» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/20/07 at 7:00 pm

Obama has recently been making some rather insane statements about Genocide.  And frankly, it leaves me puzzled.

Now I applaud the Senator on his stance on genocide in areas like Darfur.  I myself have brought up that and other genocides in this very forum.  I supported President Clinton 100% in Somalia, and thought that we should not have left.  To me, there is almost nothing that should not be done to put an end to such a horrible act.

But then Obama goes and says that he thinks that a potential genocide in Iraq is not a sufficient reason to stay there.

What?

This is rather shocking to me, and has grossly erroded the good will I had towards him.  I not only find it disturbing and disgusting, but also a gorss insult to everybody who has suffered through genocide.  To me, it seems that the good Senator is taking advice from Senator Kerry.  And I simply can't understand how anybody could suggest that the US (or any nation) should pull out of an area, even if Genocide happens.

I hope this was just a gaffe, and he corrects himself.  Otherwise, it throws all of his past statements about genocide very questionable.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/20/07 at 7:10 pm

O is for Obama
O is for Open mouth, insert foot

Ruper Murdoch Headline:

"Dems would rather run away than stop genocide!"

Why don't you just walk over to to the enemy, tip your hat, say howdy, and hand them some more grenades to throw at you!

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/20/07 at 7:16 pm


Ruper Murdoch Headline:
"Dems would rather run away than stop genocide!"


Well, I am hoping that what he said is just a gaffe, and that he corrects himself (and soon).  Remember, I am not one to go around taking things like this in the worst possible way.  For example, while Kerry's "Stuck In Iraq" statement was rather funny, I knew from the beginning that it was nothing but a gaffe.

But it becomes hard to take the good Senator seriously now whenever he talks about Darfur.  Because to me, genocide is genocide.  I don't care who it is against, it is wrong and has to be stopped.  His statement as it stands now is little more then saying "Hey, I don't care if genocide happens in Iraq."  And comming from somebody who claims that President Bush is not doing enough in Darfur, it really looks bad.

Personally, I think the entire world is not doing enough in Darfur.  One of the reasons for my lack of faith in the UN is because they do almost nothing about genocide until it is way to late.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/20/07 at 7:20 pm

On a gut level, you don't want "let it happen" anywhere near the word "genocide."

But, really, between Saddams atrocities and our atrocities, it ain't exactly been a Sunday school picnic over there for the past 16 years!
::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: LyricBoy on 07/20/07 at 8:17 pm

I believe that what Obama is saying is...

"The United States is not the world's policeman"

Hiis logic is sound.  If iraq is our mission to prevent genocide then why are we not in Darfur and Congo?  Why did we not invade Rwanda?  Why are we not invading India to rescue the burning brides?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/20/07 at 9:29 pm


I believe that what Obama is saying is...

"The United States is not the world's policeman"

Hiis logic is sound.  If iraq is our mission to prevent genocide then why are we not in Darfur and Congo?  Why did we not invade Rwanda?  Why are we not invading India to rescue the burning brides?


That's used to be the conservative point of view until the past couple of decades.  Now it takes a liberal Democrat!
::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/20/07 at 10:05 pm


Hiis logic is sound.  If iraq is our mission to prevent genocide then why are we not in Darfur and Congo?  Why did we not invade Rwanda?  Why are we not invading India to rescue the burning brides?


In the words of Rabbi Hillel, "If not me, who? And if not now, when?â€

And for one, I think we should be in Darfur, along with the rest of the UN.  As well as in Somalia, Rwanda, and anywhere else it is found.  Another place it occured recently was in Yugoslavia.  And in case anybody cares, we still have US forces stationed over there.

I do agree that the US is not the "Policeman of the world".  But once again, if nobody else is willing to do anything, who will take charge?  After all, who cares what Hitler did to a few million Jews, Gypsies, Queers, and others?  It was all an internal matter after all, and what right do we have to interfere with that?

And for that matter, why even bother giving humanitarian aid to anybody?  After all, it is not the job of the US to step in after a volcano, tsunami, or other disaster.  We are not the Policeman of the world, and we are also not the "Aid for any cause" either.  Let them all take care of themselves, we have more important things to do.

BTW, many people do not know the actual source of the quote I opened with.  In reality, it goes "If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"

Rabbi Hillel was a Jew, and born in the region that is now known as Iraq.  He was a contempory of both King Herod and a carpenter from that area.  Personally, I do not give a damn where somebody lives, how he or she worships, or what colour their skin is.  If somebody is slaughtering people for the simple reason that they do not like one of those things, they must be stopped. 

And if not us, who?  Or do we just say "fudge the world", and ignore it?  I am sure that Pol Pot, Saddam, Hitler, and every other genocidal maniac in the world would just love us for that.  And it makes us no better then they are.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/20/07 at 10:43 pm


That's used to be the conservative point of view until the past couple of decades.  Now it takes a liberal Democrat!
::)


More recent than that.  Bush II himself said as much during his 2000 debates with Al Gore. 

