Sudan genocide

Unnoficail reports put the death total around 2 million.

The Unitred States went to Iraq to Liberate the Iraqi people. After the holocaust people said "never again, never again..."
But it IS happening again, the systematic elemination of sudanese by their own government, and the US made Iraq their top priority... WTF IS GOING ON IN THE US'S WAY OF THINKING?

Discuss

Maybe they were thinking they can't end all injustice in the entire world right this second. Not to start comparing the size of people's genocide penises but how many people died under Sadam's regime?

I wonder how the world community would react to the US wanting to liberate the Sudan. Not without a UN mandate? The UN are big boys and there are plenty of nations in Europe. They don't have to wait on the US to propose action. I'm sure the UN reads the papers too and can see the "2 Million Dead in Sudan" headlines. That's a primarily muslim nation by the way. The muslim world already thinks the US are a bunch of crusaders.

Asking where the US was during the Sudan genocide is a little weird if you don't think the liberation of Iraq was justified. Maybe if more Iraqis and Kurds had been killed by their government it would be justified? Maybe there's a genocide threshhold after which the US stops being an imperialistic warmonger and becomes obliged to step in and save the day. Maybe they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Not to mention Africa's one big mess. If any outside power decides to make things right they'll have to deal with the entire continent.

Because what would be the point?

Does Sudan have the resources, the stability, the educations levels, etc etc etc. to be a stable democratic nation after we "liberate them". As far as I know they do not.

Iraq used to be one of the most progressive ME countries which is why it is possible (i hope to god it works) for it to be stable once the US withdraws, if the US got involved in Sudan and left it would just fall apart again most likely.

The world would not let us stay there and just keep the peace for eternity.


JV

Is there oil in sudan?

I don't think so Eggy.

Its a valid point and backs my arguement but not in the way you were insinuating.

Natural resources are needed by a country that is trying to stabilize and become a prospering democracy and this is one of the main reasons why Iraq has a shot, because they have the resources to become a major player.

But you all do see my point don't you? If the country will fall apart without the US there what is the point in going in, in the first place?

I'll do it mathematically.... thousands dying a year from civil unrest etc... thousands die in US led war.... US leaves and the country breaks down again.... thousands more die....

Thats what will happen if the country doesn't have a chance of pulling itself together.

In Iraq which does have a chance the ideal situation is 300,000 dead under Saddam, thousands die in US led war... Iraq becomes stable democracy, no more thousands dying...

JV

It's a valid argument JV. But you need to keep in mind that history hasnt seen an awful lot of wars fought for altruistic reasons. I could name ten places in the world who need to be "liberated". If only we had a UN with guns, instead of bureaucrats.

Ummm...so.you think Iraq won't revert back to petty warfare and clan/tribal/religeous violence the second the US withdraws? Well..come to think about it..it hasn't ceased that yet and we are there now. So we either stay there for the next 50-100 years, losing soldiers lives a few at a time, or we leave and watch it all fall apart again. And why do we need to "liberate" it? The U.S. GOVERNMENT went to war in Iraq for $$$ and that is the one and only reason. Was Saddam a terrible human being? You bet. There are plenty of them around and plenty of them ruling countries. And plenty of them ruling countries that our government helps and backs. Why did we invade Iraq but not North Korea which by all indications is much more of a threat. Could it be "oil"? Could it be government contractors getting rich from direct ties with our administration? Could it be the Bush family's close and personal ties, through mutual greed, with certain Saudi leaders, including the Bin Ladens?

We certainly didn't invade Iraq to end terrorism, especially considering terrorist training camps and funding in Saudi Arabia (our allies). We certainly didn't invade it to put an end to weapons of mass destrction, being that neither we nor the UN weapons inspectors can find any and no proof, such as claimed by Bush, can be found that they were there when we invaded. And if that were the reason for invading, we would be far better advised to attack a certain country that recently announced to the the world their intention to build nuclear weapons and expressed their contempt for the US as well as other large countries. A good case could be made for invading Iraq to end the terrible dictatorship and mass killings going on there, but ummm...we weren't really asked to intervene by the folks being killed, and other large scale killings and murders are happening in countries that we do big business with and have good relations with.

