowed to keep a strong nation to fight Soviet influence

People who keep saying that it's the other person's problem are one of the reasons problems last so long.

okay you go and invade North Korea I think I will sit that one out

We shouldn't do a damn thing about this. Its not our problem. Let the africans fix themselves. If that means all of them killing each other, fine by me.

Nothing should be done unacceptable, after the holocaust we said "never again. after Rwanda we said "never again". let's not have to say that again.

oh please. Its not even a genocide, it may elements of genocide but its no genocide.

no Hitler happened because of numerous political issues and whose aggressiveness was allowed to keep a strong nation to fight Soviet influence

If the US would have become involved earlier, millions of lives could have been saved.

okay you go and invade North Korea I think I will sit that one out

So let's send other people to do the work that everyone needs to do. That's the problem I'm talking about.

oh please. Its not even a genocide, it may elements of genocide but its no genocide.

How so? Elaborate please?

Of course, we won't mean it, unless the person committing genocide is named Saddam. :(
Even then we didn't do anything about it.

Arms drop over the areas where the people who are being genocided live.
I disagree. While I sympathise with the victims, I don't trust them with weapons. They will either not know how to use them, or they might go and take revenge on innocent Arabs, or any other groups they're bigoted against, rather than simply defend themselves. I'm sure the government of Chad would have none of it either.

oh please. Its not even a genocide, it may elements of genocide but its no genocide.
Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'jen-&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Sounds like Darfur fits in there.

We shouldn't force people to fight when there are others than can do it for them.Is this sarcasm? There is no right to intervene without being asked to.

I disagree. While I sympathise with the victims, I don't trust them with weapons. They will either not know how to use them, or they might go and take revenge on innocent Arabs, or any other groups they're bigoted against, rather than simply defend themselves. I'm sure the government of Chad would have none of it either.Certainly this is possible, but it seems to me that it will result in fewer deaths than any other avenue.

But who wants to do that, especially if there is no clear end-goal in sight?

Look at Iraq (I know, I know- but I'm not using it to 'bash' anyone). At the moment, the situation requires long term commitment. Commitment that is really only ever given by organisations like the UN. The U.S et al are great at wars, but they suck at peacekeeping (not an insult, it's just true).
If forces are spread out equally from a number of nations, the costs to each involved force would be minimal.

If forces are spread out equally from a number of nations, the costs to each involved force would be minimal.

Which nations do you have in mind?

Start showing endless repetitions of George Clooney movies. That'll show them to mess around with Film Actors.

oh please. Its not even a genocide, it may elements of genocide but its no genocide.
Bands of armed men going around killing everyone of a certain race that they find, with a view to eliminating that race from their territory? It's a classic case of genocide. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 have been murdered so far.

If the US would have become involved earlier, millions of lives could have been saved.

if is a big question why would America want to step into a possible repeat of WWI and why would America do all this because of Poland?

So let's send other people to do the work that everyone needs to do. That's the problem I'm talking about.

I'm allergic to dying for stupid causes if a mad dictator stays in there own country and doesn’t mind U.N sanctions why should anyone die to get rid of them and rebuild the country?

If forces are spread out equally from a number of nations, the costs to each involved force would be minimal.

You mean like... what.... the United Nations peacekeeping missions are always like....?

If the US would have become involved earlier, millions of lives could have been saved.


yeah, but they're africans. Why the hell would you want Americans to die for that?

Is this sarcasm? There is no right to intervene without being asked to.

Certainly this is possible, but it seems to me that it will result in fewer deaths than any other avenue.
Actually I think what would most likely happen would be that that Janjaweed (who have horses and cars) would probably pick up most of the weapons once they heard about this programme.

yeah, but they're africans. Why the hell would you want Americans to die for that?
Racist.

yeah, but they're africans. Why the hell would you want Americans to die for that?

Keep the racist garbage out of my threads, thanks.

Bands of armed men going around killing everyone of a certain race that they find, with a view to eliminating that race from their territory? It's a classic case of genocide. Somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 have been murdered so far.

its only 100,000 to 300,000. Thats why it may have elements of genocide but I dont see how you can jump to conclusions.

if is a big question why would America want to step into a possible repeat of WWI and why would America do all this because of Poland?

Because it was never about Poland solely. Poland was just the last straw. And it very quickly was seen what Hitler wanted and that should have been enough to make everyone oppose him.

I'm allergic to dying for stupid causes if a mad dictator stays in there own country and doesn’t mind U.N sanctions why should anyone die to get rid of them and rebuild the country?

Liberating people from oppressive uncaring dictators is a stupid cause?

Ridding the world of men who wouldn't mind dying so long as everyone else died with them is a stupid cause?

yeah, but they're africans. Why the hell would you want Americans to die for that?One American life is worth no more than one African life. Therefore, 1,000 Americans dying to save 100,000 African lives is worth it.

Actually I think what would most likely happen would be that that Janjaweed (who have horses and cars) would probably pick up most of the weapons once they heard about this programme.Possibly; naturally the exact places where the drops take place would have to be changed each time.

If the west refuses to interevene, we'll be accused of being complicit in genocide. If we do intervene then we'll be accused of perpetrating genocide because of the people we kill in the war. If we're going to be accused of genocide we may as well do so in a way which suits us. That may sound callous, but we can't always be expected to sort out the rest of the world's problems.

And I find it funny how our dear Prime Minister is starting to put Darfur back on the agenda while trying so hard to keep it off before. Obviously desperate to make his mark on history now that he knows the game's up. Pathetic.

yeah, but they're africans. Why the hell would you want Americans to die for that?

The real question is: why would any human not be willing to face death to protect his fellow man?

Keep the racist garbage out of my threads, thanks.