Well, at least we got 8 years of tax cuts, until Clinton II takes 'em away.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/20/07 at 11:10 pm


More recent than that.  Bush II himself said as much during his 2000 debates with Al Gore. 

Well, at least we got 8 years of tax cuts, until Clinton II takes 'em away.

Well, then, you'll just have to make sure there's no Clinton II.  The next thing is universal healthcare. That means people who don't work as hard as you get the same medical care as you, and you know we can't have that. 

Now be a man and figure out how you're gonna stop Clinton II.

G'wan, don't be a whiny liberal like me...you know solutions, not problems.  Be the master of your own destiny!
8)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Foo Bar on 07/20/07 at 11:44 pm


Well, then, you'll just have to make sure there's no Clinton II.  The next thing is universal healthcare. That means people who don't work as hard as you get the same medical care as you, and you know we can't have that. 

Now be a man and figure out how you're gonna stop Clinton II.

G'wan, don't be a whiny liberal like me...you know solutions, not problems.  Be the master of your own destiny!
8)


Stop her?  Hell, I'm counting on her.  War's over, we lost.  Sell defense stocks, buy HMOs.  Probably sell the oils, buy solar.  Sell new drug makers, buy generic drug makers.  HMOs will probably do OK, too.  Bush gave them a good 300% boost with his Medicare pork programme (example, look at a 5-year chart of Humana - NYSE:HUM), but someone's gonna have to administer Hilarycare.  You really think she cares about the people who voted her in, just because they elected her?  Now that's comedy! :)

In reference to your "Boomers / Xers" post.  We Xers took the best of what the boomers left us.  We didn't sell out, we bought in.  We're as avaricious as the Boomers, but we have 'em beat on cynicism hands-down.

Now don't make me post Leonard Cohen lyrics in the Torture thread.  I've seen the future, brother, it is profit.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Davester on 07/21/07 at 12:26 am

  Yep, What LyricBoy said...   

   I didn't read it as a lack of concern for the lives of Iraqis on Obama's part, but more a matter of the limitations of the U.S. military.  Some political problems cannot be resolved with force...

   SignOnSanDiego

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 07/21/07 at 1:23 am

Now I applaud the Senator on his stance on genocide in areas like Darfur.  I myself have brought up that and other genocides in this very forum.  I supported President Clinton 100% in Somalia, and thought that we should not have left.  To me, there is almost nothing that should not be done to put an end to such a horrible act.

But then Obama goes and says that he thinks that a potential genocide in Iraq is not a sufficient reason to stay there.
well, i think what's throwing off the radar in this case is that the american presence in iraq is what's triggered the genocide in the first place. so the assumption  is questionable that continued US presence in iraq will abate the genocide. why would the US presence suddenly start reducing the violence in that country when up to now it's been exacerbating it?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/21/07 at 9:05 am


well, i think what's throwing off the radar in this case is that the american presence in iraq is what's triggered the genocide in the first place.


Tia, have you been living in a cave?  Genocide has been happening in Iraq for decades.  The names may have changed, but if the US pulls out it will simply go back to "Business as usual", with Al-Queda and 20 other groups in charge instead of the Ba'ath party.

Let me read this insane arguement again, "american presence in iraq is what's triggered the genocide in the first place".  Nope, sorry, does not pass my smell test.  After all, I have stated in here many times why I think we should have gone into Iraq.  And here it is yet again.

Why we needed to invade Iraq

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: LyricBoy on 07/21/07 at 5:47 pm


In the words of Rabbi Hillel, "If not me, who? And if not now, when?â€

And for one, I think we should be in Darfur, along with the rest of the UN.  As well as in Somalia, Rwanda, and anywhere else it is found.  Another place it occured recently was in Yugoslavia.  And in case anybody cares, we still have US forces stationed over there.

I do agree that the US is not the "Policeman of the world".  But once again, if nobody else is willing to do anything, who will take charge?  After all, who cares what Hitler did to a few million Jews, Gypsies, Queers, and others?  It was all an internal matter after all, and what right do we have to interfere with that?

And for that matter, why even bother giving humanitarian aid to anybody?  After all, it is not the job of the US to step in after a volcano, tsunami, or other disaster.  We are not the Policeman of the world, and we are also not the "Aid for any cause" either.  Let them all take care of themselves, we have more important things to do.

BTW, many people do not know the actual source of the quote I opened with.  In reality, it goes "If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"

Rabbi Hillel was a Jew, and born in the region that is now known as Iraq.  He was a contempory of both King Herod and a carpenter from that area.  Personally, I do not give a damn where somebody lives, how he or she worships, or what colour their skin is.  If somebody is slaughtering people for the simple reason that they do not like one of those things, they must be stopped. 

And if not us, who?  Or do we just say "fudge the world", and ignore it?  I am sure that Pol Pot, Saddam, Hitler, and every other genocidal maniac in the world would just love us for that.  And it makes us no better then they are.


