lodgebo said this in post #75 : Well let's stop it first and we can get the explanations later.
I think it would be irresponsible to risk people's lives to try to intervene in a conflict without knowing the motives of the warring parties. If they are fighting over food, for example, we could maybe settle the conflict by giving them food. I want to know two things:
1) What is the motivation behind the genocide?
2) Why is the press not reporting it?
For that matter, without knowing the motive behind the conflict, I don't see how anybody can conclude that it is genocide.
EUCLID said this in post #74 :All U.S. news media coverage uses the word, "genocide" every single time they deliver a news segment on the topic of Darfur. There are also paid commercials or public service announcements that inform of the conflict, call on the U.S. to stop it, and actually seem to blame the genocide on Bush because he is not stopping it and could if he wanted to.
It's irrelevant what the news media organisations call Darfur, it makes no difference officially as far as the UN are concerned. It has to be some kind of official statement from a goverment declaring genocide is occuring. Then countries are obliged to step in and stop it happening. In Rwanda the word genocide was very carefully avoided by politicians until it was all over. Then we all felt very guilty and said it would never happen again but you listen to how politicians in power describe Darfur and see if they avoid using the word genocide.
quote:
Do you seriously think that if we had economic interests in Darfur, that Bush could go in to stop genocide and not be blamed by the left for doing it to make him and his friends rich by exploiting those economic interests? I don't.
You're getting it the wrong way round. If there were strategic and economic interests in Darfur then we would be doing something already. Think about Kuwait - why did the world so quickly unite and push Iraq out? You don't actually think it was because we like Kuwaitis more than the people of Darfur?
I think it would be irresponsible to risk people's lives to try to intervene in a conflict without knowing the motives of the warring parties.
Firstly do you think it responsabile to sit back and let people be murdered while we look for a motive. You say it would risk peoples lives well new flash for ya peoples lives are at risk.
Secondly 2 warring parties are you kidding the refugees have little or no weapons the AU troops that were in Sudan spent all thier time fighting the government troops who were armed.
If they are fighting over food, for example, we could maybe settle the conflict by giving them food. I want to know two things:
Well they are not fighting foor food or anything essenmtial put it that way
1) What is the motivation behind the genocide?
Without being rude you have the internet go look it up
2) Why is the press not reporting it?
Well I can't speak for the states but the press do report it normally every few months we hear how it's gettign worse and that world leaders are to busy sitting on thier asses to do anything - maybe looking for a motive.
For that matter, without knowing the motive behind the conflict, I don't see how anybody can conclude that it is genocide.
How many deaths do you want bfeore it become genocide 100, 1000,100,000 nice round million maybe?
h@ts,
Are you saying that it is genocide but it is not being called that officially in order to dodge a resonsibility to stop it? When you say that countries are obliged to step in and stop it if it is declared as genocide, what do you mean? What is the obligation? Is it a legal requirement? Who is required to step in and stop it? I thought that stopping genocide was simply a moral choice.
lodgebo,
People muder people all the time and we don't attempt to stop it. It is only when it becomes genocide that there seems to be an overarching moral imperitive to collectively step in and stop it. So the response is determined by whether or not it is genocide. You seem to dismiss my concern for discovering the motive behind the violence. However, without that motive, you can't prove that it is genocide. That is, unless you define genocide as simply being an unfair fight.
Regarding that point incidently, when I referred to two warring parties, I simply meant the two parties to the conflict, not that they were both using the full machinery of war to wage the fight.
I realize people are dying there, but people will also die trying to stop it. So I think it pays to be very careful about intervening in an armed conflict that does not involve you, and especially if you have no idea of what that armed conflict is about.
From what I have heard, if we stepped in, it would be taken as an act of war by Sudan. Should we ask them to disarm and surrender before we go in?
I don't think you have anything to worry about though. I am sure that the Democrats will lead the charge on this. Bush will go along with them. It's out of Iraq and into Darfur.
[QUOTE]EUCLID said this in post #79 :
lodgebo,
People muder people all the time and we don't attempt to stop it. It is only when it becomes genocide that there seems to be an overarching moral imperitive to collectively step in and stop it. So the response is determined by whether or not it is genocide. You seem to dismiss my concern for discovering the motive behind the violence. However, without that motive, you can't prove that it is genocide. That is, unless you define genocide as simply being an unfair fight.
Well I would class genocide as murder on a massive scale for example the Jews in Nazi Germany and the Muslims in Kosovo that was genocide, people were trying to wipe out a whole civilisation or generation, GHitler had no motive as such he just wanted the Jews gone ditto with the Kosovo incident and now with the Darfur crisis.
Regarding that point incidently, when I referred to two warring parties, I simply meant the two parties to the conflict, not that they were both using the full machinery of war to wage the fight.
Still the victims are unarmed and we are letting it happen.
I realize people are dying there, but people will also die trying to stop it. So I think it pays to be very careful about intervening in an armed conflict that does not involve you, and especially if you have no idea of what that armed conflict is about.
Well if a few hundred die in an effort to stop the destruction of a whole race of people, the burning and invading of legitmate refugee camps and the systematic rape of women and children then that to me is a price worth paying. Have you also considred what might happen if we don't do something, at least one of Sudan's neighbours have threatend war after government Janajaweed chased refugees over the border. So we need to stop this whole collection of human problems and possibly avert a war.
From what I have heard, if we stepped in, it would be taken as an act of war by Sudan. Should we ask them to disarm and surrender before we go in?
