Save Darfur!!

[RickinNYC]

Oh, no, the stalkers are out again.:scared1

Rest assured, I consider life way too short to stalk anyone, even those I don't agree with.

 

[BuckNaked]

Besides, I also consider the fact that if we are to act as the world's police, we can also act as the world's care givers as much as we are able.

I agree, to a point. But I don't like to see the military used in that way, i.e., an international meals on wheels. Sorry, but that is not the purpose of the U.S. military.

***The following is not aimed at any person in particular, but at the "Save Darfur" proponents in general***

It is inconsistent if not downright hypocritical to be saying that the U.S. military should be plopped down in the middle of a civil war in Darfur while at the same time screaming every day that they must be removed from the midst of a civil war in Iraq. The difference is that one is a popular issue with the left (Darfur) and the other is an unpopular one (Iraq).

 

[JennyMominRI]

I agree, to a point. But I don't like to see the military used in that way, i.e., an international meals on wheels. Sorry, but that is not the purpose of the U.S. military.

***The following is not aimed at any person in particular, but at the "Save Darfur" proponents in general***

It is inconsistent if not downright hypocritical to be saying that the U.S. military should be plopped down in the middle of a civil war in Darfur while at the same time screaming every day that they must be removed from the midst of a civil war in Iraq. The difference is that one is a popular issue with the left (Darfur) and the other is an unpopular one (Iraq).

They are completely different to me.. There is systematic genocide in the Sudan..This is one sided. This is one group trying to wipe out another group.. This is Rwanda all over again. They are begging for international help...
Iraq did not ask us to come there..Iraq, in most cases does not want us there..Many in Iraq feel we caused, well maybe not caused but were the catalysts for the civil war that is now happening there. That said I'm abivilent about pulling out of Iraq.. I don't want to see more Americans die and on the other hand I shudder to think of what will happen to the innocent people in that country.
I'm not at all against the US going into othe countries that pose a real threat to us,or that are asking for help to stop any sort of genocide.

 

[BuckNaked]

They are completely different to me.. There is systematic genocide in the Sudan..This is one sided. This is one group trying to wipe out another group.. This is Rwanda all over again. They are begging for international help...
Iraq did not ask us to come there..Iraq, in most cases does not want us there..Many in Iraq feel we caused, well maybe not caused but were the catalysts for there civil war that is now happening there. That said I'm abivilent about pulling out of Iraq.. I don't want to see more Americans die and on the other hand I shudder to think of what will happen to the innocent people in that country.
I'm not at all against the US going into othe countries that pose a real threat to us,or that are asking for help to stop any sort of genocide.

Then you and I have very, very different opinions about the purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The UN has all the answers on everything...they're supposedly the be-all, end-all authorities on what it takes to right all the world's wrongs.

Let them handle it.

 

[RickinNYC]

They are completely different to me.. There is systematic genocide in the Sudan..This is one sided. This is one group trying to wipe out another group.. This is Rwanda all over again. They are begging for international help...
Iraq did not ask us to come there..Iraq, in most cases does not want us there..Many in Iraq feel we caused, well maybe not caused but were the catalysts for there civil war that is now happening there. That said I'm abivilent about pulling out of Iraq.. I don't want to see more Americans die and on the other hand I shudder to think of what will happen to the innocent people in that country.
I'm not at all against the US going into othe countries that pose a real threat to us,or that are asking for help to stop any sort of genocide.

Jen, you beat me to it and put it far better than I could. Very much agree with you.

 

[RickinNYC]

Then you and I have very, very different opinions about the purpose of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The UN has all the answers on everything...they're supposedly the be-all, end-all authorities on what it takes to right all the world's wrongs.

Let them handle it.

And Brenda, I agree with you as well. But in the case of Iraq, the UN did try to state what the US should do and it was ignored.

And I also would like to suggest that the UN is kinda sorta messing it up right now with Darfur.

 

[BuckNaked]

And Brenda, I agree with you as well. But in the case of Iraq, the UN did try to state what the US should do and it was ignored.

Absolutely, and I think that we were right to do so.

And I also would like to suggest that the UN is kinda sorta messing it up right now with Darfur.

But that's because they aren't doing something you want them to do, i.e., intervene with military forces in Darfur. My point is that if the UN is always right, and they have all the answers, then they must know what they're talking about in Darfur as well.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Absolutely, and I think that we were right to do so.