I think he was mentioning the fact that being a 3rd world nation with no real international connections tends to make interest less likely

also its true people tend to care about groups who they fit themselves into it also doesn’t help that the general public consensus is that Africa is a shit-hole

Keep the racist garbage out of my threads, thanks.
that wasnt my point smart one, this isnt a black/white issue. Its an issue that Americans should only die for American interests, which Darfur clearly isnt.

that wasnt my point smart one, this isnt a black/white issue. Its an issue that Americans should only die for American interests, which Darfur clearly isnt.

And humans should die for human issues. And this genocide is a human issue.

that wasnt my point smart one, this isnt a black/white issue. Its an issue that Americans should only die for American interests, which Darfur clearly isnt.

My misunderstanding. Sorry.

One American life is worth no more than one African life. Therefore, 1,000 Americans dying to save 100,000 African lives is worth it.



BULLSHIT

If the west refuses to interevene, we'll be accused of being complicit in genocide.
That's odd, I'd imagine that you'd be jumping at the chance to put the British troops back in Africa.

BULLSHITHow so?

That's odd, I'd imagine that you'd be jumping at the chance to put the British troops back in Africa.
What makes you think that? The last thing I want is for Britain to be dragged into other people's problems. What I would like to see is Swiss-style neutrality in international affairs.

Because it was never about Poland solely. Poland was just the last straw. And it very quickly was seen what Hitler wanted and that should have been enough to make everyone oppose him.

no Britain said it would protect Poland’s sovereignty and so it did (albeit failing miserably)

Liberating people from oppressive uncaring dictators is a stupid cause?

yep as long as there not attacking other nations why bother its not our fight and its not our place to say what is right and wrong for a sovereign state (albeit sanctions are good a pointing nations in a direction that helps us)

Ridding the world of men who wouldn't mind dying so long as everyone else died with them is a stupid cause?

yep so long as they don't act it out why should we force them to?

And I find it funny how our dear Prime Minister is starting to put Darfur back on the agenda while trying so hard to keep it off before. Obviously desperate to make his mark on history now that he knows the game's up. Pathetic.
Or, alternatively, he knows the exact date the real genocide may begin (as if 200.000+ people killed this far isn't enough). The AU peacekeepers are due to leave September the 30th. After that those 2 million people driven from their homes are in even graeter danger to be killed.

Or, alternatively, he knows the exact date the real genocide may begin (as if 200.000+ people killed this far isn't enough). The AU peacekeepers are due to leave September the 30th. After that those 2 million people driven from their homes are in even graeter danger to be killed.

or he could be just all talk so that when the genocide is over and everyone is out feeling bad he can point the finger with the lie that he tried to do something

no Britain said it would protect Poland’s sovereignty and so it did (albeit failing miserably)

Protecting Poland's sovereignty wouldn't have been an issue if the issues of Germany's expansionism and disregard for the international organizations were not issues to begin with.

yep as long as there not attacking other nations why bother its not our fight and its not our place to say what is right and wrong for a sovereign state (albeit sanctions are good a pointing nations in a direction that helps us)

So, morality and human life are to be sacrificed for usefulness. That is what is wrong with international policy in this world.

yep so long as they don't act it out why should we force them to?

Maybe because they are going to act it out?

Why else would N Korea be developing nukes? Or Iran? Or Syria with its WMD's?

or he could be just all talk so that when the genocide is over and everyone is out feeling bad he can point the finger with the lie that he tried to do somethingOr that, yes. Many possible explanations. Somehow I'd like to believe the one I offered, even though I don't much like your 'dear prime minister'.

Or that, yes. Many possible explanations. Somehow I'd like to believe the one I offered, even though I don't much like your 'dear prime minister'.
Surely you don't honestly think that he cares? It doesn't matter to him wether it's 200,000, 2 million or 20 million. It's a classic method of distracting the public from the way this country's been going down the toilet.

Well, I'd like to think he cares, but I'm deeply cynical by nature...

Stop hijacking, please.

Stop hijacking, please.

My apologies.

You mean like... what.... the United Nations peacekeeping missions are always like....?

Is the United Nations doing anything?

Protecting Poland's sovereignty wouldn't have been an issue if the issues of Germany's expansionism and disregard for the international organizations were not issues to begin with.

considering many people felt sorry for Germany and absolutely no one wants another trench war they could of gotten away with anything but attacking France or Poland also the Soviet Union was just too much of a threat

So, morality and human life are to be sacrificed for usefulness. That is what is wrong with international policy in this world.

What your proposing is WWIII over a cause that has nothing to do with your nations best interest that is not good international policy


Maybe because they are going to act it out?

Not with so much to lose and so little to gain (also the fact that everyone knows that they can’t win is a definite plus)

Why else would N Korea be developing nukes? Or Iran? Or Syria with its WMD's?

Protection of course it’s the only thing that seems to scare America these days

Or that, yes. Many possible explanations. Somehow I'd like to believe the one I offered

I wouldn’t because it means that he also plans to invade much of the world for human rights abuses

considering many people felt sorry for Germany and absolutely no one wants another trench war they could of gotten away with anything but attacking France or Poland also the Soviet Union was just too much of a threat

What your proposing is WWIII over a cause that has nothing to do with your nations best interest that is not good international policy


Not with so much to lose and so little to gain (also the fact that everyone knows that they can’t win is a definite plus)

Protection of course it’s the only thing that seems to scare America these days

I wouldn’t because it means that he also plans to invade much of the world for human rights abuses

I'm going to bed and we got yelled at for hijacking the thread, so I'm going to start a thread on this subject tomorrow.

I wouldn’t because it means that he also plans to invade much of the world for human rights abusesIt does? I don't see it. I would think he makes a distiction between a fullscale genocide is probably 11 days away and
People are being oppressed in various ways around the world, let's invade

Me thinks that Kitchener must be rolling in his grave

Is this sarcasm? There is no right to intervene without being asked to.
Says you. Sometimes people have to be forced into help for their own good.

Says you. Sometimes people have to be forced into help for their own good.Yikes, huge slippery slope you're on there.