Have you asked yourself why that is? let me tell you the government are the ones that are causing the genocide so it is no wonder that they don't want a better trained force in there. If they are the perpitrators f**k what they want wew should do whatever it takes to help these people and not worry on stepping on a few diplomatic toes. Maybe you did not notice but Milocesvic was not to happy when we rolled into the Balkans because he knew by then that the game was well and truly up.
Like I said Euclid read up on the Darfur situation causes and affects and then tell me if you really don't think the motive is worth us going in there.
EUCLID said this in post #79 : h@ts,
Are you saying that it is genocide but it is not being called that officially in order to dodge a resonsibility to stop it? When you say that countries are obliged to step in and stop it if it is declared as genocide, what do you mean? What is the obligation? Is it a legal requirement? Who is required to step in and stop it? I thought that stopping genocide was simply a moral choice.
In terms of international law "genocide" is a war crime. Those responsible for it can be hauled off to the Hague like Milosevic, and tried. But if no-one recognises or states that genocide is occurring - and many people say Darfur is a civil war - then countries are not under obligation to do anything.
International law is bendable and flimsy and easy to avoid (unless of course you're name is Saddam Hussein). So I can only assume there is no strategic or economic interest in Darfur, otherwise we would have jumped in there and done something.
lodgebo said this in post #80 : [QUOTE]EUCLID said this in post #79 :
l
Well I would class genocide as murder on a massive scale for example the Jews in Nazi Germany and the Muslims in Kosovo that was genocide, people were trying to wipe out a whole civilisation or generation, GHitler had no motive as such he just wanted the Jews gone ditto with the Kosovo incident and now with the Darfur crisis.
From what I have heard, if we stepped in, it would be taken as an act of war by Sudan. Should we ask them to disarm and surrender before we go in?
Have you asked yourself why that is? let me tell you the government are the ones that are causing the genocide so it is no wonder that they don't want a better trained force in there. If they are the perpitrators f**k what they want wew should do whatever it takes to help these people and not worry on stepping on a few diplomatic toes. Maybe you did not notice but Milocesvic was not to happy when we rolled into the Balkans because he knew by then that the game was well and truly up.
Like I said Euclid read up on the Darfur situation causes and affects and then tell me if you really don't think the motive is worth us going in there.
On this point, I think you are confusing the motive to step in and stop the violence with the motive for the violence. When I speak of motive, I am referring to the latter. I cannot believe that anybody just wakes up one day and concludes that an entire race needs to be eliminated for no reason. You mentioned Hitler. He clearly had a motive. It was to create a pure, "super" race. If the motive is not race, then it is usually about religious difference, or control of resources and property. In the case of Darfur, the motive is conspicuous in its absence.
On another site, I read an exchange between two seemingly qualified experts. One contended that the motive of the Janjaweed is to spread Islam by the sword, slaughtering Christians. The other expert rejected that, saying that both sides were Muslim. I have no idea which one is correct.
Apparently both sides are black, so it cannot be an issue of race, although I have heard that point debated as well because the races of the opponents is not identical even though both are black.
I have heard that the Janjaweed are slaughtering their victims in order to steal their cattle. I have also heard that the motive is oil, which is plentiful in the region.
I guess I don't see much difference in our soldiers standing on street corners taking bullets from a civil war there, or doing the same thing in Iraq.
It is certainly a very tough situation, on one hand the collision forces are not welcomed, on the other hand pulling out will create the required vacuum for fanatics. They will Consider such pull out is a defeat for the Americans and victory for them, they will get stronger and we will see them running around every where in the globe.
asantana said this in post #83 : It is certainly a very tough situation, on one hand the collision forces are not welcomed, on the other hand pulling out will create the required vacuum for fanatics. They will Consider such pull out is a defeat for the Americans and victory for them, they will get stronger and we will see them running around every where in the globe.
Having been to Iraq twice i can honestly agree with him. This is a situation in which the US has never been in. this is quiet possibly the most complicated war America has ever been in. But not all Iraqis hate us.
Regardless whether or not the US decides “to stay the course” or “pull out” of Iraq, the policy is incumbent upon failure. It is distressing to see how the architects of the US post – Saddam regime in Iraq are committing the same missteps Great Britain made in Iraq eighty – seven years ago, and were reluctant to heed the wisdom of General Eric Shinseki’s belief that “several hundreds of thousands of troops,” would be necessary to successfully occupy Iraq after the war was completed. So, “fault,” IMHO, lies with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al., for making this endeavor a geo – political debacle. The premise of this regime change was not based on the linkage of events tied to 9 – 11, and therein lies the rub.
It further belies the point that this is the “most complicated war America has ever been,” involved because if this endeavor was critiqued solely on its cost – effectiveness it would be judged an abysmal failure. We have a successfully installed democratic government in Iraq measured and underscored against the current cost of the war ($419 billion), along with the 3300 US service personnel killed in action, the nearly 667 thousand Iraqi dead, our exhausted military presence in Iraq, the menacing and continued growth of Al Qaeda, and the erosion of our civil liberties. How much longer do we as a nation need to travel down a path that leads us to our collective failure?
It is evident that this war has become an albatross around the neck of this great nation. Therefore United States would be prudent to revise its policy concerning Iraq and take an immediate course of action to reduce our resources in Iraq necessary only to monitor; a) Iraqi internecine warfare, b) the presence of Al Qaeda, and c) the progress of their infrastructure. The remaining US available resources would be used for domestic terrorism surveillance on our borders, airports and seaports.
11-22-2006 03:24 PM
