5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

dagmaraka wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

yes

So no matter what happens,the US will be blamed?
If that is the case,it is better to be blamed for doing nothing,instead of doing something and wasting treasury,lives,and material on a problem that cant be solved.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

Ehmm ...

OK, imagine. Its 1933. You're German. Hitler is coming to power. You dont support him, but you dont oppose him either. You do nothing. Can you be blamed for the outcome?

OK, so you're not German - wrong comparison. Good. I'll give you another one.

You're Britain. Prime Minister of Britain. It's 1938. Your own country, it seems, at that time, will be safe in any case - it'll just be the rest of Europe that might be overrun by the Nazis. Let them sort it out, or let them all die - either way, if you do nothing, you cant be blamed for the outcome? Really?

0 Replies

or even easier: your neighbor is beating his wife violently. you hear the screams, you see her walking around with bruises. one day he kills her. are you not complicit in any way? not just according to the law... morally complicit. you could have done something...and haven't.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So no matter what happens,the US will be blamed?
If that is the case,it is better to be blamed for doing nothing,instead of doing something and wasting treasury,lives,and material

Whatever happened with doing the right thing? With wanting to do the right thing, no matter what some people, or other countries, will think of it? Wasnt that the kind of principle and attitude you admire so much in Bush?

Why suddenly the opposite mentality in this case?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

Ehmm ...

OK, imagine. Its 1933. You're German. Hitler is coming to power. You dont support him, but you dont oppose him either. You do nothing. Can you be blamed for the outcome?

OK, so you're not German - wrong comparison. Good. I'll give you another one.

You're Britain. Prime Minister of Britain. It's 1938. Your own country, it seems, at that time, will be safe in any case - it'll just be the rest of Europe that might be overrun by the Nazis. Let them sort it out, or let them all die - either way, if you do nothing, you cant be blamed for the outcome? Really?

You are comparing apples and screwdrivers.
Hitler and the Nazi regime were trying to dominate the world,in Darfur we have a civil war.
Thats a very different scenario.

0 Replies

oh, and the people that are dying are somehow 'different' then those in Germany...?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
In emergency case, I'd even approve of an intervention without UN approval, if backed by a near-representative coalition (no, an Iraq-style coalition of US+UK+St. Kitts doesnt count - I'm talking about the kind that supported the NATO war on Yugoslavia).

So,a 56 nation coalition,including countries like Japan,Australia,and other industrialized nations means nothing?

There's never been 56 nations fighting in Iraq. Lip service doesnt make for much of a coalition.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

You are comparing apples and screwdrivers.
Hitler and the Nazi regime were trying to dominate the world,in Darfur we have a civil war.
Thats a very different scenario.

Allright ... have it your way. If Nazi Germany had never attacked other countries, but had merely gassed its own Jewish population, your response would have been ...

"We should neither allow,nor prevent,whatever happens in that region"?

"lets do nothing and let someone else solve the problem"?

"lets do nothing and let them either solve it themselves,or let them all die. Either way,it wont be our fault"?

After all, it would then have been an internal conflict, just like in Sudan ... they wouldnt be trying to dominate the world or anything ... they would be slaughtering a minority in their own country, just like Sudan is doing now, but that doesnt seem to count as a reason to intervene ...

So, would that be your reaction? If not, whats the difference in this case?

0 Replies

I think mysteryman can't be quite serious.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

yes

So no matter what happens,the US will be blamed?
If that is the case,it is better to be blamed for doing nothing,instead of doing something and wasting treasury,lives,and material on a problem that cant be solved.

huh? i was talking about individual countrieS being responsible. not just the U.S. There is a whole wide world outside U.S., you know...

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If we do nothing,how can we be blamed for the outcome?

We should neither allow,nor prevent,whatever happens in that region.
So many people say we (the US) are always sticking our nose where it doesnt belong,so lets do nothing and let someone else solve the problem.

