Around the world, protestors call for action on Darfur

[ludahai]

Which countries supported unilateral action by the US to invade Iraq exactly?
So are you now stating that the UN is useless and should be dismantled?

Where did I state that the UN should be dismantled? As usual, you are creating straw men, something you do quite well.

Some fifty countries (including Taiwan) supported the US-led invasion of Iraq, HARDLY unilateral.

Talk about flip flopping. By the way that signature is in violation of forum rules.

You just hate me exposing your defeat to the rest of the world, don't you?

 

[ludahai]

Well the most obvious culprit is Land Rover British firm breaks Sudan arms boycott-News-World-Africa-TimesOnline. But theres also an issue with small arms. Theres no evidence of direct arms sales from brittian to sudan but it has to be rememberd that small arms tend to pass from one government to the next. Espicially one like pakistan whom the uk has major links with CAAT Briefing - Small Arms, Mass Killing. It should also be noted that brittian has licenced arms sales to 11 of the 20 regimes on the government's own list of the world's most serious human rights abusers. CAAT Press Releases

The obvious difference between any potential action on the sudan issue and iraq is that iraq wasnt about humanitarianism. Saddam was commiting his worst atrocitys. Namely the gassing of hundreds of thousands of kurds, when we where still very much on his side. It seams unlikely to me that the same people who assited saddam in these atrocitys during the iran-iraq war would go on to flatten iraq out of moral outrage. The bush adminstration has given military aid to Saudi Arabia, Morroco, and Colombia. Somehow i doubt their intrest in humanitarianism.

However your right that the UN secuirty council needs sorting out. Its absurd to give totalitarian regimes like china permeanant seats.

While I don't see any evidence that Blair is implicated from your citations, we are in agreement on support to KSA, MAR and COL, though those regimes are not engaged in systematic genocide, and the one on COL is fighting a civil war it may well lose, with terrible implications for the region. I have never been a supporter of US aid to KSA.

We are in total agreement regarding CHN in the UNSC. JPN and IND are far more deserving.

 

[PeteEU]

The question here is why do you seek an excuse to continue to ignore it?

Ahh putting words in my mouth, how classicly of you.

Sorry but why is the US and a few others so focused on Sudan and Darfur and ignoring other attrocities around the world, especially from "allies"?

Is it because there might be oil in the ground in the Sudan?
Is it because that one party in the conflict is muslim?

Or is it because as some claim.. its the right thing to do?.. then what about North Korea, the Indian cast system, Chinese "justice", Chechney and so on? Dont they deserve the same "its the right thing to do"?

While I would love to kick the arse of the janjeweed and others in the Sudan for what they are doing, I cant see why we should send in our boys and girls into a civil war where one side if not both sides dont want us.

It might sound harsh, but why should we risk our men and women in another war that has the quagmire smell all over it? So that some people might get a buzz of "doing the right thing"? Is that justified of 1 or 1000 troops are killed and that we are stuck there for years on end? Remember the Sudan aint a small country.. its over 9 times size of Iraq.. almost 1 million square miles, with a very hostile enviorment and a hostile population.

I ask again, why is Darfur so special?

 

[ludahai]

While I would love to kick the arse of the janjeweed and others in the Sudan for what they are doing, I cant see why we should send in our boys and girls into a civil war where one side if not both sides dont want us.

It might sound harsh, but why should we risk our men and women in another war that has the quagmire smell all over it? So that some people might get a buzz of "doing the right thing"? Is that justified of 1 or 1000 troops are killed and that we are stuck there for years on end? Remember the Sudan aint a small country.. its over 9 times size of Iraq.. almost 1 million square miles, with a very hostile enviorment and a hostile population.

I ask again, why is Darfur so special?

I wish we could do something about ALL of those problems, but obviously we can't. I would LOVE it if the UNSC could agree, but so long as the Chinese will support their friends in Khartoum, this isn't going to happen. I hope China's behavior in this, and other areas, will help the world to see (especially Europeans who want to befriend Beijing) that China is a menace and is NOT contructive to the world.