The only reason we aren't stepping into the Sudan situation is that there is not enough money to be made there by Bush and his corporate cronies. Maybe we can do a "police action" there once we get Iraq settled, which should be in about hmm...50 years or so.

I love the United State and I truly dislike and distrust and do not respect the United States government. Someday we should try that "governmant by the people, for the people" thingy, just to see how it goes. I think it's called democracy.
You know..where the guy with the most votes gets to be president, and we all get to vote on laws and issues, not just corporate owned senators and representatives.

If you think the US went into Iraq for "$$$", how long do you think it will take for the US to recoup the $50,000,000,000 (Billion) cost of the war? That's how much the US would have to make from Iraq just to break even, assuming the costs stop piling up today. Either they need better financial planners or the war for money line is bunk. I'll give you a hint: the war for money line is bunk.

Wow let me see if I can actually wade through all this rhetoric.

North Korea is not an option. First of all we lost last time (well technically we are still at war with them), the wild card is would china join in again. If they would we are screwed, also NK has nukes now, if Kim knew he was about to lose and he had one silo left you don't think he'd just launch it wildly at someone to take someone else down with him? NK is hardly a winnable war.

I'm glad that you know Bush's reason for invading, I guess you are a psychic right?

Every single military person that I have talked to that has come back from Iraq (and i know a bunch) has said the Iraqi people overwhelming are glad they are there and that Saddam is gone, they do want to control their future soon but are happy about what has happened. A group of senators, D and R went over and determined that what is being reported on the news is only the bad side of the story.

Just because part of the country (extremists, and saddam loyalists) are fighting still doesn't mean that we don't have the support of the people.

Finally what the hell is this line about? "Someday we should try that "governmant by the people, for the people" thingy, just to see how it goes. I think it's called democracy."

You do realize that 70% of America supported the war on Iraq at the eve of the war. Hmmm sounds like democracy to me. But you'll just say they were all lied to.

Could one of my fellow defenders of conservatism get all those quotes made by Democrats over the last 10 years about the WMD's in Iraq... Yeah I do believe John Kerry was one of them. EVERYONE THOUGHT IRAQ HAD WMD'S. The Kay report said Saddam wanted the world to believe he had them. SO IT WASN'T A LIE BUT TRAGIC FAULTY INTELLIGENCE WORLD WIDE. God I wanna smack anyone that says that Bush lied at least on that issue.

JV

Muwahahaha dance puppets! DANCE!

Well..I stated the US GOVERNMENT went to war in Irag for the $$$, not the US people. We are the ones that are going to pay for the war, not the goverment or the corporations. I think some folks with good connections and some folks in the oil industry are raking in alot of $$$ from this war. Consider Dick Chaney's ex-company?? Do you honestly believe Bush cares at all how much of the tax payers money he spends while in office? I think our huge deposit, all of which has been incrued since Bush took office, is proof that he doesn't give a damn as long as his good buds (and he in turn) get richer...

That's why they dance in the streets when a dead american soldier of business man is being dragged through it? Sure glad they love us being there.




Yes..that is what I'd say all right, and yes..they were lied to..repeatedly.



That's funny, cause I sure heard Bush saying they had absolute proof of weapons of mass destruction. he told the American people that and he told the U.N. that. But he didn't lie? Hmmm..nice logic. Guess he didn't lie about the plutonium being sought and bought either eh? Funny how he used that lie in his state of the union address, even after he recieved three seperate memo's saying that it was probably faulty intelligence and not confirmed. But good old Bush don't lie does he? Want me to list about 50 other lies he's been caught in? How about him telling a press conference (which i watched) that the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the aurcraft carrier had been the idea of the ship's crew and was hung by them, when in fact it was the White House staff's idea and was approved by Bush himself. Oh but that must have been "faulty intelligence" as well. yes indeed..Bush certainly suffers from a lot of faulty intelligence..and my guess would be most of it's his.

Huge defecit, not deposit. And it was already pretty damn big before Bush got a hold of it. And, you can thank Congress for that. Congress has far more effect on the defecit than any president does.

Yes..defecit..sorry. Was too damned late and tired when i typed that sloppy post. However, you are incorrect when you said that it was already pretty damned big before Bush got ahold of it. In fact, we had no defecit. We had a surplus. The entire record high defecit that we have now is completely due to the present administration's spending.