Scientists announced today on A2k the discovery of the most dense material ever discovered on the face of the earth.

The above quote contains, under a layer of murky thinking, an incredibly massive mindset consisting of a combination of fear of being blamed with a dense shell of thickheadedness. Researchers had only seen this kind of condition in the inner offices of the White House ( and, of course, on the O'Reilly Report) but had thought that it couldn't be replicated in the real world. Unless, one scientist reported, you count the fear factor seen on the faces of five year boys on the first day on school. Usually they grow out of it and become responsible adults, but sometimes they become as the speaker, turning away from the difficult tasks and engaging in actions that only look like they are doing something.

Kind of like offering a $100.00 to all the taxpayers to offset the high gas prices.

Joe(or invading Iraq)Nation

0 Replies

Interesting.
I see that only one of you was smart enough to figure it out.
Yet,you ALL claim to be smarter then conservatives.
I guess you arent,are you?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Interesting.
I see that only one of you was smart enough to figure it out.
Yet,you ALL claim to be smarter then conservatives.
I guess you arent,are you?

Would you care to answer this question, MM? You wouldnt "run away" from a question, like you accused JAO of doing on another thread, would you?

0 Replies

It is unfortunate that the genocide in Darfur will continue. This problem will fester until we get a president with some guts and some one who will not allow thousands of people to be killed in internecine warfare.

I am sure that President Hillary Clinton will send our Marines immediately to relieve the suffering in Darfur if such a situation is still present in 2009.

The problem she must deal with, however, is a difficult one. She will be accused of intolerance and unnecessary interference with the sovereignty of a nation whose leaders happen to by MUSLIM!!!!

That will not play well on the TV screens in the Middle East.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
Interesting.
I see that only one of you was smart enough to figure it out.
Yet,you ALL claim to be smarter then conservatives.
I guess you arent,are you?

Would you care to answer this question, MM? You wouldnt "run away" from a question, like you accused JAO of doing on another thread, would you?

First off,let me quote the question,so people know what we are talking about...

Quote:

Allright ... have it your way. If Nazi Germany had never attacked other countries, but had merely gassed its own Jewish population, your response would have been ...

"We should neither allow,nor prevent,whatever happens in that region"?

"lets do nothing and let someone else solve the problem"?

"lets do nothing and let them either solve it themselves,or let them all die. Either way,it wont be our fault"?

After all, it would then have been an internal conflict, just like in Sudan ... they wouldnt be trying to dominate the world or anything ... they would be slaughtering a minority in their own country, just like Sudan is doing now, but that doesnt seem to count as a reason to intervene ...

So, would that be your reaction? If not, whats the difference in this case?

First off,history says that your scenario is exactly what happened!!!
The Nazi's were allowed to kill everybody they wanted,as long as they didnt get hostile with their neighbors.
Once they did that,then everything changed.
Looking back on history,the decision made was the wrong one,Germany should have been stopped.

Now,tell me how?
Would you have invaded Germany once you found out about the death camps?
Would you have ordered economic sanctions?
Would you have talked and threatened?
Exactly HOW would you have stopped Germany?

As for Darfur,I will admit that there is a serious problem,that needs to be solved,but once again I ask...HOW?

Do we invade?
Do we impose sanctions?
Do we talk and threaten?

Also,why is it up to the US to do anything?
Why isnt Europe or the UN doing anything about it?
If they want to solve the problem,send the blue helmets in with orders to shoot on sight anyone carrying a gun.
But,that would then get the UN into a shooting war,and we all know the UN doesnt want that.

According to its charter,and according to those people on here that think the UN is the end all be all of the world,the UN has the power and ability to solve this on their own,without US involvement.
I know we are part of the UN,but since we are the villians,according to many,then we should just bow out and let the UN figure it out.

0 Replies

The UN is a toothless tiger which contains far too many dictators who care nothing about justice and peace!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

The UN is a toothless tiger which contains far too many dictators who care nothing about justice and peace!!!