 

[PeteEU]

I wish we could do something about ALL of those problems, but obviously we can't. I would LOVE it if the UNSC could agree, but so long as the Chinese will support their friends in Khartoum, this isn't going to happen. I hope China's behavior in this, and other areas, will help the world to see (especially Europeans who want to befriend Beijing) that China is a menace and is NOT contructive to the world.

I would love to do something about all the brutal dictators and "hot spots" around the world. But we also have to be realistic.

You are correct that China has its "finger" in the game when it comes to Sudan. But the same reasons that China is blocking any real action against the Sudanese goverment, are also the same reasons that the US is pushing for action. The difference is that the Sudanese are not friendly with the US and they are with China. Both are in it for the possible oil deposits there, nothing more nothing less.

But the US cant do anything because of Iraq and its war on terror, and while European goverments might be leaning towards doing something, they know that another war in a far off remote place, where thier citizens are putting their lives on the line for some undefinable goal.. will frankly not get the support.

On top of that both the US and Europeans should frankly afraid of the logistics and enviorment when talking about Darfur and the Sudan. Sudan is 1 million square miles... thats huge! and most of it is very hot and lots of sand.

But instead we are in a political crap fight. Some in the US accuses the EU for dragging its feet, while working with the EU.. great way to make friends. On top of that the US barely mentions China or others who have interests there. Plus everyone is in agreement (minus the Sudanese of course) to let the Africans deal with it, but they dont recieve the logistical support they have been promised and have a limited mandate to actually do anything.. not to mention almost all come from not so stable countries themselvs.

 

[politic_analyst]

This is a nice campus life lesson you typed out, but the world doesn't quite fit this "we are one in love and harmony" sentiment. We can reflect on the hundreds of millions of people under these governments that have individual ideas and a longing to prosper and aid their fellow man, but governments do the talking. We cut business deals with governments, not the people. We go to war to protect or overthrow governments, not necessarily the people. When diplomats travel abroad, they go to capitols, not villages and towns.

When a country like China decides to protect the Irans or votes to ignore the Sudans, it is not the little shop keeper or the Chinese student that matters.

That is the sad truth but I don't think people notice that is might be happening all over. Imagine if there is a dialogue allowed by governments/leaders between the people themselves without interference from their government or leaders. They might actually find out that their opinions are no different than other peoples opinions. Some people are silent because they are afraid to be categorized as such. No problem here. Sure there is the internet but everyone do not have access to it and some countries prohibit the use of it. Enough of the propoganda on both sides just look at reality. Of course there are going to be a few that would abuse the intention, however they are already doing it anyway.

Let focus on who is stealing the money from under our noses. I already know trhe answer but hope more people look into it on their own. It could be in Darfur, Iraq, Iran, North Korea crisis. Some one holds to profit by creating these crises. The crisis in Darfur is no different. Instead on focusing on who this body is, people battle it out amongst themselves, protestors and non protestors, liberals vs conservatives, left and right, etc. as you can see in this forum. Meanwhile leaders with their road show of politicians more than likely are just sitting pretty and practicing their speeches, their emotional facial expressions, and counting their take from the biggest price, other people's hard earned money.



Remember leaders and politicians are glorified salemen and women. But of course it an opinion, find out for yourself.

 

[MSgt]

That is the sad truth but I don't think people notice that is might be happening all over. Imagine if there is a dialogue allowed by governments/leaders between the people themselves without interference from their government or leaders. They might actually find out that their opinions are no different than other peoples opinions. Some people are silent because they are afraid to be categorized as such. No problem here. Sure there is the internet but everyone do not have access to it and some countries prohibit the use of it. Enough of the propoganda on both sides just look at reality. Of course there are going to be a few that would abuse the intention, however they are already doing it anyway.

Let focus on who is stealing the money from under our noses. I already know trhe answer but hope more people look into it on their own. It could be in Darfur, Iraq, Iran, North Korea crisis. Some one holds to profit by creating these crises. The crisis in Darfur is no different. Instead on focusing on who this body is, people battle it out amongst themselves, protestors and non protestors, liberals vs conservatives, left and right, etc. as you can see in this forum. Meanwhile leaders with their road show of politicians more than likely are just sitting pretty and practicing their speeches, their emotional facial expressions, and counting their take from the biggest price, other people's hard earned money.