And Congress does have quite a bit of say so on it of course. And congress is, of course, republican (and thus corporate) controlled.

My friend, lose the rhetoric.

Congress was also Republican dominated while Clinton was in office and during the Surplus.

Maybe you don't understand, I would love to know if there has ever been a surplus during wartime and an economic recession.

Learn economics please, i spend way too much time teaching people stuff so they can debate against me.


JV

Well, reading over your post, I don't see how you "taught" me anything. Nothing you said in any way falsifies what I posted. And it's funny that you call my posts rhetoric, but don't consider your posts the same? So anyone with a different view point, one based on actual fact, is rhetoric?

Now, to teach you a little about defecits and the economy. The president proposes huge dollar amounts in spending, the congress passes it, and the defecit rises. THis has been happening for the past three years. You may want to use the web and look it up.

Now, say under Clinton, the President doesn't propose huge dollar amounts in spending, so the congress has no need to pass it, and in fact, if controlled by the oppposite party would probably not pass it anyway, and the defecit goes down, and eventually becomes a surplus.

And the wartime you speak of was brought about by the present administration, and thus just helps make my point. As far as the economic recession goes, just about any econimist on the planet will tell you that spending huge amounts of taxpayers money in order to help "boost" the economy will result in a far longer and far worse recession over time, with a very good possibility of it becoming a full fledged depression. Spending huge amounts of money you don't have isn't a good way to get out of debt and get your finances straightened out. It's a pretty simple concept.

My point on the recession was that it was the reason for the deficit as well as 9/11. It tanked our economy.


Also I could have sworn the lefts hero was FDR who spent his way out of the depression, kinda invalidates your reasoning eh?

My point on rhetoric is that you spout things easily refuted, such as bush lying about WMD's, and that all Iraqi's hate us (your example of the town cheering in the streets is easily refuted because the town was a baathist strong point, and you are making the illogical jump that because one town doesn't support us that the whole country does).

I think through my positions and have developed them without any needed help from anyone. I disagree with my party often and often have different reasons for supporting the things they do. Every word you post though I have seen hundreds of times before from other liberal posters and that is why I call it rhetoric because you all say exactly the same thing. I get sick and tired of refuting the same points over and over.

JV

And apparently the reasoning of thousands of economists throughout the world, as well as many republican members of the congress who are very much shying away from Bush's continued spending sprees...and the voters confidence in Bush, which has plummeted, and the repeated and often heard concerns from both major parties about the huge defecit that we now face and the continued vast sums needed to continue our efforts in Iraq for the next year or so (or 50).

Also, 9-11 and the war on Iraq are two totally different issues, as much as the administration likes to clump them together.



If they are so easily refuted, please do so. Because you haven't yet. He did lie about the WMD. He said definite proof...not "intelligence reports suspect". He claimed he couldn't release that proof, due to the need to protect sources. Now when he's asked about that proof, he can't produce it. That, my friend, is called a lie. Let's face it, how many times is Bush gonna use the "faulty intelligence" excuse, or the "lack of adequate communication" excuse before they take his Get Out Of Jail Free card away.

Also I never said all Iraqi's hate us. I said that they didn't ask us to invade their country. And they have cheered American deaths in several cities. And for a few radicals and Saddam supporters, they sure keep coming at us, even after so many of them have been killed and captured.... In fact, the violence toward American forces has not slackened and seems to be on the increase. Not to mention the fact that we have alienated so many other countries, are viewed by just about every other country as corrupt, have insulted and turned away from the U.N., have broken many of our own treaties, and have in no way exhausted diplomatic or economic means. But gee whiz, we sure showed them....

So please, refute away. I'm going on actual facts, not what Rush Limbaugh says.



Not sure what you mean here.

Because what you're saying in your points, is the same thing every rightwing, conservative mouthpiece talk show host says whenever they are confronted by facts. First they claim rhetoric and then they say things like "faulty intelligence" and "he wasn't responisble", as if that means he's doing a good job as president.



So you're saying that if a bunch of folks say it, and believe it, it means it's not true? Umm..ok...

I'm not even saying we shouldn't have ever attacked Iraq. What I'm saying is, we should have tried about every other avenue first, and then we should have given honest and forthright reasons for our actions, not made up stories or false claims. And we should have worked harder to get the U.N. to make that kind of move, instead of charging in. But I realize that Bush had probably promised to make his biggest campaign contributors a lot of money and so he needed to hurry.

