Home› A Moving Train

What should be done about the Darfur conflict?

jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
edited September 2006 in A Moving Train
the Islamic government will soon be kicking out most or all foreign AID workers which will open the door for the Islamic militants to kill every black african they can find.

will the world stay by and watch? Should America step in, with allies, and stop this from happening? or will we just be another occupier and the devil bush just wanting to drill the fields for oil.

Personally I hope the United Nations steps in and sends troops to protect these people. Isn't that their job?



here is the history from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    According to the president of Sudan, the UN cannot send forces - it's another Zionist conspiracy:

    At a news conference at the United Nations on Tuesday, Bashir said the Khartoum government would approve an extension of the AU force but adamantly rejected an eventual transition to a U.N. force, saying it was a cover for aiding Israel.

    "It is very clear there is a plan to redraw the region," he said. "Any state in the region should be weakened, dismembered in order to protect the Israelis, to guarantee the Israeli security."
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    It should be the UN, I totally agree. America has enough on it's plate and why whould they be responsible for taking care of this one too?

    20,000 peacekeepers seems like a low number to me though..they need to make thier presence strong from the get go
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 Posts: 23,303
    darfur does not pose a threat to the US, therefore the situation there is not on this administrations agenda. to go in there would be the right thing to do, but we are too busy beating the war drums and picking on iran. its funny, anything perceived as a possible, remote threat gets the full attention of the US gov't, but blatant genocide is never addressed in a meaningful way.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    That UN hasn't had a large contingent there already just tells you how utterly useless the UN is. I believe there's more chance of Santa Claus showing up and doing good than the UN. There are far too many on the UN who seem to believe that killing people is a genuine by-product of governing people.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    America = UN. Or Israel would have had the piss bombed out of them about a month ago! But there are special rules.

    I figure why put any troops in harms way. They will only have an agenda and be biased anyhow.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    even flow? wrote:
    America = UN. Or Israel would have had the piss bombed out of them about a month ago! But there are special rules.

    I figure why put any troops in harms way. They will only have an agenda and be biased anyhow.
    I don't follow this post. Please elaborate.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    even flow? wrote:
    America = UN. Or Israel would have had the piss bombed out of them about a month ago! But there are special rules.

    I figure why put any troops in harms way. They will only have an agenda and be biased anyhow.

    I don't get it. How does America = the UN? Israel would have had the "piss" bombed out of them? Huh?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    even flow? wrote:
    America = UN. Or Israel would have had the piss bombed out of them about a month ago! But there are special rules.

    I figure why put any troops in harms way. They will only have an agenda and be biased anyhow.


    Israel would have the piss bombed out of them? by who exactly?
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    Pickr wrote:
    America has enough on it's plate and why whould they be responsible for taking care of this one too?

    You mean the illegal war?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Collin wrote:
    You mean the illegal war?


    even in a thread looking for suggested solutions to a very serious problem, people still find time to bash america
  • brainofPJbrainofPJ Posts: 2,361
    Darfur, is that on Tatooine?


    Esther's here and she's sick?

    hi Esther, now we are all going to be sick, thanks
  • edgarcampedgarcamp Posts: 100
    jlew24asu wrote:
    the Islamic government will soon be kicking out most or all foreign AID workers which will open the door for the Islamic militants to kill every black african they can find.

    will the world stay by and watch? Should America step in, with allies, and stop this from happening? or will we just be another occupier and the devil bush just wanting to drill the fields for oil.

    Personally I hope the United Nations steps in and sends troops to protect these people. Isn't that their job?

    Islamic militants! Damn, they are all over the place. Such a peaceful group. Someone needs to step up and help these people. Too bad they are of dark skin, if they were white, it would be over by now.
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    It's Muslims that are being slaughtered.

    I assume given that that the goal of the war on terror is to eliminate every Muslim in the world (kill em all).

    The problem is working itself out. I just saved the US a bunch of bombs.







    yes, I'm being sarcastic.












    sort of.
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    It's Muslims that are being slaughtered.

    I assume given that that the goal of the war on terror is to eliminate every Muslim in the world (kill em all).

    The problem is working itself out. I just saved the US a bunch of bombs.







    yes, I'm being sarcastic.












    sort of.

    That's just plain dumb.
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jsand wrote:
    That's just plain dumb.

    well that's a good arguement. Your high school debate skills are coming in handy.

    Other than my rather partisan way of stating it what is it you disagree with and why?
  • BeBeBeBe Posts: 229
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    darfur does not pose a threat to the US, therefore the situation there is not on this administrations agenda. to go in there would be the right thing to do, but we are too busy beating the war drums and picking on iran. its funny, anything perceived as a possible, remote threat gets the full attention of the US gov't, but blatant genocide is never addressed in a meaningful way.

