Can anyone name ONE single reason for our inaction on The Sudan?

[cwjerome]

Having a moral obligation, to me, is not the same as having the moral duty.

We had the moral obligation to invade Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, and plenty of other nations.... but we didn't.

The primary factor in elevating obligation to duty are national interests (especially cost/benefit security interests).

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Having a moral obligation, to me, is not the same as having the moral duty.

We had the moral obligation to invade Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, and plenty of other nations.... but we didn't.

The primary factor in elevating obligation to duty are national interests (especially cost/benefit security interests).

Good old Machiavelli.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Having a moral obligation, to me, is not the same as having the moral duty.

We had the moral obligation to invade Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, and plenty of other nations.... but we didn't.

The primary factor in elevating obligation to duty are national interests (especially cost/benefit security interests).

Good old Machiavelli.

"The moral obligation to invade" other nations. The moral obligation to be the aggressor.

This country is really screwed. Americans are witnessing the results of those ideas yet they still refuse to recognize how completely wrong they are.

Jerome, you sound like every tyrant throughout history and the current tyrant in the White House.

 

[TNM93]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: joshw10
oil

we've a moral obligation, as well as an obligation based on prior foreign policy.

Why do we have a moral obligation? I mean, as soon as the US were to go and offer aid to such a country, it would become the target of terrorists who would view the US as an invading country. There are other countries in the world besides the US that have military resources, so I don't agree that it was a complete letdown on the U.S. alone. It was a letdown based on the entire world community.

I also think the US was pretty stung by what happened in Somalia and wouldn't want to risk taking action politically. Many people were sickened by the images of what had happened in Somalia on CNN. I believe the Secretary of Defense even lost his job from that.

 

[tommywishbone]

As mentioned, Sudan has a few things, oil & minerals, but no apparatus in place to exploit those resources. The place is a wasteland and we don't care about humanity, we care about stuff, and Sudan ain't got no stuff. They're on their own.

 

[CanOWorms]

The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
As mentioned, Sudan has a few things, oil & minerals, but no apparatus in place to exploit those resources. The place is a wasteland and we don't care about humanity, we care about stuff, and Sudan ain't got no stuff. They're on their own.

They've been pumping oil for some time...

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

The U.N. doesn't seem to be stopping the U.S. right now. According to those in power in the U.S., the U.N. is an irrelevant institution these days. If the U.S. actually felt strongly about doing something, they wouldn't let the U.N stop them.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

The U.N. doesn't seem to be stopping the U.S. right now. According to those in power in the U.S., the U.N. is an irrelevant institution these days. If the U.S. actually felt strongly about doing something, they wouldn't let the U.N stop them.

Why are you talking about the UN? I think that the EU should go with or without UN approval. This is their time to stand up. Too bad it's against their interests. After all, they don't consider it a genocide.

I don't think that many people would complain if someone legitimately went in to stop a genocide without UN approval.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Mill
Other than they are black. One of the sickest situations in the World, and lack Rwanda we are just sitting there. We've even recognized that it is Genocide, but that's only enough if we invade your country, don't find WMD, and then have to have a good reason.

Look, I was for the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a damn humanitarian mission. Now that we've called it such -- said we are there to protect them from Saddam's genocide and his ethnic atrocities against the Kurds, how in the hell can we ignore Darfur?

IT IS ETHNIC GENOCIDE. We demonized the Nazis and Hitler to this DAY for the *exact* same type of atrocities.

If anyone claims we are not the world police, I will be inclined to beat you about the skull with a crowbar. We've made ourselves the world police, and if Iraq, Somalia, and other instances don't prove it, then I don't know what does. There's NO defense to use not stopping this. May God have mercy on our souls for not preventing wholesale murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing.

The biggest failure of Bill Clinton's Presidency was not addressing Rwanda. If you've ever seen Hotel Rwanda you'll understand how the entire freaking civilized world was waiting on us to intervene, and it wasn't for that Canadian General even more would have been lost. We did nothing. Nothing. No show of force. No precision airstrikes against the Rebels. Nothing. We allowed Millions to die, and for what? For what? So we can invade Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

Oh what a glorious trade. Instead of getting a country full of citizens tied of tyranny and wanting protection, we decide to attack a country that wants nothing of it. I dare say -- I doubt there would have been a single suicide in Darfur by putting a stop to the abominable acts going on there. For this nation to do nothing -- for us not to care -- in arguably one of the WORST atrocities of this world is despicable. We might not have been able to stop Hitler until the end of WWII, but there is little doubt that something could have been done for the Darfur. There's zero defense against our behavior, unless of course, you are a penultimate hypocrite.

There's no evidence -- logic wise or otherwise -- that suggest we'd been incapable of restoring order. There's no evidence that the genocide is NOT taking place -- on the contrary -- we've admitted their is genocide there. But, what do we do? We sit on our asses and spend 200 billion on Iraq.

Sickening. Disgusting. Makes me ashamed to be an American. Makes me ashamed to be a human fvcking being.