I imagine you would;t mind, therefore, if Red China decided to invade the United States to eliminate the rampant discrimination against minorities.  After all, who is going to do it if they dont?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Davester on 07/21/07 at 9:35 pm


Tia, have you been living in a cave?  Genocide has been happening in Iraq for decades.  The names may have changed, but if the US pulls out it will simply go back to "Business as usual", with Al-Queda and 20 other groups in charge instead of the Ba'ath party.

Let me read this insane arguement again, "american presence in iraq is what's triggered the genocide in the first place".  Nope, sorry, does not pass my smell test.  After all, I have stated in here many times why I think we should have gone into Iraq.  And here it is yet again.

Why we needed to invade Iraq


  No one seriously believes that America is trying to kill all the Iraqis.  Obviously, the US has no intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...

  Nobody denies Saddam's atrocities, but why were they acceptable when we were helping finance his war against Iran..? 

  I don't think we (the US of A) are trusted...

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: AnnieBanannie on 07/21/07 at 10:59 pm

We can't be all things to all people. I believe we need to get out of there and focus on providing humanitarian intervention in our own backyard. If those over there destroy each other, a lot of innocent people will die, yes -- but again, THE U.S. CAN'T BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE and continue to thrive.  Yes, it sounds cold -- yes, it sounds harsh -- but that's reality.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/22/07 at 12:18 am


I imagine you would;t mind, therefore, if Red China decided to invade the United States to eliminate the rampant discrimination against minorities.  After all, who is going to do it if they dont?


"Rampant Discrimination" is a gross exageration.  It does not even deserve a response.

And even if true, there is a vast difference between "rampant discrimination" and "slaughtering them by the tens of thousands and dumping them in pits".  I always find it funny what some people in this country consider "discrimination".  It makes me wonder what they would think if they went to a country where real discrimination took place.

And by the way, when I say "We", I mean the International Community, not just the US.  And when it comes to genocide, it seems like the entire world does not give a sheesh.  That is something that has long disgusted me.


   Nobody denies Saddam's atrocities, but why were they acceptable when we were helping finance his war against Iran..? 


Helping finance the war?  Errr, we sold him some weapons, that was all.  At the time Iraq was one of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East, and certainly needed no financial help from us or anybody else.  And we also sold weapons to Iran.

The same way that the Soviet Union, France, North Korea, and China did.  And ironically, Israel provided intelligence to both sides.  That was really a war where nobody wanted to see either side win.  The best outcome for almost everybody was exactly what happened, a long protracted stalemate.  It finally died out because both countries ran out of young men to throw at each other.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/22/07 at 12:21 am


I imagine you would;t mind, therefore, if Red China decided to invade the United States to eliminate the rampant discrimination against minorities.  After all, who is going to do it if they dont?

C'mon! Red China?  It ain't all that red anymore.  Tell you what, anybody who calls China "Red China" needs also to call Wal-Mart "Red Wal-Mart"!
:D

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 07/23/07 at 1:13 pm


Tia, have you been living in a cave?  Genocide has been happening in Iraq for decades.  The names may have changed, but if the US pulls out it will simply go back to "Business as usual", with Al-Queda and 20 other groups in charge instead of the Ba'ath party.

Let me read this insane arguement again, "american presence in iraq is what's triggered the genocide in the first place".  Nope, sorry, does not pass my smell test.  After all, I have stated in here many times why I think we should have gone into Iraq.  And here it is yet again.

Why we needed to invade Iraq
why do you always get personal? if you had better arguments you wouldn't need to resort to that.

plainly iraq has long been a deeply violent place. and in fact most of the violence under hussein happened with either the aid or the indifference of the same people who currently occupy the administration and are now pretending to be so offended by hussein’s conduct -- rumsfeld, cheney, etc. they don’t care on a personal level, or else they would have intervened long ago. a point i’ve made here countless times.

that being said, the current wave of violence, which certainly seems to rival anything that ever happened under hussein’s regime -- everything i read states that it seems to be much worse now, at least in terms of raw casualty rates -- is obviously quite plainly happening because bush and the republicans opted to invade and destabilize the country. so basically bush and his supporters share profoundly the blame for all the deaths happening there. to pretend we’re there now because we’re so shocked over hussein’s human rights record is frankly prespammersite. bush and his buds wanted an easy war, they thought they were gonna get one but they didn’t and now they have to go back and make up one BS reason after another why they went in there in the first place.

notice how i managed to make an argument without mentioning or insulting you in any way?


Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Rice_Cube on 07/23/07 at 3:28 pm

^ I have to agree with the bulk of your assessment.  I think that the current occupation has contributed to a comparable number of deaths as the Kurd-gassing back in the day (what with all the suicide bombers popping out like so many Pez) :P

War would've been easier if they'd just let the Marines lay waste to the entire Middle East instead of simple occupation...but I guess that's too barbaric or something.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/23/07 at 3:55 pm


that being said, the current wave of violence, which certainly seems to rival anything that ever happened under hussein’s regime -- everything i read states that it seems to be much worse now, at least in terms of raw casualty rates -- is obviously quite plainly happening because bush and the republicans opted to invade and destabilize the country.