How so?

How are Africans lives worth more than American?

How are Africans lives worth more than American?One life is worth one life. This would mean that 100,000 lives would be worth more than 1,000 lives. If the 100,000 lives are African, then intervention is worth it.

If the US military wasn't mired in Iraq, it wouldn't take too many troops to make a difference.
Let's see here...

World's most powerful military w/ helicopters, tanks, fighter jets, morals
v.
Arab horsemen w/ AK-47s

We could get some other countries to participate. Or we could even pull a battalion or two from Iraq.

Though I agree that regime change isn't going to work.

One life is worth one life. This would mean that 100,000 lives would be worth more than 1,000 lives. If the 100,000 lives are African, then intervention is worth it.

No its not, not even close. Would you die for this? would you want your family to die for this? Because I certainly wouldn't as it doesn't help my country if I do.

Should the UN send peacekeepers? Should countries send peacekeepers, but not under the auspices of the UN? Should sanctions be imposed? Or it should be declared an "internal affair" and allowed to proceed as before? Or something else?

Share your thoughts.
Who gives a shit about muslim black people?

If the US military wasn't mired in Iraq, it wouldn't take too many troops to make a difference.
Let's see here...

World's most powerful military w/ helicopters, tanks, fighter jets, morals
v.
Arab horsemen w/ AK-47s

We could get some other countries to participate. Or we could even pull a battalion or two from Iraq.

Though I agree that regime change isn't going to work.

You do realise that arab horsemen w/ AKs is basically what the US is fighting in Iraq right now and isn't exactly winning right?

No, the US is fighting sneaky guerillas in Iraq. Those guys are WAY harder to kill.

Call to power, Dude, Let me introduce you to some new characters on your keyboard.

1) Period: That's the one on the buttom of your keyboard toward the right, that looks like this . It is useful to put a stop between different sentences.

2) Comma: The character at its left, that looks like this , It is useful for putting a breathing space within a sentence.

This is what your message should look like:
Yep, as long as they're not attacking other nations, why bother? It's not our fight, and it's not our place to say what is right and wrong for a sovereign state (albeit sanctions are good a pointing nations in a direction that helps us).

Now, to the point:

Nations are an arbitrary subdivision of the Human race. They are attcking defenceless humans, and yes, it is our fight, it is every other human being's fight. It is our and everyone else's place to step in when other groups or states, sovereign or not, are comitting Crimes against Humanity as described in International Law.

Sanctions are quite useless: as has been pointed out already, they usually cause more harm to the poor oppressed people than to the ruling parties, and only work, if at all, in the very long term. The situation in Darfur needs immediate intervention, before there remains no one to save from Genocide.

Nothing. Eventually they'll kill each other and we'll find another tragidy to pretend to care about.

No its not, not even close. Would you die for this? would you want your family to die for this? Because I certainly wouldn't as it doesn't help my country if I do.

I would die for this. Not everyone is like you. We have this thing called empathy.

Send a UN peacekeeping force and arm the victims.

What makes you think that? The last thing I want is for Britain to be dragged into other people's problems. What I would like to see is Swiss-style neutrality in international affairs.
Didn't you once say that de-colonisation was Britain's most stupid mistake after WWII?

yep as long as there not attacking other nations why bother its not our fight and its not our place to say what is right and wrong for a sovereign state
Normally, yes but the line is definitely drawn at genocide.

No its not, not even close. Would you die for this? would you want your family to die for this?
You're reduced to making emotional appeals now?

Who gives a shit about muslim black people?
Why did you become a right-wing bigot ever since you got back from Israel?

Didn't you once say that de-colonisation was Britain's most stupid mistake after WWII?
I think you must have mistaken me for someone else. Besides, even if I do look back fondly to the days of the British Empire it doesn't mean I think we should try and revive it. The world has changed a lot. So I think now's the time now for Britain to stop being dragged into everybody else's problems.

I'd say send in the UN but the force would have to actually be able to do something with their weapons. Sending them to do something hardly better than watching wouldn't help.

Who gives a shit about muslim black people?

Most of the blacks in Sudan are animist or Christian...

I would die for this. Not everyone is like you. We have this thing called empathy.

have fun dying for the lost cause that is Africa. Its a shame cause you could have had a great life in the west. But go, die for the skinnys.

You're reduced to making emotional appeals now?

your reduced to not answering the question arent you?

Why did you become a right-wing bigot ever since you got back from Israel?
how is she a bigot?

how is she a bigot?

Here you go:

Who gives a shit about muslim black people?

Here you go:

I don't see how that statement makes you a bigot

I don't see how that statement makes you a bigot

Well, heres a dictionary definition:

bigotry

noun

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike. (link (http://www.answers.com/bigotry&r=67))

"Who gives a shit about muslim black people?" fits that perfectly.

I'd be called a bigot if women were killed in Darfur and said ''who gives a shit about women'' so the same can be said of "muslim black people". Even if they were muslim.

Darfur is an African problem. Sudanese sovereignty prevents anyone intervening unless the situation directly impinges upon their own nation – so essentially Sudan’s neighbors have a right to get involved, but nobody else does. Since Chad and the Central African Republic (the two most affected nations) do not seriously want to get involved, why should everyone else?

If you believe people should gladly sacrifice their life to save the life of another, why are you online? The money you spend on a computer, internet, etc is money that could be spent feeding the hungry. Why do you not scrimp and save every penny, to the point of living on the verge of starvation, so that food can be provided to those in famine prone areas?

How about if the UN imposed sanctions on the US because of capital punishment? Most governments of the world consider that to be inhumane yet there are no multinational forces being gathered for an invasion.

This is a problem limited to a small region – outside that region nobody has any say in what goes on in Darfur.

Darfur is an African problem. Sudanese sovereignty prevents anyone intervening unless the situation directly impinges upon their own nation – so essentially Sudan’s neighbors have a right to get involved, but nobody else does. Since Chad and the Central African Republic (the two most affected nations) do not seriously want to get involved, why should everyone else?