Remember leaders and politicians are glorified salemen and women. But of course it an opinion, find out for yourself.

Such is history. It's the plight of most men to be victims to the greed and vanity of others.

 

[jfuh]

Where did I state that the UN should be dismantled? As usual, you are creating straw men, something you do quite well.

Some fifty countries (including Taiwan) supported the US-led invasion of Iraq, HARDLY unilateral.

:lamo I didn't say you did say that it was a question, do you understand what a question is?
Fifty countries :lamoI made a mistake, you're not a separatist, you're a loyal neocon apologetic. Now that sets the whole chicom thing in better perspective.

You just hate me exposing your defeat to the rest of the world, don't you?

Read the forum rules, you are in violation it was a friendly reminder, I could've reported it but chose not to thinking you wouldn't be so childish with such foolish nonsense as a signature, however seemingly you've chosen to ignore it.
I suggest you read forum rule 14.

 

[MSgt]

Ahh putting words in my mouth, how classicly of you.

Sorry but why is the US and a few others so focused on Sudan and Darfur and ignoring other attrocities around the world, especially from "allies"?

Is it because there might be oil in the ground in the Sudan?
Is it because that one party in the conflict is muslim?

Or is it because as some claim.. its the right thing to do?.. then what about North Korea, the Indian cast system, Chinese "justice", Chechney and so on? Dont they deserve the same "its the right thing to do"?

While I would love to kick the arse of the janjeweed and others in the Sudan for what they are doing, I cant see why we should send in our boys and girls into a civil war where one side if not both sides dont want us.

It might sound harsh, but why should we risk our men and women in another war that has the quagmire smell all over it? So that some people might get a buzz of "doing the right thing"? Is that justified of 1 or 1000 troops are killed and that we are stuck there for years on end? Remember the Sudan aint a small country.. its over 9 times size of Iraq.. almost 1 million square miles, with a very hostile enviorment and a hostile population.

I ask again, why is Darfur so special?

Well, gee, why don't we ask the many people around the globe who are concerned about Darfur and don't stand a chance to see one dime from oil. Given the strategic location and the Islamic religious radicalism that infects it among known Al-Queda activity, it is logical that our efforts should turn towards the East if we are to continue this effort. This is also a very important location in Africa right now and all of Africa north of Congo needs this. If you wish to locate religious terror, visit a population in complete despair. "Despair" and "desperation" should be our focus and we should let this dictate where we go.

You continue to bring up North Korea as if this is a plausible issue. Will you lead the charge into a nuclear armed country with a madman who literally professes to be the son of God to his people? North Korea is simply not do-able. Same with China. Certainly all are worth it, but we do what we can. And not all demand military intervention. We adhere to common sense and chip away at the global issue that has emerged from the colonial and Cold War period. We don't look at the global situation and use the severity of plight to toss our hands up and call it a day. Was the suffering in China used to dismiss the notion that we should act on Rwanda back in the day?

Is the issue of Sudan going to fall into the waste basket of other efforts around the globe where our critics seek to expose the angle while dismissing any human effort involved? With Iraq the world largely used Sudan to point towards a better place to visit the human struggle for civility and freedom for America to expend it's blood and treasure. I believe you were one of those voices. Now you use other locations to dismiss what is happening in Sudan. This is not "putting words in your mouth." This is merely an observation of pattern.

But let's just break it all down and strip away the garbage that always allows us to stagnate or to turn our backs and scoff. Strip away the fact that their is oil under the sand. Strip away that we are ten years late. Strip away any political partisan hackery that politicians will use against another. What is left is human suffering. Quite frankly it is the right thing to do. And we should risk our men and women because it is an affort that is worth while. Show me an American military man/woman that expects to only protect the American border and I will show you a fool. Not since the UN blessed Truman's "police force" plan right before the Korean War has the American soldier solely been reserved for American protection. I think Americans can accept our roles in the world easier than our allies in Europe do because we have been on the front line since the end of the World War. We do not retire the police force, because they will never end crime and we do not look away simply because human suffering will always exist. The effort is worthwhile, because we are decent human beings striving to achieve the liberal dream that so many in the Global Left always preach about but never really mean it. What you call a quagmire is simply an excuse to get it wrong. Anything done right will have favorable outcomes. Quagmires are realized when efforts are botched and the "good" turn on each other.