Big difference.  Before, the deaths were caused by the Government itself.  Now, the deaths are being caused by radical groups opposed to the Government.

Although I suppose that things would have been better if we had left things alone.  It would have allowed Saddam & sons to rape the country even more, and to fill even more mass graves.  Not to mention to give refuge to even more people like Abu Nidal.

Of course, he was also generous enough to export his terrorism.  Saddam funded such groups as Hamas, PLFP, ALF, and a myriad of other terrorist groups.  Abdul Rahman Yasin (one of the WTC 1993 bombers) fled to Iraq, and was given not only housing, but a monthly pension by Saddam.  Not to mention giving Abu Musab al Zarqawi safe haven, and free medical care after he was wounded fighting in Afganistan.

And of course his "Pension Payments".  Saddam himself gave $5,000 to the survivors of anybody who would martyr themselves by blowing themselves up in Israel.

And once again, I am puzzled.  "most of the violence under hussein happened with either the aid or the indifference of the same people who currently occupy the administration".  Well, something has been done about it.  Now it is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".  And As a matter of closing, President Clinton had 8 years to do something as well.  Seems to me that the Democrats were no more able to end it then the Republicans were.  Well, unles you count the "Oil For Payola" program, which made him even more powerful and wealthy then he was before.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: esoxslayer on 07/23/07 at 5:24 pm



War would've been easier if they'd just let the Marines lay waste to the entire Middle East instead of simple occupation...but I guess that's too barbaric or something.


Now you're talking !!

Barbaric ??  Whats that??

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/23/07 at 5:47 pm


Big difference.  Before, the deaths were caused by the Government itself.  Now, the deaths are being caused by radical groups opposed to the Government.


In 2020 I can guarantee Iraq will be a more violent country than it was in 1990 with a dictator more vicious than Saddam...and ain't that a kick in the head!

And why, oh why, are people still talking like the Bushies even wanted to "win" this war, let alone to embark on a mission to bring democracy to Iraq or any humanitarian concern? 

The object of the game is always theft.  It is to transfer money and resources held by the many into the hands of the few, whether it is in the U.S., in Iraq, or Nicaragua or any spot on the globe. 

Bush, Cheney, and all that bloody crew are a pack of traitors.  They have a psychopathic indifference to the suffering of other human beings and care not one whit for this quaint polity we know as the nation-state; we have to live in it, the super-rich do not. 

John Edwards is absolutely right.  There are two Americas and even he, with all his millions, is still marginalized when it comes to the corps of uber-wealthy who comprise the new America, which is looting the old America. 

You folks still don't understand why they're building the world's most gigantic buildings in the middle of the godforsaken desert of Dubai?

I wish I could send you who speak so jocularly of laying waste to the entire Middle East to live among the Palestinians as Palestinians for a year.  You wouldn't think it was such a hoot after that!
>:(
::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 07/23/07 at 6:16 pm


Big difference.  Before, the deaths were caused by the Government itself.  Now, the deaths are being caused by radical groups opposed to the Government.


well, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about actual causation, the stimulus without which the present condition would not be taking place. if the bush invasion had not occurred, iraq would not right now be overrun with car bombs and mass civilian death in its present form. the bush invasion is clearly the primary precipitating factor without which the present violence would not exist. i understand that everyone knows the "radical groups opposed to the government" are bad bad people, but blaming them solely elides the fact that a stupid and craven policy on the part of the republicans has led to our current circumstance. if they hadn't been so craven, so dismissive of the advice of those who disagreed with them, and so unbendingly certain of their own righteousness, we, and more pointedly the iraqis, wouldn't be in our, and their, current circumstance.


Although I suppose that things would have been better if we had left things alone.  It would have allowed Saddam & sons to rape the country even more, and to fill even more mass graves.  Not to mention to give refuge to even more people like Abu Nidal.
we never left things alone. american policy in iraq has always been incredibly meddlesome. the question is, how thoughtful and intelligent has the interference been? and what have been the results? i think here the record is clear, the bush policy is a complete and utter failure, but i only refer to the visible evident record to cite this. the republicans always have a much more nuanced interpretation to explain why what so decidedly and unequivocably appears to be failure in iraq is in fact right on the verge of success. ::) but the essence of my point is, to say, "i suppose we should have left things alone" has nothing to do with the reality of US foreign policy over the past few decades in iraq. "leaving it alone" would have been nice from the beginning, frankly, but the more the bush family has screwed around with that region, the more of a mess they seem to be making there.



And once again, I am puzzled.  "most of the violence under hussein happened with either the aid or the indifference of the same people who currently occupy the administration".  Well, something has been done about it.  Now it is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't".  And As a matter of closing, President Clinton had 8 years to do something as well.  Seems to me that the Democrats were no more able to end it then the Republicans were.  Well, unles you count the "Oil For Payola" program, which made him even more powerful and wealthy then he was before.
the point i'm making is that i'm questioning the current administration's intentions. as i point out above, the republicans have always had a policy of interfering aggressively in iraq's affairs so when you say that suddenly "something has been done" about iraq i'm not sure what you're referring to. the right's been fiddling around with iraq for decades so what's this idea that suddenly now something's being done about iraq -- where's that coming from?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: esoxslayer on 07/24/07 at 7:00 am




I wish I could send you who speak so jocularly of laying waste to the entire Middle East to live among the Palestinians as Palestinians for a year.  You wouldn't think it was such a hoot after that!
>:(
::)


Yeah, we'd almost have the same mind set that the terrorists had when they flew into the towers, lay waste to everything with no feelings of remorse or regret, except that they couldn't kill more of us.

