i'm not sure how many of you know about what's going on in darfur, sudan because our media seems to be focusing on everything but the real issues.... there's a genocide taking place there. the sudanese government is systematically and brutally murdering and displacing the mostly tribal african population of darfur. so far, almost HALF A MILLION HAVE BEEN KILLED AND OVER 2 MILLION HAVE BEEN DISPLACED TO REFUGEE CAMPS. however, because sudan has oil, we have done little to NOTHING. i urge all of you to spread the word about this to everyone you know, if you're interested in helping out or just want to learn more about the issue go to www.helpdarfurnow.org and there is also going to be a huge rally in D.C. at the end of april... we have to force the bush administration to listen!
Why does this concern the US, it sounds like Darfur's problem. I think the gov't pays enough money to stupid endeavors. We don't need to spend more for something that doesn't concern us.
yes because Bush is evil for interferring with the Saddam regime but he is also evil for not interferring with this you goddamn liberals annoy the shit out of me
because it's genocide. are you daft man? Your government is linning the pockets of these murderurs by consuming thier oil, you do not moraly have the right to turn a blind eye to this because you are directly implicated.
oh yes, America is the only country that buys oil from them you are such a moron "your government" what the fuck is your government doing to stop them??
Saddam was an egocentric sociopath who tortured political dissenters and was particularly nasty with the kurds because he felt slighted, he was not however involved in systematic genocide. Regardless, far more people died as a result of american sanctions then did by the hand of Saddam. The situation in the Sudan is the minority Islamic government is attempting to wipe out the indiginous majority, to secure thier controll over the oil deposits which lay predominately in the southern indiginous heartland. This in a region which is already plagued with destabilisation. Refugees flee into nieghbouring Congo for example, where thier presense could potentially escilate what is already the bloodiest conflict of the 21st century. Iraq was an isolated situation with one crack pot, while the Sudanese situation has the potential to flare up, continue to spread and create warfare on a multi-factious Continental level.
Actually I said 'your government' because the person I was replying to was discussing America's role in this, hence the use of the pronoun 'your' because I'm not American, therefore it's not 'my' government. I wasn't refuting or implying anything about my Country and it's cunsumption of oil. but since you asked: Canada offered to send troops, the African union however declined our support so we instead sent armoured vehicles for use by the African UN troops already in theatre. Last time I checked we were also providing the highest per captia level of relief funding for the region, just like we are in Afganistan, your other fuck up. And though my country is equally as dependant on oil we are also home to the 3rd largest deposit in the world (Alberta tar sands) so it could be argued we offset world oil violence by offering a stable, blood free, supply(I understand this is entirely circumstancial). Your the moron if you can't see it is, by and large (though not exclusively), the American government which is propping up the violence braught on by oil worldwide(though anyone who consumes oil owns a share of the blame, myself included). The congo, nigeria, sudan, iraq, columbia, afganistan, the American Government has a militant role (in some cases indirectly) in all these places and all these places have oil, coincidence?
I apologize, I was misinformed by the dumbass liberals in my school you see, there is a Darfur Awareness group in my school, they did presentations in every History class last year. I don't know why I would take their propoganda as a reliable source... not the American government so much as the American society America uses the most foreign oil, we don't have enough of our own and oil is part of the way of life of Americans the government can not stop the people from using oil
yes I know what is happening in Sudan, why are you telling me shit I know? Iraq only had one crack pot?!? wow, you don't know shit about the situation in Iraq prior to this war do you not know how many supporters Saddam had? do you not know that he was not the only person in his regime? have you not heard what was done to the Iraqi Olympics team? my point is, liberals love to bitch about shit that we get involved in, and they love to bitch about shit we don't get involved in we go to Iraq and they bitch about how we should stay out of other countries' shit we don't go to this and they bitch about how we should get involved with other countries' problems
No but it can change the manner in which it procures the oil by insisting local populations recieve a fair long term cut of the profit for, or (god forbid) control over, THIER natural resources. If they can't force the various oil corporations to do this then the least they can do is stop subsidising them. Take the billions in subsidies and re-invest that money either into those local economies or into development of renewable energies to lessen the dependence on oil. Fuck there's a million things they could do, but they won't because each one of them takes the profit from the big boys, and that's the bottom line. Our supply of oil is not yet(yet being the keyword)in short supply and this is not the cause of the violence we are seeing. It is caused by greed, not just the greed of consumers but the greed of the corporations which make unjust profits by neglecting their environmental and societal responsibilities. Those responsibilites are downloaded onto local populations and the result is destabilisation and chaos, which works out great for them because it shifts the focus from thier outright theft.