So while you stand in concrete and point at the suffering and ask why they are important, ask yourself why you feel that their lives are worth less than yours. Or why you feel that unless we help everyone at the same time, we shouldn't do it at all.

 

[Mr. X]

I have to say that PeteEU makes for a convincing argument. Why should we care about suffering in any one particular region when there are so many that areas filled with it? Darfur is indeed a rather nasty one. If we were to get involved, it is more than a little likely that there will be unpleasant consequences in a drawn out conflict and a guarantee that personnel will be killed.

However, if we stand by equivocating about all the reasons not to help out our fellow man, aren't we not more than a little complicit in the daily tragedies occurring there? I don't have a good way to voice support for intervening in Darfur that will help any nations GDP, military readiness or safety. But are these really the ultimate rationales that we want to use to excuse ourselves from becoming involved in what we acknowledge is a tragedy of the largest scale? Have we learned nothing from history?

There will always be people who are evil and wish to create a hell on earth based on their own views of what should be. The rest of us that don't fall into that extremely limited psychosis should be willing to stand up and intervene.

I really don't have a fantastically logical answer that would make a convincing soundbite. I guess I just wonder; have we lost all of our sense of empathy towards our fellow man? I don't want to sound too idealogical here, but when my grandkids ask me what I did to prevent the atrocities that they read about in their history books, I don't want to reply with nothing.

 

[ludahai]

I would love to do something about all the brutal dictators and "hot spots" around the world. But we also have to be realistic.

You are correct that China has its "finger" in the game when it comes to Sudan. But the same reasons that China is blocking any real action against the Sudanese goverment, are also the same reasons that the US is pushing for action. The difference is that the Sudanese are not friendly with the US and they are with China. Both are in it for the possible oil deposits there, nothing more nothing less.

But the US cant do anything because of Iraq and its war on terror, and while European goverments might be leaning towards doing something, they know that another war in a far off remote place, where thier citizens are putting their lives on the line for some undefinable goal.. will frankly not get the support.

On top of that both the US and Europeans should frankly afraid of the logistics and enviorment when talking about Darfur and the Sudan. Sudan is 1 million square miles... thats huge! and most of it is very hot and lots of sand.

But instead we are in a political crap fight. Some in the US accuses the EU for dragging its feet, while working with the EU.. great way to make friends. On top of that the US barely mentions China or others who have interests there. Plus everyone is in agreement (minus the Sudanese of course) to let the Africans deal with it, but they dont recieve the logistical support they have been promised and have a limited mandate to actually do anything.. not to mention almost all come from not so stable countries themselvs.

We are clearly more in agreement than in disagreement. While the French have a generally deplorable role in Africa, they are not the biggest obstacle to the solution. Other than the murderous Sudanese regime itself, it is the Chinese. They haven't found a brutal dictatorship in the world that they can't get buddy buddy with and befriend. Europe has NOT been constructive along THOSe lines, but it is nice to see more and more EUropeans coming around on this.

The Europeans and North Americans need to work together to find common ground to confront the tyranical regimes of the world and their supporters.

 

[ludahai]

:lamo I didn't say you did say that it was a question, do you understand what a question is?
Fifty countries :lamoI made a mistake, you're not a separatist, you're a loyal neocon apologetic. Now that sets the whole chicom thing in better perspective.

You forgot the countries that supported the US both militarily and diplomatically?

This map shows 44, though there are some in gray that I believe supported the war and will do the research to make the appropriate edits when I have the time.

 

[jfuh]

You forgot the countries that supported the US both militarily and diplomatically?

This map shows 44, though there are some in gray that I believe supported the war and will do the research to make the appropriate edits when I have the time.