Soverignty is one thing, but this is quite another. After the Rwandan genocide we said "Never again". And if nothing happens, that is will be what happens, indeed, if it is not already happening.

It is, in short, not within a nation's soverign right to ethnically cleanse a population.

In any case, the reason the Sudanese neighbours do nothing is because they can't. They are poverty-ridden and undoubtedly do not have the military power to do so.

If you believe people should gladly sacrifice their life to save the life of another, why are you online? The money you spend on a computer, internet, etc is money that could be spent feeding the hungry. Why do you not scrimp and save every penny, to the point of living on the verge of starvation, so that food can be provided to those in famine prone areas?

We provide aid. Not enough, undoubtedly, but we do. We help others to what we see to be the best of our ability.

How about if the UN imposed sanctions on the US because of capital punishment? Most governments of the world consider that to be inhumane yet there are no multinational forces being gathered for an invasion.

Because the UN has no mandate to do so.

This is a problem limited to a small region – outside that region nobody has any say in what goes on in Darfur.

Well, the people in Darfur would say that the Sudan shouldn't have a say over Darfur either.

have fun dying for the lost cause that is Africa. Its a shame cause you could have had a great life in the west. But go, die for the skinnys.

It would be nice if you even got the correct derogatory term. "Skinnys" (or skinnies) refer to Somalis, not Sudanese or those from Darfur or the continent of Africa in general. But hey, they're black- so who gives a fuck eh?

Darfur is an African problem. Sudanese sovereignty prevents anyone intervening unless the situation directly impinges upon their own nation – so essentially Sudan’s neighbors have a right to get involved, but nobody else does. Since Chad and the Central African Republic (the two most affected nations) do not seriously want to get involved, why should everyone else?

If you believe people should gladly sacrifice their life to save the life of another, why are you online? The money you spend on a computer, internet, etc is money that could be spent feeding the hungry. Why do you not scrimp and save every penny, to the point of living on the verge of starvation, so that food can be provided to those in famine prone areas?

How about if the UN imposed sanctions on the US because of capital punishment? Most governments of the world consider that to be inhumane yet there are no multinational forces being gathered for an invasion.

This is a problem limited to a small region – outside that region nobody has any say in what goes on in Darfur.

The US could easily invent another fiction, somehow making Darfur a threat to the world, then pull of of Iraq (where it's a much more even Civil War going on), and send those troops to Darfur. Heck, this time we might even get some international support.

I would love it if the UN tried to impose sanctions on the US because of capital punishment. The US has enough control over the UN nothing would ever come to fruit, and it would remind the US that the rest of the world has a mind of it's own.

Nations exist, primarily, to provide military protection to those within their borders. If genocide is occuring within a nation's borders I don't think it qualifies as a nation anymore. At best it is a former nation now engaged in civil war.

nuke it

lol

nuke it

lol

Which part?

nuke it

lol

What sort of nuke would you propose? We've got enough nukes to take out the whole continent, and render it unable to support human life for the foreseeable future.

nuke it

lol

So the solution to a genocide is to kill the targets of said genocide?

I think that a multinational, UN led force should invade Sudan, arrest the people in charge of the country and anyone in connection to the planning or ordering of the current genocide. When we say "Never Again" about genocide, we should god damn mean it.
I second this notion. A multinational force consisting of A.U., E.U., and other nations under the supervision of the U.N. with a solide mandate should be sent in to at least secure and protect the refugee camps.
This is an African problem. It is up to the AU to act (or not act). Western intervention has proven time and time again to be counterproductive.
If that's so, like pointed out by others, the Shoa/Holocaust was a German/European problem, too. But that's not how it works, nor should work.
Western intervention is not the problem, the problem is with which aims and goals the intervention takes place.
An intervention would be as justified as it has been in the Balkans or would have been in Ruanda.
oh please. Its not even a genocide, it may elements of genocide but its no genocide.
Would you rather wait for it to become one?
its only 100,000 to 300,000. Thats why it may have elements of genocide but I dont see how you can jump to conclusions.
When you're talking about "only" 100,000 to 300,000 humans, you are aware that this would constitute the complete destruction of cities like Clarksville (TN), Columbia (SC), Fayetteville (NC), Syracuse (NY), Kansas City (KS), Fort Lauderdale (FL), Salt Lake City (UT), San Bernardino (CA), or maybe even Buffalo (NY) or Pittsburgh (PA).

Something is very wrong with how you view and "measure" human lives.
No its not, not even close. Would you die for this? would you want your family to die for this? Because I certainly wouldn't as it doesn't help my country if I do.
Your attitude is really sad, because sometimes doing the right thing serves your country more than the entanglements the U.S. and others have gotten involved in over the last 50 years.
Who gives a shit about muslim black people?
I do, because they are human. Your attitude sickens me and needs serious readjustment.
nuke it

lol
Which of your two braincells came up with that "smart" idea? That's the dumbest post in this thread, even with all that competition!

I second this notion. A multinational force consisting of A.U., E.U., and other nations under the supervision of the U.N. with a solide mandate should be sent in to at least secure and protect the refugee camps.

Securing and protecting the refugee camps doesn't solve the problem. You would be in the inenviable position of being there forever.

Also, I'm sure the janjaweed militia could do to you what the insurgents in Iraq do every day - put a few IEDs in the road and blow up a few EU troops a day until your people call for them to come home - meanwhile, if your troops make any mistakes at all, the Arab world will be calling you right bastards.

You have to replace the Sudanese government, and cripple both sides ability to wage war on each other - especially the Sudanese military and the janjaweed militias.

You have to replace the Sudanese government, and cripple both sides ability to wage war on each other - especially the Sudanese military and the janjaweed militias.

you would start this by stopping the flow of Toyota trucks and parts into Sudan...

