70,000 dead in Sudan

[Steff]

Lovely.. another ruined thread.

[israel4ever]

Lovely.. another ruined thread.

By Tex this time...not me!

[Steff]

It's never you...

[Controlled Chaos]

I just wish you people would stop playing favorites and ruin one of my threads once. Nobody ever hijacks my threads and I'm sick of it!!

[Texsox]

1. Please don't tell me how I should live my life, and or how I should raise my son; I would never presume to do that to you, or anyone else. (BTW, my son will be brought up as a Jew.)

 

2. Once again you have misinterpreted my point. All I am asking is that you show as much deference for my postings as you do for others'. No more, no less.

Interesting that you would think encouraging you to go to Temple and raise your children in your faith is a bad thing :headshake

 

A couple thoughts I'd like to share. First from a Jewish couple after reading some of your posts.

 

"He believes the world is out to destroy all Jews, that the world hates him. He has a built in excuse for any failure. Promotions, dating, even if he gets cut off on the Edens. Would you attend Temple if you think it is the cause for all your problems? He has the lowest opinion of what it is to be Jewish."

 

The second from me, one of my favorite sermons when I am witnessing, involves people who are looking for salvation in a Christian Bokstore on a Thursday afternoon, instead of in Church on Sunday.

[southsider2k5]

Rape as a weapon in the Sudan

[Texsox]

Too bad we are too tied up in Iraq to do anything. As it is, we would be borrowing money 25% from some country like China) to go fight the war.

 

Just once, I'd like to see some countries get together and solve this problem without US bloodshed and cost. At the minimum, how about another country covering the financial cost and we'll supply the men and equipment?

 

In my heart I know if these were white victims, we'd have been there 60,000 victims ago.

[southsider2k5]

Too bad we are too tied up in Iraq to do anything. As it is, we would be borrowing money 25% from some country like China) to go fight the war.

 

Just once, I'd like to see some countries get together and solve this problem without US bloodshed and cost. At the minimum, how about another country covering the financial cost and we'll supply the men and equipment?

 

In my heart I know if these were white victims, we'd have been there 60,000 victims ago.

Yeah that's what the UN is for... oh wait, it isn't even bad enough to impose "sanctions" on Sudan. I guess they'll just wait for the body count to hit a nice big round number before acting like they did in Iraq... oh damn.

 

Nobody is going to to a damn thing about Sudan, just like they did in Rwanda.

[Texsox]

Yeah that's what the UN is for... oh wait, it isn't even bad enough to impose "sanctions" on Sudan.  I guess they'll just wait for the body count to hit a nice big round number before acting like they did in Iraq... oh damn. 

 

Nobody is going to to a damn thing about Sudan, just like they did in Rwanda.

But this administration has already shown they will take unilateral action, without UN permission. That shouldn't be the excuse.

 

Even it did go through the U.N., we wind up borrowing money to pay for the action. It's not like we have a budget surplus to deal with. So China, etc. votes no to U.N. actions then loans us money to do it ourselves. Nice deal.

 

Bush doesn't want to take action in Sudan and Kerry is using Iraq as an excuse why he will not take action, so whomever wins, the genocide continues

[southsider2k5]

But this administration has already shown they will take unilateral action, without UN permission. That shouldn't be the excuse.

 

Even it did go through the U.N., we wind up borrowing money to pay for the action. It's not like we have a budget surplus to deal with. So China, etc. votes no to U.N. actions then loans us money to do it ourselves. Nice deal.

 

Bush doesn't want to take action in Sudan and Kerry is using Iraq as an excuse why he will not take action, so whomever wins, the genocide continues 

There in lies the problem. The US shouldn't have to push the UN. What is the point of a world body if they won't act to protect people from genocide, repeatedly? And the thing that pisses me off the most is that the UN can vote 200-1 to take action, but if that one country is a permanent security council member, nothing will be done.

 

The UN in its current form works about as well as the Aricles of Confederation. If they really want to create a world body, they need to make sure that it isn't subject to the whims of 51% of one country. Or in the case of China and Russia, the entire world's wishes can be stopped by one single person. Think about that. If Vlad Putin doesn't want to help the Sudan, he alone can stop an entire world body from acting.

[Queen Prawn]

In my heart I know if these were white victims, we'd have been there 60,000 victims ago.

Tell that to the victims in northern Ireland. By victims, I mean both catholic/protestant or Irish/British.

 

It may not have hit 60K, but there has been plenty of death and mutilation to go around, so to speak.