Oh and don't forget Polland! Polland supported us in the war too!:roll:

 

[PeteEU]

Well, gee, why don't we ask the many people around the globe who are concerned about Darfur and don't stand a chance to see one dime from oil. Given the strategic location and the Islamic religious radicalism that infects it among known Al-Queda activity, it is logical that our efforts should turn towards the East if we are to continue this effort. This is also a very important location in Africa right now and all of Africa north of Congo needs this. If you wish to locate religious terror, visit a population in complete despair. "Despair" and "desperation" should be our focus and we should let this dictate where we go.

Sounds nice and clean.. typical politican. Life is hardly this black and white.

You continue to bring up North Korea as if this is a plausible issue. Will you lead the charge into a nuclear armed country with a madman who literally professes to be the son of God to his people? North Korea is simply not do-able. Same with China. Certainly all are worth it, but we do what we can. And not all demand military intervention. We adhere to common sense and chip away at the global issue that has emerged from the colonial and Cold War period. We don't look at the global situation and use the severity of plight to toss our hands up and call it a day. Was the suffering in China used to dismiss the notion that we should act on Rwanda back in the day?

I bring up North Korea and China because its a valid argument. North Korea is a no go on intervention because of its nukes and Chinese support. If it was not for that, then it would be the million plus men under arms, but that frankly is not an excuse. China is.. China, no way any sane man would want to invade that. The Sudan might not have nukes, but it does have a huge area that has to be controled to maintain a peace. The population will be hostile towards anyone coming in from the outside (they always have been), so the troop requirements to not only take but hold the country will be huge. With Iraq and Afganistan, there are frankly no troops availiable. Plus add the logistics. There are not exactly any nice clear bases in the area, the lines of support are gonna be nice and juicy for any insurgent forces to take out and so on. The risk involved in taking out the Sudanese goverment make Iraq look like a picnic. At least there was a chance that part of the Iraqi nation supported the removal of Saddam.

Is the issue of Sudan going to fall into the waste basket of other efforts around the globe where our critics seek to expose the angle while dismissing any human effort involved? With Iraq the world largely used Sudan to point towards a better place to visit the human struggle for civility and freedom for America to expend it's blood and treasure. I believe you were one of those voices. Now you use other locations to dismiss what is happening in Sudan. This is not "putting words in your mouth." This is merely an observation of pattern.

Yes I like to think before acting, something Bush and his neo cons clearly do not. Iraq was a mistake, it allowed Iran to spread its wings. Any idiot could have predicted that result before the invasion, but nooo the Neo Cons and their Isreali allies knew better. Now look at what we are in. Iran has gained more and more influence, Iraq is a shithole and training ground for terrorists, and life for many Iraqies has not improved. They might be "free" of Saddam, but now radical islamists, criminals and others are killing, raping, and kidnapping them. 4 million Iraqies are refugees, anything from 60.000 to 500.000+ dead civilians, low security in many areas and a crumbling infrastructure.

And lets look at the reality of Darfur. The estimates varry from 50.000 to 400.000 deaths, and 1 to 2 million displaced people. Iraq 60.000 to 500.000+ deaths and 4 million displaced.. to me that sounds like we should invade Iraq and remove the occupation forces there.

But let's just break it all down and strip away the garbage that always allows us to stagnate or to turn our backs and scoff. Strip away the fact that their is oil under the sand. Strip away that we are ten years late. Strip away any political partisan hackery that politicians will use against another. What is left is human suffering. Quite frankly it is the right thing to do. And we should risk our men and women because it is an affort that is worth while. Show me an American military man/woman that expects to only protect the American border and I will show you a fool. Not since the UN blessed Truman's "police force" plan right before the Korean War has the American soldier solely been reserved for American protection. I think Americans can accept our roles in the world easier than our allies in Europe do because we have been on the front line since the end of the World War. We do not retire the police force, because they will never end crime and we do not look away simply because human suffering will always exist. The effort is worthwhile, because we are decent human beings striving to achieve the liberal dream that so many in the Global Left always preach about but never really mean it. What you call a quagmire is simply an excuse to get it wrong. Anything done right will have favorable outcomes. Quagmires are realized when efforts are botched and the "good" turn on each other.