I wish you could as well Max, and make sure you send me right after the politicians don't have any control over the military, so we can do our job right.

I might be 47, but I'd still be willing to pick up a weapon and serve, be it in this country or abroad....

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/24/07 at 9:17 am



I might be 47, but I'd still be willing to pick up a weapon and serve, be it in this country or abroad....

Well, if they don't either pull out of Iraq or reinstate the draft, you might get your chance to volunteer.  F**k, it might be the first time in our history when the media can do feel-good stories about grandfather and grandson both going down to register together!
:D

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 07/24/07 at 11:30 am


Obama has recently been making some rather insane statements about Genocide.  And frankly, it leaves me puzzled.

Now I applaud the Senator on his stance on genocide in areas like Darfur.  I myself have brought up that and other genocides in this very forum.  I supported President Clinton 100% in Somalia, and thought that we should not have left.  To me, there is almost nothing that should not be done to put an end to such a horrible act.

But then Obama goes and says that he thinks that a potential genocide in Iraq is not a sufficient reason to stay there.

What?

This is rather shocking to me, and has grossly erroded the good will I had towards him.  I not only find it disturbing and disgusting, but also a gorss insult to everybody who has suffered through genocide.  To me, it seems that the good Senator is taking advice from Senator Kerry.  And I simply can't understand how anybody could suggest that the US (or any nation) should pull out of an area, even if Genocide happens.

I hope this was just a gaffe, and he corrects himself.  Otherwise, it throws all of his past statements about genocide very questionable.
Reread your post....a potential genocide.....not guaranteed.  I think what he's saying is that we shouldn't stay there simply because the parties may or may not do something atrocious.  In other words, if we base our military actions on what might happen, we'd be in more countries than we could handle and we'd never leave.  There are militant groups that threaten governments all over the world, but we're not in every country where this happens (heck, we're not even in some countries where it IS happening) and if we were, our troops would be stretched so thin that they wouldn't be effective.

Once again, I think this is a case of people trying to infer the worst possible meaning for a statement by a member of an opposing party ::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Rice_Cube on 07/24/07 at 11:53 am

^ OR, you could take it one country at a time...but why should the US of A have to do all the work?  :P

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/24/07 at 1:54 pm


^ OR, you could take it one country at a time...but why should the US of A have to do all the work?  :P


I fully agree with you here.  And when it all comes down to it, I blame the UN for most of the atrocities in the world today.

The UN started with wonderful goals.  Among them were to prevent war by intervention before it became nessicary (much like the League Of Nations).  Another was to assist in the event of war, and to mobilize to prevent atrocities in the event that a war happened.

And early on, they did a great job of it.  Korea, Cyprus, Lebanon.  But as time went on, it became more and more bogged down in "politics".  And dictators discovered that if they clouded anything in "Internal Policy", they could literally get away with murder.  They could dress up a few thousand of their own troops, and send them into another country disguised as local "Freedom Fighters".  Africa is full of such things happening, even to the extent that Cuba did it in Angola.  And the UN largely kept silent.

Yugoslavia, Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Uganda, Afganistan, the last 30 years are full of incidents that the UN has chosen to ignore.  It is not that they could not, they simply decided that they would not do anything.

Personally, I wish that the UN would behave the way they did 60 years ago.  The UN today is impotant and weak, and is more willing to prop up dictators who pay them money and favors then they are of protecting the citizens of the world.  And the recent string of graft scandals have only erroded my faith in the organization even further.

But the UN obviously does not give a damn about genocide.  And somebody needs to.  I know that I care.  I even care about the potential for genocide, because it should never have the chance to happen in the first place.

Careing after the death of 100,000+ people is far to late.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Rice_Cube on 07/24/07 at 5:01 pm

Methunk the UN troops were mostly from the US of A anyway...?

I might be wrong.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 07/24/07 at 5:27 pm


Methunk the UN troops were mostly from the US of A anyway...?

I might be wrong.


That is quite often true.  The US and France are probably the countries that respond most often to UN calls for assistance.  You may hear of small congingencies from other nations (UK, Greece, Spain, etc), but US and France tend to make up the lions share of such deployments.

A lot of people do not realize that when the Marine barracks were hit in Beirut in 1983, the barracks for the French contingent were also struck.  We lost 241 Marines and Sailors, France lost 58 Paratroopers.  We pulled out, but France attacked Iranian positions and remained for another 6 years (until the UN declaired an end to the crisis).

