If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Sudan says U.S. is exaggerating problems in Darfur so that it can control Sudan like it is controlling Iraq. In other news, people think we have control of Iraq   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 104
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1258 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2007 at 9:21 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-02-24 04:46:44 PM
No, no, that's a good thing!
 
2007-02-24 04:59:29 PM
submitter: exaggerating problems in Darfur so that it can control Sudan like it is controlling Iraq.

Why do they think the US gives a fark about Darfur OR Sudan?
 
2007-02-24 05:08:30 PM
Five Samurai, do or die, fire spitters
Heavy hitters, from the lands of Sudan
Killadel Shambala Ikon the Hologram
 
2007-02-24 05:09:05 PM
I thought the enviropundits were mad at the US for NOT getting involved in Darfur.
 
2007-02-24 06:08:31 PM
Screw Darfur. If the United States wanted the seize Sudanese oil it’d simply have to supply the Southern Sudanese guerrillas with shoulder fired surface to air missiles along with some other heavy weapons and they’d be able to kick the government from the oil fields. Darfur is as worthless as the hype about genocide there.
 
2007-02-24 06:14:57 PM
Besides, wasn't it the brits that had colonies down there.
 
2007-02-24 06:34:50 PM
Comrade438

Darfur is as worthless as the hype about genocide there.

Do you consider yourself as an imperialist? Because you sure sound like one.
 
2007-02-24 06:56:39 PM
It shocks me how the murder of 400,000 people doesn't bother some of you. No wonder our world is so messed up when so many of us are indescribably selfish.

Comrade438

They said the same thing about Rwanda. And of course the president is denying the claims of genocide. To admit what was going on would be to admit that the rebels a) exist and b) have substantial numbers and power. It's indescribably disgusting that thousands are dying so that the Sudanese government can save face.
 
2007-02-24 07:04:13 PM
SunOfSam: Do you consider yourself as an imperialist? Because you sure sound like one.

Nah, I'd just rather not see American boys doing the job African boys ought to be doing. If you're going to intervene into a nation for no benefit what so ever at least do it right, through proxy. Using the cliché calling card of the Iraq war of the detractors, why aren't you volunteering to go fight the Janjaweed if you feel American troops ought to be there?

EzraS: They said the same thing about Rwanda. And of course the president is denying the claims of genocide. To admit what was going on would be to admit that the rebels a) exist and b) have substantial numbers and power. It's indescribably disgusting that thousands are dying so that the Sudanese government can save face.

... and yet where the armies of Europe? Where are the troops of the United Nations? The minute American soldiers set foot upon worthless Sudanese soil it suddenly becomes sacred land defiled by the thousand boots of the imperialist American invaders. I have grown tired of humanitarian interventions with no benefit for the United States which result only in further hatred.
 
2007-02-24 07:10:24 PM
EzraS: It shocks me how the murder of 400,000 people doesn't bother some of you. No wonder our world is so messed up when so many of us are indescribably selfish.

Sure, it bothers me, just not enough to put American troops into harm's way without it being in the best interests of the United States. And I'd demand proof of that, not just vague appeals to emotion.
 
2007-02-24 07:23:38 PM
Comrade438

You know nothing about the topic, and you clearly didnt even read the article. Here's why

Nah, I'd just rather not see American boys doing the job African boys ought to be doing.

There are currently 7,000 African Union peacekeeping forces in Darfur, but they're having limited success because there aren't enough of them and they're underfunded. And why do you assume it will be 'american' boys? The resolution discussed in the article calls for 22,000 UN peacekeepers. And guess what? the US is 31st for contributions of peacekeepers. Most peacekeepers are from nations like bangladesh, india, nepal, etc. The US only contributes about 300 peacekeepers in its entirety, according to wikipedia. In fact, the very reason they mostly use developing-world peacekeepers is BECAUSE they appear more neutral in conflict-heavy areas.



... and yet where the armies of Europe? Where are the troops of the United Nations? The minute American soldiers set foot upon worthless Sudanese soil it suddenly becomes sacred land defiled by the thousand boots of the imperialist American invaders. I have grown tired of humanitarian interventions with no benefit for the United States which result only in further hatred.


Once again, you seem to be reading things that aren't there. No one is talking about US forces going in, they're talking about UN forces going in. I think its hilarious that you get all self-righteous about american forces being deployed in sudan when that isn't even in consideration. To quote a rather good song: "You probably think this song is about you..."