Securing and protecting the refugee camps doesn't solve the problem. You would be in the inenviable position of being there forever.

Also, I'm sure the janjaweed militia could do to you what the insurgents in Iraq do every day - put a few IEDs in the road and blow up a few EU troops a day until your people call for them to come home - meanwhile, if your troops make any mistakes at all, the Arab world will be calling you right bastards.

You have to replace the Sudanese government, and cripple both sides ability to wage war on each other - especially the Sudanese military and the janjaweed militias.
It would, however, solve the immediate problem of the ongoing killings. That's why I said "at least", and not "only".

I second this notion. A multinational force consisting of A.U., E.U., and other nations under the supervision of the U.N. with a solide mandate should be sent in to at least secure and protect the refugee camps.
And in the process wasting western resources.

If that's so, like pointed out by others, the Shoa/Holocaust was a German/European problem, too. But that's not how it works, nor should work.
Western intervention is not the problem, the problem is with which aims and goals the intervention takes place.
An intervention would be as justified as it has been in the Balkans or would have been in Ruanda.

its not our place
Would you rather wait for it to become one?
yep, even then I still don't think we should do anything.

When you're talking about "only" 100,000 to 300,000 humans, you are aware that this would constitute the complete destruction of cities like Clarksville (TN), Columbia (SC), Fayetteville (NC), Syracuse (NY), Kansas City (KS), Fort Lauderdale (FL), Salt Lake City (UT), San Bernardino (CA), or maybe even Buffalo (NY) or Pittsburgh (PA).
That is COMPLETELY different
Something is very wrong with how you view and "measure" human lives.
No there isn't. I'm a realist buddy, not a bleeding heart idealist.
Your attitude is really sad, because sometimes doing the right thing serves your country more than the entanglements the U.S. and others have gotten involved in over the last 50 years.
Why it is the "right thing" and how the hell could it possible serve the interests of my country more than say securing the oil supply.

I do, because they are human. Your attitude sickens me and needs serious readjustment.
Most people accept some are more human than others. Try it sometime.

And in the process wasting western resources.

People are worth more than money. ALWAYS.

Most people accept some are more human than others. Try it sometime.
How many more criteria does Soviestan have to fulfill before he can be safely termed a sociopath?

People are worth more than money. ALWAYS.
Resources isnt just money. Its supplies, people, manpower, political capital, money and other things that could be spent on better things.

How many more criteria does Soviestan have to fulfill before he can be safely termed a sociopath?\
:rolleyes:

And in the process wasting western resources.
Hello? Wasting ressources is using one quarter of the annual oil production, driving SUVs that go 20mpg and having to fight wars over something as worthless as oil.
Helping people survive, however, never is a waste of ressources, be they "Western" or whatever.

its not our place
It is if you value human rights and life itself.
yep, even then I still don't think we should do anything.
Unbelievable. I don't know whether to be disgusted or pissed off by that statement. Both, I think.
That is COMPLETELY different.
No, it is not at all different. It puts those numbers in relation. A human life is a human life, no matter whose, nor where on this planet.
No there isn't. I'm a realist buddy, not a bleeding heart idealist.
Don't you buddy me, for I'm most definitely not your buddy or anything alike.
I could come up with a lengthy list of ugly words that would describe how I feel about you and your attitude, though.

If your position is considered "realistic", how far detached from reality are you, then?
Why it is the "right thing" and how the hell could it possible serve the interests of my country more than say securing the oil supply.
I'm speechless. Something that rarely happens.
Most people accept some are more human than others.
Then "most people" clearly are wrong, and I'm not with "most people".
Try it sometime.
Never. It's bad enough the likes of you think that way.

Resources isnt just money. Its supplies, people, manpower, political capital, money and other things that could be spent on better things.


:rolleyes:

It's also international good will, national reputation, etc..

Securing oil supplies isn't that hard a task. I would assume you brought it up because you are comparing this to Darfur to Iraq?

The oil in Iraq did make it a lost more cost effective to invade Iraq then Darfur. It lowered the financial burden of reconstruction, etc. As much as I disagree with how that invasion was planned, sold, and executed I don't believe we went in for oil. Oil just isn't that expensive, or necessary.

If you want a purely national self interest reason for invading a country, look at the track record of nations that the US has invaded. Hawai is a state, Japan a strong ally and trade partner, same with South Korea, etc..

Look at Britain, the bulk of it's former colonies are still strong allies.

Admittedly, some times it back fires invading a nation. However when it is deemed justified it tends to pay off for the invading country.

Hello? Wasting ressources is using one quarter of the annual oil production, driving SUVs that go 20mpg and having to fight wars over something as worthless as oil.
Helping people survive, however, never is a waste of ressources, be they "Western" or whatever.
They're africans. Even if we stop them from being killed whats going to happen? They will live 40-50 years tops(and I dont mean longer, I mean total) in grass huts w/ no water. I think they'd rather die than us "help them to survive."
It is if you value human rights and life itself.
Human life only has the value you put on it. Don't believe me? You would save those you love above strangers.
Unbelievable. I don't know whether to be disgusted or pissed off by that statement. Both, I think.
The truth hurts, I know.
A human life is a human life, no matter whose, nor where on this planet.
In a perfect world this would be true. In the world we live in it couldn't be farther from the truth.
Don't you buddy me, for I'm most definitely not your buddy or anything alike.
I could come up with a lengthy list of ugly words that would describe how I feel about you and your attitude, though.
but I want to be your friend.

In a perfect world this would be true. In the world we live in it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Then which side are you on?

Then which side are you on?

The side of my culture? I'm not sure I understand your question

Who gives a shit about muslim black people?
Anyone with a heart?

And I say - send in some UN peacekeepers, for sure.

Do not arm the victims - we saw what happens when one side reverses the terrible situation situation it's in and takes equal vengeance, in Rwanda.

And that kind of thing really shouldn't be repeated. No way.