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/24/07 at 6:28 pm

The U.S. likes to call the U.N. on the U.N.'s moral failings.  However, American foreign policiy priorities are imperial, not humanitarian.  Talk is cheap.  The U.S. should walk the walk the U.N. won't walk.
::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: SemperYoda on 07/30/07 at 11:39 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women


Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.    :-\\

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: MaxwellSmart on 07/31/07 at 12:34 am


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women


Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.     :-\\

Horrifying.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 08/02/07 at 7:29 pm


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women

Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.     :-\\


More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: limblifter on 08/02/07 at 8:40 pm


More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?


You mean the same UN that were dismissed as useless and dated when they refused to play along with the Bush admistrations plans to invade liberate Iraq?

Who needs the help of the UN when you have the "Coalition of the Willing"? Hows that going by the way?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/03/07 at 9:53 am


More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.
i keep hearing this from the right. what exactly is it the UN is supposed to do, since it lacks any kind of viable autonomous military? unless the nations constituting the UN step up and play ball what exactly is the UN supposed to do besides pass resolutions and use harsh language? last i checked the UN was a deliberative international body, not a peacekeeping organization or an organization for enforcing foreign policy. basically, if bush and the republicans don't care -- and trust me, they don't -- then there's nothing the UN can really do. but it's handy for bush to ignore things he doesn't care about because he can foist responsibility for his failings, and the failings of conservative ideology more generally, on the UN, and hopefully the people listening wont realize how woefully fallacious this argument is.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 08/03/07 at 5:06 pm


i keep hearing this from the right. what exactly is it the UN is supposed to do, since it lacks any kind of viable autonomous military? unless the nations constituting the UN step up and play ball what exactly is the UN supposed to do besides pass resolutions and use harsh language?


This is a catch-22.  Because unless the UN passes a resolution, there is no way to send in any kind of International Force.  Once a resolution is passed, then the use of force becomes authorized.

And on that front, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 was finally passed!  It authorizes a 26,000 member UN force to step in and stop the bloodshed in the region.  And if you ask me, it took far to long to pass.

However, once again on what Gilbert Gottfried would call the "What The F@%K" statement, has come out and said that if he was President, he would invade Pakistan in order to remove Al-Queda, no matter what the Government of Pakistan thought of the idea.

Now here is somebody who complains about the current President invading Afganistan and Iraq, yet he proposes to do the same thing to a nation that is at least somewhat supportive of our actions in the region.  That would be like invading Spain during WWII.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/05/07 at 4:53 pm


This is a catch-22.  Because unless the UN passes a resolution, there is no way to send in any kind of International Force.  Once a resolution is passed, then the use of force becomes authorized.

And on that front, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 was finally passed!  It authorizes a 26,000 member UN force to step in and stop the bloodshed in the region.  And if you ask me, it took far to long to pass.

However, once again on what Gilbert Gottfried would call the "What The F@%K" statement, has come out and said that if he was President, he would invade Pakistan in order to remove Al-Queda, no matter what the Government of Pakistan thought of the idea.

Now here is somebody who complains about the current President invading Afganistan and Iraq, yet he proposes to do the same thing to a nation that is at least somewhat supportive of our actions in the region.  That would be like invading Spain during WWII.
well, that gets a little tricky. if the UN passes a resolution that a member of the security council doesn't want passed, they veto it. of course, the numerous UN resolutions protesting israel's many human rights violations in palestine are a case in point -- time and again the UN has passed resolutions condemning israeli conduct in the region, and of course, the US just vetoes them. on the other hand, if military action is sought then the power seeking the action unleashes a flurry of diplomatic pressure on the UN and presto -- a resolution! or, if there is some ambiguity as to whether a particular set of UN resolutions actually DOES authorize the use of force, international, unilateral, or otherwise, then as long as you have the airwaves you can say, well, if you read it sideways it DOES authorize the use of force. like iraq, yeah? the whole pretext was that iraq was violating all sorts of UN resolutions and rejecting the UN and lying to the international community, when it turns out that the iraqi government, though certainly craven and disgusting, just happened in this instance to be doing nothing of the sort. but the administration wanted war, so war is what they got, and they manipulated the UN as best they could to legitimize it. that they pulled out the UN inspectors and then made believe the iraqis did it, matters little -- nor does the fact that this whole charade was to reveal WMDs to the UN inspectors, weapons that were supposedly being hidden from them but turned out not to exist. it was all a pretext, orchestrated by the administration to give the war the illusion of legitimacy.

unfortunately, years of undermining the institution of the UN, particularly on the part of the rather more war-hungry elements in our current government, have left the institution with little real international power. if a country decides they want to do something, and they're part of the security council, they just do it. one of the most unfortunate aspects of this is that the UN is a large part of what several hundred americans died for in world war II. the right has pretty much walked all over their sacrifice, if you ask me.

the gilbert godfried sentence seems to be missing a subject, i'm not sure what it means.

it's rather doubtful that anything real will happen in africa. as you say, without US contributions to any peacekeeping force, it won't be significant enough to make a difference -- and the administration will never do so (and of course, even if he DID, it's not like there's a military left to do it with; they're all fighting in iraq and afghanistan).