You have seen the list of his largest campaign contributors and how many of them have recieved government contracts and kickbacks and special treatment since Bush was elected right?

Did you know that he ignored proceedure, and possibly the law, and assigned several very juicy government contracts to companies that had close ties with him and his staff instead of using the bid process? When he was caught and scolded for it, he basically said "OOps! I'll use the bid process next time".

I guess you can call all of this rhetoric if you like. Doesn't change the fact that it is true and relatively easily researched and confirmed.

Anyway, just some thoughts to ponder. Refute away. Though as fun as political arguements/discussions are, I'm sure niether of us will probably convert the other to our way of thinking. At least we still have the right to express our opinions..well..for now anyway...

Proverbs 12:23 "A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness."

I'm all for saving the world. Right after we take care of our own people. Lets start with healthcare, then we can spend tax money being Luke Skywalker.

With regards,
Antagonistic Protagonist

Sigh...

Of all the statements made in this thread, this one by far screams 'anecdotal information'.

#1 - China is not a "wild card"; China's concern is globalism and world trade, specifically U.S. trade first and foremost; Hence their near total shut down of the 'free-economy' region that North Korea was attempting near China's border' - a message to NK about their nuke program (which can barely hit hawaii) an acceptable loss by military standards.

#2 Kim has limited nuclear strike capability. The number of Aegis Cruisers in the region reduce the success of any strike he makes to under 8%. Just to understand this, right now if Kim launched a nuke from NK, within 4-6minutes over 100 U.S. Cruiser & Destroyer intercept missiles would be tracking the target if not already launched. NK's threat is at best a media and social opinion manipulation tool.

#3 Our loss in the first Korean military action aka Korean Conflict [The"Korean War" was not a war by declarationof Congress] was a completely different technological time period, what happened then has no correlation on what would happen now. This is the time of air-superiority where we can air strike NK for 90 days non-stop if we choose. During the Kosovo action I briefed 45 air strikes in 42 days of non-stop operation aboard the Theodore Roosevelt Aircraft carrier, CVN71, and we could have continued for 100 more days without stop. North Korea is a statistical threat on the ground and the last decade along with this one thus far has proven we dictate when we go to ground and how - and we do so when we have air superiority.

#4 China's best interest is and always has been to interpose itself between NK and the U.S. in a way to prevent it from hurting it's economy (80% of all shoes inthe U.S. are imported from China; this sort of list goes on for days), and also preventing the U.S. from becoming an "Occupying Force in North Korea". The latter scenario severly cripples China's non-ground based intelligence network and compromises a number of other military based activities. So China has every reason to not want NK to have nukes and to want a peaceful resolution to curtail any possible conflict in the future.

Briana Dawson

My thoughts exactly!!

The Sudan is a slave nation. They have a very active public and underground slave trade. They are predominately islamic as already mentioned, with a great deal of them being Wahibist muslims (the same sect as the most powerful individual in the world, O.B.L.).

The Sudan and Iraq are polar opposites in similarities besides the fact they both have muslims in the country.

Going into the Sudan is not a simple issue of "we did it here, in 70's and there in the 80's, and Iraq just recently". The Sudan, is a weak country militarily and governmentally. However, the common citizen has access to enough weaponry to obliterate any common U.S. police station by themselves. The countries people are starving, famine and disease (HIV, Heppatitis, Hunta), etc run rampant through this region.

Strategically speaking, it's location is horrible; Air support would have to be primarily carrier based or fly from Saudi Arabia or Iraq by way of Saudi Arabia (should i even mention Egypt?) None of these scenarios would be acceptable to the middle east - even though the Sudan is in Africa. Resupply for air strikes would be a logistical nightmare and the pilots who would be flying 16hrs on station would be bored to death since the strikes would be these long protacted strikes on mud/brick compounds and apartment buildings.

The Sudan is a house of death that is the true "Mogadishu", and we really don't want to go there.

Morality and U.S. Foreign Policy are non sequitur.

Briana Dawson

Can someone please explain the term 'winnable war' to me? Who wins in a war? JV nothing has changed about war since someone fairly wise stated 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.'.