1
   

5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 06:18 pm
So, what you're saying is you see Darfur as basically a vehicle for George Clooney's celebrity, eh? Well sir- you are quite irredeemably asinine.

If you simply have no clue anything about the issue of ethnic cleansing between the Arab and non-Arab people of the Sudan, you really should have the nerve to say so, and stop pretending like you're debating about George Clooney.

This has to be some sort of A2K precedent for absolute froth-at-the-mouth cluelessness - congratulations, sir.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 06:37 pm
Yeah congrats sir. "Anti-war, anti-American"? Most Americans must be anti-American since about 7 out of 10 have turned on the war. A majority believe Bushie deliberately lied us into war. Bushie's disapproval is at 65%.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 08:00 pm
snood wrote:
So, what you're saying is you see Darfur as basically a vehicle for George Clooney's celebrity, eh? Well sir- you are quite irredeemably asinine.

If you simply have no clue anything about the issue of ethnic cleansing between the Arab and non-Arab people of the Sudan, you really should have the nerve to say so, and stop pretending like you're debating about George Clooney.

This has to be some sort of A2K precedent for absolute froth-at-the-mouth cluelessness - congratulations, sir.


One question,if Sudan is doing such a poor job protecting its non-Arab citizens,if human rights are so bad there,if The UN is supposed to represent ALL the people of the world,then why was Sudan just voted on to the UN human rights commission?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 08:35 pm
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
So, what you're saying is you see Darfur as basically a vehicle for George Clooney's celebrity, eh? Well sir- you are quite irredeemably asinine.

If you simply have no clue anything about the issue of ethnic cleansing between the Arab and non-Arab people of the Sudan, you really should have the nerve to say so, and stop pretending like you're debating about George Clooney.

This has to be some sort of A2K precedent for absolute froth-at-the-mouth cluelessness - congratulations, sir.


One question,if Sudan is doing such a poor job protecting its non-Arab citizens,if human rights are so bad there,if The UN is supposed to represent ALL the people of the world,then why was Sudan just voted on to the UN human rights commission?


I don't know. It certainly isn't because the non-Arabs are protected, human rights are just fine, and the UN doesn't represent anybody, so what's your point?

No, don't answer that - screw that. Thousands of people are dying horrible deaths - I care about that. What do you care about?

Never mind Mystery, don't answer that either.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 09:26 pm
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
So, what you're saying is you see Darfur as basically a vehicle for George Clooney's celebrity, eh? Well sir- you are quite irredeemably asinine.

If you simply have no clue anything about the issue of ethnic cleansing between the Arab and non-Arab people of the Sudan, you really should have the nerve to say so, and stop pretending like you're debating about George Clooney.

This has to be some sort of A2K precedent for absolute froth-at-the-mouth cluelessness - congratulations, sir.


One question,if Sudan is doing such a poor job protecting its non-Arab citizens,if human rights are so bad there,if The UN is supposed to represent ALL the people of the world,then why was Sudan just voted on to the UN human rights commission?


I don't know. It certainly isn't because the non-Arabs are protected, human rights are just fine, and the UN doesn't represent anybody, so what's your point?

No, don't answer that - screw that. Thousands of people are dying horrible deaths - I care about that. What do you care about?

Never mind Mystery, don't answer that either.


Thousands of people were "dying horrible deaths" in Iraq. Therefore one must assume that you supported US intervention in Iraq.

I'm with those who argue that the US should intervene militarily in the Sudan, just as we should have intervened in Rwanda.

It would be much appreciated if some of you folks would remain consistent in your expressed views.

If our intervention in Iraq was humanitarian as well as strategic, then there is justification for intervening in the Sudan.

If humanitarianism compels our intervention in the Sudan that so did it compel our intervention in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 09:53 pm
Neither they nor Clooney will ever admit it. It seems to the hypocrites here that the victims of Islamofascism in Darfur are deserving of US protection, but not the victims in Iraq. Why?

