That was a quote....from Mr. Powell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm done with this convo.

 

There is no greater tragdy on earth today, as the one that is unfolding in the Sudan."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Whatever. You obviously aren't very educated about the earth today.

And you obviously dont care about human life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sick of reading all of these people disageing for the sake of it, or even disagreing with people helping save lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont care what you respond with, your wrong, genocide is worse than any other killing, ignoring genocide is absolutely unexcusable.

I dont care what you respond with, your wrong, genocide is worse than any other killing, ignoring genocide is absolutely unexcusable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around 30 thousand children starve to death in Africa on a daily basis. The US defense budget is over 500 billion dollars. It would not be a big deal, clearly, to end global hunger, the only thing holding us back is a pointless war started by the governments lies. The real enemy is the US government, and raising consciousness about the genocide in Sudan rather than the corruption in the US government is backward logic.

Just a thought, if the government was how you would want then would you come to these people's aid?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as there being other reasons for deaths, yes you are right, many die of hunger, but it is spread over a large area where it is hard to take care of. This on the other hand is in one small area, and it would not be as hard to take care of.

I think that we (as in world leaders) need to give them a fresh slate, and guide them thru. this hard time. I wish, in a way, that maybe there was some resource that we wanted, so we would go over there. Then again, it could turn into Sierra(sp)

In my opinion, the UN don't have NEARLY enough firepower, manpower or legal power to deal with probles such as these. Seriously, they should get real about expanding thier organisation into a real world force. Don't get me wrong, it's great that have been around to help in places like Rwanda , but it just seems the problems elsewhere are too big for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEY DIDNT HELP IN RAWANDA, THATS THE WHOLE DEAL! the UN sent 5000 "peacekeepers" to rawanda. 30 got killed, the UN pulled out and let a genocide run on, and then for the kicker, THEY MADE A DECISION NOT TO CALL IT A GENOCIDE! can you beilieve that. 1 of the first times they can really do their job and they back out on a technicality. the US had its hands full with somalia so they couldnt really help, but still, this is just the UN screwing over one more country because they dont have the guts to help.

 

I dont care what you respond with, your wrong, genocide is worse than any other killing, ignoring genocide is absolutely unexcusable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around 30 thousand children starve to death in Africa on a daily basis. The US defense budget is over 500 billion dollars. It would not be a big deal, clearly, to end global hunger, the only thing holding us back is a pointless war started by the governments lies. The real enemy is the US government, and raising consciousness about the genocide in Sudan rather than the corruption in the US government is backward logic.

 

 

 

And when did I say 'US' as an only problem anywhere in my posts again? You'd think after the 5th time saying it people would get the point.

Not everything is a consperisy. \

 

There is no greater tragdy on earth today, as the one that is unfolding in the Sudan."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Whatever. You obviously aren't very educated about the earth today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you are? Colin Powell, the ex-Secretary of State, was quoted as saying that. And i do believe, that Genocide in general IS the greatest tragedy on earth today. How can an educated, un-biased person think otherwise? You need to either educate yourself, or explain your disgusting words - but in either case, it will not excuse your actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I dont care what you respond with, your wrong, genocide is worse than any other killing, ignoring genocide is absolutely unexcusable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Around 30 thousand children starve to death in Africa on a daily basis. The US defense budget is over 500 billion dollars. It would not be a big deal, clearly, to end global hunger, the only thing holding us back is a pointless war started by the governments lies. The real enemy is the US government, and raising consciousness about the genocide in Sudan rather than the corruption in the US government is backward logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And who said that the US is obligated to go off and end world hunger? Why not find a country that's in more debt? Why should such an economical-troubled country be the problem-solvers of the world? Hell, the US is home to some multi-million dollar population of starving children itself - let alone the other masses outside of the country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, how do you think they would go and solve hunger anyways? It's not like they can just scrap their defenses, and spend it all on fixing this. For one, that's unrealistic, and for two, 500 billion wouldn't help atall - you need employment, housing, schooling, etc. Hunger all stems from a lack of money, and to provide some hundred million people with a steady cash flow would cost a lot more than 500 billion.

