Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Bush did not use the WMD as an excuse. That was his actual reason for invading Iraq, as he repeatedly said, and it was no more wrong than when a policeman frisks a suspect in a crime and doesn't find a gun. Not finding the gun does not make frisking the suspect wrong, nor does it mean the suspect didn't have a gun 60 seconds previously.

We do care.

You can care to.

PUBLIC DONATION INFORMATION
• The most effective way people can assist relief efforts is by making cash contributions to humanitarian organizations that are conducting relief operations. A list of humanitarian organizations that are accepting cash donations for their humanitarian emergency response efforts in Darfur, Sudan can be found at www.interaction.org.
• USAID encourages cash donations because they: allow aid professionals to procure the exact items needed (often in the affected region); reduce the burden on scarce resources (such as transportation routes, staff time, warehouse space, etc); can be transferred very quickly and without transportation costs; support the economy of the disaster-stricken region; ensure culturally, dietary, and environmentally appropriate assistance.
• More information on making donations and volunteering can be found at:
o U.S. Agency for International Development: www.usaid.gov - keyword: donations
o The Center for International Disaster Information: www.cidi.org or 703-276-1914
o InterAction: www.interaction.org -> "How You Can Help"
• Information on relief activities of the humanitarian community can be found at www.reliefweb.org

Christ, we're too busy trying to secure the oil reserves in Iraq to worry about preventing genocide in a country that means nothing to us.

We're too busy slaughtering thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens (with the help of terrorists who are now entrenched in Iraq) to worry about the slaughter of innocent citizens in Darfur.

Bush and his criminal gang have done a splendid job of demonizing the U.N. Although, isn't it interesting we haven't heard much regarding the oil-for-food fiasco that neocons insist on bringing up, despite the $9 billion of unaccounted U.S. dollars meant for reconstruction in Iraq?

Quote:

Bush did not use the WMD as an excuse. That was his actual reason for invading Iraq, as he repeatedly said, and it was no more wrong than when a policeman frisks a suspect in a crime and doesn't find a gun. Not finding the gun does not make frisking the suspect wrong, nor does it mean the suspect didn't have a gun 60 seconds previously.

Unbelievable. I've never heard a more ridiculous anology in my life.

We NEVER frisked the Iraqis. We just killed them, tortured them, abused them, brainwashed them and humiliated them.

Big difference from mearly "frisking" a suspect.

I would imagine the reasons for frisking that suspect don't change. But Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed practically on a daily basis.

Just truly unbelievable.

You seem to be implying that we're trying to steal the oil. Am I misreading you here? If you think this, then please give an example or two.

The insurgents are slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens, and we are trying to stop the insurgents. In any war innocent people die, and anybody who has a different expectation is a fool, but only the insurgents attack ordinary citizens as the primary intended target.

Please back up your assertion of criminality against the president. Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it true. As to demonizing the UN, the assertion is really that the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, usually will not act even in very serious situations that require action.

"government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis ... The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called 'African' tribes."

The effects of this ethnic cleansing campaign have been devastating. It is estimated that at least 200,000 people have died. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and over 200,000 have fled across the border to Chad.

The USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (USAID/DART) for Darfur has expanded in size and technical expertise. At present, the team is composed of 19 members, including field and program officers, as well as specialists in health, security, water and sanitation, engineering, logistics, food issues, information, and protection.

I congratulate the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement. [...] As we celebrate this positive movement toward peace in the longstanding North-South conflict, we remember the conflict in Darfur and the suffering it causes. This comprehensive peace agreement should serve as an inspiration and model for both sides in their work toward negotiating a peaceful resolution of the Darfur conflict.

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The point is that inspecting something that might be a lethal danger so that you don't get murdered down the road can be justifiable, even if the test result is negative.

What he's trying to say is:

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I did not ever claim that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to fight terrorism. Show me a post in which I said that.

Who is talking about terrorism? I certainly am not.

Quote:

Please back up your assertion of criminality against the president. Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it true. As to demonizing the UN, the assertion is really that the UN, like its predecessor the League of Nations, usually will not act even in very serious situations that require action.

Oh, my, that's hysterical. Look no further than the neocon death cult to repeat lie after lie after lie until people like you believe it to be true.

Connecting Saddam to 9/11.

Paying journalist shills to sell the administrations policies.

Running paid ads disguised as news stories to sell administration policies.

Having a male escort who works for a fake news organization asking softball questions to the pResident.

Accusing the AARP of being against our troops but for gay marriage.

Tax breaks to the wealthiest.

The horribly underfunded NCLB being deemed unconstitutional.

AWOL from the National Guard.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The point is that inspecting something that might be a lethal danger so that you don't get murdered down the road can be justifiable, even if the test result is negative.

What he's trying to say is:

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I did not ever claim that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to fight terrorism. Show me a post in which I said that.

Who is talking about terrorism? I certainly am not.

Exactly my point. You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?

You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?

No. Why are we even having this conversation? Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.

Quote:

You seem to be implying that we're trying to steal the oil. Am I misreading you here? If you think this, then please give an example or two.

