user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
depends.
will it result in 40 million people dying if we go in there with guns blazing?
if you are truly concerned about gencide, you wouldn't be using them as a tool to divert attention.
rather you would support opening all the stupid borders so people can move toward peace and prosperity.
by LCD on Thu Oct 12, 06 3:43pm
[+]
Voted : Diplomacy isn't working/is too slow, something must be done now to stop the genocide
The governmental warlords don't want us to help save live of innocent civilians. I think it's time for an overthrow. We can piss away $2 billion per week in Iraq and we can't take the savage in charge of Sudan out?
Sudan has a population of 36 million, I doubt any peacekeeping force would kill every single man woman and child in the country, and somehow find 4 million more to kill.
And no doubt people were killed when dachau was liberated, innocent prisoners as well as guards. I still think it was the right thing to do.
What is your proposal to stop the genocide in sudan, and it most certainly is genocide. Yell at bush? Deny it is happening?
And how am I diverting attention away from the genocide by drawing attention to it?
You see the problem liberals have with this situation is that ideologically they can't acknowledge it's existence. To a liberal all 'minorities' are victims, all the time no questions asked. Well blacks are minorities (not in africa, but minority doesn't mean less than 50% in this sense), as are muslims. So who do you blame when blacks, the victims, are being killed by muslims, also victims? The answer apparently is no one. You pretend it isn't happening and attack anyone who brings it up.
^ if I wanna generalize I would say that all republican / conservatives care about is the 50 pieces of silver in their pocket that they traded for their conscience and humanity.
truth is plain as the nose on your face. OPEN BORDERS, LET PEOPLE ESCAPE. since that doesn't compute, you are asking a question that has no answer, and promote the circular logics that doesn't allow any answers.
so answer me this. let us invade. kill some people, wave some flags.
Where would we be in 5 years, in the same quagmire as in Iraq?
where should we get people to fight, will you volunteer?
who will pay for it, can we take it out of your paycheck?
just curious.
by LCD on Thu Oct 12, 06 4:08pm
[+]
So the only reason people are dying in sudan is that the US has a border patrol? So these people would simply fly their camels over here, through roving bands of jihadis, with no food or shelter, while dying of disease, if it weren't for americans lackluster border security?
This people, is why liberals shouldn't be trusted with such matters, they just don't get it.
"o the only reason people are dying in sudan is that the US has a border patrol?"
you are college educated, you can't be this obtuse. I can only assume that you are doing this to again divert and evade.
I never said anything about US border patrol, did I?
If there was no border camps in chad, the refugees will be free to go to a place where they can escape the maurading gangs of thugs. then you can deal with the murderers without endangering the people.
" This people, is why liberals shouldn't be trusted with such matters, they just don't get it."
I get things just fine thanks.
did you know republicans support child molestors if they vote the way they want to?
oh wait, I don't want to play your games. never mind.
by LCD on Thu Oct 12, 06 4:34pm
[+]
So people are being massacred, dying by the hundreds of thousands. And you tell to them well, why don't you just pack up your things, walk hundreds of miles across the desert, filled with people armed to the teeth and out for your blood, and move to chad?
Well why didn't those wacky jews just leave the death camps and walk to britain? It's so easy, it's amazing they didn't try it, almost as if there were some hidden flaw, a catch that makes this approach impossible to actually attempt. . .
well right now, they are walking hundreds of miles to get to the camps.
honestly, what is your solution? I have yet to hear something workable from you.
by LCD on Thu Oct 12, 06 6:30pm
[+]
Send in peacekeepers, disarm or if necessary kill the janjaweed. I hardly think that the combined military might of the US, europe, and the rest of the civilized world will be unable to deal with a handful of arabs waving swords.
I have never once in my life heard of a dead man comitting genocide. Have you?
LCD- Telling the people of Darfur to just go to Chad? The thing is, I think that is exactly what the Sudanese government wants. Pushing people of off their land IS a form of ethnic cleansing. They are being forced out of their homes, of off their land- and all you can say is that they should leave their home, their nation, their land? The Sudanese government WANTS to push them out, and your solution is just for them all to leave as the Sudanese government desires?
