Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Exactly, OB, looking at the sale being made with any hard close technique would turn you way from that salesperson, now wouldn't it? Perhaps that doesn't turn you away from being sold by that salesperson. It does me.

The image of the foot-on-the-throat, and if you taking it a step further, taking one's VISA card out of their wallet and charging thes sale was a humorous imagery illustrating a hard close.

0 Replies

(But I think you knew that and are feigning being dumb).

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Amazing. I actually agree.

That is a bit of a surprise. Smile

LW, your metaphor sucked, dude. This is more like paying taxes. You are going to do so, so do you want to do it the easy way or the hard way? (Saddam chose hard, lets hope Omar chooses easy). You may not like it, but the fact is; carrots are more enticing after you've seen the stick in action. I think he'll cooperate at any level on par with the level he feels threatened. If we don't care, he won't care. If we run front page stories that his a$$ is next; his a$$ will do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. If not, his a$$ belongs in the ringer and that's exactly where it should go. Then ask his a$$'s replacement; how about you? Would you like to do it the easy way or the hard way? You're kidding your self if you think pride will make your average man will choose the foot to the throat... or the stick over that tasty carrot. Ask the IRS agent who's for a living asks the question, "would you like to keep you house?" His next line is usually, "I thought so." Idea

0 Replies

I think that there are cases where the threat of force -- aimed at those in charge and not at the country in general -- could work. I think this is one of those cases. I would, of course, hope that the threat was enough, but I'd lose a lot less sleep over dead leaders than dead civilians or even dead soldiers.

The problem is, true or not, we've now signed up to be the "savior of the oppressed people" and if we don't respond to this crisis then our credibility will be even worse than it already is. We either believe in defending human rights with force (as we claim we did and are doing in Iraq) or we don't. The difference, IMO, between Iraq and Sudan is that the killing is happening, right now, in Sudan while the mass killing in Iraq (not even sure if there was technically a genocide there) had long since abated. That and the fact that we pretty transparently didn't invade for such noble reasons. In short, we weren't stopping an existing war in Iraq, but we could be stopping one in Sudan. To be clear, I'm not advocating invasion and occupation. I'm advocating making the threats (and backing them up with missiles in government buildings if necessary) and also pushing, through the UN, to put more African Union troops in Sudan and giving them the authority to protect the civilians.

0 Replies

You opinion of the metaphor is telling. We are all salespeople in one way or another. We mostly indulge in selling ourselves. You're not selling me any better than this adminstrations sells itself.

IRS agents no longer try to take someone's house, BTW.

0 Replies

What is it with about Iraq that makes people deny the friggin facts? Yes there was a genocide there when Saddam murdered 300,000 Kurds (some with CWMD). After the first Gulf war we found thousands of Iraqi Secret Police files describing the genocide. This isn't a maybe. It is a cold hard fact.

And for the millionth time: Saddam was still systematically starving his people to death at the time of our invasion. According to UNICEF he had already killed over million people (more than half a million- 5 years old or younger. Crying or Very sad

) A year later; the Sudan still hadn't reached 70,000 dead yet. You would have to go back many decades to count that many bodies in Sudan. When comparing mass murdering monsters, stop trying to unseat Saddam as second only to Kim Jong IL, please. Regardless of Bush's reasoning, Saddam really is that bad of an A-hole... okay?

0 Replies

Well, no big surprise there. It's not about Saddam, it's about Iraq. It's not about who killed more people when how and for how long. It's about stopping war versus starting war.

0 Replies

To begin with the statistic at the time of the invasion in 2003 were 300,000 dissidents killed, 186,000 being Kurds and the rest being mostly Shiites. Many of these were considered traitors, albeit in the eyes of a corrupt regime, and executed in prisons. Doesn't make Sadaam any less of a monster but let's get the numbers right.

How many have been starved to death Sudan by the government in the past ten years or so? No figures to compare there.

This isn't to make any rationlization for Sadaam's horrible behaviour but it puts a lot of perspective on why we would consider invading and country and when we would not. Putkin is now saying Iran does not have WMD.

It just gets curiouser and curiouser as the administration's foreign policy shape shifts and Bush continued his cowboy posture. Laura Bush was suppose to attenuate that image in Europe and failed.

I think Bush has roiled a pot he is incapable of following through on and just may fall in.

0 Replies

Free, what the hell are you talking about? Both are examples of a government systematically murdering it's citizens. You condone action against only one... and that one being guilty of 1/10th murders in the last decade or so... and Zero threat to us or any of our allies... and has never possessed WMD... and hasn't violated umpteen ...etc. How can that possibly make sense to you? Brandon was right... there is some kind of logic disconnect when it comes to Iraq. If the Darfur murders warrant military intervention (and they most certainly do), it is ludicrous to suggest that murdering ten times more people doesn't. This is where benevolent idealism doesn't work. You can watch this kind of mass-murder and do nothing or you can do something. There is no choice that won't involve innocent people dying. FreeDuck, you are so close to getting this it makes me want to scream. Please PM me your email for the reason described in my sigline.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

To begin with the statistic at the time of the invasion in 2003 were 300,000 dissidents killed, 186,000 being Kurds and the rest being mostly Shiites. Many of these were considered traitors, albeit in the eyes of a corrupt regime, and executed in prisons. Doesn't make Sadaam any less of a monster but let's get the numbers right.