The anti-war Clooney would advocate unilateral intervention against a soverign UN member, but can't name who's responsible for the killing.

Why, if he is so interested in Darfur, didn't he lobby the UN, Russia and China since they were the ones blocking effective action? When that didn't work, why didn't he advocate the US and its "allies" bypass the UN and intervene directly?

Could it be because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 May, 2006 10:38 pm
But Sierra Song, don't you know that the repository of true foreign policy wisdom is in Hollywood? If you doubt it ask Barbra Striesand, Sean Penn, and George Clooney. I am certain that the total IQ of these three characters would reach 270.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 04:33 am
Quote:
If our intervention in Iraq was humanitarian as well as strategic, then there is justification for intervening in the Sudan.

If humanitarianism compels our intervention in the Sudan that so did it compel our intervention in Iraq.


"If our intervention in Iraq was humanitarian"... it wasn't ever billed as a humanitarian effort until AFTER the WMDs failed to materialize. It, our efforts in Iraq, isn't seen presently as much of a humanitarian campaign anywhere in the world except in the hallways near the Oval Office. This cakewalk to insure oil supplies has turned into the worst mis-managed exhibition since Robert Scott headed out for the Pole.

The examples are endless (and so, I'm afraid, is our involvement) from the dissolution of the Iraqi armed forces, the banning of Baathists in involvement in the reconstruction efforts, the failure to send any where near enough troops to do the job of keeping the peace in the aftermath of the invasion as well as the near total lack of planning in creating a working police force, Condi Rice's estimate of thousands of tactical mistakes seems a wee bit understated.

Joe(Maybe we should have hired Haliburton to run the whole thing)Nation
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 06:48 am
BernardR wrote:
The idea that the UN could not, when properly outraged by the kind of horrible genocide that is going on in the Sudan, immediately cause the NATO and the Security council to send troops forthwith, is ludicrous on its face.

No, its not. Lookit, again - I noted that you just ignored my earlier response to the very same thing you now reposted:

The UN has no army, has it? Check.

It does not have the authority to force any of its member states to deploy their armies. Check.

It has a budget - including everything from the World Food's Program food aid to the UNHCR's refugee camps around the world to peacekeeping missions in a dozen or two places - that amounts to just about four times that of the NYPD. Check.

And the thing is: you wouldnt want it any other way. If the UN were to demand its own army, you'd be howling about the danger of world government.

The UN can only do that, which its member states, or at least a majority of it including all veto-wielding Security Council members, agree it to do. Thats what it's limited to.

There are those of us who would indeed like the UN to have greater powers. You, I am hazarding a guess here, are not one of them. Therefore your repeated ridicule about the UN being a "paper tiger" is hypocritical. If any of the Security Council members were to push for the UN to get greater independent enforcement authority, you'd be the first to cry shame.

Meanwhile, things are the way they are. Kofi Annan can not do launch any intervention on his own initiative, thats not how the UN was built. For peacekeeping missions, the UN depends on the agreement of its member states. And any peacekeeping troops will have to be contributed by its member states. As one of the three democratic countries among the five veto-wielders on the Security Council, the US has a responsibility there, just like the UK and France.

The annoying thig is that all this has been explained here time and over again, but people like you keep ignoring such facts when they get in the way of some nice rhetorical snideness.

Thing is, there is a genocide going on in Sudan. What are you interested in: the genocide, or the opportunity of ridiculing the UN?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 07:09 am
...or ridiculing George clooney, or Barbara Streisand, or....



nail on the head, nimh - nail smack dab on the head....
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 07:20 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Thousands of people were "dying horrible deaths" in Iraq. Therefore one must assume that you supported US intervention in Iraq.

I'm with those who argue that the US should intervene militarily in the Sudan, just as we should have intervened in Rwanda.

It would be much appreciated if some of you folks would remain consistent in your expressed views. [..]

If humanitarianism compels our intervention in the Sudan that so did it compel our intervention in Iraq.

