Welcome to PatsFans.com

Do you Liberals want to go into Darfur ?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BelichickFan, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,933
    Likes Received:
    300
    Ratings:
    +799 / 18 / -23

    #24 Jersey

    I'm just curious as you don't want to be in Iraq (not arguing that here) and don't want money spent to "clean up" areas. I stumbled on a little bit of an Obama speech yesterday and he was talking about ending the killing there; and I have to wonder if those who don't want money and lives "wasted" in Iraq support Obama on this.
     
  2. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    I'd like to see the U.N. in Darfur. Yes, this would have a lot of American troops involved but it wouldn't begin with "shock and awe" and it wouldn't be a unilateral attack and occupation by the U.S. government that is seen as an imperialist colonization of an energy-rich country.
     
  3. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    You didn't ask for my opinion but I guess that hasn't stopped me from giving it before! Darfur was supposed to be handled by the UN. Its yet another example of what a complete waste the UN is. Nothing ever gets done, corruption is prevalent, and its a money sink.

    My own question would be if not through the UN does the US have authority to go into Darfur on its own to stop the bloodshed? Should it? We have not been attaked in any way. What happens if we have to kill 2,000-3,000 people to stop the killings? Can we? Should we? I think we DO have a moral obligation, but the legality of such action is questionable at best, right?

    (And if we can let's set aside the obvious questions as to whether Iraq is legal or not, I'm more interested in this particular thread about people's feelings about unilateral military force to achieve humanitarian goals.)
     
  4. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well said Wildo, but what about cases in which the UN can't or won't act, or isn't effective? What do we do then?
     
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,756
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,153 / 5 / -10

    They Can't Wait

    They'd Like To Ship The Troops Right Over There From Iraq

    They Wouldn't Even Want Them To Come Home On Leave

    Hell No We Won't Go
    No More War

    F-ck Dafur
    War Is Hell
     
  6. jack

    jack 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'd like to see the UN do their job....

    I would have liked the UN in rwanda..

    But an U.S. operation darfur freedom? NO..
     
  7. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    The U.S. helped pass a resolution in the U.N. that the Security Council must intervene in areas where they designate a "genocide" is taking place. The reason why the Bush administration and other leaders on the security council will not use the word "genocide" when describing the Darfur atrocities is that they do not want to have to commit troops to the area.

    The Clinton administration, following the Somalia debacle (Black Hawk Down) used this as a way to prevent involvement in Rwanda during the Tutsi/Hutu genocide. They refused to use the term "genocide" in any of their rhetoric and constantly downplayed the atrocities that were taking place there so that they wouldn't have to commit troops.

    The U.N. is far from perfect, as is inevitable with an organization made up of nations with different, competing and conflicting interests, but the Bush administration, along with others on the security council, do not want to commit troops to Darfur because it doesn't directly serve U.S. imperial hegemony the way invading Iraq does.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2008
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,756
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +1,153 / 5 / -10

    Let Russia, France, China, N Korea, and Cuba handle it, we need a rest.

    If the Racist Charlie Rangle wants to reinstate the Draft For Dafur all you young men Take Off For Canada this time we will really support you.

    Are Dafurian People Better Than Iraqi People :confused:

    NO MORE WAR
    WAR IS HELL
    PRAISE ALLAH
    DEATH TO AMERICA
     
  9. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Interesting, so for one reason or another the security council nations can stop UN involvement in peacekeeping/life saving missions? If mass murder was committed in say Tibet, China could stop UN involvement there? Can the security council be circumvented by the general assembly in a case like that? (may be showing my ignorance of how decisions are made in the UN there)

    It is a sad truth that we are unwilling to intervene in areas that do not serve our national interest, although maybe it would be equally as bad for us to violate another country's sovereignty to impose our will on them as to what we see as right/wrong. That's why I brought it up, its such a muddy issue.
     