But that's because they aren't doing something you want them to do, i.e., intervene with military forces in Darfur. My point is that if the UN is always right, and they have all the answers, then they must know what they're talking about in Darfur as well.

I don't believe the UN is always right nor that they have all the answers. They seem to be pretty useless a lot of the time.

 

[BuckNaked]

I don't believe the UN is always right nor that they have all the answers. They seem to be pretty useless a lot of the time.

I agree, in fact I think the UN is useless all the time. I'm quite certain that we could triple the average IQ of NYC and open up some prime real estate at the same time by kicking the UN out of the U.S.

 

[beachblanket]

I agree, to a point. But I don't like to see the military used in that way, i.e., an international meals on wheels. Sorry, but that is not the purpose of the U.S. military.

***The following is not aimed at any person in particular, but at the "Save Darfur" proponents in general***

It is inconsistent if not downright hypocritical to be saying that the U.S. military should be plopped down in the middle of a civil war in Darfur while at the same time screaming every day that they must be removed from the midst of a civil war in Iraq. The difference is that one is a popular issue with the left (Darfur) and the other is an unpopular one (Iraq).

Well said!!!!! I feel as bad as anyone about the genocide occuring in Dafur, but it is blatantly clear from this thread that the primary promoters of U.S. involvement there are against our support of freedom and safety in Iraq.

Or put another way, we are suddenly supposed to care about some African thug named al-Bashir ordering the horrific deaths of women and children, but not radical Islamic thugs setting off car bombs in crowded urban markets or kidnapping, torturing and beheading people just because of their faith. Oh, I know, the left will respond to that point by saying the behavior of said radical Islamic thugs is "all our fault." Yep, if we'd only been "nicer" to them....9/11 would have never have happened, yada yada yada....

 

[User Name]

Seems like it's a pretty serious quagmire over there in Darfur, and that our troops shouldn't be in the middle of a civil war. Let the UN do it's job. Sanctions are the best way to handle this situation. Afterall, they're no threat to us. They have no WMD's. It's shown that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. No war for sand.

Darfur doesn't require military action. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things - not for social projects.

 

[magicmato]

Seems like it's a pretty serious quagmire over there in Darfur, and that our troops shouldn't be in the middle of a civil war. Let the UN do it's job. Sanctions are the best way to handle this situation. Afterall, they're no threat to us. They have no WMD's. It's shown that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. No war for sand.

Darfur doesn't require military action. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things - not for social projects.

Perhaps you have stated your opinion elsewhere and I did not read it, but are you then all for the immediate removal of our troops from the ME, since that is now a civil war?

 

[beachblanket]

Seems like it's a pretty serious quagmire over there in Darfur, and that our troops shouldn't be in the middle of a civil war. Let the UN do it's job. Sanctions are the best way to handle this situation. Afterall, they're no threat to us. They have no WMD's. It's shown that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. No war for sand.

HOME RUN POST!!!! LOVE IT - Nails the anti-Iraq crowd right to the wall!!!!

 

[magicmato]

HOME RUN POST!!!! LOVE IT - Nails the anti-Iraq crowd right to the wall!!!!

How do you figure? There was no active genocide happening in Iraq before the war, nor was there a civil war occuring before we invaded. In Darfur, people are murdered, children and women are raped on a daily basis, and not just a few, by the hundreds if not thousands a day.

How you can state that the situation in Iraq before the war (fairly stable, no civil war, no WMD, no large-scale murder/rape/genocide ... and no, what happened 10 years before the invasion is not a valid excuse, unless we had invaded 10 years ago) to what is happening now in Darfur is beyond me. I guess we should not invade Darfur because people protested invading Iraq? What kind of rational is that?

ETA: Please explain, someone, how current and active genocide is a mere 'social project'? We are talking murder and rape, not just people being displaced from their homes. Is that not a tad bit beyond a 'social project'?

 

[Crankyshank]

Seems like it's a pretty serious quagmire over there in Darfur, and that our troops shouldn't be in the middle of a civil war. Let the UN do it's job. Sanctions are the best way to handle this situation. Afterall, they're no threat to us. They have no WMD's. It's shown that democracy doesn't work in the Middle East. No war for sand.

Darfur doesn't require military action. The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things - not for social projects.

Since when is genocide a social project?
There's been concerns raised about the Sudan becoming a new hotbed for AQ recruits because of the conflict in that region. Wouldn't it be in our best interest, under the guise of stopping terrorism - you know the thing our President is trying to do, to help put the kabosh on the genocide in Darfur?