I shudder to think what will happen to you, and others like you, when people stop asking for the help of the US. It seems to be a real key to your self esteem and national pride, to be asked and then biatch about being asked.
 
2007-02-24 07:33:27 PM
Snarfangel

First of all, no one is talking about american troops going in. No one is asking for US troops to go in. Please RTFA.

Secondly:

Vague appeal to emotion the 1st

Vague appeal to emotion the 2nd

Vague appeal to emotion the 3rd
 
2007-02-24 08:07:29 PM
EzraS: There are currently 7,000 African Union peacekeeping forces in Darfur, but they're having limited success because there aren't enough of them and they're underfunded. And why do you assume it will be 'american' boys? The resolution discussed in the article calls for 22,000 UN peacekeepers. And guess what? the US is 31st for contributions of peacekeepers. Most peacekeepers are from nations like bangladesh, india, nepal, etc. The US only contributes about 300 peacekeepers in its entirety, according to wikipedia. In fact, the very reason they mostly use developing-world peacekeepers is BECAUSE they appear more neutral in conflict-heavy areas.

Once again, you seem to be reading things that aren't there. No one is talking about US forces going in, they're talking about UN forces going in. I think its hilarious that you get all self-righteous about american forces being deployed in sudan when that isn't even in consideration. To quote a rather good song: "You probably think this song is about you..."

I shudder to think what will happen to you, and others like you, when people stop asking for the help of the US. It seems to be a real key to your self esteem and national pride, to be asked and then biatch about being asked.


Once again, though, I ask you: Why aren't they contributing more? Why is the fault or even problem of the United States that they aren't contributing more? You complained that we weren't more concerned over the supposed death of four hundred thousand or so in Darfur and accused us of being selfish. Yet your retort suggests you weren't asking for a contribution on behalf of the United States. Tell me then, what exactly does one do to express "concern"? Another feeble protest, perhaps? A letter writing campaign to the League of Nations United Nations? If you don't care whatsoever whether the United States intervenes than be our guest to continue doing so, simply don't gripe when nothing is accomplish and accuse of us being insensitive because of it.

Nor would you be accurate in describing the use of American forces as out of the consideration, I'm afraid. There are a good many who would want America to take up another cross in the manner of Bosnia and Somalia. The reality is nothing will be done in the Sudan. China will not endanger their access to the Sudanese government's lucrative oil contracts and the Europeans are irrelevant; they have neither the political will or military strength to intervene even if they sough to.

I imagine, of course, Canada will continue to lead the way in resolving this problem. Thank God we can all go home and Darfur is saved.
 
2007-02-24 08:08:25 PM
EzraS
Snarfangel
First of all, no one is talking about american troops going in. No one is asking for US troops to go in.


Oh, really. I can find more links if you wish, this was just a quick Google.

Let me know what intervention you expect of the United States and show how it is in our best interests, and I'll support it.
 
2007-02-24 08:38:19 PM
Comrade438

My complaint was regarding the comments made by you and others seemingly showing that you don't care at all about the deaths of 400,000 people. My argument is not that the USA should not help, but rather that it needn't be them alone, or them along with others. The UN has a large number of peacekeepers which could be sent into Sudan if only their government would allow it.

I'm not sure which of the statements I didn't make it is that you are combating here. Let me summarize what I've said:

-If the wanton murder/starvation of 400,00 people doesn't bother you, thats disgusting
-The Sudanese government is at fault for not letting UN peacekeepers in - the world IS trying to do something as a result of CONCERN that we have, but it's being stopped by the government of Sudan.
-You're being awfully self righteous to automatically assume that everyone is blaming the US for not helping. No reasonable persons are. People are pissed at the sudanese government for not letting UN peacekeepers inside their nation.


And I don't know why you're ragging on my nation - I wasn't ragging on yours.

Snarfangel

Well your first link deals with vague election promises from Clinton. Maybe I should rephrase: no one is seriously considering sending US troops in, except as part of UN peacekeeping forces. This is partly due to what i mentioned above - ya'll ain't so popular these days and putting american troops (as agents of the USA and not part of a UN mission) would just make things worse.

Your second link cites a poll saying that 51% of americans support american intervention in darfur. Again - a statistic does not equate to serious foriegn policy consideration. And it even specifically says "as a part of a multinational force". That would be UN peacekeepers, perhaps?