  10. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    The Bush administration obviously doesn't think so because they've killed them almost as indiscriminantly (600,000 since invasion). The motives behind Iraq were WMD, then "liberation" and "democratization." The U.N. would have to commit troops from all nations, not just the U.S., who doesn't want to get involved in intervening in actual humanitarian crises, but rather throw the term around to justify its aggressions.
     
  11. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    Anyone on the Security Council has veto power. Also, atrocities that take place in a country that sits on the Security council, like Tibet in China or Chechnya in Russia, would never be intervened in because A) they have veto power and B) it would result in World War.

    As an added disincentive to intervene, there are countries on the Security Council that still do business with the Sudanese government and have a vested interest in not only hindering U.N. action there but keeping the current regime in power.
     
  12. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There's a part of me that thinks "if its not serving our national interest, we shouldn't be there, we've got enough problems of our own to deal with." Then the other part of me thinks that's a pretty awful worldview to have.

    And remembering Black Hawk down, I remember reading near the end about how much longer the troops had to wait to be pulled out because of the clusterfck that was the UN forces trying to organize, making sure all the countries were placated by their order and role in the rescue. And of course things being so disorganized that many troops had to hoof it out of the combat area running next to the tanks and APVs.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,459
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +921 / 7 / -3

    The UN didn't go into Rwanda cuz US & the Brits didn't want to. They refused to classify it as a genocide.
     
  14. Stokes

    Stokes In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Sorry, Tibet was a bad example, I should have come up with a free country who was being oppressed by someone that isn't a world power. It was just the first thing that popped in my head, an example of when China wouldn't allow involvement.

    Basically though the situation in the UN is such that many cases of genocide will be ignored because either nobody cares, or some have an active interest in helping the aggressors. I guess the question is how does that get resolved? I guess they tried with the resolution you mentioned, but it doesn't seem to have solved anything.
     
  15. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,459
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +921 / 7 / -3

    The UN is a waste of time. The reason the UN won't do it, is because the US won't foot the bill. The word was that something like 30, or 37,000 troops would be needed to completely end the genocide, but as usual, who pays, and who's troops are the problem. With the US in it's own mess elsewhere, the UN is showing how independent, and dependable it really is. What a total waste of a noble idea the UN is.
     
  16. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,459
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +921 / 7 / -3

    Wow, what a total BS figure you just used. It's garbage figures like that which seriously call into question a persons objectivity. I don't mean to diminish the tragedy that each lost life represents, but that figure is such diarea.
     
  17. jack

    jack 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Whats an accurate number? I heard between 150 thousand to 600 thousand...What do you got?

    Operation freedom is like genocide.
     
  18. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    This is the most widely agreed upon figure estimated by various NGO surveys and News Agencies throughout the world. The only figures that are drastically smaller than this are put forward by the Bush Administration. You can choose which ones you want to believe. I've heard the latter is a strong source of reliable information.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

    'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls

    An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university. The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq. The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

    It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush.

    Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate that the mortality rates have more than doubled since the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, causing an average of 500 deaths a day.


    I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me
    President George W Bush

    In the past, Mr Bush has put the civilian death toll in Iraq at 30,000, and hours after details of the latest research were published he dismissed the researchers' methodology as "pretty well discredited".

    The Johns Hopkins researchers argue their "cluster sample" approach is more reliable than counting dead bodies, given the obstacles preventing more comprehensive fieldwork in the violent and insecure conditions of Iraq.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2008
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,459
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +921 / 7 / -3

    I heard it was 198 billion. :rolleyes: People are too funny. They either say "Hussein" Obama is a muslim, or post figures that are beyond diarea. The truth, or even the slightest bit of objectivity, are totally lost when partisanism is involved.
     
  20. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,876
    Likes Received:
    36
    Ratings:
    +49 / 16 / -3

    It has nothing to do with "partisanism." You choose to believe the numbers put forward by the Bush administration despite numerous studies and surveys that show different figures. The Bush administration has a vested interest in downplaying the death toll in Iraq and has lied at countless points in the past. If it's a matter of what source you trust, that's fine. You take the Administration. I'll take the BBC.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>