1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Introducing for your Perusing Pleasure

    New Thread Thursday
    +
    Shit Post Sunday

    READ ME
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Q4 2019 Story Competition is kicking off!

    Prompt:
    Foreign Magical Regions (Setting outside of Britain) Length: 2.5 - 5k
    Get writing Folks!
    Dismiss Notice

The Darfur Genocide and a Rally in DC

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Giovanni, Apr 21, 2006.

?

Should the US/UN Intervene?

  1. No

    91.3%
  2. Yes

    8.7%
  3. Undecided/Neutral

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,655
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    On Sunday April 30th there is going to be a rally calling for US intervention in Sudan's Darfur province to stop the genocide there.

    Personally I think that the United States should intervene if only to clean up its image internationally (as most westernized countries see stopping genocides as a good thing).

    However on the other hand, the US army is already spread so thin it's ridiculous, and the last time the USA/UN sent a significant number of troops into an African country (Somalia) it didn't end very well.

    I will be attending the rally; if only to show my contempt for the Bush hypocrisy in Iraq... But I was wondering what you guys thought.

    If you want more information about the rally it can be found by clicking on the link below.

    http://www.savedarfur.org/rally/

    This thread is to discuss the Darfur genocide, and whether or not the international community has a responsibility to intervene... It is NOT to flame bait or make smart assed comments. If I see something like that I will delete your post.
     
  2. ChuckDaTruck

    ChuckDaTruck Overlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,777
    Location:
    Inside YOUR closet. Go check.
    Yes, I would attend, and I voted yes.

    There are VERY few black and white moral issues in this day and age.

    Opposing Genocide is one of them. What is going on there is monstrous. It has been going on for a SHOCKINGLY long period of time, and has been escalating of late.

    This is a genocide in everything but name. (If the UN labelled it a genocide they would be obligated to act according to their own by-laws. This is something they are LOATHE to do.)

    If you are unfamiliar with this I want to make a suggestion: Go see "God Grew Tired of Us." It won the best documentary Grand Jury Prize, and Best Documentary Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival this January of 2006. It will be in theaters this summer. Go see it. It genuinely shook me to my core.

    Also read the articles by Nicholas D. Kristof about Darfur. He just won a Pulitzer for them. In times like these, it is very easy to forget that their is a world beyond Iraq and terrorism, and that evil exists there too.
     
  3. doc_gerbil

    doc_gerbil Sixth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    181
    this is a very hard question. the first thing that pops to mind in my moral head is yes. why not. i mean there dying, we have the power to help so gung ho. but then i consider the 8 trillion dollar debt and the 250,000 tax my kids will be paying. i also think about the mothers of the troops who are only just beggining to see an end to our current war. as for the whole foreign relations thing, i think that anything america does involving guns outside are country is going to be viewed as negative. we need to lay low for the next two years and then elect warner. or potentially McCain.
     
  4. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,180
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    I've read some accounts out of Darfur, and I think hell yes the UN should intervene. The Janjawee troops need to be executed and brutally for the brutal acts against the refugees.
     
  5. ChuckDaTruck

    ChuckDaTruck Overlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,777
    Location:
    Inside YOUR closet. Go check.
    I didn't say send troops. I think we should get out of Iraq and send money, and a FEW thousand troops in the major cities. Somalia was a debacle for entirely different reasons. (The same reasons as Iraq actually. Overestimating our reception by the locals.)

    ANyway, On a side note. I love Mark Warner AND John McCain. I'd be happy if I either won. NO HILLARY!!! (She operates in the same isolated, arrogant way as Bush. Same thinking just a different party.)
     
  6. doc_gerbil

    doc_gerbil Sixth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    181
    also what i said only applies to the US. i am all for the UN going in and liberating the refugees. i just think america should militarily do nothing beyond saying that darfur is a terrible incident and send some money to the UN.
     
  7. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,180
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    When the refugees get to the point of taking a beating, in exchange for Not getting raped or killed by mounted troops, it's time to slaughter some fuckers. :twisted:
     
  8. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,655
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    We have no money to send. We have been deficit spending out of our asses for the past 4 (or 5 depending on who you ask) years. Besides, if we just send money then it will not make us look good internationally... In fact it will make the USA look worse. It will make us look like idiots who do not understand the situation.

