lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Ethnic Cleansing: A decent reason to send in the troops?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 06-10-2004, 08:26 AM   #1
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Ethnic Cleansing: A decent reason to send in the troops?

Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Rapes, Concentration Camps.... why is it that we never have any media coverage or mass support for sending in troops to sort out situations like this, but people are quite happy to go after two-bit dictators like saddam?

30,000 to 1million people are expected to die depending on how quickly aid gets in. Does anyone remember Clinton going to rwanda and appologising and saying something like that should never happen again.



Quote:
It is being called the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Arab militia men have driven an estimate one million black Sudanese villagers from their homes and there have been massacres on an unknown scale.
full story



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2004, 10:07 AM   #2
--ZeeMan--
Senior Member
 
--ZeeMan--'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,631
nope cus russia's been doing it since forever (armenia) and we can't really be using double standards now can we?




^ Tutorial on this coming soon!
--ZeeMan-- is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2004, 05:48 PM   #3
CapNColostomy
Custom User Title
 
CapNColostomy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Across your face.
Posts: 2,497
Re: Ethnic Cleansing: A decent reason to send in the troops?

Quote:
Originally posted by toms
Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Rapes, Concentration Camps.... why is it that we never have any media coverage or mass support for sending in troops to sort out situations like this, but people are quite happy to go after two-bit dictators like saddam?
Ummm...Not trying to be argumentative, but weren't there plenty of "Ethnic Cleansing, Mass Rapes, Concentration Camps" under the rule of Saddam, the "two-bit dictator"? I know that's not the reason the U.S. went to Iraq, but I think it's still good to be rid of him.


CapNColostomy is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2004, 06:33 PM   #4
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Saddam was a direct threat to us...

Though I do agree if we could, then we should have helped those people. But, we don't have enough resources too (our military's in Iraq), and we can't help everybody at once.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2004, 08:19 PM   #5
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Saddam was a direct threat to us...

Though I do agree if we could, then we should have helped those people. But, we don't have enough resources too (our military's in Iraq), and we can't help everybody at once.
But Saddam was neither the worst threat to us nor the worst to it's own people.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-10-2004, 11:05 PM   #6
Datheus
Whosawhatnow?
 
Datheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Adrift
Posts: 1,425
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Saddam was a direct threat to us...

Though I do agree if we could, then we should have helped those people. But, we don't have enough resources too (our military's in Iraq), and we can't help everybody at once.
Don't even open that can of worms. Russia was a direct threat to the US in the 1950s and 60s. The only reason we stomped Saddam is because we knew we could.

As far as aiding the crisis in Sudan... Obviously the way humanitarian and peace-keeping missions are handled.. well. It's one giant cluster-****. The UN is certainly more effective than the League of Nations, but it is painfully apparent that greater steps need to be taken. The First-World countries need to show more unity. We cannot operate with fear of bringing other nations to our level. We have to forget capitalism and nationalism for a moment and remember that we are indeed talking about real people here.

These situations needs to be split up, analyzed, and addressed. The US cannot be expected to handle every foreign affair. No one country is capable of helping all countries in the world. But the philosophy of "If you can't help everyone, help no one" does not make any sense. These are people we're talking about. If we, as America, help one country get on its feet, that country may help another.. so on and so forth.

The problem is that we're allowing the cor-political to cloud our moral compass.

This is probably less than coherent. I'm about to vomit/pass out. But I think you'll all be able to catch my general drift.
Datheus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2004, 02:45 AM   #7
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Saddam was a direct threat to us...
I really hate to stray off topic, but honestly, HOW was he a direct threat? He had no weapons that had the capabilities of making it to ENGLAND, let alone the states.


I agree that more needs to be done in the way of humanitarian aid, any and all help...well...it helps.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-11-2004, 12:17 PM   #8
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
i don't think you can compare the threat of saddam (100s to few thousand) to the situation in sudan (30,000 to die even if we all get in aid now, maybe up to a million if we are too slow). And as far as i am aware Saddam was an evil guy, but they mainly only persecuted those small minority who stood up to him, not tried to wipe out an entire race... (kurds maybe... but that hasn't been a problem for years...)

Even if you took them as comparable (which they are nowhere near) the level of press coverage, political involvement of iraq was hundreds of times greater. hardly anyone has even mentioned sdan.