The side of my culture? I'm not sure I understand your question

Are you one of the more human, or one of the less human?

Are you one of the more human, or one of the less human?

More human.

More human.

And how is that decided?

Here's a thought: If we do intervene and take out, Bashir, Africa and the rest of the Third World will scream, "Imperialism!" If we sit back and do nothing, or don't do enough, they'll accuse us of being "racist" and not caring about their welfare. Which makes it all the more difficult.

your right. So heres my thought some one said this before and i totally agree when a government cant prevent or particpates in gennocide they lose all right to soverginty and some one should march in and sort the bastards out. And who cares what the third world screams tell them we will do the same do any damn country that allows gennocide.

, after the holocaust we said "never again. after Rwanda we said "never again". let's not have to say that again.[/B]

Right well i think the world needs to make it very clear this shit will not be tolerated anymore march in overthrow the damn regime and make it very clear any regime that allows this kind of crap will get the same treatment.

They're africans. Even if we stop them from being killed whats going to happen? They will live 40-50 years tops(and I dont mean longer, I mean total) in grass huts w/ no water. I think they'd rather die than us "help them to survive."

People should be allowed the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Sure, the United States Constitution refers to the government that it was intended to establish but as a people under such a constitution, should we not wish the same basic human rights on others?

Besides, we aren't gods here... it's not our right to choose whether or not other people would rather die than for us to "help them to survive." We do what we can.

In a perfect world this would be true. In the world we live in it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean that it there's no place for a sense of morality. Perhaps it is this type of mentality that made the world the way it is today.

People should be allowed the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. Sure, the United States Constitution refers to the government that it was intended to establish but as a people under such a constitution, should we not wish the same basic human rights on others?

Besides, we aren't gods here... it's not our right to choose whether or not other people would rather die than for us to "help them to survive." We do what we can.



Just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean that it there's no place for a sense of morality. Perhaps it is this type of mentality that made the world the way it is today.Nice first post. :fluffle: I agree with these sentiments.

They're africans. Even if we stop them from being killed whats going to happen? They will live 40-50 years tops(and I dont mean longer, I mean total) in grass huts w/ no water. I think they'd rather die than us "help them to survive."

http://www.section.at/img/smiley/klatschy.gif You sicken me beyond comparison: That is the biggest racist bullshit I have ever read on this forum.

Are you a mentally retarded or simply lobotomized? http://planetsmilies.net/tongue-smiley-8849.gif

Human life only has the value you put on it. Don't believe me? You would save those you love above strangers.
Of course I would save family and friends before I'd help a total stranger if I had to make that choice.
That is called a dilemma, a situation in which there is no real solution. I would, however, take more into account than "simply" the "value" of life.
But by saving my loved ones first, I wouldn't debase the other person's "value" of life, nor question his right to live. I just couldn't save it.

I have been in a situation in which I had to make the call which person to help and rescue first. And I based that decision purely on what was possible and could be done - not on whether I knew the persons or "how much I valued" their lives, for that doesn't have anything to do with a likewise situation.

Yet, I get the feeling that you'd let a man drown, and watch, and probably even enjoy yourself if that person had the "wrong" skin color. Hell, maybe you'd even throw stones at him. And why not? After all, he will only live for another minute or two tops, so you'd actually be doing him a favor by putting him out of his misery, right? :rolleyes:

The truth hurts, I know.
Your idiocy opens up a whole new level of hurt. And your concept of "truth" is, mildly spoken, 180° reversed.

In a perfect world this would be true. In the world we live in it couldn't be farther from the truth.
And that attitude is exactly the reason why this world still is much too far from even being alright.

As for your misuse of the word truth, go and learn what true, truthful truthiness is all about, a'ight?

but I want to be your friend.
No. http://planetsmilies.net/tongue-smiley-8865.gif

Wait, let me rephrase that: Never. :p

I don't befriend moronic sociopaths. Talking to them here is more than enough already.


http://planetsmilies.net/tongue-smiley-8856.gifMore human.
HIHIHIHIHIhttp://www.section.at/img/smiley/kicher.gifHAHAHAHAHAhttp://www.section.at/img/smiley/lacheny.gifHOHOHOHOHO!

Right. http://www.section.at/img/smiley/lachen.gif

===
@ Alondra: Thank you for your (first) post! I concur.

http://www.section.at/img/smiley/klatschy.gif You sicken me beyond comparison: That is the biggest racist bullshit I have ever read on this forum.
How Am I racist? please do tell

Are you a mentally retarded or simply lobotomized?
neither, Im a genius
Of course I would save family and friends before I'd help a total stranger if I had to make that choice.
That is called a dilemma, a situation in which there is no real solution. I would, however, take more into account than "simply" the "value" of life.
But by saving my loved ones first, I wouldn't debase the other person's "value" of life, nor question his right to live. I just couldn't save it.
And this to is dilemma. To waste resources or not. I say not.


Yet, I get the feeling that you'd let a man drown, and watch, and probably even enjoy yourself if that person had the "wrong" skin color. Hell, maybe you'd even throw stones at him. And why not? After all, he will only live for another minute or two tops, so you'd actually be doing him a favor by putting him out of his misery, right? :rolleyes:
skin colour has nothing to do with this little debate.


I don't befriend moronic sociopaths. Talking to them here is more than enough already.

What makes me a moronic sociopath?

How Am I racist? please do tell

neither, Im a genius
Of course I would save family and friends before I'd help a total stranger if I had to make that choice.

And this to is dilemma. To waste resources or not. I say not.

skin colour has nothing to do with this little debate.

What makes me a moronic sociopath?

Soviestan, you have to understand that to some people on NS General, if you disparage, demean, or hold less valuable some group that they perceive as being "brown skinned people" (which includes me, since I'm Korean), you're automatically a racist moronic sociopath.

