How do we fix DARFUR?

War isn't genocide

I missed killing this Nazi named Asterix, sorry guys, I'll pass the message onto the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The use of technology to indiscriminately murder large numbers of innocent civilians is a war crime and is definitely genocide. The U.S. joyously racks up the body count each day in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc. The U.S. has perpetuated the tradition of the Christian Crusades, as has outperformed Adolph Hitler. With the 25 million Southeast Asians incinerated by the United States from the 1950's until 1975, the United States is the world's greatest nation in regards to mass murder and genocide, surpassing the murders of the 300 years of the British Empire.

Oh shutup you f***in liberal, USA is the best and you can't stop us - We gon' win and kill and shit

www.kabbalah.com wrote:

The use of technology to indiscriminately murder large numbers of innocent civilians is a war crime and is definitely genocide.

I presume you are referring to those who shoot widely inaccurate home-made rockets at civilian population centers or blow themselves up in cafes and market places?

I should hope you are campaigning strongly against such people!

The U.S. joyously racks up the body count each day in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc.

Again, just how many US military personnel are operating in Palestine or Lebanon? Or are you merely spouting lines you think sound good?

If you want to get any respect for your views, you need to get your facts straight, otherwise you just get lumped in with the rest of the loony bin.

It's amazing how many Americans admire the Nazis. They collect German war films, books, posters, shoulder patches, recite Hitler speeches, have swastikas and maltese cross tatoos, and a meth lab to pay for it all. They can't do that in France, Germany, or Russia, they police will crack their skulls. The Nazis live in America and in Israel now.

larbie wrote:

it isn't a simple problem to fix.

I have a better chance of getting in Allison Stokke's spandex than you do of fixing Darfur. Really, that's quite noble to want to do something but you know the vast majority of people don't give a shit.

RunDaddy, I agree with you.

Right now though, for Bush to intervene for more than 60 days (90 if President asks Congress for Declaration of War), he needs the signoff from the US Congress and he won't get it, because of Iraq.

It's too bad because yes, what's going on over there needs to stop and the United States (and the G7) have the resources to intervene, but wont.

The only reason I posted the 4 options is because practically that's the way things are going to work out. The UN can try and get their "sanctions" across or whatever they like to call their punishments, but I think at this point history has shown the UN has very little power to control hostile countries.

Nazi Paraphenalia wrote:

It's amazing how many Americans admire the Nazis.

So rather than actually address any of the salient points, you are left to throw the Nazi label around.

Wow, you sure proved your case! Who can argue with your facts and logic?

(Too bad you weren't aware that I'm not USAnian nor do I live in the US.)

Sticking you nose into Civil Wars is how the British Imperialists, American Imperialists, etc. make their money. They take one side and blame the other, sell weapons, and extract natural resources while the stupid suckers fight for God. The Sunni vs. the Shites, the Arabs vs. the Jews, the Russians vs. the Persians, the Irish vs. the English, the Serbians vs. the Croatians, the Indians vs. the Pakistanis. All of these examples are of biologically identical tribes. The Imperialists know how to extract blood out of a turnip.

You lousy Nazi, go to hell !

Duct tape, just like everything else.

Nazi Paraphenalia wrote:

You lousy Nazi, go to hell !

With posts like that, you prove my case far better than I ever could. Your way with words and intricate concepts surpasses anything in the way of logic and facts I might be able to provide on the subject. I bow to your insurmountable wisdom.

Kinda makes it hard though to have a discussion when you insist on trouncing all reason like that.

I don't think the US can "fix" Darfur. Military humanitarian interventions has been a disaster when the US doesn't make a full committment, meaning, among other things, that we will accept US casualties. We were not willing to lose American soldiers in Somalia, and pulled out when 19 were killed in October 1993.

It's easy for me to say that it's worth losing 19 Americans if it saves thousands of lives, but I'm not one of those soldiers at risk of being killed in action.

