k

k

Chris wrote:Besides that, we can't afford to conduct anymore war at this time. We have an overwhelming deficit on our hands, and it is not going to go away by waging further war.

Agreed. Even Save Darfur knows what problems the US would cause if it sent troops. Besides, all our troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq, so even if the government wanted to get involved, they'd have to pull them out of there, which ain't gonna happen.
What really bothers me about this story is how the media's ignored it. Even Marwa said "the media is the only thing to work on". That's the real reason I started doing Darfur updates, not because I support American intervention, or any other agenda, but because the major media outlets would rather focus on petty stories. I think we can agree that this war is more news-worthy than Britney Spears.

Well yeah, no kidding, anything now a days is more news worthy than Britney Britney, but still, I can't imagine how this Save Darfur organization has even the slightest thought that anyone can influence China out of buying oil from Sudan. I also think that if there has been this many killings, the people of Darfur should have rebelled by now. I am almost positive that if they raised an army, the people of Darfur would outnumber the Sudanese armies, and could raid their camps and take their guns. Darfur is a lost cause if they don't all seek immediate rebellion, and if they do chose to stop whining to the UN about how they are all being killed and actually take action, then I think the US should send in shipments of guns and armored vehicles to them with maybe a few training officers. However, that's it.

On another note, I don't think that the Sudanese government just decided one day to commit an act of massive genocide. A rebel group or some type of organization from Darfur had to have attacked some other place in Sudan to receive such maltreatment. I don't support genocide, but I do think that some group from Darfur had to have made the first strike, even if it was provoked by the rest of Sudan.

Oh wow, this kid's making sense! Wow Mogni, you are capable of presenting your ideas calmly and clearly without being a d*ck. I underestimated you.

+5 BAP

Thunderbird05 wrote:Oh wow, this kid's making sense! Wow Mogni, you are capable of presenting your ideas calmly and clearly without being a d*ck. I underestimated you.

+5 BAP

Who the f*** are you?

It's Andrew Fallon. Fallon, don't start shit in the middle of a civil, intelligent discussion. Thanks.

See, the problem with any war is that it costs money. And, we don't usually end up with much gain from wars nowadays. For instance, we go into Iraq, occupy, and then we have to pay for them to rebuild. We end up losing out. The same would happen if we went into Sudan and invaded. We would lose maybe...a few hundred troops at most, and then the media would be all over how this is such a tragedy. Compared to other wars, that is nothing. Then there will be the liberal activists that will not like war and protest, leading to significantly low approval of a president that conducts this war.

The United States needs a new outlook on war before we can conduct anymore "peace missions" as the UN likes to call it. First off, I believe that if we invade a country, that country should become a guest region of the United States. We collect taxes from them, set up a provisional government, and rebuild at the same time, but also keeping in mind that we can support the war with money and goods gained from the occupied region. I am not saying pillage, plunder, and rape; but I am suggesting that any region the United States invades be subject to US law, and must pay taxes, usually lower than what they may have paid before, as a means of keeping those people protected.

Another problem with war nowadays is the perception of war. Most people view war as inhumane and cruel. Sometimes, however, the alternative to war is worse, and if a few thousand troops are lost over half a decade, the damage is far less significant than the help that was given. The media, nevertheless, will not focus on that, and activists in the United States will capitalize this opportunity to try to make a social statement against the government. If the United States wants to act as an unspoken world police or even conduct any further war, we need a sense of nationalistic pride. We need to instill a feeling of cultural superiority in the United States, and make the populous believe that by invading another country we are helping them. Granted, the goal of an invasion could be primarily different from this, such as eliminating a leader that we see problematic, or taking a particular resource. We can't have people always jumping down the government's throat about war and how it is evil or whatnot, without first analyzing the alternative. By no means, however, am I supporting many government actions. I do believe that the government can be corrupt, and that some acts of war are stemmed from greed for unnecessary resources, or for necessary resources that are to be distributed only amongst the upper classes (oil anyone?).

