Darfur
-
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
K(arl) wrote:
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
The USA is too busy with a political civil war in the USA House and Senate and with insurgents in Afganistan and Iraq. France busy? Maybe you guys could take the lead at the UN on this one.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
get rid of Bush and American conservatism. That is far more important than anything going on in Darfur
Glad you finally realise it!
Rob Manderson I'm working on a version for Visual Lisp++ My blog http://blogs.wdevs.com/ultramaroon/[^] My blog mirror http://robmanderson.blogspot.com[^]
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Canada or Cuba for example.
:laugh: Now really... :rolleyes:
-
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
K(arl) wrote:
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
There's quite an international reaction - I challenge you to find one person that doesn't think what's going on there is horrid... But I'm sure you meant why isn't the "world" taking direct action to stop it. Well, the answer there, I think, forces us in the West into some pretty uncomfortable territory. We're not powerful enough to bloodlessly assert our will on other countries. We can condemn them, but they don't care. We can "cut them off" fiscally, but they were already dirt poor. We can talk down to them morally, but they do not recognize our moral authority. We can criticize their driving motivations, at which point we'll be imperialists. There will always be situations in which we will be unable to create our desired outcome. Sometimes it's because we don't have the raw power to do so. Sometimes it's because we don't think we should exert that kind of power in the first place. I think Darfur is one of these. We're not going to fix it because it's not in our power, not because we don't care or don't realize how horrid it is.
"I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can" - Ignignot
-
Obviously because it is more difficult to blame Bush and the evil neo-cons. The goal isn't to actually help anyone or improve the world situation - it is to get rid of Bush and American conservatism. That is far more important than anything going on in Darfur
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
That's certainly true with regard to our affairs abroad. We don't do anything for the sake of helping the people. Its always in another interest. We certainly aren't helping the Iraqis. Every country we touch is spoiled by it. Maybe Serbia is doing better. But then, we were ignoring Rowanda then. So, nah, we aren't so concerned with the oppressd of the world or genocide. We have targeted interests.
This statement was never false.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
The USA is too busy with a political civil war in the USA House and Senate and with insurgents in Afganistan and Iraq. France busy? Maybe you guys could take the lead at the UN on this one.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
France busy? Maybe you guys could take the lead at the UN on this one.
And that's an interesting one. Somehow the US is looked to first, but then also looked to for blame. Catch 22.
This statement was never false.
-
That's certainly true with regard to our affairs abroad. We don't do anything for the sake of helping the people. Its always in another interest. We certainly aren't helping the Iraqis. Every country we touch is spoiled by it. Maybe Serbia is doing better. But then, we were ignoring Rowanda then. So, nah, we aren't so concerned with the oppressd of the world or genocide. We have targeted interests.
This statement was never false.
Yeah, what the world needs is some kind of international organization to handle those kinds of situations that transcends the concerns of any given nation's immediate intererests. Some sort of "United Nations" perhaps. It is really unfortunant that we don't have one of those to rely upon :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Canada or Cuba for example.
:laugh: Now really... :rolleyes:
It just seems to me that either one would be more to the liking of someone of Manderson's ilk. It is certainly what that type wants to turn the US into.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Yeah, what the world needs is some kind of international organization to handle those kinds of situations that transcends the concerns of any given nation's immediate intererests. Some sort of "United Nations" perhaps. It is really unfortunant that we don't have one of those to rely upon :rolleyes:
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Good point.
This statement was never false.
-
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
I always thought the point behind the worlds greatest democracy was that it's citizens could think what they want, regardless of whether that personally suits you or not.
-
It just seems to me that either one would be more to the liking of someone of Manderson's ilk. It is certainly what that type wants to turn the US into.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
It just seems to me that either one would be more to the liking of someone of Manderson's ilk. It is certainly what that type wants to turn the US into.
Canada has beer and hockey, Cuba has beautiful water and beaches, who wouldn't want that stuff?
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
-
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
K(arl) wrote:
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
There's quite an international reaction - I challenge you to find one person that doesn't think what's going on there is horrid... But I'm sure you meant why isn't the "world" taking direct action to stop it. Well, the answer there, I think, forces us in the West into some pretty uncomfortable territory. We're not powerful enough to bloodlessly assert our will on other countries. We can condemn them, but they don't care. We can "cut them off" fiscally, but they were already dirt poor. We can talk down to them morally, but they do not recognize our moral authority. We can criticize their driving motivations, at which point we'll be imperialists. There will always be situations in which we will be unable to create our desired outcome. Sometimes it's because we don't have the raw power to do so. Sometimes it's because we don't think we should exert that kind of power in the first place. I think Darfur is one of these. We're not going to fix it because it's not in our power, not because we don't care or don't realize how horrid it is.
"I hope he can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can" - Ignignot
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
I always thought the point behind the worlds greatest democracy was that it's citizens could think what they want, regardless of whether that personally suits you or not.
No! That would be treason...
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
What do you suggest? Invading a mostly Islamic nation to prevent its ruthless leader from systematically killing its minority population? Place a UN sanctioned force in between them? March in the streets with signs saying "Free Darfur" while wearing Che T-shirts ? Roundly condemn them in the UN? Apply sanctions to the government of Sudan? Any other really effective methods that have been tried in the past and failed miserably that I might have missed? Bueller? Anyone?
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
Remember Liberia Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, or Bosnia when the western powers stopped at last to play it nice. An interposition force can work, if it has the authorization to protect the civilians using any necessary mean. Political and economic sanctions can be a first step: no more business with Sudan, no more travel for sudanese officials.
Last modified: 11mins after originally posted --
military justice is to justice what military music is to music Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
Why is there no international reaction to the widespread massacres?
The USA is too busy with a political civil war in the USA House and Senate and with insurgents in Afganistan and Iraq. France busy? Maybe you guys could take the lead at the UN on this one.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
I wonder if 'we' have many troops available left[^]. There are some in Chad that could give a hand. On the political side, I agree, France should take the lead at the UN, and if possible integrate this in an european process.
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Another thing I realize is that you came a long way to get to the US to join a band of treasonous scum trying to destroy the country. Why did'nt you just pick a country already set up the way you wanted - Canada or Cuba for example.
I always thought the point behind the worlds greatest democracy was that it's citizens could think what they want, regardless of whether that personally suits you or not.
Johnny ² wrote:
I always thought the point behind the worlds greatest democracy was that it's citizens could think what they want, regardless of whether that personally suits you or not.
It is. That is precisely what I was doing - giving my opinion of Manderson whether it personally suits you or not. You have a problem with that?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It just seems to me that either one would be more to the liking of someone of Manderson's ilk. It is certainly what that type wants to turn the US into.
Canada has beer and hockey, Cuba has beautiful water and beaches, who wouldn't want that stuff?
Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
And if you combine all that, you have Australia (except trade hocky for rugby I suppose). So why did he ever leave?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Remember Liberia Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, or Bosnia when the western powers stopped at last to play it nice. An interposition force can work, if it has the authorization to protect the civilians using any necessary mean. Political and economic sanctions can be a first step: no more business with Sudan, no more travel for sudanese officials.
Last modified: 11mins after originally posted --
military justice is to justice what military music is to music Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Political and economic sanctions can be a first step: no more business with Sudan, no more travel for sudanese officials.
At which time the US will be blamed for purposefully starving children (if a republican is in office, ok otherwise).
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about