Fine. What happened to the roughly $9 billion we would supposedly be making from selling Iraqi oil for reconstruction?

Quote:

The insurgents are slaughtering innocent Iraqi citizens, and we are trying to stop the insurgents. In any war innocent people die, and anybody who has a different expectation is a fool, but only the insurgents attack ordinary citizens as the primary intended target.

To the average Iraqi, they don't differentiate between us dropping bombs on them and terrorists blowing them up. Don't you read the papers?

old europe wrote:

You're saying, fighting terrorism wasn't the reason for invading Iraq.
Would you say that the wish to bring freedom and democracy could maybe have been a reason for invading Iraq?

Brandon9000 wrote:

No. Why are we even having this conversation? Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.

I just wanted to make sure. As far as I remember, I have never asked you whether or not you thought that the wish to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq was a reason for going to war.

Alright..... thanks for clarifying this, Branny!

Just to sum it up:
- the fight against terrorism wasn't the reason for going to war
- bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq wasn't the reason for going to war
- the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs was the reason to go to war
- no remaining WMD and WMD programs have been found
- 1,487 soldier have been killed, 10,968 have been wounded so far
- the cost of the war so far amounts to roughly $156,000,000,000

Brandon - would you say it was worth the cost?

Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bush explained over and over and over that the reason was the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs.

Oh, and Brandon: has it ever occured to you that the reason for Bush's explaining over and over and over was to frighten people like you into such a state of paranoia that they would focus so much on the hunt for WMD so that they would forget that he has done virtually nothing to hunt down Osama bin Laden?

And, by virtually nothing I mean spending $156,000,000,000 on the war compared to all other measures taken to prevent another 9/11.

There is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths, but sometimes failing, and the insurgents who regularly target non-combatants as the primary intended target. Unless you are alleging that going to war is and has always been unjustified, than you cannot use the mere fact that deaths have occurred to show that the decision to go to war in this case was wrong. People died in WW2 also. Was our decision to declare war on Germany wrong?

Wait, McG, I want to sum this up....

- The situation is that

Quote:

"government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis ... The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called 'African' tribes."

The effects of this ethnic cleansing campaign have been devastating. It is estimated that at least 200,000 people have died. More than 1.6 million people have been displaced from their homes and over 200,000 have fled across the border to Chad.

- The U.S. Congress declared that the killings in Darfur amount to "genocide".

- More than $1 billion will be needed to fund the first year of the proposed United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Sudan, set up to help the vast region stabilize and its people rebuild their lives after a 21-year civil war.
source


The reaction is:

Quote:

The USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (USAID/DART) for Darfur has expanded in size and technical expertise. At present, the team is composed of 19 members, including field and program officers, as well as specialists in health, security, water and sanitation, engineering, logistics, food issues, information, and protection.

source

Total Humanitarian Assistance ('03 - '05): $876,798,796

... and that the President says:

Quote:

I congratulate the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement on the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement. [...] As we celebrate this positive movement toward peace in the longstanding North-South conflict, we remember the conflict in Darfur and the suffering it causes. This comprehensive peace agreement should serve as an inspiration and model for both sides in their work toward negotiating a peaceful resolution of the Darfur conflict.

Am I correct, McG?

Just to sum it up:
- the fight against terrorism wasn't the reason for going to war
- bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq wasn't the reason for going to war
- the search for remaining WMD and WMD programs was the reason to go to war
- no remaining WMD and WMD programs have been found
- 1,487 soldier have been killed, 10,968 have been wounded so far
- the cost of the war so far amounts to roughly $156,000,000,000

Brandon - would you say it was worth the cost?

Unfortunately, yes.

Amen to that, snood.

Brandon: It is truly amazing what you are NOT aware of, which only reinforces the point that when the neocons lie enough and obvuscate truthful information to the American people, the neoconservative's world only becomes much smaller in their awareness of the world around them. The fact that you somehow do not have the capability to do a simple google search for the information is even more telling. It is an obvious indicator that you are not willing to do your homework. Do us liberals have to do it for you?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105I.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4766808,00.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/breaking_news/10774402.htm

Quote:

There is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths, but sometimes failing, and the insurgents who regularly target non-combatants as the primary intended target. Unless you are alleging that going to war is and has always been unjustified, than you cannot use the mere fact that deaths have occurred to show that the decision to go to war in this case was wrong. People died in WW2 also. Was our decision to declare war on Germany wrong?

Oh my. First of all, comparing Iraq to Germany is a joke. Germany was expanding throughout Europe, invading other countires, and killing millions of Jews in one of the largest genocide campaigns in world history. That would be Jews in OTHER COUNTRIES.

Secondly, if there is a world of difference between the U.S. trying to avoid non-combatant deaths and regularly targeted non-combatants as the primary intended target, theynwhy does the average Iraqi citizen see the insurgents and American troops in roughly the same light.

They are both killing innocent civilians in the crossfire. Perhaps you forgot that there are insurgents who are ONLY targeting American troops, as they feel strongly that they are fighting for the independence of their country from U.S. occupation.