Well, I applaud your consistency, it's definitely better than the couldnt-care-less burping of the other conservatives here.

As for your point re: those of us who opposed the war in Iraq. Fair enough question, not so easy to answer. I cant speak for the others, but I do keep to a consistent line, myself.

First though, lets get some side issues out of the way. Up until it started, any humanitarian motive for the war was granted a highly marginal role at best by Bush and his administration. It was, no matter how much some now retroactively want to make it otherwise, all about the WMD. (See this past post of mine for details).

Now, we already warned back then that the WMD case was dubious at best and lacked convincing evidence. We turned out to be right about that. We also warned that the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link was dubious at best, and to any extent it existed would be outshadowed by the Al-Qaeda recruitment ground the invasion would provide. We turned out to be right about that too. In the light of those main arguments, any marginal note of the Bush admin about humanitarian motives seemed to lack credibility.

Should we have embraced that marginal motivation anyway? Said that hey, we dont trust Bush for a second, but if he's going to help get Saddam out, then why not use him? That was the logic of some Iraqi exiles (see thread here). Point is, the notion of Iraqi democrats or humanitarian idealists using the US, rather than the other way round, seemed more than a bit naive.

In any case. My own line of principle here. I think of war as an evil. I believe war will almost always break more than it can repair. Wars escalate, and the more people killed and lives destroyed, the more bitterness and hatred gets rooted that will then create new wars, over time (see Yugoslavia).

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. I would not deny countries the right to defend themselves when invaded, or call in allies' help when they are (eg Kuwait). But when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Now in 1988, when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, I would therefore have supported military action against Iraq. Unfortunately, when Donald Rumsfeld did go to Baghdad shortly after, it was to shake Saddam's hand, in order to ease the way for billions of US $ in support for his regime, courtesy of President Bush Sr.

In 1991, when Saddam was bombing the marsh Arabs in the aftermath of the Gulf War, there would also have been a rationale for military intervention.

In 2003, however, Saddam was as weak as he had ever been. The Kurds, remember, were safely ensconced in their own autonomous area, out of reach of Saddam's soldiers. A no-fly-zone prevented Saddam from bombing anyone.

Of course his regime was still a dictatorship, of course there was still torture. But - however harsh this might sound - not more than in a dozen other countries around the world. Compared to Saddam's emasculated regime, there were other dictatorships worse in the world. Not just North-Korea, ccountries like Turkmenistan as well.

In short, there was a humanitarian argument for invading Iraq that would meet my "ongoing genocide" criterium, but it did not apply anymore in 2003.

The massacres in Darfur, on the other hand, are a different question. In no place in the world today is a whole people being slaughtered like in Sudan. This is genocide. And there's the difference.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 07:28 am
SierraSong wrote:
Neither they nor Clooney will ever admit it. It seems to the hypocrites here that the victims of Islamofascism in Darfur are deserving of US protection, but not the victims in Iraq. Why?

See my reply to Finn above.

SierraSong wrote:
When that didn't work, why didn't [Clooney] advocate the US and its "allies" bypass the UN and intervene directly?

Isnt that exactly what he IS doing?

And why in Jesus's name the focus on George effing Clooney? He seems to agitate you more than the actual Sudan genocide itself! Who gives a flying f*ck about what some celebrity says? This thread is about Darfur. What do you care more about - what is happening in Darfur and what can be done about it, or what devious motives George Clooney might have in speaking up about it?

SierraSong wrote:
Um, what? George Clooney is using Darfur as his personal wankfest and you want to spin it to suit whatever agenda suits you? Do you think the braniac Clooney even knows who is responsible for the genocide and what ideology motivates them?

What I want is for this thread, which is about what's being done to force some action against the ongoing mass slaughter in Sudan, to be about the ongoing slaughter in Sudan - not about some quixotic focus on the purported motives of some celebrity movie star or other. Why effing care?

