Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

old europe wrote:

old europe wrote:
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?

Brandon9000 wrote:
Unfortunately, yes.

Branny -

at least 16,000 Iraqi civilian have died. Would you still say it was worth the cost?

Please estimate for me the consequences of a nuclear device being detonated in New York, or a man made plague being set off throughout England.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:
old europe wrote:
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?

Brandon9000 wrote:
Unfortunately, yes.

Branny -

at least 16,000 Iraqi civilian have died. Would you still say it was worth the cost?

Please estimate for me the consequences of a nuclear device being detonated in New York, or a man made plague being set off throughout England.

That's not an answer, hu?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
old europe wrote:
old europe wrote:
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?

Brandon9000 wrote:
Unfortunately, yes.

Branny -

at least 16,000 Iraqi civilian have died. Would you still say it was worth the cost?

Please estimate for me the consequences of a nuclear device being detonated in New York, or a man made plague being set off throughout England.

That's not an answer, hu?

Why, of course it's an answer. If someone like Hussein were to obtain WMD, millions could die and millions could be enslaved by him. In my opinion, waging a war in which 16,000 innocent people die in order to prevent millions of innocent from dying later is worth it, although it will never seem worth it to the people who die or the people close to them. This has always been the logic of non-combatant deaths in wars. A war in which some innocent people die may be justified, particularly if a tremendously larger number of innocent lives are at stake.

0 Replies

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Because we care too much about national politics.
Because we are provincial.

0 Replies

Brandon:

As I probably have more friends working in the Green Zone than you could possibly imagine, I'm sorry to say that you are full of it. You cannot walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed escort and are well armored, because it is ALSO the regular Iraqi citizen who is willing to kill to avenge the deaths of their loved ones at the hands of U.S. bombs.

And where did I equate the $9 billion missing to our reasons for invading Iraq? I was equating the $9 billion alongside the billions that are missing in the U.N.'s oil-for-food programs. But I'm sure that $9 billion is sitting in the pockets of some very wealthy contractors.

Please, you need to either read up on all of this, or debate on another thread. Unlike you, I work for one of the largest architectural engineering companies in the world, and have seen and heard more than you could ever possibly imagine.

Iraq is an absolute mess. And U.S. companies are willing to send out contractors to their deaths without proper protection. You can make a bundle over there, but what good is spending all of it if you're dead?

Wake the hell up. Christ, your arguments sound more convoluted with every posting.

Oh, and Iraq IS germain to the genocide in Darfur, if only in the sense that America really doesn't care because there is no OIL THERE. This nation is more polarized than ever, and our greatest enemies are becoming each other rather than the rest of the world.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon:

As I probably have more friends working in the Green Zone than you could possibly imagine, I'm sorry to say that you are full of it. You cannot walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed escort and are well armored, because it is ALSO the regular Iraqi citizen who is willing to kill to avenge the deaths of their loved ones at the hands of U.S. bombs.

Are you making a point with this rambling? Perhaps your point is that the war in Iraq is not justified because innocent people die and the loved ones are sad and angry. The mere fact of innocent deaths in war does not in any way demonstrate that the war was not justified. Innocent people always die in war, yet history regards some wars as having been just. Don't quote me casualty figures and claim that that shows that the war is unjustified. That is simply bad logic.

Dookiestix wrote:

And where did I equate the $9 billion missing to our reasons for invading Iraq?

In a previous post in this thread when you answered my question thus:

Dookiestix wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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?

Dookiestix wrote:

Please, you need to either read up on all of this, or debate on another thread.

Where have I shown a lack of familiarity with the subject? The post regarding the $9 billion shows, in fact, that I was familiar with the missing funds.

Dookiestix wrote:

Unlike you, I work for one of the largest architectural engineering companies in the world,...

How marvelous! Now tell me where I work.

Dookiestix wrote:

...and have seen and heard more than you could ever possibly imagine.

My, you are a very important man! Sorry, sir, I won't contest your political ideas again. I had no idea who I was talking to!

Dookiestix wrote:

Iraq is an absolute mess. And U.S. companies are willing to send out contractors to their deaths without proper protection. You can make a bundle over there, but what good is spending all of it if you're dead?

As I mentioned previously, to invade was the correct decision.