Let me know what intervention you expect of the United States and show how it is in our best interests, and I'll support it.

I don't expect anything from the US in itself - I would like to see UN peacekeepers go into Sudan and try to minimize the death toll. Realistically no one can actually STOP what is happening, but placing UN peacekeepers can be used to minimize the casualties and work towards stabalization. As for why such a venture (assuming it would be endorsed by the US) would be beneficial for you, well lets see:

-Show the world the US can work with other nations through the UN
-Do something in foreign policy that the majority of Americans support, for a change
-Stop the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people? Maybe I'm crazy for thinking this is a reason that has intrinsic worth
 
2007-02-24 09:29:47 PM
mmmm, do I smell flame?
this should be good

/sits back
//grabs marshmallows
 
2007-02-24 09:35:49 PM
Comrade438 Since when do African nations have the capability to contribute more of anything to any cause? The AU is stretched, corrupt, and bending under the pressure of the Sudanese "government" to get out of their country and let them continue ethnic cleansing in peace.

Frankly, I don't know if American troops should or should not be used here; I'm sick of being a citizen of the nation that everyone hates because we do too much / do nothing / do the wrong things.

I do know that what is happening in Darfur is disgusting, though, and sad. And whether we like it or not, America is a leader in the international community. As such, the outrage of a populace will be heard in the seat of government, and then suddenly some things might get done in the world.

Surely we can agree that not too cynical to hope that somehow people in the darkest corners of the planet will stop being killed because of their ethnicity.
 
2007-02-24 09:38:28 PM
You can't spell "eunuch" without U-N.


Totally useless organization. People of Darfur will die of old age before the UN actually does anything useful.
 
2007-02-24 09:42:50 PM
The rest of Africa has enough money and resources to sort this. The problem is political will, not financial.

Face it, there's oil there.

Does anyone really think things would be better if the US went in (again), or the Brits (again).

The only reason for us to be there is to take the oil.

So anyone who advocates a US/UK response should realise that.

The UK and US need to say to Africa - Go fix.
 
2007-02-24 09:44:13 PM
I thought the enviropundits were mad at the US for NOT getting involved in Darfur.

Doesn't have to be the US. Just somebody, ANYbody. But yeah, pretty much.
 
2007-02-24 09:44:25 PM
z_gringo: submitter: exaggerating problems in Darfur so that it can control Sudan like it is controlling Iraq.

Why do they think the US gives a fark about Darfur OR Sudan?


Exactly. I do not know if you were trying to be snarky or honest, but why the crap should the U.S. intervene in some crap nation-state that offers nothing to America. Should we go to Zimbabwe/Rhodesia as well?

For farks sake, America is not the world's police force. Libtards criticize America when then step up and criticize when not taking action. It is a no win situation.

On another note, one of my best friends is a Zimbabwe prince (living in America). He will not go to Zimbabwe as he is not suicidal.
 
2007-02-24 09:45:23 PM
"The UK and US need to say to Africa - Go fix."

On reading that again, it sounds imperialist. What I meant was they need to say/push for, along with everyone else, an African response to an African problem.
 
2007-02-24 09:48:31 PM
Africa is irrelavent. Farkem.
 
2007-02-24 09:50:40 PM
Much of Europe has large armies that aren't doing terribly much at the moment; maybe they could go without the US holding their hands?
 
2007-02-24 09:51:37 PM
I see Humanity is still in short supply around FARK

/"But what's in it for ME!"
//DIAF
 
2007-02-24 09:55:49 PM
When are we going to have another peace and love benefit concert for these wonderful waring countries to buy weapons with?
 
2007-02-24 09:56:04 PM
In all seriousness, does anyone care what these creatures do to each other anymore? As it is, we will be lucky to rescue civilization itself in the face of the multiculturalist attack on reason. Saving those who were never part of human civilization, and never wanted to be, isn't part of the bargain. Only about 1/3 of the humans alive on this planet will be 20 years from now. The only question is : who will they be?
 
2007-02-24 09:59:47 PM
BigDumbGuy: For farks sake, America is not the world's police force. Libtards criticize America when then step up and criticize when not taking action. It is a no win situation.

The Troll-fu is strong in this one.
 
2007-02-24 10:00:49 PM
I submitted this...blah blah blah...
 