This is where a lot of the anti-western feeling comes from, the feeling that they are very selective about who they support or oppose. Either 1 million africans aren't worth as much as a few thousand iraqis, or there is something else at work. And you wonder why people don't trust the motives of the US/UK for going into iraq....

PS/ I wasn't saying the US should sort out all the world's problems, other countries need to pay more attention as well, but if they can only do one thing at a time amybe they should be more selective about what they do...



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 12:01 AM   #9
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
"If you can't help everyone, help no one"
I don't go by that mentality. But I usually dislike when other countries whine about the U.S. not helping "oh on this matter". I merely point out we can't help everyone... and we're already concentrating on one place already, Iraq.

Quote:
i don't think you can compare the threat of saddam (100s to few thousand) to the situation in sudan
Quote:
but if they can only do one thing at a time amybe they should be more selective about what they do...
But the point is we've already gone after Saddam, and caught him. Our resources are in Iraq now, and we need to finish our job. We can't just up and run from Iraq and focus on Sudan... can we?

Quote:
He had no weapons that had the capabilities of making it to ENGLAND, let alone the states.
1) Who ever said he couldn't launch those weapons he had from another country?

2) Terrorism is the connection. Hussein and bin Laden are friends, and through Hussein's stash of money in Iraq, that's funding for al Qaida right there.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 12:09 AM   #10
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Hussein and bin Laden are friends, and through Hussein's stash of money in Iraq, that's funding for al Qaida right there.
Hussein and bin Laden are not friends, nor would they ever possibly be, Saddam is not a religious man.
Saddam wanted a totalitarian government. bin Laden want's a theocracy, a religious based government. Also bin Laden is a religious radicalist, something Saddam condemns and will destroy. I suggest you try and wade through propaganda.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 09:24 AM   #11
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
2) Terrorism is the connection. Hussein and bin Laden are friends, and through Hussein's stash of money in Iraq, that's funding for al Qaida right there.
I can't believe anyone in the world still believes this!!! Even bush never had the guts to outright claim they were firends, he just kept mentioning them in the same sentances to imly a connection where there was none. Seems it may have worked... sigh.

So, by our decision to go to war in iraq (which means we can't now stop the genocide in sudan) we have cost a 20,000 iraqi lives and up to 1 million sudanese lives. But we have saved a maybe few thousand a year from saddam. Nice one.

Or we could have just not had the CIA help Saddam & bin Laden into power (as far as i can tell their only link is the CIA) and concentrated our efforts on more important things.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 12:55 PM   #12
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Either way...

Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
But the point is we've already gone after Saddam, and caught him. Our resources are in Iraq now, and we need to finish our job. We can't just up and run from Iraq and focus on Sudan... can we?
So, I'd stop complaining about not going into Sudan.

By that I don't mean that the cause there is insignificant, of course.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 02:37 PM   #13
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
1) Who ever said he couldn't launch those weapons he had from another country?
Because I'm sure that other countries would be delighted to have a foreign dictator enter their countries with weapons and the intent to attack another sovereign nation with them.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-12-2004, 05:56 PM   #14
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
If it's a country that has a good enough relation with that dictator they would. But either way, it didn't happen.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-13-2004, 12:56 AM   #15
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
If it's a country that has a good enough relation with that dictator they would. But either way, it didn't happen.
because noone is stupid enough to allow Saddam to enter their country with weapons. Then again, he had no weapons to begin with. Thus the point is moot.


I still think we should have gone other places before Iraq (if we were going to do a peacekeeping mission) but we weren't so... whatever.


“This body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.”
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-13-2004, 08:50 PM   #16
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
If it's a country that has a good enough relation with that dictator they would. But either way, it didn't happen.
Even if Saddam had wanted to, very few leaders of countries are THAT stupid that they'd just let him launch wepaons from their country, because then THEY would be the ones getting pummeled by EVERY nation in the UN.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2004, 01:51 AM   #17
coupes.
★★★★★
 
coupes.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Québec
Posts: 2,437
10 year veteran! LFN Staff Member 
coupes. is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2004, 06:04 PM   #18
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Sudan? What about Nigeria? That needs cleaning up.