Dookiestix wrote:

Wake the hell up.

Yes, sir!

Dookiestix wrote:

Christ, your arguments sound more convoluted with every posting.

For instance?

Dookiestix wrote:

Oh, and Iraq IS germain to the genocide in Darfur, if only in the sense that America really doesn't care because there is no OIL THERE. This nation is more polarized than ever, and our greatest enemies are becoming each other rather than the rest of the world.

We invaded Iraq because of WMD, not oil.

0 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Because we care too much about national politics.
Because we are provincial.

Pretty much. As sadly and abundantly evidenced yet again on this thread. Sorry to see that folks didnt heed my posts about engaging with Brandon - not because I think he's wrong (which I think he is) but because Y'ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IRAQ AND THE US NOW FOR 85% OF A THREAD THATS ABOUT WHY PEOPLE DONT CARE ABOUT SUDAN!

Sorry for yelling. But man, dont all of you - not just Brandon, all those who do the whole play-by-play with him on the tired old Iraq thing just as much - make the very point this thread highlighted from the start. Apparently, people dont care about Sudan, because ... well, theres just not enough brownie points or potshots to be taken from it on Bush and neocons and liberals and Americans and all the rest you get your panties in a bunch about.

For this once I'm gonna compliment McGentrix - for at least showing an actual interest in the fate of the Darfurians in a thread thats about them. Him and Squinney. What do we do? What can/should the US government - any other government - the UN - any of us individually - do? I listed everything I could think from the top of my head that I think governments could do ... what do you all think? Or is the point only to be able to prove this or that of the usual suspects "hypocritical" or "useless"?

End of rant.

0 Replies

o.k., nimh, my apologies.

What should we do? We should send in troops, secure the peace, and help liberate the people who are being slaughtered in Sudan. Then we should start the reconstruction process.

OR, we should actually FUND the U.N. appropriately so that they can fully function in the capacity that we wish them to be, but are too busy demonizing them to enable the U.N. to achieve that goal.

Until the Bush cabal starts doing something seriously about bringing countries together (and pushing for more bipartisan support in Congress for solutions to this genocide), the only thing America is capable of doing is spewing forth the rhetoric that they actually care.

McGentrix offered us the fundraising involved to help in this endeavor. But how has that money been spent?

0 Replies

Imagine what the world would think of us if we did something that was purely for humanitarian reasons. The global perception of America is pretty much along the lines of emperical domination, no matter what we do. Everything we try to do in that regard always has political strings attached to it, and only serves to help the political careers of those who need it the most.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Sorry for yelling. But man, dont all of you - not just Brandon, all those who do the whole play-by-play with him on the tired old Iraq thing just as much - make the very point this thread highlighted from the start. Apparently, people dont care about Sudan, because ... well, theres just not enough brownie points or potshots to be taken from it on Bush and neocons and liberals and Americans and all the rest you get your panties in a bunch about.

<nods>

And apologies.Guess this was indeed a proof-of-concept... We don't care about it because we're sooooo living in the past... about who was wrong and who was right... And it wont even change anything....

k. Be constructive. What could be done? What could WE do?

Found this. What do you think?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Unfortunately, the US can not CURE the Worlds problems.

Unfortunately, we only directly help when it is in our INTEREST to help.

I am sure the UN has spoken out against the outrage, yet the Sudan Govt ignores them.

Alan Keyes views the UN as complicit in the genocide in Sudan, and asks people to send aid through the Persecution Project Foundation:

http://www.persecutionproject.org/

The UN in my view is pure evil. If it were within my power to do so, I'd send them packing in a heartbeat.

0 Replies

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=68264

U.N. agency makes a parody of `rights'
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Sunday, February 13, 2005

The United Nations continues to behave like a caricature, a hideous parody of all that the civilized world holds sacred.

The current case in point: the selection of Cuba and Zimbabwe to a panel that will decide on the agenda for next month's meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. This must be a joke, no?

Cuba and Zimbabwe, of course, made Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's six-nation ``outposts of tyranny'' list during her recent Senate confirmation hearings. Rice is hardly alone in her criticism.

Jose Miguel Vivanco, head of the America's Division of Human Rights Watch, called the naming of Cuba to the panel ``a scandal,'' adding, a country with ``such a poor record on human rights should not be rewarded in this way.''