i still remember the farce of the admin sending an aircraft carrier to tool around offshore in response to the crisis in sudan a couple years ago -- it sorta just sat there for a while and then, as far as i know, left. i believe a great mind once claimed that "bush doesn't care about black people"? but they do seem to care about their black gold... :-\\

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/05/07 at 5:04 pm

and you know what? pakistan actually IS pretty scary, they're starting to experience serious unrest, their government is shot through with muslim extremists and they've got nukes. (when you say, "pakistan is somewhat supportive of our actions" in iraq -- well, first of all i submit our best allies, outside of britain, have NOT been supportive of our actions in iraq, because these acts were incredibly stupid and ill-thought-out and allies like germany and france saw this, and tried to stop it... and second, when we refer to "pakistan supports us" as though they were a cohesive entity we lose sight of the fact that a lot of different factions are fighting for control there, and the country is a miltary dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to refer to it as a single entity like that) but anyway, our time would probably be much better spent in pakistan than in iraq if the administration hadn't already expended the US military there and if the iraq invasion hadn't been part of a plan that preceded 9/11; it was pretty clear the admin was gonna invade iraq come hell or high water. but if the idea is to keep washington, d.c., new york, london or tel aviv from becoming a smoking crater, pakistan is really the much more pressing problem. at least that's the way it looks to me.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/05/07 at 5:05 pm

^ why do i do this? anyone would have to be crazy to read all that. sorry. :D

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: SemperYoda on 08/06/07 at 10:02 am

Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/06/07 at 10:30 am


Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 
thanks, crazyman! :)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 08/07/07 at 5:13 pm


More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.
Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 08/07/07 at 5:14 pm


Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 
I did too.....maybe I should go back to my last moniker ;)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: esoxslayer on 08/07/07 at 7:01 pm


Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?




Don't worry, somebody on here will explain to us how genocide and atrocities in Africa are far more serious than in other lands...

Yeah, what do they have we can't live without anyway??

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Mushroom on 08/08/07 at 9:33 pm


the gilbert godfried sentence seems to be missing a subject, i'm not sure what it means.

it's rather doubtful that anything real will happen in africa. as you say, without US contributions to any peacekeeping force, it won't be significant enough to make a difference -- and the administration will never do so (and of course, even if he DID, it's not like there's a military left to do it with; they're all fighting in iraq and afghanistan).


If you have ever seen one of GG's stand-up routines (or one of his stints on the "I Love The @@'s" on VH1), you would understand it.  He normally takes something in the news, and ends a commentary with "What the f#%k!".  I saw him years ago when Jack Kevorkian was on trial for murder, and he commented on what would happen if he was given the death penalty.  "WTF!  What is his appeal going to be, that he be allowed to inject the drugs himself?"

And in reality, the UN at one time did a lot without US involvement.  One of the most successfull UN peacekeeping missions was in Cyprus, and the US had nothing to do with that mission.  And after we pulled out of Lebanon in 1984, France was the major player in the eventual cease fire and pull out.

In fact, even implying that the UN is worthless without US involvement shows how worthless they are.


and you know what? pakistan actually IS pretty scary, they're starting to experience serious unrest, their government is shot through with muslim extremists and they've got nukes. (when you say, "pakistan is somewhat supportive of our actions" in iraq --


In reality, Pakistan is not really happy with our involvement in Iraq.  However, they are very supportive of our actions in Afganistan.


the whole pretext was that iraq was violating all sorts of UN resolutions and rejecting the UN and lying to the international community, when it turns out that the iraqi government, though certainly craven and disgusting, just happened in this instance to be doing nothing of the sort. but the administration wanted war, so war is what they got, and they manipulated the UN as best they could to legitimize it. that they pulled out the UN inspectors and then made believe the iraqis did it, matters little -- nor does the fact that this whole charade was to reveal WMDs to the UN inspectors, weapons that were supposedly being hidden from them but turned out not to exist. it was all a pretext, orchestrated by the administration to give the war the illusion of legitimacy.


In fact, there have been WMDs discovered since the invasion.  Over 5 tons in fact have been discovered.  They range from common pestacides packed in mortar shells to badly diluted VX in artillary shells.  And they have also discovered large stockpiles of radioactive waste, in which documentation was discovered that they were being saved for potential use in making a "Dirty Bomb".

The simple fact that the huge numbers that were expected were not found does not mean that none were found at all.  And he has shown in the past that he would not hesitate to use it.

In fact, I still believe that most of the cases of "Gulf War Syndrome" are in reality casualties from chemical weapons.  And this has been strongly reinforced by the simple fact that this syndrome has not raised it's head in anywhere near the numbers in this latest conflict.  Many more people have been stationed in the region for longer periods of time then they were in 1990, but the rates of illness are sharply lower.

And if you look at it, the "Gulf War Syndrome" sufferers actually suffer from the same effects as those attacked with either Nerve agents or Mustard Gas (something that Saddam has used in the past against the Kurds).



Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?



Don't worry, somebody on here will explain to us how genocide and atrocities in Africa are far more serious than in other lands...