I'm still waiting to hear the reasoning, aside from MrsKreamer who all ready answered, as to why Darfur support is mutually exclusive to other conflicts

 

[BuckNaked]

I'm still waiting to hear the reasoning, aside from MrsKreamer who all ready answered, as to why Darfur support is mutually exclusive to other conflicts

I'll pipe in to say that I agree with you, helping Darfur and helping people in the US are not mutually exclusive.

 

[User Name]

How do you figure? There was no active genocide happening in Iraq before the war, nor was there a civil war occuring before we invaded. In Darfur, people are murdered, children and women are raped on a daily basis, and not just a few, by the hundreds if not thousands a day.

How you can state that the situation in Iraq before the war (fairly stable, no civil war, no WMD, no large-scale murder/rape/genocide ... and no, what happened 10 years before the invasion is not a valid excuse, unless we had invaded 10 years ago) to what is happening now in Darfur is beyond me. I guess we should not invade Darfur because people protested invading Iraq? What kind of rational is that?

ETA: Please explain, someone, how current and active genocide is a mere 'social project'? We are talking murder and rape, not just people being displaced from their homes. Is that not a tad bit beyond a 'social project'?

1) There was genocide in Iraq. Ask the Kurds.
2) There was WMD's in Iraq. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranians.
3) There was murder and rape in Iraq. Ask Kusay & Uday. Oh, wait... Ask the families of those afflicted.

If you're for military action in Darfur, you should DEFINATELY be for military action in Iraq. Same stuff, except that Iraq controls oil (the lifeblood of the world economy), Iraq was at least indirectly involved in the war on terrorism, Iraq is situated in a VERY favorable location in the middle east, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was repeatedly defiant of UN resolutions, Iraq did not recognize basic human rights for women, etc, etc, etc.

MILITARILY, Darfur is of no consequence to us. Iraq was (and is). Should something be done to halt the atrocities in Darfur? Absolutely. But, regieme change in Iraq, from the standpoint of the greater good to world peace, was and is more important right now. Since the left perceives that we're going it alone in Iraq, that leaves the entire rest of the world to step up and take care of Darfur.

 

[RickinNYC]

HOME RUN POST!!!! LOVE IT - Nails the anti-Iraq crowd right to the wall!!!!

No it doesn't.

Is every single issue in the new today about the left and the right?

 

[BuckNaked]

Is every single issue in the new today about the left and the right?

Is it? Yes, pretty much.

Should it be? No.

 

[magicmato]

1) There was genocide in Iraq. Ask the Kurds.
2) There was WMD's in Iraq. Ask the Kurds. Ask the Iranians.
3) There was murder and rape in Iraq. Ask Kusay & Uday. Oh, wait... Ask the families of those afflicted.

If you're for military action in Darfur, you should DEFINATELY be for military action in Iraq. Same stuff, except that Iraq controls oil (the lifeblood of the world economy), Iraq was at least indirectly involved in the war on terrorism, Iraq is situated in a VERY favorable location in the middle east, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq was repeatedly defiant of UN resolutions, Iraq did not recognize basic human rights for women, etc, etc, etc.

MILITARILY, Darfur is of no consequence to us. Iraq was (and is). Should something be done to halt the atrocities in Darfur? Absolutely. But, regieme change in Iraq, from the standpoint of the greater good to world peace, was and is more important right now. Since the left perceives that we're going it alone in Iraq, that leaves the entire rest of the world to step up and take care of Darfur.

#1 - The Kurds were killed more than 10 years ago. How is that a reason to invade so long after it happened? Why not invade when it actually occured?

#2 - Again, 10 + years ago. Why is it an issue long after the fact, but not when it actually is happening?

#3 - Yep, rape happens and so does murder... yet I still fail to see the massive rapes, mutilation and murder on a scale anywhere near what is CURRENTLY occuring in Darfur. By your logic, our military should invade New York, since rapes and murders happen there every day. In 2005 there were 539 murders and 1412 rapes in NYC. Bring in the national guard!

The only reason we invaded Iraq was for oil and revenge. Hussein was not a real and present threat. If we were honestly seeking world stability and protecting ourselves from threats, we would have invaded North Korea and/or Iran. They actually CAN hurt us and cause major problems in the world.

Yep, the rest of the world should do something about Darfur too, but gee, since we have made ourselves out as the world police, shouldn't WE take the first step instead of sitting back and using the excuse that the world needs to step in instead? Oh, right, because we could care less about Darfur. They have nothing we want. Got it.