because some reason are more real then others, and would appreciate real reasoning given for going to war. how about how BUsh changed his view on America foreign policy: http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comedycentral.com%2Fsitewide%2Fmedia_player%2Fplay.jhtml%3FitemId%3D12814 chill out a bit dude, no need for so much anger, i love conservatives, who get so angry when others critize their belief but contradict themself when its the liberals making the arguament , jeez dude calm down peacex
How am I supposed to know what you know and do not know? I made the assumption you didn't know because you compared the Sudan to Iraq, when it's a completely different geo-politcial situation. I'm fully aware of the nature of his regime, I think your misunderstanding my reference. I said Saddam was one crack-pot because that's all he was in the end, a neutered crack-pot who, although had it within his means to torture individuals within his borders and retain power he no longer had the means to destabilise an entire region because the surrounding nation states were considerably better armed and economicly prosperous(by comparison that is). The Sudanese government however is very much capable of destabilising a massive swath of the African Continent because of the nature of the current geo-political climate. They arn't armed to the teeth, but they're flithy rich and in a continent where warfare is considerably low-tech, tribal unrest is rampant and people lack the most basic of education that equates to an un-challenged ability to manipulate the masses, far beyond thier own borders. It's very much so within thier means, and to thier advantage to shift the violence from within thier borders to nieghbouring regions, which is essentially what they're doing: causing a mass exodus to stir up conflict so others can do the killing for them so they have un-disputed access to the oil.
i actually am HORRIFIED that this has turned into a political debate.... even conservative republicans in congress have labeled this a "genocide" and many (repubs and dems alike) think that we really need to do something about the situation. genocide is NOT a political debate. not to take sides, but although what saddam hussein did was terrible, it was not genocidal to the point of darfur or rwanda or, most notably, the Holocaust (and if you think that didn't exist, why are you on this board?). i don't know how many of you saw the movie hotel rwanda, but picture that situation (although it all started and ended much more abruptly) and span that out over 3+ years, and you've got darfur. it's not a matter of whether you support the war in iraq, and it's not a matter of the fact that the U.S. govt, which happens to be in control of the republican party at the moment, hasn't sent help (if you recall, even clinton didn't send help to rwanda). the fact of the matter is that few people have ever heard of darfur let alone know what's going on; if you wanna get into comparisons, what percent of news is based on iraq, and what is based on darfur? exactly. we actually have the power to stop the sudanese government, yet because this doesn't relate to the war on terror, we (u.s.) seem to have turned a blind eye. in the holocaust we all said "never again" yet it's happening now and nobody seems to care.
Genocide, while carried out by people who believe it is a matter of race superiority, is orchestrated by people with political agendas. I hope you didn't take offence to my comments, I was just trying to help people understand the underlying issue of all this.
did I ever say I was for getting involved in other countries' shit? I am for the war in the fact that Saddam could be a threat to America. I am for the War on Terror because that affects America. I am against stopping the genocide. I agree with us not getitng involved in World War II until we got attacked. Vietnam was gay. Korea was gay.
I agree totally that it's a terrible thing in Darfur. But, it's there own problem. I don't think that we necessarily needed to go to Iraq, it's better that we did, and we shouldn't leave because it's still very unstable, and upon leaving, the Iraqis would probably revert to how they were. I think we need to spend some money in America because theirs plenty of shit thats fucked up here. And Yovo, the US is doing things to lower our dependence on oil, what do you call hybrids, what do you call hydrogen fuel cells, solar panels, nuclear power. But research of that stuff doesn't happen overnight so it will take a while to work out the problems.
malachi35: ok yeah, that makes perfect sense.... there's innocent people dying for absolutely no reason but we should do absolutely nothing? think about that. if there was ever genocide taking place here and you were a target, i really don't think you'd be okay with other countries just watching and not helping. that's ridiculous. you think that we didn't necessarily need to go to iraq, but "it's better we did." think about how much better that will be for a cause that actually is in desperate need of our help. i'm not saying we should send american troops there because clearly they're being worked to the limit in iraq. however, we need to support the african union peacekeeping forces that are there, and we need to urge that more of those forces be deployed to the area. the amount that they have there now is useless and ineffective. it's not a matter of going in there and throwing out the government at this point, it's a matter of getting medical care, food and water to the people who are in the refugee camps, and stopping the janjaweed (the militia that is carrying out the attacks) from attacking refugees and burning villages. i suggest you read the book "night" by elie weisel, or watch hotel rwanda to get a sense of why we need to do something.
night is about the holocaust which although this and the holocaust are both examples of genocide, they are completely different situations and isn't "janjaweed" spelt with a 'g'? I know it is pronounced with a 'j' sound but I thought it was still spelt with a 'g' (and no I am not just saying this because that's how you spell the slang for cannabis)
Unfortunately Africa as a continent is not a safe place. The Sudan is not the only country where atrocities are happening. 1. Sudan 2. Nigeria (corrupt, if you enter Nigeria you have to give the customs officials a bribe to stop them body searching you and then basically stealing your stuff) 3. Zimbabwe (Mugabe) 4. South Africa 5. Libya 6. Liberia 7. Somalia 8. Ethiopia. We could attempt to take on all these regimes but we'd get our butts kicked. Ever heard the term "choose your battles wisely". You target each regime at a time. At the moment its Iraq for which everyone is complaining. Afghanistan for which everyone is complaining. If we did anything about Sudan there would be even more complaining. Britain could always try and take its empire back.
