Ferrous Moon
http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/

Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
http://www.ferrousmoon.com:80/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1240		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Gwanky [Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
The US does not pursue an isolationist policy, when "The Shit hits the fan" we are always there.

The US currently has all of our armed forces deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Until recently we were poised to strike Iran although it is now looking as if we are backing off.

Afghanistan was clearly justified although the US may have had vested interest here due to the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline the fact is they sheltered Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group attacked us.

Although I am not denying human rights violations in Iraq, the fact that there is oil here clearly influenced our decision to dethrone Saddam Hussein.

I feel that if we are going to attack countries, we need to send peacekeepers to Darfur.

At the same time a genocide is happening in Darfur. There are children being kidnapped in the dead of night and taught to fight how to shoot a Kalashnikov rifle and kill for a lost cause. This is where the US comes in. Why did we send forces to Iraq a stable if not wonderful country when this genocide was raging in Darfur? Obviously we can't leave Iraq now, and we don't have enough troops to send them to Darfur, so why not have a draft? These people need our help. The US has an obligation to help those that cannot help themselves the rest of the world will back us on this, so why can't we have a draft? President Bush is done after this so it's not even political anymore.

Those are my two cents anyone else got input?
Author:  klm [Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Well, hopefully whoever becomes the next President realizes our obligations to the world. It is true that under the idiot named "George Walker Bush", the U.S. has been messing around Iraq instead of helping out in Darfur. Those troops in Iraq however, need to be brought home and some might need to be sent to Darfur in the beginning. Then, as we increase our numbers of availability, we can send more around the world to places in need (or as my crazy physics teacher might say, "deep dodo") to help out. That would show the rest of the world that the U.S. doesn't back out on it.

Well, that's my input. Who else wants to give there opinion.
Author:  FinalWarrior [Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
The US does not pursue an isolationist policy, when "The Shit hits the fan" we are always there.
And that is exactly the problem. The United States doesn't really have any reason to be where "the shit" is, if "the shit" doesn't/didn't involve the US in the first place (*cough*Iraq!*cough*).

So unless there are people in Darfur toting nuclear weapons and threatening the US with those weapons, the US shouldn't really be doing anything; it doesn't really have a right to do anything.

Damn purple-bellies.

-- Griffinhart
Author:  Rickton [Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
I don't think the US has to worry about looking like sissies. Everyone loves Switzerland and they don't do anything for anyone.
Author:  eddieringle [Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
I agree with Rickton. They only thing we HAVE to do in order for other peoples to like us, is to mind our own business. Now, what we FEEL we have to do is another story...
Author:  Gwanky [Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
@ FinalWarrior, The US is the most powerful country in the world, some would go so far to say that we have achieved Hyperpower Status. We are obligated to assist our allies, and to stop things such as genocide.

You believe that the US should leave Iraq? I don't believe we should have gone in, that was clearly a mistake, however now that we destroyed their government we owe it to them to stay as long as it takes. Despite being of moderate Democratic principals (being a minor I am ineligible to vote) I am a strong supporter of the "As long as it takes mentality" it is impossible to set a timetable on establishment of a government. If the US leaves now there will be two outcomes. A coup will immediately take place and install another Saddam like dictator, despite the fact that Saddam was a tyrant, he kept the peace, people weren't blowing themselves up in the street he was a bit like a middle-eastern Putin with less class. The other outcome is the country will descend into anarchy killing massive numbers of civilians as insurgents fight and the government topples. Eventually it will become a civil war, and a seemingly "benevolent" dictatorship will be installed by the people ala the Taliban simply to stop the fighting.
Author:  FinalWarrior [Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
See, the US isn't about what's "right", it's about money. That was the whole driving point behind the creation of this nation. Money and property (which is really just another way of saying "money"). The Founding Fathers didn't think that the regular people were smart enough to get involved in politics (I believe a few of them later changed their views).

Yes, the United States is quite possibly the most powerful nation in the world (if not the most advanced, or most educated, or...), but that doesn't suddenly mean that the country, the country's leader(s), the country's government, or the country's people have any sort of obligation to the rest of the world. Yeah, you can argue morality, but morality is a very subjective thing (one man's right is another's wrong).

Now, the United Nations, on the other hand, is an organization that was created to combat things exactly like Darfur. The UN should be doing something about Darfur, not the US. When the US Constitution was penned, there was no clause about becoming the world's police force or the avatar of righteousness. Ever since the Constitution was created, there have been no amendments to such effects either. Conversely, the UN's whole purpose for being is to maintain world peace and all that good 'n lovely stuff. The US, as part of the UN, has obligations to the organization, but the last time I checked, the United Nations is not solely comprised of the United States. (I'm pretty sure the French are part of the UN. Pretty sure.)

-- Griffinhart

PS. Also, people love Switzerland because the people are pretty damn nice, unlike most people from/of the US. Right buncha arrogant assholes...
Author:  Gwanky [Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
FinalWarrior, surely you don't disagree that the US has an obligation to help people in need? I will grant you the fact that the United Nations has a larger obligation then the US but if the United Nations fails to act then why shouldn't we? If the US were to pursue a strictly defensive isolationist policy then I could understand saying there is no need to intervene in world affairs however, we do not, we set a precedent in Iraq and we need to follow that by helping a country that truly needs us.
Author:  FinalWarrior [Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
FinalWarrior, surely you don't disagree that the US has an obligation to help people in need? I will grant you the fact that the United Nations has a larger obligation then the US but if the United Nations fails to act then why shouldn't we? If the US were to pursue a strictly defensive isolationist policy then I could understand saying there is no need to intervene in world affairs however, we do not, we set a precedent in Iraq and we need to follow that by helping a country that truly needs us.
Since when has the US been consistent in its foreign policies? I mean, one second the country's isolanist, and then next, the President's buying land in Latin America to make a canal... :P

But anyhow, I do disagree. The US only has an obligation to itself and the people that occupy and/or govern it. This nation has no right to interfere with another nation, for good or for bad.

Man, I think I need to lay off the Firefly... I'm thinking too much like a Browncoat. Even called you bunch "purple-bellies". XD

-- Griffinhart
Author:  Rickton [Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
If I were bin Laden I'd go to Switzerland.
Author:  klm [Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
If I were bin Laden I'd go to Switzerland.
Switzerland??? It would be hard for him to live in secrecy in the Alps with that breathing aid of his. Plus, he would need some time to get adjusted to the Switzerland's climate since he's coming from a warm one in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Author:  Rickton [Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
Quote:
If I were bin Laden I'd go to Switzerland.
Switzerland??? It would be hard for him to live in secrecy in the Alps with that breathing aid of his. Plus, he would need some time to get adjusted to the Switzerland's climate since he's coming from a warm one in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Yeah but the US can't invade Switzerland to find him. And they'd never even think of looking there.
Not to mention Switzerland has a ton of underground bunkers and things hidden in the mountains. All he and his buddies would have to do would be to break into one and live there.

But really, the real reason he'd go there is because they have really good chocolate.
Author:  eddieringle [Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
What is with you and Switzerland? :D
Author:  Rickton [Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
What is with you and Switzerland? :D
When have I ever mentioned Switzerland before?
I dunno. It's just a nice place.

EDIT: Oh. When I was talking about how they don't interfere in anyone else's business and people still like them. Well, at least it actually had relevance in that topic. In this one I just mostly chose it because it's a neutral country.
Author:  FinalWarrior [Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Should the USA intervene in the Darfur Genocide?
Quote:
What is with you and Switzerland? :D
Quote:
[...] they have really good chocolate.
'Nuff said.

-- Griffinhart
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC-05:00
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/