salvation for some death to others

[CptStern]

george bush:

"As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world. "


News out of Sudan:

Ethnic cleanisng perpertrated by the ruling party under the tyranny of Omar al-Bashir have begun a systematic cleansing of civilians in the Dafar region of the Sudan. 1 million innocent civilians have been killed in a 3 year period; more than double Saddam's body count over a 30 year period. I guess since the US rushed to the aid of iraqi's under the oppresive regime of the inhumane Saddam, they'll be just as quick to stop the horror's in the Sudan....it's not too far fetched...after all Sudan is rich in oil

Tribal warfare in Burundi has claimed the lives of thousands of civilians. Canada has agreed to lead a force of 5000 international peacekeepers to protect the civilian populace....the US has yet to send troops

 

[Fender357]

Canada has agreed to lead a force of 5000 international peacekeepers to protect the civilian populace....the US has yet to send troops

And thats why I like Canada.

They're just so nice!

 

[Jackal hit]

see, the problem with politics is, as a professor taught in highschool, "countries don't have allies, they have interests." as much as i'd love for the US to go help in Sudan, i don't think it will happen. :|

i could always be proven wrong of course-i hope.

 

[moz4rt]

If the U.S. tries to help a country in need, they are labled as occupiers. If they don't try help a country in need, everyone gets upset because they aren't doing anything.

Without the U.S. the world would suck. We help so many people. Read this from the U.S. Department of State website.

The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:

* 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*
* 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.*
* 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.*
* 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.**
* 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.**
* 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.*
* 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.**

* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions.

We give more to the UN than any other country. As you can see we pay for over half of the World Food Program alone. You have to look at the BIG picture my friend.

As for the oil thing-- why are the U.S. prices so high if that's why we went to Iraq?

 

[Fat Tony!]

If the U.S. tries to help a country in need, they are labled as occupiers. If they don't try help a country in need, everyone gets upset because they aren't doing anything.

Yep it seems like it doesnt it. Logically since the Iraq thing didnt go too well, help in sudan might not either so its all a huge contradiction.

 

[hasan]

If the U.S. tries to help a country in need, they are labled as occupiers. If they don't try help a country in need, everyone gets upset because they aren't doing anything.

I'm not sure they get upset, I think they just want to point out the hypocricy .. (not speaking in the name of anyone ..)

Without the U.S. the world would suck. We help so many people. Read this from the U.S. Department of State website.

IMHO, this is circular reasoning "OMG look it's true because someone on my side said that!!!!!1111oneone!11"

You might as well add "%80 percent of the world's problems are caused directly or indirectly by the US", and I just threw that number in so don't pick on it.

 

[theGreenBunny]

Oh dear. I give this thread a couple of days max.

*runs away*

 

[Deadline]

I really think there should be a Forums specifically for flaming political threads.

Why do you people have to keep going on and on about how horrible the US is and how good everyone else would be without it?

I think the world deserves for the US to pull back into its own borders and put up a defense for itsself and no one else. Then we can see how the world would do without its protector.

And on another note, if you live within the US and hate it so much that you want to 1.) Kill someone over it, or 2.) turn into a terrorist, please LEAVE!!!
No one is stopping you from leaving to Canada or Mexico, so just GO already!!!

Have a good day.

 

[bigun]

Yep it seems like it doesnt it. Logically since the Iraq thing didnt go too well, help in sudan might not either so its all a huge contradiction.

Don't be so naive in believing that every role you take is so proactive. Iraq is not seen as a proactive move by most Europeans and Arabs, neither was the attack on Serbia - defending ones interests always has to have a moral shield, it makes the people more inclined to go along for the ride, in most cases it is not humanitarian, but a threat to US National Security, this is because Americans are less inclined to want to go to War over a humanitarian issue or ethic cleansing issue - And dont bring up Serbia as the US went to War to stop Serbia from becoming a strong Balkan nation.
Equally The US Government is unaccountable over the present problem is Iraq in thier own eyes over the Iraq problem as they believe they have 'made the world a safer place', quite to the contrary according to reliable sources and even Western Intelligence Agencies - The number of recruits for Militant organisations has soared, Iraq merely served to fan the flames of discontent and did not solve any real problems.