And you are? Colin Powell, the ex-Secretary of State, was quoted as saying that. And i do believe, that Genocide in general IS the greatest tragedy on earth today. How can an educated, un-biased person think otherwise? You need to either educate yourself, or explain your disgusting words - but in either case, it will not excuse your actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colin Powell was part of the Bush administration, inarguably the most corrupt and evil government ever to rule the United States. His opinion is worth slightly less than say, Rosie O'Donnell's, to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The genocide in Sudan is a tragedy, no doubt. However it is certainly not the biggest tragedy in the world today, and it is certainly not something new. Africa has been in turmoil for the past few thousand years, and to be blunt, the removal of colonial powers has caused a regress to constant fighting over national resources and foreign aid, made worse by insanely heavy corruption in the government. The US should do all it can to help stop hunger, disease, and thirst from killing people, but there is such a thing as not being able to help people, because they don't want to help themselves. Around 400,000 people have died so far in the genocide in Sudan. That's terrible. Realize that every 13 days about that many children starve to death, that around 3.5 million people are homeless in the US every year and 31 million people go hungry in the US every year. AlIDS and malaria actually are much more devastating than the genocide in Sudan, but at the moment do not have much momentum as far as activist issues, because they aren't the hip thing to discuss at this point in time. It just disgusts me how everyone can get all upset and teary eyed and caring about one issue, yet completely blow off any sense of social responsibility or activism in their own country, for example.

 

In my opinion, the UN don't have NEARLY enough firepower, manpower or legal power to deal with probles such as these. Seriously, they should get real about expanding thier organisation into a real world force. Don't get me wrong, it's great that have been around to help in places like Rwanda , but it just seems the problems elsewhere are too big for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEY DIDNT HELP IN RAWANDA, THATS THE WHOLE DEAL! the UN sent 5000 "peacekeepers" to rawanda. 30 got killed, the UN pulled out and let a genocide run on, and then for the kicker, THEY MADE A DECISION NOT TO CALL IT A GENOCIDE! can you beilieve that. 1 of the first times they can really do their job and they back out on a technicality. the US had its hands full with somalia so they couldnt really help, but still, this is just the UN screwing over one more country because they dont have the guts to help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least they tried. I'd much rather have the UN there than not, but they need more firepower and authority in my opinion. Anyway, your comments sparked my memory of a documentary I saw about the Canadian General who lead things in Rwanda. Yea, it was kind of a mess, wasn't it.

 

 

In my opinion, the UN don't have NEARLY enough firepower, manpower or legal power to deal with probles such as these. Seriously, they should get real about expanding thier organisation into a real world force. Don't get me wrong, it's great that have been around to help in places like Rwanda , but it just seems the problems elsewhere are too big for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEY DIDNT HELP IN RAWANDA, THATS THE WHOLE DEAL! the UN sent 5000 "peacekeepers" to rawanda. 30 got killed, the UN pulled out and let a genocide run on, and then for the kicker, THEY MADE A DECISION NOT TO CALL IT A GENOCIDE! can you beilieve that. 1 of the first times they can really do their job and they back out on a technicality. the US had its hands full with somalia so they couldnt really help, but still, this is just the UN screwing over one more country because they dont have the guts to help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least they tried. I'd much rather have the UN there than not, but they need more firepower and authority in my opinion. Anyway, your comments sparked my memory of a documentary I saw about the Canadian General who lead things in Rwanda. Yea, it was kind of a mess, wasn't it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kind of a mess! thousands of people died, around 4/5 were killed WITH MACHETES! choped in pieces with massive blades,.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yea, id say it was a mess.

I cant tell which side has more supporters! #-o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol it could be one very opinionated person making me even think that, but at the same time...I have yet to see a 'good' argument (by my standards) telling me why the 'UN' (not the 'US') should take action...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've gotten because there are other issues going on that they may be entangled in, but I (personally) dont see that as a reason to ignore many many deaths happening in one country alone...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the flip-side, I know that the UN isn't dumb, and I'm sure if I asked them, they could give me a direct reason why they arn't going and helping (militarily)...could someone (I dont care what side your on, my opinion isn't likely to change) enlighten me on the strong political opinion of the other side?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate arguing about things that I only know one side on, but it seems I've been able to in ths one which has lead to my own curiosity... :wall: :roll: :)

I would care, but there's nothing I can do. Too bad I don't have billions of dollars to spend, or maybe I would do something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do the people of the US feel that it is their responsibility to intervene in every troubling issue in the world before fixing the troubles on their native soil?

Why do the people of the US feel that it is their responsibility to intervene in every troubling issue in the world before fixing the troubles on their native soil?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not only are there many terrible social (and politcal) injustices still going on in the United States, while activists clamor for US military intervention across the globe, there are worse problems in Africa than the Sudan Genocide, that can actually be solved by intervention, such as the AIDs and Malaria epidemics. Furthermore, the US history of military intervention in Africa has hardly been a positive one that has yielded good results.

Lol, Amerikka - wtg ruining the world.

I have learned that the new U.N. guy says that Sudan is his first proierty, maybe it will gain publicty..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does anyone know why the media isnt eating this up?