Americans are no different than Europeans. If the cause is just and it happens to go your way, then the support for a military action will be there. But when the cause is not just and/or the action goes south, then the support will go away. Other than the right in the US who are so easily brainwashed by thier leadership, I dont see the US people in general supporting another war of liberation, just as I dont see public support in Europe. Sure there is talk, but when we get down to the details, the logistics, the enviorment and the numbers of troops required and so on, then the doubt will start to creep in.

So while you stand in concrete and point at the suffering and ask why they are important, ask yourself why you feel that their lives are worth less than yours. Or why you feel that unless we help everyone at the same time, we shouldn't do it at all.

I dont feel that their lives are worth less than mine. One could ask the same about Iraqi lives btw, why does the US leadership view the Iraqi lives less than American lives? Their policies clearly show that. Not counting civlian deaths, the murder of civilians, the torture of captives, not to mention starting a war on lies.. why is an Iraqi life worth less than an American?

But back to subject. Sure we should help people if we can. But I submit that any action is gonna end bad other than limited air war and maybe staging some troops at refugee camps. The logisitics involved, the enivorment involved and the numbers of troops needed to secure the Sudan is so enourmous that any sane person has to ask if its worth it.

Like it or not, the west does not like war. Only Americans are war hungry it seems but also that is up to a point. And there has to be a serious reason to go to war, and stoping a supposed genocide aint one of them. Genocide aint a threat to the population in the west.. now a nuke or a massive army or bio weapons being threatened at the west.. then sure..an attack by Sudan on the west, then sure.. but the murder of a few thousand people and displacement of a few hundred thousand... not enough reason frankly. Now if the million refugees start to move towards Europe, then the attitude might change.. it did after all in the Bosnian crisis.

 

[aquapub]

Let's take a page from the left's playbook here. Reasons to do nothing about Darfur:

:surrender

-There are other countries with bad things happening in them. What about them?

-This is a matter for the U.N.

-U.S. troops will die, and if anything greater than zero U.S. casualties is involved, then we won't support it...or we will for 3 weeks, and then start calling it a quagmire and comparing it to Vietnam.

-It will anger those who already hate our guts.

-If liberals get us to go in there over genocide and we find evidence of mass murder, rather than actual genocide, then we will scream "liberals lied, people died," and demand that we immediately hand the country back over to butchers.

-If France, Germany, or Russia has financial investments that will be disrupted, then we cannot go in because that would be acting unilaterally.

-You must first go through 15 years of failed multi-lateral diplomacy before it is ok to act...unless you are dealing with North Korea, THEN multi-lateral diplomacy is unacceptable.

-The world won't approve.

-If any civilians get killed in the crossfire or by the genocidal maniacs we are there to stop, then America is to blame.

-There's no U.S. interest in Sudan (unlike Iraq, that's ACTUALLY true).

-We will claim it is all a conspiracy to steal Sudan's oil.

-We will pre-emptively pronounce any and all U.S. soldiers guilty of anything they're accused of, portray any supply outages as liberal incompetence.

-We will announce daily how long it's been since liberals declared the country invaded as if the declaration meant that no further violence would happen.

-We will incessantly list off the costs of the effort and show which domestic areas could've benefitted from the funds.

-If any of Sudan's neighbors send pawns over the border and resume the genocide, then we will call it a civil war and a liberal policy failure.

-While claiming to support the troops, we will incessantly divide, misinform, and weaken the country in front of the enemy, pass laws that usurp our constitutional authority to tie the troops' hands, and demand that we hand the enemy a binding U.S. retreat date, so they can turn it into a humiliating U.S. defeat on their own terms.

Of course, conservatives ACTUALLY support the troops and the U.S., so we would never pull this kind of intellectually dishonest crap, but maybe this will help people understand why conservatives have this universal response to the claim that we should go into Darfur:

:stop: No way in Hell.

 

[rivrrat]

Little blurb posted here that I agree with and thus eliminates the need for me to type stuff up.


Twenty years after Live-Aid, a new campaign is begun to raise money for the hapless folk of Africa. What good can it do? Is the history of Africa going to be one of handouts?