 

[CptStern]

the point is that the US is quick to shout and boisterously about how great humanitarians they are but when a country truely needs the US's help, they dont do anything. I can almost hear the boys on capitol hill saying "what's in it for us"

and to the person who brought up all those nice figures of how much contributes to the UN, I'd like to point out that for every last bit of aid there is at least double in the way of hindering development in 3rd world countries.....Kyoto accord, the cessation of Aids programs in africa etc

where was the US in Haiti? where was the US in Rwanda, east timor, tibet, the congo, Sierra leon etc etc

everytime they do get involved it's for their own interests and has little to do with humanitarian aid...Afghanistan, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Haiti, congo, somalia etc etc etc


oh and btw deadline and all those patriots that are blind to the sometimes heavy handed foreign policy of the US...read a freakin book....the amount of overwhelming evidence of the dirty deeds the US has commited over the last 100 years is extremely well documented. Wake up from your patriotic stupor, not everything is black and white

 

[moz4rt]

IMHO, this is circular reasoning "OMG look it's true because someone on my side said that!!!!!1111oneone!11"

Those figures are fact. No one just made them up. I could have gotten those figures from any number of websites, including some on "your side".

 

[Tr0n]

You might as well add "%80 percent of the world's problems are caused directly or indirectly by the US", and I just threw that number in so don't pick on it.

Did you also know that 99% of the percentages out there are bullshit....?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think we can all agree that the basic idea of stopping Saddam was good, but it had no good plan beyond the initial invasion.

 

[Pogrom]

The United States is a generous supporter of key UN programs, funding:

* 51.4% of the World Food Program budget to help feed 72 million people in 82 countries.*
* 17.1% of the United Nations Children’s Fund budget to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 162 countries.*

Never mind the fact that the US puts up a big stink about the UN not buying American drugs and medicines. Both independant American and International studies have shown that cheaper medicines manufactured in Europe and Asia are completely safe and effective.

But American drug companies cry foul because they are not getting the UN contracts. Never mind that the cheaper drugs ensure that at least three times the amount of people can receive effective treatment. But still the US foreign minister goes on TV and says he'll cut funding unless the UN buys American.

I don't call that humanitarian.

* 14.1% of the United Nations Development Program core budget to eradicate poverty and encourage democratic governance.*

The US has many problems in this area. Firstly, they only like to encourage democratic governments that are willing to follow US interests.

Secondly, they are quite likely to supply funding to resistance/terrorist organisations that try to overthrow a democratically elected government.

* 25.8% of the International Atomic Energy Agency budget to ensure safe and peaceful application of nuclear energy and prevent the illicit use of nuclear material for weapons.**

The US Government knew for HOW LONG that Pakistan was selling nuclear weapons technology to terrorist/rogue states? To North Korea? To Iran? To Libya?

But now because Pakistan is letting us do whatever we want on their border areas in regards to Al Qaeda, we forgive their little 'foibles'.

While Pakistan was openly flouting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US was concentrating on Iraq. A country with no nuclear capabilities.

* 22% of the World Health Organization core budget as well as significant voluntary resources, helping to prevent and control epidemics and to improve standards of health.**
* 25% of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees budget to help protect refugees and facilitate their return home or re-settlement in another country.*
* 25% of the International Civil Aviation Organization budget to ensure safe, efficient and economical air travel.**

* These programs operate strictly on voluntary contributions.
** These programs operate on a combination of assessed and voluntary contributions.

We give more to the UN than any other country. As you can see we pay for over half of the World Food Program alone. You have to look at the BIG picture my friend.

As for the oil thing-- why are the U.S. prices so high if that's why we went to Iraq?

Because we are not controlling the Iraqi oil reserves - like Congress wanted. The oil lines keep getting blown up, or the Halliburton employees do.

 

[Pogrom]

I think we can all agree that the basic idea of stopping Saddam was good, but it had no good plan beyond the initial invasion.

If getting rid of dictators is a good idea, why doesn't the US get rid of them all?


There are plenty of cases of terrible, inhumane rulers out there. Why invade Iraq in particular?

 

[Wilco]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons worse than doing nothing?

 

[Pogrom]

Is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons worse than doing nothing?

Why was it the right thing?

Why couldn't we have let the UN weapons inspectors finish their job before invading?