2007-02-24 10:00:54 PM
Why exactly are most African states in perpetual civil war? Africa is chalk full of resources, but the leaders seem to squander the revenue away for weapons.

Do not blame European colonization. They were warring well before colonization.

No, I am not racist. 1/2 Filipino, 1/2 Inuit if it matters that I am not white.
 
2007-02-24 10:03:24 PM
MonkeyBoy666: BigDumbGuy: For farks sake, America is not the world's police force. Libtards criticize America when then step up and criticize when not taking action. It is a no win situation.

The Troll-fu is strong in this one.


BUSTED! Yup, that was what I was doing.
 
2007-02-24 10:04:40 PM
Well as the "all knowing leaders of Islam put it"

""Whatever happens in Africa is the business of black people," "Don't you dare suggest this is beyond the business of the Nation of Islam."

They want it to be their business, let it be their business.
 
2007-02-24 10:06:56 PM
BigDumbGuy

You may not be racist, but you are stupid and ignorant.

1) Resources often do more to promote war than stability. If you haven't noticed lately, the regions which are in a lot of conflict are also the most heavily invested with resources. Large amounts of resources means that other people want them, and will kill for them, it means there is strong incentives for corruption, it means that neighbouring countries or other factions are more likely to go to war with you.

Most of the income from resources in Africa doesnt even stay in africa. Most of it is shipped off to powerful nations, since they're the ones that own all the oil/diamond companies.

2) European colonization left a legacy of arbitrary border divisions that were not drawn on cultural or tribal boundaries. The result is that you now have nations which are composed of 70% one group and 30% another group. Sometimes these groups are actually led to war BY the colonizing powers, as happened with the Dutch in Rwanda. Before they left, they played one side against each other to maintain control and left a situation that would inevitably lead to genocide
 
2007-02-24 10:08:23 PM

No, I am not racist. 1/2 Filipino, 1/2 Inuit if it matters that I am not white.


Hate to break it to you, but 'racist' isn't an ethnicity, it's a personality trait and/or a value.

/US doesn't care about Darfur, if anything, they are understating
//might want to consider the source
 
2007-02-24 10:08:50 PM
Talkc

You think the 400,000 who have died wanted it to be 'their business'? Since when are the views of a nations leader representative of his populous? Almost never, I'd say.
 
2007-02-24 10:09:00 PM
Yeah, and that asshole also said that the reason why people think there's a genocide is a zionist plot we Jews hatched in order to take over the country, and that there's no genocide going on.
 
2007-02-24 10:14:02 PM
Africa is such a nice place.
 
2007-02-24 10:14:46 PM
EzraS: It's indescribably disgusting that thousands are dying so that the Sudanese government can save face.

Make that hundreds of thousands. This is arguably the worst conflict on earth right now.

In years to come, expect "Hotel Rwanda" style movies about Darfur and the UN saying "We never should have let the Rwanda Sudanese genocide happen, and it won't happen ever again" while another genocide is happening somewhere else in Africa.


When it comes to stopping actual genocides from happening, the UN proved itself to be completely worthless
 
2007-02-24 10:15:40 PM
I'd say AFRICA needs to solve Africa's problems. We need to get the hell out of Iraq too.
 
2007-02-24 10:17:45 PM
BigDumbGuy

What the hell, here's some more:

3) Many african nations, after decolonization, were left with a small ruling (white) elite. The white elite often employed racist policies, were entirely corrupt, and created huge amounts of tension which often resulted in bloody coups, revolutions, and civil wars. Since governments that take over in a coup rarely had the expertise or the will to actually run the country, other coups usually followed afterwards. See South Africa, or Rhodesia.

4) Health issues like AIDS, Malaria, and chronic malnutrition exacerbate the economic and political problems in most african nations. AIDS has the effect of killing off those who are most economically productive - people between the ages of 15-35. The result is huge numbers of dependents (children and seniors) and no one to provide for them.
 
2007-02-24 10:18:57 PM
EzraS: BigDumbGuy

You may not be racist, but you are stupid and ignorant.

1) Resources often do more to promote war than stability. If you haven't noticed lately, the regions which are in a lot of conflict are also the most heavily invested with resources. Large amounts of resources means that other people want them, and will kill for them, it means there is strong incentives for corruption, it means that neighbouring countries or other factions are more likely to go to war with you.