[Texsox]

There in lies the problem.  The US shouldn't have to push the UN.  What is the point of a world body if they won't act to protect people from genocide, repeatedly?  And the thing that pisses me off the most is that the UN can vote 200-1 to take action, but if that one country is a permanent security council member, nothing will be done.

 

The UN in its current form works about as well as the Aricles of Confederation.  If they really want to create a world body, they need to make sure that it isn't subject to the whims of 51% of one country.  Or in the case of China and Russia, the entire world's wishes can be stopped by one single person.  Think about that.  If Vlad Putin doesn't want to help the Sudan, he alone can stop an entire world body from acting.

As could the US, France, or Britian on a permanent basis. Then you have the two year termers like Algeria, Benin, Brazil, Philippines, Germany, Romania, and a couple others. A tiny country like Benin could stop action as well.

 

The U.N. has a great system for making certain that a few countries interests do not wage an unjust war. The down side is that same system also allows a few countries to stop action that clearly must be taken.

[Texsox]

Tell that to the victims in northern Ireland.  By victims, I mean both catholic/protestant or Irish/British.

 

It may not have hit 60K, but there has been plenty of death and mutilation to go around, so to speak.

Same principle, the UN would be shooting at the oppressors who are whites, and the US doesn't like to do that. When was the last time we waged war against white people?

[southsider2k5]

As could the US, France, or Britian on a permanent basis. Then you have the two year termers like Algeria, Benin, Brazil, Philippines, Germany, Romania, and a couple others. A tiny country like Benin could stop action as well.

 

The U.N. has a great system for making certain that a few countries interests do not wage an unjust war. The down side is that same system also allows a few countries to stop action that clearly must be taken.

Great system my ass. Tell that to the million dead in Rwanda, or the 70,000 dead in Sudan, the 400,000 dead in Angola, the 225,000 dead in Liberia, the 200,000 dead in Sierra Leone, etc.

 

The UN is impotent to act as it should be able to.

[Texsox]

Great system my ass.  Tell that to the million dead in Rwanda, or the 70,000 dead in Sudan, the 400,000 dead in Angola,  the 225,000 dead in Liberia, the 200,000 dead in Sierra Leone, etc. 

 

The UN is impotent to act as it should be able to.

Let me try this again. If the goal of the system is to stop a couple countries from waging an unjust war over the objection of many, it is a great system for accomplishing that task with that premise. Unfortunately, the same system that makes it difficult to do the wrong thing, also makes it impossible to do the right thing over a couple countries objections.

 

The UN is set up to make taking action very difficult. Like the US judicial system that gives every break to the accused, the UN system is as close to assuring that any action that is taken is only taken after all other options have been tried at least three times. When the UN does take military action, it is clearly the correct course. Just like when someone is convicted in the US, we can damn well be assured they are guilty. And just like the US judicial system that allows OJ free to search for Nicole's and Ron's killer, the UN sometimes lets some bad things happen.

 

Why isn't Bush acting?

[EvilJester99]

I would like to see one time some other country fix their own problems instead of relying on the US to help them out and then in return bash the US and be totally ungreatful for any help that was given.

[southsider2k5]

By acting do you mean taking it to the UN? Colin Powell has been up there at least trying to get sanction passed against the Sudan, but that wording was too tough for some of the others.

 

What would you like to see, a US invasion? I find it ironic that Bush gets questioned for acting in these cases how everyone wanted him to act with Iraq, but now complains about in the cases of Sudan and North Korea. Which one should it be? In one case 6 way talks are too much, but acting in chorus with thirty something nations isn't. Almost sounds like a bad joke. Hey how many countries does it take to stop genocide in Africa? I don't know, it has never been done.

 

And finally once again, why should Bush have to act? Why do we have the UN if the US needs to take care of genocide, because gosh darn it, economic sanctions are just too tough on a country that has sponsored rape, torture, and the genocide of 70,000 people and counting. Why are we even paying UN dues?

[Texsox]

Perhaps saying Bush should act isn't 100% accurate. The US is the alpha-leader in the UN. An all out effort to influnce the UN has not been taken and I believe it has not because we are in an election year.

 

I would hope that this adminstration will take a more active role in this starting in about 2 weeks. I know it is difficult for a lame duck President to make major policy shifts, but he should and he should have the backing of both parties. If he is re-elected, then even more reasons to do the right thing.

 

I was going to write before it is too late, but sadly it already is too late for 70,000 people.