Yeah, what do they have we can't live without anyway??


All genocide is wrong.  I do not give a damn who it is, or where it happens.

And what do they have that we can't live without?  How about the basic human dignity for doing the right thing?  Because if we are unable to stand up and say "This is wrong!", then we are no better then those that stood along railroad tracks in Germany and Poland, and cheered as the Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Gays, and Jews were shipped to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Inaction in this instance is just as damning as support in my belief.

And if given a chance, I would gladly join such a mission.  And for me, that is not simply a "abstract statement", since it really is a possability that I would have a chance to join such an endevor.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/09/07 at 4:23 am


If you have ever seen one of GG's stand-up routines (or one of his stints on the "I Love The @@'s" on VH1), you would understand it.  He normally takes something in the news, and ends a commentary with "What the f#%k!".  I saw him years ago when Jack Kevorkian was on trial for murder, and he commented on what would happen if he was given the death penalty.  "WTF!  What is his appeal going to be, that he be allowed to inject the drugs himself?"
iºll take the rest of this on later, iºm totally in the mood to argue :P but i gotta catch a plane. but i just had to point out -- this is pretty funny.

i forget where i saw it, but somewhere GG was doing a comedy routine about sept 11 on, like, sept 14, and everyone was freaking out, but he made them go along with it. too soon, indeed. hell, i remember now -- it was that movie about the endless dirty joke. you know the one i mean, canºt think of the name right now.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Rice_Cube on 08/09/07 at 8:52 am

^ The Aristocrats.  If you can't laugh at yourself, who's gonna do it for ya?

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 08/09/07 at 2:56 pm



All genocide is wrong.  I do not give a damn who it is, or where it happens.

And what do they have that we can't live without?  How about the basic human dignity for doing the right thing?  Because if we are unable to stand up and say "This is wrong!", then we are no better then those that stood along railroad tracks in Germany and Poland, and cheered as the Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Gays, and Jews were shipped to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Inaction in this instance is just as damning as support in my belief.

And if given a chance, I would gladly join such a mission.  And for me, that is not simply a "abstract statement", since it really is a possability that I would have a chance to join such an endevor.

Sorry, you missed my sarcasm (guess I should've pointed it out)....I was trying to imply that our government will do nothing about the genocide that occurs daily in Africa because they do not have oil anything that we rely on daily.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/10/07 at 9:30 am


Sorry, you missed my sarcasm (guess I should've pointed it out)....I was trying to imply that our government will do nothing about the genocide that occurs daily in Africa because they do not have oil anything that we rely on daily.
well, they do actually have a fair amount of oil in nigeria. also lots of diamonds and other raw materials.

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 08/10/07 at 11:32 am


well, they do actually have a fair amount of oil in nigeria. also lots of diamonds and other raw materials.
True, but there's no bad blood between Nigeria and Daddy Bush and it was too far from Afghanistan to make a link between it and Al Qaeda look feasible ::)

Subject: Re: Obama does major flip-flop reguarding Genocide

Written By: Tia on 08/11/07 at 8:02 am

In fact, even implying that the UN is worthless without US involvement shows how worthless they are.well, one of the things that throws off this is the fact that the administration has been openly hostile to the UN ever since they got into power. however useless the UN might or might not be, they're bound to be uselesser if the republicans actively work to obstruct and subvert them (i rather think because the UN, if left undealt-with, might pose an obstacle to the republicans' unilateral exercise of international power...). i mean, if there has ever been an act of more open contempt for the UN than the bolton nomination i don't know what it would be.

In In reality, Pakistan is not really happy with our involvement in Iraq.  However, they are very supportive of our actions in Afganistan.

In fact, there have been WMDs discovered since the invasion.  Over 5 tons in fact have been discovered.  They range from common pestacides packed in mortar shells to badly diluted VX in artillary shells.  And they have also discovered large stockpiles of radioactive waste, in which documentation was discovered that they were being saved for potential use in making a "Dirty Bomb".
well, dirty bomb example aside -- and i'm suspicious of this; so the iraqis accumulated radioactive material and then left documentation explaining exactly what they would be used for right next to it? that seems quite convenient -- but the rest of these don't sound like WMDs at all. perhaps the VX was at one time, but i believe they've found all sorts of old, empty, diluted containers of this and that all over iraq, but if they're not capable of actually killing lots of people, i'm afraid i have to call they're not "weapons of mass destruction," which would rather, i think, entail the ability to destroy en masse as part of the definition.

but anyway, since they claimed before they went in that they "know where the WMDs are", i don't think the stuff you're referring to is what they had in mind. they were quite clever and cagey before the invasion to say that iraq was reconstituting its weapons program, leaving the impression that they'd be firing ICBMs at Israel and the US if we didn't act. the fact that all they found were expired canisters and notes about what WOULD happen if they were to ever reconstitute their weapons program -- i dont think that's making the point you want to make. rather the opposite -- it's hard to read the above and conclude that iraq was any kind of real threat at all.

Check for new replies or respond here...