I would agree that merely sending troops to the Sudan would be a waste of time. The fundamental problem of the struggle between the ethnic and religious groups cannot be solved by standing guard over one group while preventing the other group from engaging in murder.

And some struggles cannot be resolved by talk.

The usual pattern for Western intervention in such matters is that people tend to kill the Western soldiers until the Western electorate gets fed up and the soldiers go home - then the killing resumes.

Without fundamentally changing the political landscape - without completely neutering the Sudanese military and the janjaweed militias - without removing the current Sudanese government from any hope of ever wielding power from now until the end of time, sending anyone to the Sudan is a waste of time.

Soviestan, you have to understand that to some people on NS General, if you disparage, demean, or hold less valuable some group that they perceive as being "brown skinned people" (which includes me, since I'm Korean), you're automatically a racist moronic sociopath.It's entirely possible for racial minorities to be racist.

And some struggles cannot be resolved by talk.How do we know which struggles they are? Perhaps the right words just haven't been said?

n

I'm with Soviestan and Deep Kimchi there... if you can't outright kill them, let them starve. There's too many non-white people in the world (sure, DK says he is non-white, but he is lying).

Can't you people see! This bus can't take all of you! Some have to die!

And now, let us pray.

I'm with Soviestan and Deep Kimchi there... if you can't outright kill them, let them starve. There's too many non-white people in the world (sure, DK says he is non-white, but he is lying).

Can't you people see! This bus can't take all of you! Some have to die!

And now, let us pray.

You're joking, right?

You're joking, right?

Of course he is. Hence the "And now, let us pray" at the end.

Of course he is. Hence the "And now, let us pray" at the end.

When by blood pressure doubles, I lose the ability to read to the end of a post. D'oh...:headbang:

A PLAN

First of all, I hope Novemberstan is kidding. Secondly, I think that Sudan's government needs "replacement." I'm not talking about an invasion, I'm talking about- terribly sorry to say this- a puppet government.

The leader could be replaced with a decoy (Most dictators have them; if not, one could be trained.), and the decoy will suffer a mild heart attack (a fake one). Realizing his mortality, he will appoint a successor (or appoint a new successor if the real ruler already had one). He will announce to his generals that international pressure has led him to feel skittish about the genocide, and ask them to stop until the pressure cools off. Several months later, he will suffer a fatal heart attack (to which his doctor will attest), and will be smuggled out of the country back to his home nation. His successor (who, of course, will be on our side) will take his place as leader and will announce that he hated the old dictator's policies and wants things to drastically change. He will allow in foreign aid at the same time as created a Constitution and a three-branch secular government (much like what exists in the U.S. (though the American Congress is sadly not so secular anymore)). Human rights will be added, a full apology will be issued to the people of Darfur (to show that he does not support genocide and the program is over (any generals who disagree may be fired and/or deported)), and his term will- within four years of his enstatement- expire an will be followed by UN monitored elections. Though I know the notion of a puppet government sounds disgusting, I'd be willing to advocate almost anything so long as it ends genocide, inhuman cruely, and an oppressive dictatorship. If anyone has any better ways, please do tell me.

[Note: A better way would also have to be at least more-or-less nonviolent, because, as you may have noticed, with the exeption of the dictator and perhaps some of his closest generals being exported to a maximum-security (though certainly humane) prison in a first-world country (one where the laws of the Geneva Convention are observed), no one in Sudan gets hurt, no one dies, and the genocide stops. If you can beat that, tell me.]

First of all, I hope Novemberstan is kidding (It wasn't a very funny joke.). Secondly, I think that Sudan's government needs "replacement." I'm not talking about an invasion, I'm talking about- terribly sorry to say this- a puppet government.

The leader could be replaced with a decoy (Most dictators have them; if not, one could be trained.), and the decoy will suffer a mild heart attack (a fake one). Realizing his mortality, he will appoint a successor (or appoint a new successor if the real ruler already had one). He will announce to his generals that international pressure has led him to feel skittish about the genocide, and ask them to stop until the pressure cools off. Several months later, he will suffer a fatal heart attack (to which his doctor will attest), and will be smuggled out of the country back to his home nation. His successor (who, of course, will be on our side) will take his place as leader and will announce that he hated the old dictator's policies and wants things to drastically change. He will allow in foreign aid at the same time as created a Constitution and a three-branch secular government (much like what exists in the U.S. (though the American Congress is sadly not so secular anymore)). Human rights will be added, a full apology will be issued to the people of Darfur (to show that he does not support genocide and the program is over (any generals who disagree may be fired and/or deported)), and his term will- within four years of his enstatement- expire, thus leading to UN monitored elections. Though I know the notion of a puppet government sounds disgusting, I'd be willing to advocate almost anything so long as it ends genocide, inhuman cruely, and an oppressive dictatorship. If anyone has any better ways, please do tell me.

[Note: A better way would also have to be at least more-or-less nonviolent, because, as you may have noticed, with the exeption of the dictator and perhaps some of his closest generals being exported to a maximum-security (though certainly humane) prison in a first-world country (one where the laws of the Geneva Convention are observed), no one in Sudan gets hurt, no one dies, and the genocide stops. If you can beat that, tell me.]

Yeah, but that would require effort. Something the UN lacks.

Yeah, but that would require effort. Something the UN lacks.

I had actually assumed it would be run by a country (of a coalition of allied countries) such as the U.S. the major countries of the E.U. or some combination of both.

Of course he is. Hence the "And now, let us pray" at the end.
Kisses the golden *GOD* in the head - just beside the bald spot. I can, for most part, be non-sarcastic too, really!

They're africans. Even if we stop them from being killed whats going to happen? They will live 40-50 years tops(and I dont mean longer, I mean total) in grass huts w/ no water. I think they'd rather die than us "help them to survive."

Human life only has the value you put on it. Don't believe me? You would save those you love above strangers.

The truth hurts, I know.

In a perfect world this would be true. In the world we live in it couldn't be farther from the truth.

but I want to be your friend.