If we aren't the world police, we sure as hell act like it. Look at our involvement in the world for the past 50 years, our involvement in South America or how we are the last imperalistic country in the world. We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

There no evidence that we'd be incapable of restoring order? America's military force is designed to murder people in the most effective way possible, we are not a police force. Our solider are armed with M-16 that are made to kill people, they don't have riot suits and pepper spray. Go look at some American History and tell me how are so successfull at restoring order.

It's sad fact that rest of the world can't get along with themselves, my country can. I have no moral imperitivie to help another country reach democracy, my forefathers died for this country, so their future childeren could enjoy freedom.

The only reason we aren't there isn't because we there isn't that much oil, it's because we haven't figure out a way how to get rich of the situtation down there. Trust me, it's really fvcked up more than you could imagine.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

The U.N. doesn't seem to be stopping the U.S. right now. According to those in power in the U.S., the U.N. is an irrelevant institution these days. If the U.S. actually felt strongly about doing something, they wouldn't let the U.N stop them.

Why are you talking about the UN? I think that the EU should go with or without UN approval. This is their time to stand up. Too bad it's against their interests. After all, they don't consider it a genocide.

I don't think that people would complain if someone legitimately went in to stop a genocide without UN approval.

Then what is the bolded text in your post referring to? In what forum were France and China opposed to action in Sudan if not the UN?

 

[Strk]

The UK has more of an interest in it than other European countries because it was a UK colony. Most African countries get assistance, in some form, depening on who their former colonial power was.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

The U.N. doesn't seem to be stopping the U.S. right now. According to those in power in the U.S., the U.N. is an irrelevant institution these days. If the U.S. actually felt strongly about doing something, they wouldn't let the U.N stop them.

Why are you talking about the UN? I think that the EU should go with or without UN approval. This is their time to stand up. Too bad it's against their interests. After all, they don't consider it a genocide.

I don't think that people would complain if someone legitimately went in to stop a genocide without UN approval.

Then what is the bolded text in your post referring to? In what forum were France and China opposed to action in Sudan if not the UN?

Ah, ok. Yes, they are opposed to in it in the UN as well as the EU. I don't think that you need UN approval to stop a genocide. I don't think that many would oppose it. France went in unilaterally to depose a cannibalistic schoolgirl-eating dictator (which they installed) who declared himself Emperor of Africa in a coronation ceremony that drained the country's treasury without UN approval. It was the right move.

It's too bad that all the EU seems to do nowadays is promote genocide.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is what you can do, and what you would like to do. True we could invade, and maybe stop it. We would have to be brutal to do so, and accept a lot of deaths on our side, and theirs. Figure being there forever too, because the moment we leave it starts all over again.

So, how many thousands of deaths are Americans willing to put up with a year for the next several decades?

That's your answer.

We are not so powerful as you may think.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

IIRC, France did pull a boner, but the US was expected to go help and then never did. They were counting on us.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why doesn't Bush react to the genocide in the Sudan? For the same reason he didn't react to Hurricane Katrina, the same reason the Pentagon is re-writing the rules on pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons. The world now knows that the USA doesn't have the resources to handle more than one front at a time conventionally. Unfortunately, Bush chose to handle a false threat in Iraq that put everything else in the back seat, or more precisely, out of the car completely.

Given your statements against America's intervention in Iraq, should the genocide occurring in the Sudan not fall under the mandate of the United Nations...I do not see Europe, or any of the developed world for that matter, pushing for intervention in Africa.

Also, the genocide of the Sudan, the Congo and other regions of Africa existed well before Bush took office...if I remember correctly, America's last engagement in Africa was in Somalia...no engagement strategy, long term objectives or the dedication of military resources necessary to accomplish what was an ill defined mission...and then we cut and run once things got a little bloody.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The US (and the UK a little) was the strongest advocates of doing something in Sudan. However, countries such as France and China were strongly against any action in Sudan and wanted to let the genocide continue because it's in their best interests (oil, Sudan is their ally). The US has declared it a genocide yet the EU decided that it was not a genocide. Hmmm.. I wonder why? This is a perfect time for the EU to show their muscle and their desire to stop genocide as the US is already involved in multiple adventures, yet they sit idly by pretending that everything is ok.

You put way too much blame on the US over Rwanda. Yes, the US should have done something, but it just sat by just like everyone else. I think that it's useless to think about it anyways because there's no way the UN would have allowed any action in Rwanda to immediately stop the genocide with France organizing the genocide and their role as a SC member.

IIRC, France did pull a boner, but the US was expected to go help and then never did. They were counting on us.

Expected? Expected by whom?

 

[Deudalus]

If we aren't the world police, we sure as hell act like it. Look at our involvement in the world for the past 50 years, our involvement in South America or how we are the last imperalistic country in the world.

Uhh, like France a couple of years ago in the Ivory Coast? I'm confused.

We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

Everyone likes the fact that we have a military base in their country. That means less they have to worry about militarily and it brings in more money to their countries.