Besides which there are refugee camps in Chad AND militas have been known to cross that border as well.
The people of Darfur resisting being pushed out of their homes, their land, their nation- and your solution LCD, is that they should just leave to Chad, that way there won't be any conflict?
Giving up one's homeland without resistance (violent or non-violent resistance)- isn't that the highest and worst form of appeasement?
How will 'opening all borders' lead to peace and prosperity ?
^^^ LOL @ herzog.
so you just don't learn from Afganistan and Iraq, and just repeat the same damn mistake once again?
how about adjusting the strategy to avoid the mistakes of the past (and present)?
Let me present a scenario.
We send in 50k troops we don't have.
we set up and hide in green zones where we get attacked every night.
every morning we get 20 people with their balls in their mouth and bullets in their heads delievered to us, the same people we went in there to protect.
You might be interested in that mission, but count me out.
A reasonable solution I propose is that instead of spending billions to hire halliburtons to commit crimes in a foreign country,
we spend 1/1000th the money to evacuate the refugees from the danger area and feed and clothe them for the time being,
negotiate with Sudan to stop the voilence and bring the criminals to justice, and if necessary impose internation mulitlateral sanctions to persuade, then provide the refugees the necessary means to protect themselves under the international law.
Rambos only exist in movies, your tactics won't work in real life, mine would. provided that we get rid of the xenophobic mindset who likes to build razorwire fences as the end all solutions to every problem in the world.
by LCD on Fri Oct 13, 06 11:16am
[+]
"and the rest of the civilized world will be unable to deal with a handful of arabs waving swords."
Typical republican mindset. comes from the assumption that we are somehow better than those "animals"...
hitlers of the world thought the same way,
russians thought the same way re: afganistan / chechnia.
japanese thought the same way in China,
etc.etc.etc.
racism is the ultimate synapse blocker.
by LCD on Fri Oct 13, 06 11:21am
[+]
socrates, that's not what I said.
I wouldn't call evacuating people from the path of Katrina an ethnic clensing.
by LCD on Fri Oct 13, 06 11:34am
[+]
LCD- I still don't think giving up on their homes is something that the people of Darfur should be told. It is their land.
As for your hurricane Katrina analogy? Do you believe there is a significant difference between a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, temporarily forcing a group of people to flee their homes, as opposed violent militias consciously pushing people out of their nation (when I use the word nation, I do NOT refer to Sudan, but rather Darfur as a nation) with ethnic cleansing goals, which would probably be intended to be permanent? I believe there is a difference.
LCD: so the entire civilized world will be unable to deal with this problem? Either you have a very low opinion of the west, or a very high opinion of primitive arab jihadis. You haven't bought in to the medias depiction of them as invincible holy warriors have you? Remember when they said we'd never be able to defeat the taliban and we knocked them over in about an hour? And the taliban could whip these guys any day.
' negotiate with Sudan to stop the voilence and bring the criminals to justice'
Heh, they've been doing that. Perhaps if we'd asked hitler politely to stop killing the jews and turn himself in for a fair trial we could have ended wwII without a loss of life. But then again probably not, that sort of thing only works in the minds of far left fanatics.
Can you think of any instance in history when a dictatorship that wanted to commit genocide against it's own people was stopped by politely asking them to do so and report to the hague for their trial? Please, crack open a history book and find an example.
' Typical republican mindset. comes from the assumption that we are somehow better than those "animals"...'
Um, yes, our army certainly is better than theirs. We have planes, helicopters, tanks, cruise missles you name it. They have some antique weapons that belong in museums, camels, and perhaps some ak47s they are winning simply because the people they are fighting are in the stone age rather than simply the iron age.
Do you deny this? Do you believe their army is comparable to ours? I can't believe you're that naive, pretty naive, but not that much. So the only reason you've said this is to attempt to derail the conversation and compare me to hitler. You do this because of course you are a liberal defending a position that cannot be logically defended. When they do this they always resort to calling the opposition nazis, racists, bigots, things like this. But stick with it, it makes you seem so smart.
|
|