SierraSong wrote:
Or is this just another way you've figured out to show your anti-war, anti-American ass on yet another message board?

This the only message board I'm posting on.

Now do you have something to actually contribute to the conversation about Darfur, or is your only interest here in George Clooney, or at most using the occasion to take another swing at liberals? Cause that's definitely what it looks like. What would you propose?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 08:12 am
nimh wrote:
And why in Jesus's name the focus on George effing Clooney? He seems to agitate you more than the actual Sudan genocide itself!


My original comment:

Quote:
I heard George Clooney offered to go over there and kick some ass. Like in his movies, ya know?


Which apparently pissed off Snood and a couple of his buddies, including you, who made this leap:

Quote:
Apparently, he doesnt give a f*ck.

Apparently, mass murder is something to be flippant about.

When it's in Africa.


I assume by that last remark you mean to imply I'm a racist. So you explain to me. How does laughing at George(a day late and a dollar short)Clooney translate to you calling me racist?
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 08:23 am
nimh wrote:
The UN has no army, has it? Check.


http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/milad/slices/militarymenu_r2_c2.jpg
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 09:15 am
nimh - You're having a duel of wits with an unarmed man.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 04:16 pm
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
snood wrote:
So, what you're saying is you see Darfur as basically a vehicle for George Clooney's celebrity, eh? Well sir- you are quite irredeemably asinine.

If you simply have no clue anything about the issue of ethnic cleansing between the Arab and non-Arab people of the Sudan, you really should have the nerve to say so, and stop pretending like you're debating about George Clooney.

This has to be some sort of A2K precedent for absolute froth-at-the-mouth cluelessness - congratulations, sir.


One question,if Sudan is doing such a poor job protecting its non-Arab citizens,if human rights are so bad there,if The UN is supposed to represent ALL the people of the world,then why was Sudan just voted on to the UN human rights commission?


I don't know. It certainly isn't because the non-Arabs are protected, human rights are just fine, and the UN doesn't represent anybody, so what's your point?

No, don't answer that - screw that. Thousands of people are dying horrible deaths - I care about that. What do you care about?

Never mind Mystery, don't answer that either.


You are assuming that I am not concerned about what is happening in Darfur.
As usual,you are wrong.

I do care about whats happening,but I fail to see how it is a US problem.
If we intervene,then what?
Do US troops go in,and use military force?
Does the US double or triple the food we are already sending?
Do you want the US to provide logistical support for other combat trooops to go in?

Exactly what do you want the US to do?
The AU could do the job,if they would get up and do it.

Since you seem to think the US should intervene in this situation,what about N Korea?
There are people starving there,there are prison camps where innocent people are tortured and killed,there are almost as many humanitarian problems there.
Do we use our military to intervene?

And if you dont think we should intervene for humanitarian reasons,then whats the difference?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 04:37 pm
But, nimh is concerned about war! He is Antiwar. He must have also been Anti-war when six million innocents were being murdered in the gas chambers by the SS. There are no just wars--right, nimh?

The Church Doctor- St. Thomas Aquinas comments in his Summa Theologica---a bedrock of Catholic teaching--

"Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace...Augustine says--"We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war so that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vangujish those whom you war against and bring them to a prosperity of peace"
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 05:01 pm
MM - save your breath. Snood's clueless, but holding his breath that Clooney can fill him in.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 05:05 pm
SierraSong wrote:
MM - save your breath. Snood's clueless, but holding his breath that Clooney can fill him in.


Oh, I wouldn't say that. I know for a fact that Snood is clued in to the fact that our President has a clear vision for success in Iraq, and an unwavering commitment to achieving that glorious vision. Did you know that democracy in Iraq is just around the corner?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 05:37 pm
Who told you that Democracy in Iraq is just around the corner? What does around the corner mean? I know that if our next president is Hillary Rodham Clinton, she will solve the Iraqi problem since she is the contender with integrity and a highly moral approach to the US's problems.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 12:20:07