Darfur

[Churchill]

The US was actually the first nation to call it genocide (I think, they did it before the UN ever did anyway.)

Why would a policy to stop the fighting in Darfur be any different than Iraq? Seems both candidates want to support intervention, though one will pull all troops from Iraq as well as send troops to Darfur.

[Charla]

Oh wait, we have no interest in Darfur, the U.S. and U.N. couldn't care less about the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of people even though they are on record and have policies preventing such atrocities from ever happening again.

But of course we care! We've been giving speeches about it for the last 4 years! Surely that has to count for something! All we need to do now is get those sanctions in place and the whole thing will just disappear.

[Tyche]

If you are systematically trying to destroy a certain race/faction/tribe's civilians, I'd call that genocide. If you are trying to wipe "x" group of people off the Earth, I'd call that genocide.

[archibaldcrane]

Why would a policy to stop the fighting in Darfur be any different than Iraq?

Because there is actual genocide going on in Darfur, as opposed to Iraq, which had been relatively stable and under control since 1993.

Basically because we could do way more good there.

I'm not arguing "we must do something about Darfur" - but if you continue to compare it to Iraq, I will continue to argue that Darfur is more important by far from a humanitarian point of view.

[Tyche]

While Clinton didn't do shit til after the fact, he was quite frank in his speeches about Rwanda. "We have no interest in Rwanda and I have no interest in sending american marines there only to come back in coffins..." Sounds great but had no support what-so-ever. About 300 unarmed U.N. soldiers who had orders to not intervene in conflict saved tens of thousands of Rwandans with, I think, less than 20 total deaths. Imagine what 1,000 armed US troops could have done for that country. Maybe they wouldn't have a million orphans pillaging for food in their capital today.

[Demosthenes11]

It's like the world organizations that are supposed to be a collection of nations united in a fight against injustices are inadequate or something...

[Elvis]

I have a problem with this ideology. It's the same ideology that resulted in the killing of over a million people in 3 months. The U.N. and the U.S. goes "Hmm...well, we said we would never allow a genocide to happen again after WWII, but, what is a genocide?" So now what happens, we sit around and wait til over a million die THEN call it genocide? Stopping it before it becomes into that isn't an option? Oh wait, we have no interest in Darfur, the U.S. and U.N. couldn't care less about the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of people even though they are on record and have policies preventing such atrocities from ever happening again.

We don't care about Darfur. At least not as much as we "cared" about Iraq.

Don't lump the UN and the US together as if we give a shit what the UN thinks. (We should but we don't.)

People (the US in this case) cite the UN when they want to and then bash it/defies it when it disagrees with them or condemns them.

As to the usage of the word genocide:
This is just semantics. There is a definition for genocide. The point I was making had nothing to do with the emphasis of genocide (killing a hell of a lot of people as opposed to killing a lot of people) being a justification for blah blah blah.

The idea that we ought to go around the world stopping potential genocides or potential ethnic cleansings from taking place is purely fantasy. We've had our own hands in the mass killings of the world. Whether through economic warfare (Iraq sanctions) or "humanitarian efforts" (Nato bombings in the Kosovo conflict) among many many other incidents.

I don't think we're any different from other empires in history in that basic idea. We look out for our interests. No reason to goto Darfur with the force at which we disposed towards Iraq.

[Demosthenes11]

are you trying to say the UN, in any way shape or form, does it's job? really?

[Elvis]

Be more vague.

[Tyche]

We don't care about Darfur. At least not as much as we "cared" about Iraq.

Don't lump the UN and the US together as if we give a shit what the UN thinks. (We should but we don't.)

People (the US in this case) cite the UN when they want to and then bash it/defies it when it disagrees with them or condemns them.

As to the usage of the word genocide:
This is just semantics. There is a definition for genocide. The point I was making had nothing to do with the emphasis of genocide (killing a hell of a lot of people as opposed to killing a lot of people) being a justification for blah blah blah.

The idea that we ought to go around the world stopping potential genocides or potential ethnic cleansings from taking place is purely fantasy. We've had our own hands in the mass killings of the world. Whether through economic warfare (Iraq sanctions) or "humanitarian efforts" (Nato bombings in the Kosovo conflict) among many many other incidents.

I don't think we're any different from other empires in history in that basic idea. We look out for our interests. No reason to goto Darfur with the force at which we disposed towards Iraq.

The reason I lumped the UN and U.S. together was because of the Rwandan conflict, when they were very well lumped together. I suggest you do a lot of research on the topic, because you're wooshing here. And to say that there is a definition of "genocide" is misleading. Maybe merriam-webster has a definition, but the U.N., who has policies preventing potential genocides from occurring, does not. They debated the legality of moving into Rwanda and continued to debate until the RPF took over control and ended the genocide.

[Demosthenes11]

are you trying to say the UN, in any way shape or form, does anything? really?

there

[Elvis]

What's your point?

You don't have to read all the literature to know there was a genocide going on in Rwanda. You don't have to read all the literature to know that we didn't go in there because it didn't serve our interests.

This goes beyond just Rwanda. Hence why I explained those other things. I am not advocating we don't intervene. I'm saying that the reality of the situation is that we do not intervene - at the very least it's never because of moral outrage.

[Tyche]

YOu should run the U.N. then, because their definitions obviously aren't as cut and dry as your own. The U.N. broke, and are breaking their own implemented policies. The U.N. should be intervening and we should be sending troops to aid the U.N.. Our interests are irrelevant.

Edit: And they were irrelevant in Rwanda, hence a mad amount of apologizing by Clinton.

[Elvis]

there

There what? Give examples. Be a little specific. This is a two-way street. People have to respect the UN and not just listen when it suits them.

[Churchill]

Let me correct that, the United States shouldn't be in the UN, Iraq, Korea, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Europe, Asia, or Darfur.

[Demosthenes11]

There what? Give examples. Be a little specific. This is a two-way street. People have to respect the UN and not just listen when it suits them.

you mean listen to the organization of purely self-interest, anti-american sentiment, stalemate, and general inadequacies? The UN has and will never do what is best for the world

[Elvis]

YOu should run the U.N. then, because their definitions obviously aren't as cut and dry as your own. The U.N. broke, and are breaking their own implemented policies. The U.N. should be intervening and we should be sending troops to aid the U.N.. Our interests are irrelevant.

I'm not talking about the definition of genocide. You are. Obviously.

My point is that whether or not a genocide takes place does not matter to the US (since I'm assuming this topic was about our non-interventionist stance towards Darfur).

I'm not talking about advocacy. I'm talking about what we've actually done and what we will do in the future (most likely) as opposed to what's morally right.

The reality is that we'll agree with the UN when we want to. The definition of genocide isn't defined by the UN. They might have a policy towards genocide but that's it.

[Elvis]

you mean listen to the organization of purely self-interest, anti-american sentiment, stalemate, and general inadequacies? The UN has and will never do what is best for the world

Nigga puhleez. Like I said, they only seem anti-American when they disagree with us on something. The World Court is labeled the same way. Hell, most of the fucking world disagrees with us.

I suppose this is all anti-Americanism right? It's some sort of illness?

[Demosthenes11]

Nigga puhleez. Like I said, they only seem anti-American when they disagree with us on something. The World Court is labeled the same way. Hell, most of the fucking world disagrees with us.

I suppose this is all anti-Americanism right? It's some sort of illness?

you can believe that all you want lol

[Elvis]

you can believe that all you want lol

"so can you lol"