After my post I saw 2 more stating the US or America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America isn't the only nation that can help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you keep calling America or the US the "world police"...if military help is wanted, why not give it... :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for reading my...eh, is it 6 now? posts. =D>

After my post I saw 2 more stating the US or America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America isn't the only nation that can help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you keep calling America or the US the "world police"...if military help is wanted, why not give it... :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for reading my...eh, is it 6 now? posts. =D>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acutally, the US could be the only way to do this. I think that no one, besides possibley the UK would take up the challange.

 

 

 

IS ANYONE INTRESTED IN SIGNING A PETITION?(official, has over 500,000 signautres I belive.)

there are worse problems in Africa than the Sudan Genocide, that can actually be solved by intervention, such as the AIDs and Malaria epidemics.

 

 

 

Malaria yes... Aids... no... how are you going to get people to quit having unprotected sex outside of marriage? People in the US don't even always have unprotected sex outside of marriage so how the heck would you get an entire continent to quit doing that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, the US history of military intervention in Africa has hardly been a positive one that has yielded good results.

 

 

 

Actually I feel we have a pretty good record.

 

 

 

The Barbary War- slapped down the Barbary pirates and made the Mediterranean safe from these scum that had Europe paying bribes to them for years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then there was the American Businessman that was kidnapped by the Raisuli in Morocco in 1904. Teddy Roosevelt took care of business.

 

 

 

Well acquainted with the career of Stephen Decatur, he knew the only language understood by terrorists. TR waved the big stick. President Roosevelt threatened to send the White Fleet and the Marines to rescue Perdicaris, and Roosevelt even declared "Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead!" to the Republican National Convention of 1904. Persuaded that Roosevelt was serious, the government of Morocco paid the ransom out of fear of war with America.

 

 

 

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000374.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

World War II. We tangled with Vichy France when we did a joint landing in Morocco with the British and free French. Morocco was liberated. Moved east into Algeria and Tunisia liberating Northern Africa from the Nazis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next up off the top of my head would be Mogadishu and the Blackhawk Down incident. This went poorly only because we went into it halfway. You can't step into the middle of a war, try to play nice and then step out if you get bloodied. If they had let the military take care of business this would have been a success. Personally I don't think we should have been there in the first place. Once we got involved though we shouldn't have tucked tail and fled. That just portrayed the US as weak and invited further attacks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last thing I can think of where US troops were on the ground was in Liberia recently. From what I know they were able to get the situation under control with help from Nigeria and probably some other nations. I haven't studied this in detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That being said what should be done about the Sudan? I don't honestly know. It is terrible what has happened there. If armed troops are put on the ground they don't need to be restricted to policemen like the troops in Rwanda. If troops go in they need to be taking a side and attacking an enemy to destroy them. That is what a military does. To try to use it otherwise is foolish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another approach that might prove to be more effective in the long run is to arm the people getting butchered. Give them the capability to defend themselves. That way outside countries aren't bogged down in a never ending war and the people being slaughtered have a means of protecting themselves. What they choose to do with that capability would be up to them. Thoughts?

 

 

 

Malaria yes... Aids... no... how are you going to get people to quit having unprotected sex outside of marriage? People in the US don't even always have unprotected sex outside of marriage so how the heck would you get an entire continent to quit doing that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are currently a new wave of cheaper more effective AIDs drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually I feel we have a pretty good record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree we have a good record in defending US interests, which is not what I meant by American intervention. Forgive my failure to more fully explain, my bad. My point was that it is difficult to find an example of a US 'Peacekeeping' mission that went well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another approach that might prove to be more effective in the long run is to arm the people getting butchered. Give them the capability to defend themselves. That way outside countries aren't bogged down in a never ending war and the people being slaughtered have a means of protecting themselves. What they choose to do with that capability would be up to them. Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. Guns for peace.

My point was that it is difficult to find an example of a US 'Peacekeeping' mission that went well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall I would agree that peacekeeping missions don't end up very pretty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your take on Liberia?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. Guns for peace.

 

 

 

It's what we did with the French Resistance during WWII and also in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Seemed to work great then. Why wouldn't it now? I don't see anything wrong in empowering a person to defend their life and freedom, do you?

 

My point was that it is difficult to find an example of a US 'Peacekeeping' mission that went well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall I would agree that peacekeeping missions don't end up very pretty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is your take on Liberia?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right. Guns for peace.

 

 

 

It's what we did with the French Resistance during WWII and also in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Seemed to work great then. Why wouldn't it now? I don't see anything wrong in empowering a person to defend their life and freedom, do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cease Fire would be nice, I think I acutally aggree with pault here(strange) :-s , we don't need guns.

Yes, help raise awareness! I have like 3 shirts that say save sudan

Yes, help raise awareness! I have like 3 shirts that say save sudan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really? I have 2 lol. My mom has 1 also. Is it like the one that i have under "Photos" or is it diffrent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you watched the videos?