They live 40-50 years tops largely because of the turmoil in the region. There short life spans is an argument in favor or intervening in conflicts, not vice versa.

We may all value human life differently, is there human life you don't value? Take "the worst" 1,000 people in the world. If they were the only people in the world they would be very valuable.


Anyone with a heart?

And I say - send in some UN peacekeepers, for sure.

Do not arm the victims - we saw what happens when one side reverses the terrible situation situation it's in and takes equal vengeance, in Rwanda.

And that kind of thing really shouldn't be repeated. No way.

If a minority seeks arms to defend itself against a majority that is killing said minority, I have no problem with that. It is true that said minority may turn on a new minority. But the right to self defense is one of the most basic.

Mind you, if a minority seeks other aid instead, that's even beter.


" Originally Posted by Congo--Kinshasa
Here's a thought: If we do intervene and take out, Bashir, Africa and the rest of the Third World will scream, "Imperialism!" If we sit back and do nothing, or don't do enough, they'll accuse us of being "racist" and not caring about their welfare. Which makes it all the more difficult."

your right. So heres my thought some one said this before and i totally agree when a government cant prevent or particpates in gennocide they lose all right to soverginty and some one should march in and sort the bastards out. And who cares what the third world screams tell them we will do the same do any damn country that allows gennocide.

Who is they? Different people accuse the US of Imperialism then complain about not intervening, usually. Some people call a spade a spade. The US is an empire, and their are places where we can help. We can do more good in Darfur, more easily, then we can in Iraq.

How Am I racist? please do tell
Re-read your posts. It's that fine xenophobic, foreigner-hating undertone that is intertwined in your posts.
neither, Im a genius
Nah - you're simply totally meschugge.
And this to is dilemma. To waste resources or not. I say not.

It is not a dilemma, unless you define letting people be killed not an undesirable consequence.

dilemma
/dilemm, di-/

• noun 1 a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two alternatives, especially when a decision either way will bring undesirable consequences. 2 informal a difficult situation or problem.

— ORIGIN Greek, from di- ‘twice’ + lemma ‘premise’.

skin colour has nothing to do with this little debate.
Why the emphasis on "how Africans are worth less" then? Is this about geology? I'm talking about humans. I don't subdivide that like you apparently do.

What makes me a moronic sociopath?
I don't have morals. I live more by guidelines that may shift to fit my needs.

I don't even need to answer that one - you already did that yourself!

A common dialogue should be found, there's no such thing as peacemaking without Sudan's (government) consent, more like peacemaking (dangerous approach). It seems Western nations are prepared for another troubling and endless war somewhere "out there". Western troops are fighting in Asia (Afghanistan), in the Middle East (Iraq), and while these wars are not settling down yet, they're instigating for other possible wars :headbang: , I guess a fool only learns through the hard way. I thought colonialism had ended but something new is forming, any developing country that doesn't comply with Western interests will be labeled as a threat to peace and should be bombed and now "regime change" or bringing "Democracy" :p . You gotta be foolish to actually believe in these policies will bring peace throughout the world, only hate, distrust, and revenge but you don't have to believe me, like I said before, I guess a fool only learns through the hard way- So take out a pen and a paper and start learning :D

I'm with Soviestan and Deep Kimchi there... if you can't outright kill them, let them starve. There's too many non-white people in the world (sure, DK says he is non-white, but he is lying).

Can't you people see! This bus can't take all of you! Some have to die!

And now, let us pray.

Pretty hard for a Korean to be white. And as far as starving goes, we're not responsible for the asshat behavior of the Sudanese military. We don't fund them, arm them, train them, or anything else.

Why would it be the responsibility of the US to do something? Why not someone else?

Fuck any nation that expects the US to be the world police. Fuck them hard.

Why would it be the responsibility of the US to do something? Why not someone else?

Fuck any nation that expects the US to be the world police. Fuck them hard.If the US does not wish to be the world police, then the US should not act like it is.

Re-read your posts. It's that fine xenophobic, foreigner-hating undertone that is intertwined in your posts.


I think he is playing the part of a xenophobic troll. Perhaps he is a xenophobic troll at heart too, it's tough to say.

Pretty hard for a Korean to be white.

What are you talking about? Asians are the whitest minority in the US! What does white mean to you such that it disqualifies Koreans?

They live 40-50 years tops largely because of the turmoil in the region. There short life spans is an argument in favor or intervening in conflicts, not vice versa.



Why should they have long life spans? That could in turn shorten mine, and I can't let that happen.

Why should they have long life spans? That could in turn shorten mine, and I can't let that happen.

Anything could happen. What's more likely is lengthening their lifespan would lenthen yours.

Anything could happen. What's more likely is lengthening their lifespan would lenthen yours.

how do you figure?

how do you figure?

People's who's lives are nasty, brutish, and short, are more likely to kill you, and less likely to cure cancer.

People's who's lives are nasty, brutish, and short, are more likely to kill you, and less likely to cure cancer.

Also less likely to use up resources, start wars with my country, etc.

Also less likely to use up resources, start wars with my country, etc.No, if their lives are nasty, brutish, and short, they're more likely to start wars with 'your' country; what do they have to lose? It is true that they won't live long enough to use certain resources, but a short life is simply an incentive to waste and destroy things.

If the US does not wish to be the world police, then the US should not act like it is.

Best. Post. Ever.

*gives JB an absolutely humongous cookie*

Best. Post. Ever.

*gives JB an absolutely humongous cookie*Why thank you. Chocolate chip, I hope?

Why thank you. Chocolate chip, I hope?

None other. Homemade, too! :D

None other. Homemade, too! :DWhy thank you. :) Now, is there any way I can help you move your economic score over to the left some?

Why thank you. :) Now, is there any way I can help you move your economic score over to the left some?

Sorry, but no. :P

Sorry, but no. :PCome on, meet me halfway. Be a nice round 0. :)