The role of the so-called ``Working Group on Situations'' is to rule on the admissibility of complaints to be heard by the full 53-member commission when it meets. What do you suppose the chances are of the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and allegations about the detainees at the prison at Guantanamo, Cuba, making the top of the commission's priority list?

Just last August, of course, Zimbabwe was the subject of a U.S. complaint to the commission. At the time U.S. Ambassador Richard Williamson said, ``The Government of Zimbabwe continues to conduct a concerted campaign of violence, repression and intimidation against its citizens.''

Rounding out the panel will be Saudi Arabia (an authoritarian monarch, but by comparison a relative paragon of human rights rectitude). Of course, women can't vote in that nation's upcoming elections, but nevermind.

Hungary and the Netherlands, the remaining members of the panel, must wonder what they did to deserve such company. Oh, this really ought to be an intriguing session in commission headquarters in Geneva.

But then the only thing more intriguing than the agenda-setting working group are some of the actual commission members - which includes China, Russia and our personal favorite, Sudan, recently elected to another three-year term.

Apparently no one at the world body thought the government's role in the genocide against black Muslims in Sudan's Darfur region was a blot on its record. Oh, but then another U.N. commission appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan did rule recently that there was insufficient evidence of ``genocidal intent'' in Darfur. No, all of those mass murders, rapes and burning of homes were simply ``crimes against humanity with an ethnic dimension.''

And this gang of thugs gets to talk about ``human rights?''

Who cares!

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Alan Keyes views the UN as complicit in the genocide in Sudan, and asks people to send aid through the Persecution Project Foundation:

http://www.persecutionproject.org/

The UN in my view is pure evil. If it were within my power to do so, I'd send them packing in a heartbeat.

UN bashing left aside.... bypassing the UN, sending aid through the Persecution Project Foundation: how much would you be willing to give?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Alan Keyes views the UN as complicit in the genocide in Sudan, and asks people to send aid through the Persecution Project Foundation:

http://www.persecutionproject.org/

The UN in my view is pure evil. If it were within my power to do so, I'd send them packing in a heartbeat.

UN bashing left aside.... bypassing the UN, sending aid through the Persecution Project Foundation: how much would you be willing to give?

Assuming I was a hundred percent certain that the aid would actually get to the intended recipients, as much as I could afford.

The persecution Project Foundation is not a member of ECFA but they appear to be highly rated by at least one similar organization, i.e. ministrywatch

http://www.ministrywatch.com/mw2.1/F_SumRpt.asp?EIN=000001089

and the endorsement of Keyes helps, like I say I view him as 100% straight up.

In an ideal world of course, there would be an American naval blockade around Sudan and the stupid mother fuckers running the place would be told that nothing was entering or leaving the place until the violence against innocents stopped.

0 Replies

It is natural to be apathetic to what goes on in Africa--because it has been going on since we were children--likely, before.

Africans are always starving--we collect and send money as children from Sunday School, and elementary school.

Africans are dying in large numbers from easily preventable diseases--we send money from school and church, and at Halloween, we ask for UNICEF funds instead of candy. We send it to UNICEF for Africans.

Africans are butchering one another; women and children are starved by African warlords...our govt sends our young men to protect UN peacekeepers--our men are murdered and dragged through the streets.

Africans are dying exponentially of AIDS and other diseases--our country sends them billions, and helps develop and implement strategies for fighting disease.

Since as long as I can remember, Africa has been imploding. Since as long as I can remember, my family, my church, my community and my country have responded to Africa.

It only gets worse. Surely, one can understand how people may think they've done more than is required of them--and to no avail.

Many people are sponsering children in Africa.

It is nice to discuss how much you are willing to give. I'd also be interested in estimates of how much you have already given just to African concerns and charities so far in your life.

0 Replies

So, from reading this thread I can see the worst thing about the tragedy in Sudan, is Bush is a liar and the Million Plus Iraqis Saddam starved to death since the Gulf war don't count because Bush is liar. Rolling Eyes

Predictably, AU thinks the Sudan isn't our problem... At least he's consistent.