There no evidence that we'd be incapable of restoring order? America's military force is designed to murder people in the most effective way possible, we are not a police force. Our solider are armed with M-16 that are made to kill people, they don't have riot suits and pepper spray. Go look at some American History and tell me how are so successfull at restoring order.

We are great at restoring order, and yes the armed forces have people who's job it is to keep peace and restore order. Yes they wear riot suits and have pepper spray. Yes I know this because I have a friend from college who's job was to do just that in Iraq.

We aren't as efficient at keeping order as the Germans, Japanese, or Russians. But then again they were willing to line people up and shoot them if they disagreed.

It's sad fact that rest of the world can't get along with themselves, my country can. I have no moral imperitivie to help another country reach democracy, my forefathers died for this country, so their future childeren could enjoy freedom.

Well its a proven fact that westernized Democracies don't have genocides taking place in their countries, ever. If you don't wish for us to wage war to solve these social injustices then maybe you shouldn't complain about them so loudly.

The only reason we aren't there isn't because we there isn't that much oil, it's because we haven't figure out a way how to get rich of the situtation down there. Trust me, it's really fvcked up more than you could imagine.

Kosovo had no oil and we didn't get anything out of that ordeal. Clinton gave Halliburton a no bid contract to rebuild, but aside from that we didn't get anything. We got nothing out of Somalia either really.

The simple fact is America acts in its own interests the majority of the time just like every other country in the world does. We simply get singled out because we act more often and at a much larger scale than every other country.

But no other world power is really any different than we are about things like this.

 

[RabidMongoose]

We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

I must have missed this, but this is actually wrong. France, for instance, has military bases outside of Europe.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

I must have missed this, but this is actually wrong. France, for instance, has military bases outside of Europe.

Yup, they have military bases in Africa which would have been vital for a large scale action in Sudan.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

I must have missed this, but this is actually wrong. France, for instance, has military bases outside of Europe.

We've got more military bases spread out through the entire globe, we'd pwn France if we wanted to.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

We're the only country that has military bases through out the entire globe.

I must have missed this, but this is actually wrong. France, for instance, has military bases outside of Europe.

We've got more military bases spread out through the entire globe, we'd pwn France if we wanted to.

Well...obviously. :laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
There is what you can do, and what you would like to do. True we could invade, and maybe stop it. We would have to be brutal to do so, and accept a lot of deaths on our side, and theirs. Figure being there forever too, because the moment we leave it starts all over again.

So, how many thousands of deaths are Americans willing to put up with a year for the next several decades?

That's your answer.

We are not so powerful as you may think.

That's one way to look at it, but nobody is asking the US to invade. We could be making HUGE steps to end a genocide in Darfur by simply going in front of the UN general assembly, requesting that the number of African Union troops (numbered currently at less than 3,000 I believe) be increased to somewhere around 15,000 AND that they be authorized to actually stop the genocide. Right now they are simply there as "observers." They cannot shoot back at anyone, they cannot stop anything.

The African Union can handle this situation, all it needs is support from the US to get the resolutions pushed through the UN and probably some US military equipment, but we do not need to deploy soldiers to the Sudan.

It is sad that there is genocide... up to 500 people per day being slaughtered and we sit here saying that we cannot do anything. That is just pathetic and this country should be ashamed. Over 500,000 people have died there in a little over three years and 2.5 million have been displaced. Thousands more suffer from a lack of food and water and we have done absolutely nothing to try and stop it.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Answer: Complete lack of selfish interest. What is the benefit to Americans for doing this?

Of course, if you yourself are really concerned, you could donate your own money to the cause and/or band together with a bunch of other concerned people and go over there yourselves.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
There is what you can do, and what you would like to do. True we could invade, and maybe stop it. We would have to be brutal to do so, and accept a lot of deaths on our side, and theirs. Figure being there forever too, because the moment we leave it starts all over again.

So, how many thousands of deaths are Americans willing to put up with a year for the next several decades?

That's your answer.

We are not so powerful as you may think.

That's one way to look at it, but nobody is asking the US to invade. We could be making HUGE steps to end a genocide in Darfur by simply going in front of the UN general assembly, requesting that the number of African Union troops (numbered currently at less than 3,000 I believe) be increased to somewhere around 15,000 AND that they be authorized to actually stop the genocide. Right now they are simply there as "observers." They cannot shoot back at anyone, they cannot stop anything.

The African Union can handle this situation, all it needs is support from the US to get the resolutions pushed through the UN and probably some US military equipment, but we do not need to deploy soldiers to the Sudan.

It is sad that there is genocide... up to 500 people per day being slaughtered and we sit here saying that we cannot do anything. That is just pathetic and this country should be ashamed. Over 500,000 people have died there in a little over three years and 2.5 million have been displaced. Thousands more suffer from a lack of food and water and we have done absolutely nothing to try and stop it.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.

How can the US go to the UN and claim there is a genocide when the UN doesn't believe it to be a genocide? I believe that the UN, EU, AU have not declared it a genocide. It seems that the US is the only one who cares.