    Chuck:

    As much as I would like to say we only need a few thousand troops working with the UN, that model was proven innefficient in Somalia because it relies to heavily on the locals. If we deploy troops to Darfur it will require a minimum of 75,000 US troops plus another couple hundred thousand from the UN to not only slaughter the crazy sociopathic genocidal schmucks who think its good fun to rape women and murder children... Thats the easy part. The reason we would need the additional troops is to help rebuild the place. We owe that to them, and much more, because it was by our own inaction that the situation got so very bad. The UN By-law against genocide got put in for a very specific reason: Complete and utter disbelief and disgust directed at the Nazi's and more recently the Yugoslavs under Milosevic. Ignoring them now when another genocide of epic proportions is ocurring right under their noses is a betrayal of the very principles upon which the UN was founded. It amounts to treason against the UN Charter, and it represents everything that is wrong with the west right now... We see something like Darfur, but would rather chase the windmills of WMD's in a nation (Iraq) that very obviously doesn't have them... Except the leftover ones from the Iran-Iraq war (which the United States gave them incidentally).
     
  9. ChuckDaTruck

    ChuckDaTruck Overlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,777
    Location:
    Inside YOUR closet. Go check.
    I know. I think the UN should step in, but they are opposite credo of PResident Bush. He's too quick to draw his guns, they never do.

    The UN is a massive bureacracy, and let's be frank. How seriously can you take a group that actually HAS Sudan on the Human Rights Commision for 2005 (when it was apparent what was going on)?

    Here's the link by the way, from the UN website:
    http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm

    Anyway, I have NO respect for the UN as a body. The individuals who make it up, yes. But collectively they do nothing. I was thinking if the U.S. sent in 3 thousand troops along with EVERY OTHER first world nation it would be enough. Of course, you get pussies like the Swiss who would rather do nothing than actually take a stand. That's right, take more terrorist and illegal drug money you dirty SWISS BASTARDS!!!

    Anyway, this should really be an international movement. It won't, but it should be.
     
  10. doc_gerbil

    doc_gerbil Sixth Year

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    181

    sigggh. what a sad state this country is in. bush has gotten us fucked sideways. btw if i didnt do the quote thing right , my bad.


    I know, don't thank me. Fixing fuck-ups is what I do, baby. ;) :D Edited by Chuck
     
  11. True Story

    True Story Third Year

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    I think somebody should act.....I think an example should be made out of these Janjaweed fucks.......I wish I were President.....I wouldn't take shit from nobody... 8) ....Just kiding. I don't undertand why they haven't done anything to stop it.....
     
  12. Allowaycar

    Allowaycar Second Year

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I think something should done. Now as for what should, that's undecided.

    UN stands for "United Nations" correct. It would be nice if they got off there ass and did something for a change instead of making the US carry the load. I think the UN should be in charge of this operation, handle everything, and the US should give some support. I don't see why the US has to do more than any other country.



    Now about your whole rally thing, there is a part of me that is screaming "DIE HIPPY DIE".

    Sorry, can't help it. My bad.
     
  13. Lady Almaren

    Lady Almaren Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    the land of make-believe
    I definately would like the US to intervene. Those guys are Grade A sick bastards. But we don't have the manpower. The guys at the UN are going to sit on their asses and do nothing. This reminds me of what happened at Rwanda in the early 90's. People like this have to be stopped. IMO I think we should leave Iraq. (we should've have gone in the first place) And try to send a little help to these people. It's horrifying that people like that actually exist in the world. :cry:
     
  14. pimpostrous

    pimpostrous First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Aff side: US and UN should send in logistic, monetary, and personal support into the Darfur region of Sudan.
    Neg side: US currently is militarily overstretched, deploying more troops would risk the nationaal security and lower US hegemony, although its (is it just me or can u not use the apostraphe in this forum?) already pretty damn low. The current US economy is on the brink of Economic overstretch, pushing any more money into a new foriegn venture will lead to economic collapse. Reason? the US economy is increasing its debt by 2.19 bil everyday www.brillig.com/debt_clock. Increased spending will only occur once every year and 2006 fiscal year is already set. The nearest possible date of US entry into Sudanese war is 2007. Passing a bill for sudan spending will lead to snowballing and porkbarreling in the US senate. Such a measure will almost triple the actual cost of the war itself. As such, this would tip US over the critical point, destroy all greenspan has worked for in the last 14 years, and set US on a trend of stagflation that would crumble the economy, as shown during the great depresson of the 30s and 40s and the economic problems of the 70s. These trends show that the failing of the US economy will quickly lead to major wars that destroy countless more lives than currently lost in sudan. Also, sending in logistic support to the Darfur region would be worthless. The central govt of sudan has already been corrupted and is currently running on 5% efficiency. Even if given all the technological and intelligence support that the US could easily provide, the Sudanese not act on it and millions will continue to be slaughtered.
    Thus the US, although morally obligated, does not actually possess the ability to intervene in Sudan at this time. Had we not so foolishly invaded afghanistan and iraq, we would might be able to help out. Although from history we can see that US intervention does little, as shown in the fall out of Somalia, Rawanda, Vietnam, Korea,
     
  15. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,755
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    Something should definatly be done, but as has been said, America (and the UK for that matter) are already draining all their resources into Iraq...so obviously the UN will have to take on the responsibility...though I don't see it happening.