Dookie, Cyclops Rolling Eyes

Old Europe, the poster, seems mostly to want to instigate the Iraq argument (even more than Brandon). You keep bringing up Bush's speech, though, and this at least is topic relevant...

I think Squinney's right and everyone of us should write not only our Congressmen, but Bush as well; and remind him what he said in that speech. Turning the blind eye on genocide is the most disgusting display of apathy I can imagine. Yes, it was terrible when we watched it in Iraq, too, Old Europe. And the dozens of other places past and present where the A-holes run rampant. It's terrible when we turn the blind eye human rights abuses anywhere. Pretend we lack the resources if it makes you feel better folks, but it's no different than saying we can't feed everyone. Bullsh!t. Yes, we can we just don't care.

Lose the sarcasm, Old Europe, and you'd be making a pretty damn good point. Bush did outperform the UN in Iraq. With UN backing, half the ABB folks would have been behind taking Saddam out because he was an A-hole who did deserve it and only the hyper partisan and/or apathetic deny that.

The UN, and most of the member states were guilty of this disgusting apathy in Iraq and now they appear unanimously guilty of it in Sudan. Bush should send a resolution to the UN for consideration that it's time to address regime change in the Sudan. (So should Chirac, Schroeder, etc, etc, etc.) At the same time; he should send the message over to the Khartoum government that if they don't want to be next on the chopping block they need to

A. Stop the killing now.
B. Take steps to make sure there is food for everyone.
C. Announce plans to begin the transition towards a more democratic system of government where all citizens will be entitled to, at the very least, basic human rights and self-determination. If they don't buy the bluff; form a coalition of the willing and take them down.

This "we can't take out all the tyrants" attitude is actually irrelevant, because we don't have to. We only need to convince those in our gun sights that we are serious to pull the trigger. (Saddam didn't believe it bet he wishes he had). The result would be an immediate raising of the bar as the A-holes began to strive to not be "next". Simple logistics and common sense means we can't do it all at once. A angry bear surrounded by one hundred unarmed men is not a threat to all of them yet each man knows he can't take the bear either. Whoever the bear is looking directly at is in grave danger and all should now know it. It is within "Old Europe's" power to add their voice to ours (or invite us to add ours to theirs) and scare the wits out of every tyrant on this planet. We're pretty much undefeatable without them but this fact becomes undeniable with them. If Chirac had announced he was unwilling to wait for the U.S.'s slow timeline to develop with Schroeder growls in the background and Putin pledges the full military might of the Russian forces; would Saddam have remained defiant? I think not. What do you think Umar Hassan Ahmad al-BASHIR would do?

I don't believe for one minute the United States couldn't spare the resources to handle Sudan on their own. And, mostly for political posturing, I don't believe for one minute "Old Europe" would let us let alone make us. It would be very tough to look down your nose at the hated Americans as they marched away from your petty squabbling to go do the work that needs to be done in an area where you couldn't accuse them of an ulterior motive. No way they'd let that happen.

The problem is, just like "Old Europe" and the UN, the United States doesn't seem to give a rat's a$$. This thread was more than ample proof it's citizens don't. A2Kers are among the most aware US-Americans around; so if they can't focus on Sudan Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I guess that we should attempt to work with the UN, and, if that fails, do it ourselves as we did when there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I certainly don't think we should just sit back and watch the most abhorrent acts of evil occur. Since we are strong and wealthy, we have a greater responsibility than most to act when there is suffering on such a massive scale.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess that we should attempt to work with the UN, and, if that fails, do it ourselves as we did when there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I certainly don't think we should just sit back and watch the most abhorrent acts of evil occur. Since we are strong and wealthy, we have a greater responsibility than most to act when there is suffering on such a massive scale.

I would agree with all but one little part of that. As far as I've ever been able to tell, there wasn't any ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. What WAS going on was that Slick Clinton needed something to take Chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick story off the front pges of American newspapers.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL -

definitely think I have to reply... Were do I start...? You shouldn't assume my statements are pure sarcasm. They are not. I think you've come to that conclusion because you've decided I'm just another liberal Euro.

Not true.

Before the whole Iraq thing started, I was convinced that the "western" nations could actually work together. Afghanistan was an example. We all thought that it was not too bad an idea to do something about the Taliban. And to hunt down Bin Laden. I thought so.