Most of the income from resources in Africa doesnt even stay in africa. Most of it is shipped off to powerful nations, since they're the ones that own all the oil/diamond companies.

2) European colonization left a legacy of arbitrary border divisions that were not drawn on cultural or tribal boundaries. The result is that you now have nations which are composed of 70% one group and 30% another group. Sometimes these groups are actually led to war BY the colonizing powers, as happened with the Dutch in Rwanda. Before they left, they played one side against each other to maintain control and left a situation that would inevitably lead to genocide


Uh, I have lived in the Ivory Coast, Morocco,and South Africa. As posted above, my good friend is royalty in Zimbabwe and he agrees with me. Yes, you have some good points. Arbitrary boundaries do not work (same in the middle-east).

Yup, most of the resources got to buying arms. That was my point.
 
2007-02-24 10:19:01 PM
Dalar: Hate to break it to you, but 'racist' isn't an ethnicity, it's a personality trait and/or a value.

Dude. Only whites can be racist.
 
2007-02-24 10:20:58 PM
Tatsuma

I dont think anyone could, or expects to, "stop" this or any other genocide. It's pretty much inevitable well before the killing actually starts, when you have such tension between two groups. All you need is a spark and the whole situation goes to shiat.

What the UN SHOULD do, and CAN do, is send peacekeepers (which they are trying to do) to try and minimize the worst aspects of the conflict, to try and stop some of the killings and stabilize the situation.
 
2007-02-24 10:23:40 PM
EzraS
Montreal, Quebec

Thought so. Try living in Africa before you get all self-righteous.
 
2007-02-24 10:24:38 PM
EzraS: I dont think anyone could, or expects to, "stop" this or any other genocide.

Oh please. We're talking about Darfur, here.

10%, nay, 1% of what we put into Iraq and we could have stopped the damn thing.

To think that we're never going to stop this or any other genocide is really too pessimistic and unrealistic for me to even entertain the mere thought.
 
2007-02-24 10:27:09 PM
BigDumbGuy: Thought so. Try living in Africa before you get all self-righteous.

The last canadian "peacekeepers" sent in Africa were so useless, they had to be reassigned to a base and trained from scratch, since they were so inept.
 
2007-02-24 10:28:12 PM
"What the UN SHOULD do, and CAN do, is send peacekeepers (which they are trying to do) to try and minimize the worst aspects of the conflict, to try and stop some of the killings and stabilize the situation."

Since when can the UN do this? The united nations is worthless by design. You give 5 major powers with competing interests veto's and they will just cancel each other out.

China won't let anybody touch Sudan.

Just to remind everybody these wonderful people who support north korea and sudan will be the next super power. Let's see if they handle the power as well as America.

/Look out third world.
 
2007-02-24 10:28:26 PM
BigDumbGuy

Uh, I have lived in the Ivory Coast, Morocco,and South Africa. As posted above, my good friend is royalty in Zimbabwe and he agrees with me. Yes, you have some good points. Arbitrary boundaries do not work (same in the middle-east).

Woah woah woah - you lived in Africa? Damn man. Now THAT is an argument. Also, big points for the 'some of my best friends are...' line of defense.

Arbitrary boundaries in the middle east:

Not as arbitrary as in Africa. The ME was chopped up out of the Ottoman empire and more attention was paid to cultural/tribal boundaries because, quite simply, they knew a lot more about the area. Of course it wasn't perfect at all - many boundaries did enclose two ethnic groups together that later resulted in civil war. Like say, Iraq. Or the Kurds in iraq and Iran. Or Afghanistan. Or say, hell, Palestine? I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by using the middle east as an example of stability...

Yup, most of the resources got to buying arms. That was my point

First of all, I wasn't agreeing with you. Secondly, I hardly think that buying weapons to wage war can be counted as a cause of that war.
 
2007-02-24 10:30:31 PM
EzraS: Not as arbitrary as in Africa. The ME was chopped up out of the Ottoman empire and more attention was paid to cultural/tribal boundaries because, quite simply, they knew a lot more about the area.

You ARE kidding, right?

The Middle-East was probably an even bigger clusterfark than the dividing of Africa. Completely random. Iraq, which should have been at least 3 different countries, is a testament to that
 
2007-02-24 10:32:56 PM
Tatsuma

Never mind Lebanon, Syria and Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Pakistan/India.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report