    What I want to know is "what happened to NATO?" They sorted out the Kosovo (sp?) crisis relatively quickly, shouldn't they do something?
     
  16. pimpostrous

    pimpostrous First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    This is all i can say, NATO, EU, and UN dont do jack shit. They got shit for armies and dont accomplish anything. They are, pretty much, just a bunch of pompous idiots sitting in to recieve a title and spend international resources. Like david Chapelle said, "You know what? The UN should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh, wait. You don't have an army!!! Guess that means you need yo shut the fuck up!"
     
  17. Myst

    Myst Headmaster

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2006
    Messages:
    1,187
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Williamsburg, VA
    If the US decides to intervene with Sudan... US is gonna go into an Economic Depression, basically we dont have the manpower and the money to solve every god damn world problem right now.


    so Basically, it will have to wait untill most likly even 2008.

    Ya guys can picket all day, but youd be just supporting the Great Depression II.


    NATO... only intervenes when one of their allies is having the problem, Sudan is not in NATO.

    @pimpostrous all of them have armis, they just cant afford to do anything.
     
  18. pimpostrous

    pimpostrous First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    UN does NOT have an ARMY, they have peacekeepers, which is entirely different. They have nations that will provide an army but they don't acutally have one themselves. All UN is, is a council of representatives from a country who hold the illusion of having great power.
    I have just realized that US doesnt have to contribute money and we could still help out Sudan. We just need the UN to get off its lazy ass and give the AU (African Union) logistic support. AU has already pledged its troops to the war effort but they sorely lack any form of transport, information, and actual fighting weapons.
    Anyways, UN hasn't done, can't do, and likely never will do JACK SHIT. take the case with Rwanda, UN already had their French "peacekeepers" there and guess what happened? Those mofos just sat back and watched as thousands of men and boys were taken into trucks, driven into the fields, and slaughtered like cattle. They watched all of this while just sitting there pretending there is world peace and everyone around them is an angel.
    Next, in Burundi, they had thousands of Dutch peacekeepers deployed, guess what happened? same fucking thing.
    Now why dont be back track a little and look at Lebanon? that started with an "observation period" in the 1950s then only in the 1970s did they actually go in and try to stop the conflict.
    Now take a look at Congo, the mission started in 1960s but ended shortly after, i can tell you definitively that Congo isnt much better off now than it was 40 years ago.
    Finally, the ever so famous and first ACTUAL peacekeeping mission occured in India and Pakistan, was indeed a success, it prevented them from having an all out war against each other, but didnt resolve the issues. Guess what? Now Pakistan is nuclear nation and US is helping India get nuclear weapons, let's see what UN does about this now? especially when the tension is steadily building between the two countries. All we need is for one of them to abrogate something as simple as the Indus Water Treaty and the entire world is fucked.

    Well back to the topic, UN is too big of a pussy to declare Sudan as a genocide. US, however, has (thanks to Powell) now we have an obligation to act on it, all we have to do is send in some jeeps, a few maps and spys, and AU will handle the rest. So hopefully that rally will get the US govt off its lazy ass and consider doing something righteous and doing it correctly for a change.

    BTW, this was part of the UN peacekeepers debate topic for 2004, If you dont believe that the UN is a fucking piece of shit, I have 2 tubs ( as in those 3x2x3 feet storage boxes) full of articles and evidence that proves how ineffective the UN is and how it does more harm than good. I.e. Guess who sped up the spread Aids to India, and all around Africa? Guess who commited over a thousand rapes of innocent women and children in starving nations? Guess who turned sides in the congo and helped slaughter hundreds with the rebels from rawanda? You guessed it, UN PEACEKEEPERS. whole lot of shit they'll do in Sudan.

    It's good to know that you dislike the UN, and it's better to know that you have evidence to support your viewpoint.

    Now howabout showing Uncle Gio a little linky love?

    -Giovanni

    PS. Please clean up your posts before posting them. If your trying to sound educated about a situation, basic things like capitalizing the names of countries are things you have to do.