You are quibbling about numbers that diminish my point not at all. Stats vary wildly according to who's doing the reporting. I've sourced my numbers many times already and the quibble is obscene anyway. What's the magic number to call it genocide in your book? 186,000 +1?

Lightwizard wrote:

How many have been starved to death Sudan by the government in the past ten years or so? No figures to compare there.

Dude, that's disgusting. How do you belittle a half million little children being starved to death? Sudan didn't have an OFF program that provided more than enough money to purchase food for its masses. Presiding over a poor country isn't a crime against humanity in itself. Stealing the grocery money that would have stopped half a million babies from starving to death is. For Dog's sake man, get that through your head already. (This is a FACT about mass murder. Bush has nothing to do with it Rolling Eyes

)

Lightwizard wrote:

This isn't to make any rationlization for Sadaam's horrible behaviour but it puts a lot of perspective on why we would consider invading and country and when we would not. Putkin is now saying Iran does not have WMD.

Do you mean Putin? Who said they do? And why would you take the former KGB man's word... when he is right now, even as we speak; arresting his political adversaries and reversing Russia's evolution towards freedom? How important must it be for you to tarnish Bush to bring up such an irrelevant inanity?

Lightwizard wrote:

It just gets curiouser and curiouser as the administration's foreign policy shape shifts and Bush continued his cowboy posture. Laura Bush was suppose to attenuate that image in Europe and failed.

I don't even know what this nonsense is supposed to mean.

Lightwizard wrote:

I think Bush has roiled a pot he is incapable of following through on and just may fall in.

You've made that clear. I've never seen you make a reasonable case for why you think that, and you most certainly haven't (nor should you have) here. The to topic is Murder in the Sudan, not "downplaying the murder of millions so you can take a pot shot at Bush". My friend, I find your behavior here deplorable. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Free, what the hell are you talking about? Both are examples of a government systematically murdering it's citizens.

Yes. Both are examples of government systematically murdering its citizens. One is currently doing it. The other did it a long time ago. It's a matter of timing.

Quote:

You condone action against only one... and that one being guilty of 1/10th murders in the last decade or so... and Zero threat to us or any of our allies... and has never possessed WMD... and hasn't violated umpteen ...etc. How can that possibly make sense to you?

Maybe if you understood that, to me anyway, it's not about the relative guilt of the party or how many people that were killed, it's about the effect of intervening. What happened in Iraq was mostly history. You can argue the starvation due to Saddam's reaction to the sanctions, but it's not quite the same thing as systematically executing entire villages of people. We have the power to nip this one in the bud and not wait 15 years to decide that Sudan deserves attacking. It is because we have the ability to stop this by intervening that I advocate intervening. But I'm still not ok with invasion and occupation, not even in this case. So the comparison isn't so straight forward as you would like it to be. If you were to propose invading Sudan with US troops virtually alone, I'd be against that as I was against it for Iraq.

Quote:

Brandon was right... there is some kind of logic disconnect when it comes to Iraq. If the Darfur murders warrant military intervention (and they most certainly do), it is ludicrous to suggest that murdering ten times more people doesn't.

It did warrant it, when it happened. Not some 15 years later.

Quote:

This is where benevolent idealism doesn't work. You can watch this kind of mass-murder and do nothing or you can do something. There is no choice that won't involve innocent people dying. FreeDuck, you are so close to getting this it makes me want to scream. Please PM me your email for the reason described in my sigline.

Go ahead and scream if it makes you feel better. I realize that you think I'm a daft child who pulls my opinions out of my ass without thinking, but it's really not true. The differences between Iraq in 2003 and Sudan now seem evident. You have a more ideastic way of looking at it, fine, but I don't see it that way.

0 Replies

Quote:

You can argue the starvation due to Saddam's reaction to the sanctions, but it's not quite the same thing as systematically executing entire villages of people.

"Saddam's reaction to the sanctions"? Stop apologizing for his murder. Oil for food was set up for the expressed purpose of feeding people. It took in more than enough money to do so. How can you suggest this is anything short of mass murder? Saddam knowingly, intentionally, criminally acted in a way that resulted in the death of over a million people. Kim Jong IL does the exact same thing. He steals the aid and sells it on the black market. He too has killed over a million people in this fashion. Do you forgive him too? Rolling Eyes

Lets go apples to apples. If millions of people starved to death in Darfur... while Omar al Bashir stole the food that would have fed them, and built billion dollar castles with the dough in stead; would you still be condoning military action because of the thousands killed in raids, but not the millions killed via intentional starvation? This didn't happen 15 years, or a long time ago... It was ongoing at the time of our invasion.