Therefore, going into Darfur would be a waste if we were not to temporarily annex it to lets say take its oil and set up a provisional government there. Otherwise, we would be spending money on a cause that would return probably in a decade or less after we helped the people of Darfur. It is not profitable to the United States, nor would it solve problems in Africa. Personally, that whole continent is a lost cause, and when the Europeans were colonizing Africa and India, those regions were much better off than they are now.

Ben Tan wrote:It's Andrew Fallon. Fallon, don't start shit in the middle of a civil, intelligent discussion. Thanks.

Firstly this topic doesn't require any intelligence to be debated. I'm pretty sure that Chris hit it right on the head, and the final thought here is we are not going to go into Sudan/Darfur for reasons involving geopolitics.

This is a discussion, not a debate, and who's to say who gets the last word? Chris has a lot of great points. The only area in which he and I disagree is what Americans should do about the situation. He proposes further apathy, I propose donations to the UN, the too-weak organization that is doing all it can to provide relief and keep the peace.

There is nothing in Sudan that can benefit our economy (geopolitics). Which is the main reason countries invade one another.
Our troops are in Iraq as we speak, and I assure you that many would like to come home. China which is our number 1 trading country. They are affiliated with the country of Sudan by means of oil relations. WE WILL NOT f*** WITH CHINA.

There is my discussion.

Ben Tan wrote: I propose donations to the UN, the too-weak organization that is doing all it can to provide relief and keep the peace.

Since when is the UN weak?

If it was strong, it would have made more of a difference in the Sudan with U.N.A.M.I.D. Nope, even Save Darfur called it a switch from green to blue helmets. The UN is on its knees, begging for a superpower nation, like the US or China, to help out down there. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the United Nations be more powerful than one nation? U.N.A.M.I.D. is a great idea in theory, too bad the UN is too weak to truly keep the peace down there.

Ben Tan wrote:If it was strong, it would have made more of a difference in the Sudan with U.N.A.M.I.D. Nope, even Save Darfur called it a switch from green to blue helmets. The UN is on its knees, begging for a superpower nation, like the US or China, to help out down there. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the United Nations be more powerful than one nation? U.N.A.M.I.D. is a great idea in theory, too bad the UN is too weak to truly keep the peace down there.

The UN consists of countries that are constantly trying to maintain a constant piece. Now who are the two world powers. That would be America and China and a few others that do, do their part but don't have as much of an impact as us and China. Now when you say that " The UN is on its knees, begging for a superpower nation" Thats true but who are those two countries? One of them is in a war right now and the other is getting oil from Sudan. There is nothing that can be done because of the situation. Oh and when you have a country like China that has over 1 billion people for its population and a large amount of factories that can pump out war equipment very fast you tend to not want to piss them off. This means that even if we were going to go into Sudan to help, it would provoke China into defending its' oil provider no matter what. Pretty much what we're looking at here is the possibility of WWIII and I don't want to fight in it. Oh and the UN isn't a country. it doesn't have a giant army that it can send out to defend a nation. It is an organization of the countries, or the majority of them to maintain piece through sharing ideas. It's not the Justice League!


See if we where to go to war or start shit with China you would expect this as the outcome. www.internetisseriousbusiness.com

Rick roll'd.

ROFL.

Ben Tan wrote:It's Andrew Fallon. Fallon, don't start shit in the middle of a civil, intelligent discussion. Thanks.

i was complimenting him

Ben might benefit from removing that stick up his ass sometimes.

Personally I don't have any sympathy towards Africa, and I think that it should be completely reconstructed, by that I mean full destruction of the governments and warlords there and those who are carriers of disease. The place is basically a dump.

Where are you Chris?

WTF kind of question is that?

A rhetorical one.

lol

In Physics, I mean.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. I was sick, now I'm back, but still sick. Now I have to correct the labs and make sure that they are, well, correct.