Ethiopia. Interminable drought and an unbroken series of bad harvests means that there's always a famine in Ethopia. Ethiopians perpetuate their woe by remaining in a barren land. They have children whom they and their desert cannot support. When the West sends billions of dollars, the charity encourages them to have more children who will be forever dependent on foreign aid. Although the natural consequence of living in a desert is stifled population, their population grows and exacerbates the problem. And the Oprah-cam magnifies it still further.

Darfur is the same, except instead of drought it's guns. It's really the same thing: Hunger is a force of nature, too. When land is barren, when resources are scarce, people will fight.

Should we help in Darfur? The nice answer is yes. The realistic answer is incredulity: What could we do? We prevent one person from dying, ten more die around us, and our own lives are endangered. And for what? And if you do stop this one conflict, ten more spring up. The only way to end the warring is to remove people from barren land. Yet they will not leave their homeland, and they will not stop breeding.

Should we help? Our country, because of political incompetence, can hardly help itself. While it's true that responsibility comes with power, it is not America's place to fight futile fights in hopeless lands. This lesson was evident to any student of history before 2003. Now some have not even learned from Iraq and would have us put another Band-Aid on another cancer. Good intentions, useless actions.

However, for political expediency it is a good idea to appear to help, which is what we're doing.

If you disagree, if you think we should genuinely devote a lot of resources to Darfur / Ethiopia, I don't think you're daft. But I do question whether it would make a difference. Even if we donated enough to cripple our own economy, it would not change their barren environment.

 

[politic_analyst]

Such is history. It's the plight of most men to be victims to the greed and vanity of others.

A very valuable statement and hope more people recognize it, maybe all the turmoils globally will end. Recognize the manipulation from both sides and majority will just peacefully co exist.

 

[MSgt]

Oh and don't forget Polland! Polland supported us in the war too!:roll:

Historically, Poland has always supported American ideals well before the Mayflower set to sea. Their price for fighting tyranny and defending freedom for so many centuries was to be eventually betrayed and partitioned off by the very people they defended for so long. Even then they traveled abroad to fight for freedom and support other governments against tyranny (even in the New World). As recent as the twentieth century a great World War that started out to save the Poles and defend adjacent lands against Nazi Germany ended with Polish imprisonment behind a wall of communist oppression.

The Poles have been extremely valuable to freedom through the centuries all the way back to the Polish husaria. We should be priveledged that they always stand beside us.

 

[MSgt]

A very valuable statement and hope more people recognize it, maybe all the turmoils globally will end. Recognize the manipulation from both sides and majority will just peacefully co exist.

Another bane of human nature is that historically, tyrants are over thrown only to be eventually replaced by the individuals who overthrew them.

The majority will always be subjected to the infallibility and imperfect leadership of other men. This is why democracy, as imperfect as it can be, is the best course for human existence. It allows us to correct mistakes (and make new ones) at our discretion without having to resort to violence for economic, political, social, and religious change.

 

[politic_analyst]

Another bane of human nature is that historically, tyrants are over thrown only to be eventually replaced by the individuals who overthrew them.

If I might add, the tyrants who they replace might be more humane than the ones they over threw. Unfortunately we seen this in historical accounts. I actually saw the Bushes last night on that American Idol segment and I did not see any genuine emotions after bush after he thanked everyone who participated in the charity for africa.

The next step after a charitable event is is the money really going to the needy in africa or as usual most of the money goes to administration and corporate greed and of course african warlords. They said 70 million pledges that should be enough to feed most of the hungry unless its squandered toward worthless red tape.

 

[politic_analyst]

The majority will always be subjected to the infallibility and imperfect leadership of other men. This is why democracy, as imperfect as it can be, is the best course for human existence. It allows us to correct mistakes (and make new ones) at our discretion without having to resort to violence for economic, political, social, and religious change.

The problem with democracy is it can be fake. Our government can announce that they had introduced democracy in nations and liberated the people. Once the democratic government has been established it gives people relief in this country. However, they forget that money is a great temptation in any form of government.

The strategy in Darfur is to keep people physically weak so that they themselves would not turn around and oppose their tormentors. When you are physical weak your mental faculties will soon deteriorate.

