UN told of mass Darfur killings

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ahh yes, the interests ofthe american ppl. just exactly is that? therein lies the crux of the situation.

Let me be more clear. If we are being attacked by rebels in Darfur or by the Arab militia of northern Sudan, then I say we go get em. As long as they are fighting amongst each other, it is not our problem. Lots of people fight amongst each other and always have. It's how the world shakes itself out. When something shakes out that appears to be a threat to the US, then we take em out. Till then, we leave them be. The world is dangerous enough without the United States extending itself into every corner.

Then by the same token should we stop supporting Israel?

I'm not so sure isolationism is the way to go, but neither do I agree that individual governments should go to war on any pretext, no matter how dubious.

The UN is corrupt and bureaucratic, but the idea behind it is sound. Admittedlly that's an idealistic argument and an oversimplification perhaps, but if we really are serious about stopping this sort of barbarism it can only really happen as part of an international response.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

ahh yes, the interests ofthe american ppl. just exactly is that? therein lies the crux of the situation.

Let me be more clear. If we are being attacked by rebels in Darfur or by the Arab militia of northern Sudan, then I say we go get em. As long as they are fighting amongst each other, it is not our problem. Lots of people fight amongst each other and always have. It's how the world shakes itself out. When something shakes out that appears to be a threat to the US, then we take em out. Till then, we leave them be. The world is dangerous enough without the United States extending itself into every corner.

too late. we apparently have interests everywhere.

you see, the american ppl's interest is everywhere. well, almost everywhere.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Mirorgate 0]

What is your take on what the U.N should do?

At the very least the introduction of peace-keeping troops. Sitting on the fence watching huge massacres take place seems a little distasteful to me.

kinda like the UN troops in bosnia/hertz?

kinda li,ke the UN troops in Ivory coast?

kinda like the UN troops in Congo?

Kinda like UN troops in Sudan too?

havent they all been shot at and killed? its been done and tried... its gets no where unfortunately. Why not try more humanitarian needs to be filled? digging wells, building schools, housing.. and when the oppressors come by... they get shot outright.. no questions asked? can that be done?

[dalegg 143]

What is your take on what the U.N should do?

At the very least the introduction of peace-keeping troops. Sitting on the fence watching huge massacres take place seems a little distasteful to me.

Okay, so you would agree then that there is a time and a place for nations to intervene in the arrairs of other countries, even when their own self-interests appear to be unaffected by the events occurring in the other country?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Then by the same token should we stop supporting Israel?

But of course. We should support them only as far as they support us. No more of this beacon of democracy, promised fukcing land of the promised fukcing people sh!t.

The UN is corrupt and bureaucratic, but the idea behind it is sound. Admittedlly that's an idealistic argument and an oversimplification perhaps, but if we really are serious about stopping this sort of barbarism it can only really happen as part of an international response.

An international response in which all parties share equal burdens? You know the US and Europe will end up shouldering most of the burden. This is happening in Africa. I wouldn't be against American/European assistance of a joint African effort. But American soldiers in Darfur? No. There are plenty of soldiers in Africa. This is their fight.

[almaty 19]

Then by the same token should we stop supporting Israel?

But of course. We should support them only as far as they support us. No more of this beacon of democracy, promised fukcing land of the promised fukcing people sh!t.

The UN is corrupt and bureaucratic, but the idea behind it is sound. Admittedlly that's an idealistic argument and an oversimplification perhaps, but if we really are serious about stopping this sort of barbarism it can only really happen as part of an international response.

An international response in which all parties share equal burdens? You know the US and Europe will end up shouldering most of the burden. This is happening in Africa. I wouldn't be against American/European assistance of a joint African effort. But American soldiers in Darfur? No. There are plenty of soldiers in Africa. This is their fight.

i agree with brother arijit..thiis is not a usa problem..but a world issue..and the UN needs to be the ones taking action..usa role as being th police of the world needs to cease..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is your take on what the U.N should do?

At the very least the introduction of peace-keeping troops. Sitting on the fence watching huge massacres take place seems a little distasteful to me.

kinda like the UN troops in bosnia/hertz?

kinda li,ke the UN troops in Ivory coast?

kinda like the UN troops in Congo?

Kinda like UN troops in Sudan too?

havent they all been shot at and killed? its been done and tried... its gets no where unfortunately. Why not try more humanitarian needs to be filled? digging wells, building schools, housing.. and when the oppressors come by... they get shot outright.. no questions asked? can that be done?

Sure - but the simple solutionto that is to send more troops so that they have more authority than a half dozen guys with blue helmets, standing behind a smile and a six shot pistol.

Of course, this will never happen without significant reforms of the organisation. Its the self interest of individual countries that the problem - and this is why we'll continue to go to war in places like Iraq under the pretense of 'liberation' rather than tackling the really desperate areas of the world.

As I see it - countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

You don't get rich by squandering your resources on projects that get you no ROI.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

... countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

You don't get rich by squandering your resources on projects that get you no ROI.

and thus you approach the american ppls' interest.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Mirorgate 0]

... countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

You don't get rich by squandering your resources on projects that get you no ROI.

and thus you approach the american ppls' interest.

Daniel

:energetic:

not just americas.. but western civs also. personally... true in a eutopia it would be that we would help lift up all nations and help build an live so... guess where we went wrong?

not livin in eutopia

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

... countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

You don't get rich by squandering your resources on projects that get you no ROI.

Indeed. But there's a whole host of issues connected to this. The international community, specifically the governments of Europe and the US are in a position to do something, relieving 3rd world debt for one thing.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the governments of Europe and the US are in a position to do something, relieving 3rd world debt for one thing.

And I'm in a position to sell everything I have and donate it to the Red Cross. But I won't because I want to build my wealth, not squander it.

I want to see the country I live in build its wealth too. Not squander it. If there's some angle in this debt-forgiveness game that allows for that, I got no problem.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but then we shouldn't pretend that the government approach to foreign policy of almost any developed world country is not based in any way, shape or form on humanitarian principles.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure - but then we shouldn't pretend that the government approach to foreign policy of almost any developed world country is not based in any way, shape or form on humanitarian principles.

Right. We shouldn't. When we do say it, it's bullsh!t meant to let us do what we want to do. In the end, it's all about ROI.

[dalegg 143]

Sure - but the simple solutionto that is to send more troops so that they have more authority than a half dozen guys with blue helmets, standing behind a smile and a six shot pistol.

Of course, this will never happen without significant reforms of the organisation. Its the self interest of individual countries that the problem - and this is why we'll continue to go to war in places like Iraq under the pretense of 'liberation' rather than tackling the really desperate areas of the world.

As I see it - countries that own over 90% of the worlds wealth should have a moral duty to help the world's poorest and most desperate people.

Isn't this the root of terrorism against the U.S and Europe though? Interfering in the affairs of other countries? Particularly muslim countries where radicals would rather die than have us on their land? Suppose some of these militia members gets really ticked off at U.N intervention and decides to hijak a plane and crash it into the U.N. building in retaliation. Now, what was seemingly not our interest is now our interest big time and next thing you know, we're in an all out war against these guys.

Is this an acceptable risk?