Probably the best, most realistic, most politically plausible action for the US to take would be to support the African Union through providing funding and equipment. During the Rwanda crisis, Ghana offered to provide troops to a UN force, but didn' have any armored personnel carriers. The UN offered to lease APCs to the UN, but there was a disagreement over the price and the APCs sat idle on a tarmac in Germany. Offering to lend, rather than lease, APCs and other military equipment to the AU could:

1) Help the poorly equipped AU stand up to the heavily armed Janjaweed and possibly save thousands of lives.

2) Prevent (as much as possible) the image of the US as an imperial power bent on colonizing the Sudan.

3) Have a chance to actually get through the House and Senate, as it doesn't put US personnel in danger.

Of course, this is all just my personal opinion, so maybe it's all crap.

Remember Nurenberg ! The allies made you Nazis fess up and cower. Them were the days. Now you are at it again and we will get you !

No action will take place unless the U.S. leads it, and that is the sad truth. Europe gave up its will to fight foreign wars in 1945, and I doubt they will stir much beyond their own borders for a while.

The main problem is that the UN isn't anybody--it's a collective. So, when someone violates a UN ordinance, no specific country's prestige/reputation is on the line, thus allowing nations to endlessly pass the buck.

Look at it this way: the reason government action is so costly and ineffective is that the government isn't a specific person, and it isn't their money. Because no one person has to answer for something that goes wrong, nobody has a vested interest in pushing a project through. The UN is just government writ large.

Look at Lebanon from a few years ago: every one said it was a horrible situation, that somebody should do something about it, etc. But when it came to stand and be counted, one nation after another shirked. At first France was supposed to spearhead the task force, but they bowed out and said that they only wanted a supporting role, maybe from Italy. Italy, in turn, said that they saw themselves in much the same way--as supporters of the peace force, but not the driving force behind it...but maybe Germany wanted to lead it. Germany, like the two before it, shrugged and said, well, we don't really have the military strength for that kind of commitment. And China doesn't give a damn about the Lebanese or anybody else.

If the US weren't already involved in Iraq, it probably would have been up to us AGAIN to bully, prod and fund the UN into action. That's the story of UN involvement in the last half century, and it will continue to be in the future.

As far as US interest in Iraq: I hope you realize how many billions of dollars we could have saved by simply buying the oil. The free market has made war a very expensive proposition, and it is clearly cheaper to buy something than to take it by force of arms. The reason we went in is because everyone in the world--including the UN, the Europeans, the CIA, the presidential administration and BOTH parties in Congress--thought that Saddam Hussien was developing WMD; just look at the correspondence between certain senators and Pres Clinton in the late 90s: the Al Quaeda/Iraq link was pretty solid in their minds. Also, it was to present a battle front away from our borders that would absorb the brunt of Islamic terrorist energy and money. We haven't turned it into a burgeoning democracy, but that was probably hopelessly optimistic to begin with. Yes, we've lost more soldiers in the 4+ years of fighting than we did on 9/11, and yes, we've made some enormous blunders, but our borders have been safe so far--and that is where our national interest lies.

Nazi Paraphenalia wrote:

Remember Nurenberg ! The allies made you Nazis fess up and cower. Them were the days. Now you are at it again and we will get you !

Are you off your meds? What's wrong with you?

Bush announced today some economic sanctions designed to help out in Darfur. It's virtually impossible to go in, wipe out the bad guys, not accidently kill anybody innocent and get out without a lot of people complaining.

Has you brain turned to silly putty ? Bush is the problem. He responsible for the worst genocide in the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Palestine. His measures to help Darfur fall on deaf ears. How can the worst war criminal in the world pretend to preach about peace in Darfur. One hundred thousand Iraqis have been murdered by Bush, plus thousands of Afghanis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and Jews. That idiot.

"How do we fix Darfur?

We keep George Bush as far away as possible as to not make the problem even worse.