 

[MSgt]

If I might add, the tyrants who they replace might be more humane than the ones they over threw. Unfortunately we seen this in historical accounts. I actually saw the Bushes last night on that American Idol segment and I did not see any genuine emotions after bush after he thanked everyone who participated in the charity for africa.

The next step after a charitable event is is the money really going to the needy in africa or as usual most of the money goes to administration and corporate greed and of course african warlords. They said 70 million pledges that should be enough to feed most of the hungry unless its squandered toward worthless red tape.

I wouldn't go as far as to label President Bush a "tyrant." He may be an individual that doesn't meet with the type of standards that we need in today's world, but using "tyrant" diminishes those individuals that truly have earned the title.

This is the greatest problem with the West's intervention into Africa. Bush and Blair has finally recognized this publicly and urged conditions upon African nations that are to receive international aid (other nations in the West were not receptive). The West's idea of aiding African nations has always been to pass around the tithing plate, cut a check, and place it in the mail. We get the feeling that governments are more interested in "doing their part" than doing it right. This money winds up in the wrong hands and funds the militias. Africa, especially the northern region above Congo, suffers from the strongman who receives his support from do-gooder nations on the outside.

I first saw this in Somalia in '93. UN shipments were protected by the international force from warlords under the control of Farrah Aidid. U.S. Marines were used as enforcers and to raid areas where suspected militia havens were. In the end, we allowed Al-Queda to run us off because a miserable population is their recruiting grounds. These UN shipments exist throughout Africa and are constantly in danger of warlords and strongmen seeking to supply their armies. Many of these armies are supported with funds that they receive from politicians seeking to establish themselves over rival politicians. And these funds come from the outside. So, not only have we been irresponsible with our aid, but UN shipments are constantly in danger of falling into the wrong hands whenever a military force isn't there to protect it.

 

[jfuh]

Historically, Poland has always supported American ideals well before the Mayflower set to sea. Their price for fighting tyranny and defending freedom for so many centuries was to be eventually betrayed and partitioned off by the very people they defended for so long. Even then they traveled abroad to fight for freedom and support other governments against tyranny (even in the New World). As recent as the twentieth century a great World War that started out to save the Poles and defend adjacent lands against Nazi Germany ended with Polish imprisonment behind a wall of communist oppression.

The Poles have been extremely valuable to freedom through the centuries all the way back to the Polish husaria. We should be priveledged that they always stand beside us.

Support how? And really, it's beside the point.

 

[politic_analyst]

This is the greatest problem with the West's intervention into Africa. Bush and Blair has finally recognized this publicly and urged conditions upon African nations that are to receive international aid (other nations in the West were not receptive). The West's idea of aiding African nations has always been to pass around the tithing plate, cut a check, and place it in the mail. We get the feeling that governments are more interested in "doing their part" than doing it right. This money winds up in the wrong hands and funds the militias. Africa, especially the northern region above Congo, suffers from the strongman who receives his support from do-gooder nations on the outside.

I first saw this in Somalia in '93. UN shipments were protected by the international force from warlords under the control of Farrah Aidid. U.S. Marines were used as enforcers and to raid areas where suspected militia havens were. In the end, we allowed Al-Queda to run us off because a miserable population is their recruiting grounds. These UN shipments exist throughout Africa and are constantly in danger of warlords and strongmen seeking to supply their armies. Many of these armies are supported with funds that they receive from politicians seeking to establish themselves over rival politicians. And these funds come from the outside. So, not only have we been irresponsible with our aid, but UN shipments are constantly in danger of falling into the wrong hands whenever a military force isn't there to protect it.

That is a great explanation. As you know currently the US government is in a catch 22 since the warlords have been supportive (genuine or not the government thinks its a valuable alliance) about the fight on terrorism. If the warlords are not properly fed (money, resources), the information flow stops and then if more of the plots crop up, then it might make americans think again about their government. In just looking at the cost of war which was reported 500 billion dollars, you could feed Africa with that money and even the poor in america and enough money to pay off the african warlords. That strategy will neve be since it takes away money from a different set of people who has control of our government.

 

[MSgt]

Support how? And really, it's beside the point.

Historically or with Iraq?