    Edit: Blah... don't be so critical >.< it was only one word, plus its just a rant:p not a full blown essay
     
  19. Cervus

    Cervus Raptured to Hell

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    Manchester, England.
    You know, you may want to think before you insult the members of the UN. Your statement is made redundant considering the fact that the United States of America is a member state of the UN and has been since October 24th of 1945. What does that make them, brave pussies?

    UN Member States list - from the United Nations website.

    I don't really give a shit what the hell people choose to call it. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, who cares what darn name it's given. Atrocious crimes are being committed and I think that it is the responsibility of the rest of the world to stop it from happening. Something like this should not be done to 'make us look better in the eyes of others', it should be done because people are suffering and it's the right thing to do to stop it.
     
  20. pimpostrous

    pimpostrous First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    Oh my statement isn't insulting the member states of the UN but the entity as a whole. US is part of the UN but that doesnt make it the UN, insulting the idea of having a indecisive body to govern global action does not automatically insult the member states comprising it. UN, as a whole, is too scared to declare Darfur a genocide (because UN is obligated to act if a situation is indeed a genocide). However, US can make a difference, thats why im saying that this rally would hopefully motivate America to intervene, instead of waiting for the UN to act (btw, U.S. may be on the security council but it definitely doesn't have enough hegemony to sway the entire council into action. Also, the crimes mentioned in my last post are commited mostly by other nations)

    linky- stuff that still remain public (as in not part of lexus nexus archives)
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/general/aids2.htm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4695035.stm
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3145-2004Dec15.html
    http://www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/747.html
    http://www.thetriangle.org/media/st...200604222157&sourcedomain=www.thetriangle.org
    http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6412
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
    There are many more but most are archived in lexus nexus or newssites.

    anyways, since im really bored right now, so ill just copy an old AIDs Disadvantage that i used a few years ago.

    PEACEKEEPING AIDS DA

    A. Uniqueness
    1. Global Progress Against Aids Epidemic
    United States Department of State, AFRICA NEWS, “US Health Secretary Sees Global Progress Against Aids Epidemic” February 6, 2004: accessed June 30, 2004
    http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe...z-zSkVb&_md5=213aff8203f496ff2befecb8fa8a35d4


    [U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy G. Thompson says he has seen significant progress and new optimism in other nations as the United States has accelerated its efforts to help combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.]

    [Then he returned to Africa last November. "Again I saw the devastation, but this time I also saw a great deal of hope," Thompson said. "The treatment and prevention programs we're supporting are starting to work and show results."]

    [Thompson also hailed the contributions being made by a diverse group of Americans -- corporations, religious groups, health care workers and researchers. They have provided anti-retroviral drugs, drilled wells to provide clean water, and donated wheel chairs to the disabled.]

    B. Link
    1. Affirmative plan would increase the number of peacekeepers.
    2. Peacekeepers spread AIDS

    a) Ian Travnor, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, “Nato force in Kosovo 'feeds fast-growing sex trade'” May 13, 2004: accessed June 30, 2004
    http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe...z-zSkVb&_md5=b816cfc34cdc6f56edc3ca15c068b1a5

    Up to 2,000 women are estimated to have been coerced into sex slavery in Kosovo, which had seen "an unprecedented escalation in trafficking". The number of premises listed by a special UN police unit as being involved in the rackets has swollen from 18 in 1999 to 200 this year.

    A few weeks ago the UN's department of peacekeeping in New York acknowledged that "peacekeepers have come to be seen as part of the problem in trafficking rather than the solution".

    b) David Firn, FINANCIAL TIMES, “Aids teams in Haiti precede peacekeepers” June 15, 2004: accessed June 30, 2004
    http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe...z-zSkVb&_md5=aeb38176ae3c6508c96ca8e6a6ca0f51
    Sinead Ryan, technical officer at UNAids, said the joint mission was a response to calls from troop-providing countries for better Aids protection. But she said peacekeepers and other aid workers were also spreading the virus.

    AIDS leads to Extinction
    KRQE News, 8-28-2, http://www.rense.com/general28/exc.htm

    The report, by the U.S. Census Bureau, shows life expectancy falling in 51 countries around the world over the next eight years as people die of AIDS. But the epidemic will have its greatest impact in Africa, where in many countries more than 30% of the adult population is infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. By 2010, we project that life expectancies in these countries will be back to levels that have not been seen since the 19th century."
    … "We are faced with extinction," said Dr. Banu Khan, head of the National AIDS Co-ordinating Agency in Botswana.



    damn this is getting off topic again.. oh well.


    Thank you

    -Giovanni
     
Loading...