Oh and MH: No country would be stupid enough to aid Hussein in launching so much as a SCUD. Even assuming that Hussein would allow his WMD to leav Iraq, which I seriously doubt, no-one would be aid him for the risk of getting their country bombed to hell and turned into a parking lot. Not even your old friend Gadaffi would be that stupid.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2004, 07:18 PM   #19
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
Oh and MH: No country would be stupid enough to aid Hussein in launching so much as a SCUD. Even assuming that Hussein would allow his WMD to leav Iraq, which I seriously doubt, no-one would be aid him for the risk of getting their country bombed to hell and turned into a parking lot. Not even your old friend Gadaffi would be that stupid.
...

Surely Hussein wouldn't tell them he was carrying those weapons. They may be hard to sneak in but knowing him and his friends... it is possible. That doesn't matter anyways.

But yet again my point still stands:

Quote:
But the point is we've already gone after Saddam, and caught him. Our resources are in Iraq now, and we need to finish our job. We can't just up and run from Iraq and focus on Sudan... can we? So, I'd stop complaining about not going into Sudan.
Kind of pointless talking about what-we-should-have-dones when that doesn't make a difference...

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2004, 07:30 PM   #20
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
The discussion was not, as I understood it, based around suggestions for concrete courses of action, but rather a comment on the screwed-up priorities of the West in dealing with humanitarian disasters.

Thus it makes perfect sense to debate what-if scenarios.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2004, 02:57 AM   #21
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Kind of pointless talking about what-we-should-have-dones when that doesn't make a difference...
The majority of the debates in the Senate don't make a difference. In fact I'd say none of them really make a difference, yet we debate the issues all the same.

Fact of the matter is, we went into Iraq to liberate the people from an opressive dictator..(Well, we originally went in to find those WMD's, but once those never showed up, our reason for going in somehow changed...weird how that worked)

But since we did that we've set a precedence, and probably created alot more resentment for us in the third world, particularly those third world countries being opressed by dictators who make Saddam look like Mary Poppins. Why do we accept what's happening to them without so much as a word of protest, when we were willing to send our military to Iraq to stop Saddam.

I don't WANT to be fighting continual wars against dictators. I'm against what they do as much as anyone, but a continual state of war with the death toll of American soldiers rising isn't something I want either. There are people I know in the military, and though it may sound cold, they mean a lot more to me than people I've never met.



ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-17-2004, 08:33 AM   #22
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
I don't have a problem fighting dictators and saving unfortunate human beings on a huge scale. But the unevenness of the application and the unilateral action by one country is what i have a problem with.

If the UN got together and agreed a table of the worst human rights offendors and then a majority of (uncoerced) countries agreed to threaten and then (if necessary) intervene (with a multinationally representative force) then ok. But (a) saddam wouldn't have ranked very high in this table and (b) nations are always looking after their own interests and grudges.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2004, 03:38 AM   #23
Dbl90
Rookie
 
Dbl90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 22
The west has made some major mistakes when trying to police the world in the past. It is not our job. We have created a lot of our own enemies. And did you know that most of the map of the world was drawn up by europeans that were ignorant of how differant peoples were dispersed in specific areas. I am not isolationist, but I do not think we need to go after every single problem. The issue is, that is how super powers fall and lose all their money, they begin policing. At the moment the US army is stretched pretty thin by its standards guarding iraq...no way are we up to taking somthing else up.

We also have no right to establish mass cultural change...

On top of that, the war with Iraq wasn't just to kill Saddam. Iraq gives us another base and vantage point to look over the middle east. The fact is that middle east has a decent amount of power, as where sudan doesn't. I'd love to go and help Sudan, and you are right there are plenty of things we should and can do without using a pure american force and using the UN. The fact is it isn't going to happen...people rarely do anything to help or be nice, we are human, and we keep our best intrests in mind.
Dbl90 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2004, 08:53 AM   #24
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
i agree that most of it is our fault, and we should in general keep our noses out, but you know... little things like genocide... sort of makes me want to make an exception. But as far as i can tell the world has decided that they are africans and so fairly expendable.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 06-22-2004 at 07:18 AM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2004, 08:31 PM   #25
lukeiamyourdad
Using Teletraan I
 
lukeiamyourdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Montréal, Québec, Canada
Posts: 8,274
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dbl90
We also have no right to establish mass cultural change...
So the US isn't establishing a mass cultural change by establishing democracy in Iraq?

Remember Rwanda people...remember that...


http://www.marioramos.ca/ -A friend of mine and an aspiring filmmaker.
lukeiamyourdad is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Ethnic Cleansing: A decent reason to send in the troops?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.