But for some reason, Iraq soon became another objective. Somewhere along this way I got lost. I could see the Afghanistan-Al Qaeda-9/11 connection. Now, I couldn't see the connection to Iraq.
Nevertheless. I did, never ever, want to see Saddam in the place he was. And, most definitely, not in the possesion of WMD.

Therefore I thought it was a big mistake for Schröder to state that he could never agree with military action. You don't say things like that. You don't go like "You comply with what we demand or else.... we will do nothing".
Btw: Fischer said that with an UN mandate, he could see Germany sanctioning a different approach, too. Not that anybody would have noticed, I guess...

I think so many nations would have been on the US side (actually, it's not about sides....) had there been a UN mandate. The UN is important to us Europeans, you know?

You say that

Quote:

With UN backing, half the ABB folks would have been behind taking Saddam out because he was an A-hole who did deserve it

- and I agree with 100%.

But see... I still think that the reasons for invading Iraq went from "they're harbouring terrorists" to "they've got WMD" to "let's liberate the people".

Whatever. Let's focus on the last statement. Bush did exactly the same in his inauguration speech. Which is why I quoted it.

And this is why you're are wrong in one important point. You say

Quote:

I don't believe for one minute the United States couldn't spare the resources to handle Sudan on their own. And, mostly for political posturing, I don't believe for one minute "Old Europe" would let us let alone make us.

Quite the opposite is true. Actually, I'd like to see Bush live up to what he said. I'd appreciate the US would step in and do something. For several reasons:

- It would verify Bush's claim that everything was done in the name of freedom, liberty, democracy.
- It would show compassion for a region free of doubts that prospective economical profits might be the motivation.
- It would mean "we" wouldn't have to get our hands dirty (selfish, but true)

You say

Quote:

It would be very tough to look down your nose at the hated Americans as they marched away from your petty squabbling to go do the work that needs to be done in an area where you couldn't accuse them of an ulterior motive.

Now, I don't hate Americans. Certainly not. I spend a lot of my time within the boundaries of the United States of America, and I actually enjoy it! Sometimes working there, sometimes just on vacation. Enjoyed it tremendously, every time. I daresay.

Does this mean I have to agree with the government on everything? Probably not. I doubt you do so.

Nevertheless, I can tell you that many people don't really like Americans. Not only within Europe. Travel south, for example. Go to Mexico. Go to Guatemala. Whatever. Talk to people. (I did.)

So wouldn't it be a SPLENDID idea to prove so many people wrong? What would they say witnessing the hated Americans as they marched away from your petty squabbling to go do the work that needs to be done in an area where you couldn't accuse them of an ulterior motive.

I think A LOT would change. It probably would even make the States safer. The less people hate you, the less likely an attack. Don't you agree?

You say

Quote:

The problem is, just like "Old Europe" and the UN, the United States doesn't seem to give a rat's a$$.

Well, I give a rat's a$$. I hope you do. I hope more people do.

Which means that more people should hold Bush accountable for what he said. It would benefit us all.

Quote:

Bush should send a resolution to the UN for consideration that it's time to address regime change in the Sudan. (So should Chirac, Schroeder, etc, etc, etc.) At the same time; he should send the message over to the Khartoum government that...

is what you say. And

Quote:

I think Squinney's right and everyone of us should write not only our Congressmen, but Bush as well; and remind him what he said in that speech.

Exactly my point! We don't disagree on the whole issue! Even though I'm from Europe. Isn't THAT awesome???

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I guess that we should attempt to work with the UN, and, if that fails, do it ourselves as we did when there was ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I certainly don't think we should just sit back and watch the most abhorrent acts of evil occur. Since we are strong and wealthy, we have a greater responsibility than most to act when there is suffering on such a massive scale.

I would agree with all but one little part of that. As far as I've ever been able to tell, there wasn't any ethnic cleansing going on in Kosovo. What WAS going on was that Slick Clinton needed something to take Chinagate and the Juanita Broaddrick story off the front pges of American newspapers.

To the best of my knowledge:

There were rumours about "concentration camps" in Kosovo. No evidence was ever found. But there's hardly any doubt that there was indeed "ethnic cleansing" (what a term) going on...

0 Replies

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know