They might not be able to solve any problems but they sure know how to accept money kickbacks for those dictators and cover their tracks. Look their boss is still in charge. If that were the US people would be yelling for his head on a platter.

0 Replies

Of course! It has been proven that Kofi Annan and his family are corrupt and were up to their eyeballs in the Oil for Food Scandals. I don't think that many people are aware that Africa is a continent that is a huge mess. As Paul Johnson has commented in his History-Modern Times-

"By 1980, it was apparent that the great bulk of the continent had become and would remain politically unstable and incapable of self-sustained economic growth, or even of a place within the international economy. Africa had become simply a place for proxy wars like Spain in the 1930's. In Africa , the professional political caste and the omnicompetent state had proved costly and sanguinary failures>"

It is interesting that the left wing in the USA has muted its protests about the killers in Darfur carefully refraining from calling them murderous Muslim Terrorists who are as fanatic as their fellow fanatics in Iraq and Iran.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think that many people are aware that Africa is a continent that is a huge mess.

What? Are you kidding? Are you saying you think people are not aware of the troubles on the continent of Africa? That they don't know about Zimbabwe's runaway inflation (1000% and growing), the fighting near the oil fields of Nigeria, the continuing rebellions going on in Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Uganda. That there are over 100,000 CHILDREN under the age of eighteen under arms in those countries.

You don't think people know? What are they living in? A Red State? The people I know and work with are very much aware of what happening and wonder what if anything the President you so admire will do about it besides shrug and say "Shucks."

and this

Quote:

It is interesting that the left wing in the USA has muted its protests about the killers in Darfur carefully refraining from calling them murderous Muslim Terrorists who are as fanatic as their fellow fanatics in Iraq and Iran.

That isn't interesting mostly because it isn't true.

The left, as you put it, namely the Democratic Representatives and Senators now serving have been extremely clear about the role played by the Muslim government of Sudan AND thankfully now have been joined in their protestations by a coalition of more than 160 organizations that included Muslim, evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, Jewish, Catholic and secular advocacy groups. The coalition recently sponsored a rally in Washington to raise awareness amongst the densest of their compadres namely the Republican Party and it's President.

Joe(wake up? Shoot. We've already had breakfast on this one)Nation

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

As for Darfur,I will admit that there is a serious problem,that needs to be solved,but once again I ask...HOW?

Do we invade?
Do we impose sanctions?
Do we talk and threaten?

All of the above, as far as I'm concerned.

mysteryman wrote:

Also,why is it up to the US to do anything?
Why isnt Europe or the UN doing anything about it?

All are equally guilty of inaction. I dont really care all that much who takes the lead, as long as someone does. Bottom line however is that all three need to take part, otherwise it wont work.

mysteryman wrote:

If they want to solve the problem,send the blue helmets in with orders to shoot on sight anyone carrying a gun.
But,that would then get the UN into a shooting war,and we all know the UN doesnt want that.

Mosty because it's not authorised to, and its member states (the US foremost) wouldnt want them to be.

mysteryman wrote:

According to its charter,and according to those people on here that think the UN is the end all be all of the world,the UN has the power and ability to solve this on their own

Rubbish. The UN doesnt have its own army, it doesnt have its own arms, it hardly has much of a budget of its own (and you wouldnt want it any other way, or at least most all US conservatives wouldnt).

The UN's capacity for action is by definition entirely dependent on its member states agreeing on the action and contributing funding and manpower.

Again, whether it is the EU (with the UK and France as permanent Security Council members) or the US that takes the lead doesnt make much of a difference; considering we can forget about Russia and China taking part constructively they'll all have to take initiative for any UN or other intercontinental mission to get off the ground. Neither you (in the US) nor us (in the EU) can afford to point the finger to the other side, because if we do, nothing's going to be achieved.

0 Replies

5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know