    That's exactly right. Sadly so.
    Where is Lowlight?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    It's Muslims that are being slaughtered.


    its not muslims being slaughtered. nice try
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    well that's a good arguement. Your high school debate skills are coming in handy.

    Other than my rather partisan way of stating it what is it you disagree with and why?

    Posts such as yours do not deserve a reasoned response. If you must ask what I disagree with, your baseless allegation that the goal of the war on terror is to eliminate every Muslim in the world is a start. That comment is ridiculous. Did you ever think that maybe the goal is to eliminate every Muslim terrorist? Maybe???
  • jsandjsand Posts: 646
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its not muslims being slaughtered. nice try

    That too.
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    darfur does not pose a threat to the US, therefore the situation there is not on this administrations agenda. to go in there would be the right thing to do, but we are too busy beating the war drums and picking on iran. its funny, anything perceived as a possible, remote threat gets the full attention of the US gov't, but blatant genocide is never addressed in a meaningful way.
    The current administration would get lambasted for going into Darfur without the UN, so your reasoning is out of step with reality. Darfur should be a UN mission, putting responsibility and blame on one country just shows hatred for either Bush and company or the US.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    surferdude wrote:
    The current administration would get lambasted for going into Darfur without the UN, so your reasoning is out of step with reality. Darfur should be a UN mission, putting responsibility and blame on one country just shows hatred for either Bush and company or the US.

    I think he'd be lambasted for wasting further resources on a country that had no resource worth controlling.

    before you say no let me say one word to you

    somolia.
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its not muslims being slaughtered. nice try

    in darfur a majority of the people are muslim. Muslims are being slaughtereed and are doing the slaughtering. The Arab muslims are killing the african "black" muslims for land and the resources. Here's an interview from Mohamed Yahya http://www.cvillepodcast.com/feeds/wina/rn_yahya_060731.mp3 it's a long interview but very interesting and worth a listen.
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    jlew24asu wrote:
    even in a thread looking for suggested solutions to a very serious problem, people still find time to bash america
    The US should have never been in Iraq, in my opinion. So I think 'the US already has enough on its plate' is a very poor argument.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • PaperPlatesPaperPlates Posts: 1,745
    The UN's only job these days is to provide a platform for other world leaders to jump on the "bash America" wagon. Oh yea, and to line their own pockets. The UN gives less of a shit about Darfur than all the other "devils" combined. But since we all know that citizens of oppressed countries rarely stand up for themselves, we'll probably have to go in there on some level, to stop the bloodshed.

    They'll either bitch because we don't help, or bitch how we do help. Once again, La'Merica is damned if we do, and damned if we dont.
    Why go home

    www.myspace.com/jensvad
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    What should be done about Darfur? A peacekeeping mission if ever there was one. The UN is preparing to send in troops I think, and they cant be placed soon enough IMO.

    The government of (North) Sudan are in conflict with seperatists in South Sudan. A big ethnical showdown I understand. Little to do with religion.

    Get a peacekeeping force with some muscle, and force the buggers to negotiate and get along. And start disarming the myriad militias that are fucking it up for the civilians.

    Well, buhbye for the weekend. I'm off to Berlin for my favorite band. :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    Collin wrote:
    The US should have never been in Iraq, in my opinion. So I think 'the US already has enough on its plate' is a very poor argument.


    It's the way it is though, can't argue that.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jsand wrote:
    your baseless allegation that the goal of the war on terror is to eliminate every Muslim in the world is a start. That comment is ridiculous. Did you ever think that maybe the goal is to eliminate every Muslim terrorist? Maybe???

    perhaps it's reckless and overstated for dramatic and incindiary affect, but I wouldn't say "baseless". Either way this "war" is a sham. Bushco doesn't seem overwhelmingly concerned with wrongly imprisoning people without charge or trial or killing a bunch of innocent muslims with bombs to kill a few terrorists.

    Using an Army to battle rouge fighters is like using a flamethrower to find a needle in a haystack. It's not working
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    Using an Army to battle rouge fighters is like using a flamethrower to find a needle in a haystack. It's not working

    That would actually work:D
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • InsaneSoupInsaneSoup Posts: 37
    Satirical cartoon in the Village Voice on Darfur....

    http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0639,fiore,74531,9.html
    4/16/92...8/20/92...6/19/05...6/20/05...9/24/96...10/5/96...6/14/98...9/18/98...9/19/98...9/4/00...5/3/03...7/1/03...7/12/03...5/30/06...cuz everyone seems to be doin' it....please don't jump off any bridges.
  • stupidcorporatewhorestupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    Collin wrote:
    That would actually work:D

    not from the hays perspective

    it's actually a better analogy than I thought
Sign In or Register to comment.