0 Replies

Actually, the UN is planning to send in over 10,000 troops.

0 Replies

Got a simple clue for all of you; the US is up to it's eyeballs in debt, and we really can't afford the four to five billion a month we're spending in Iraq. We are perhaps a generous people, but there are limits when our schools and hospitals are closing at home, our roads in disrepair, and we're trying to help other countries with a crisis. ho-humm.... Can you spare a nickle, buddy?

0 Replies

Good for them.

Bill, I've offered no forgiveness an no apologies and I won't now. In the case of death by starvation caused indirectly by Saddam there were other avenues we could have taken. Regardless of what Saddam did, our sanctions targeted his people. Lifting the sanctions would have remedied that situation but we weren't willing to do that. You may see scamming the oil for food program as the same thing as genocide, not many other people do. So to answer your question, I am advocating the threat and possible use of force because of those continuing to be killed in the raids. If he were starving his people too, I would not expect us to use the threat of force to remedy that situation by itself.

If we want to compare apples to apples, the best comparison to what is happening now in Sudan is what happened to the Kurds in the 80s: the arabization of lands rich in natural resources at the expense of the native people of those lands. Extermination follows. We did nothing in the 80s. We could do just slightly more than nothing in this case and it would be an improvement.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Got a simple clue for all of you; the US is up to it's eyeballs in debt, and we really can't afford the four to five billion a month we're spending in Iraq. We are perhaps a generous people, but there are limits when our schools and hospitals are closing at home, our roads in disrepair, and we're trying to help other countries with a crisis. ho-humm.... Can you spare a nickle, buddy?

Point well taken, ci, but I think we can afford an overseas phone call to let Mr. Sudan know we're in his business. If we don't have enough clout to influence him then we're in worse shape than I thought.

0 Replies

OB, how could you possibly read into inquiring about how many Sudanese have been starved to death by their government that I am discounting how many children Hussein has starved to death?
Your strawman arguments are up in flames. You're playing the game that we've been discussing on another thread.

The UN sending in troops would mean something and I hope it's successful. Just like I hope that although I disagreed (along with several prominant conservatives, BTW) that we should no invade Iraq that that will turn out well. It just doesn't look good.

It also doesn't look good that Bush plays the shell game with silly statements like "Iran is not Iraq." Well, except for one letter.

0 Replies

Er - just from memory - but didn't a number of countries make their disapprobation re the Sudan clear - I would have imagined the uS would have been amongst them.

Actually - there is a peace settlement in the Sudan - where the UN peace-keepers are going - Darfur is not, I gather, yet settled - so I think we are getting a bit mixed up.

I would have to research to get clear what is where.

If I have time, I will....

0 Replies

Good point, dlowan, I'm sure we've made our disapproval clear. I don't know whether we've actually threatened force -- I'd guess not.

I did read about the peace agreement but you're right that it does not include Darfur. I believe that was about a different conflict. There are AU troops in Darfur but they are not allowed to defend the civilians. Anywho, I should probably do some research myself.

0 Replies

CI, I've got another nickel to spare. So do you. So do lots of people. The cost of feeding everyone on earth is peanuts compared to our dept. Our dept is disgusting, don't get me wrong... but not the same brand of disgusting as apathy for millions dying unnecessarily. I believe it is exactly this apathy while we live like kings that makes us so easy to hate. (Not that our arrogance doesn't contribute :wink:)

Deb, that they're still "planning" a year after everyone and their brother knew it was a genocide is disgusting. Doesn't it have the flavor of "I guess we better or we'll look bad?" Why didn't they declare it genocide as soon as they recognized it for what it is and start organizing help? Have they even used that terrible term yet? I'm not sure I understand your last post. If you are saying the U.S. dropped the ball here, too, I couldn't agree more. For quick references about Sudan, PBS's Frontling did a fine job here.

Free, I thought of another for you. What would you call a single father who spent every dime of welfare money on himself while his children starved to death, trapped in the basement with no food? Would you call him a murderer? That would be a heinous murder, wouldn't it? What if he had 560,000 children aged 5 and under by 1998 and God knows how many after that (because he stopped letting the authorities count the bodies)? Does the larger number make it okay? What makes it okay?

LW, it is perfectly reasonable to oppose the action in Iraq. It is not reasonable to do so by down-playing the human rights abuses of Saddam & Sons Inc. Attacking the style of my pointing that out will not erase it. Also, why not learn the definition of Strawman before tossing around the accusation. You very clearly offered that rhetorical question as if the answer would somehow diminish the importance of Saddam's intentional murder of a half million children. Read your post in full for the context and see if I'm wrong. Confused

The comparison would do no such thing, even if it were valid and since Sudan has no OFF program; it isn't. The attempt at sidestepping the atrocity Saddam's actions to take a potshot at Bush remains disgusting. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know