Why arent we in Sudan?

Because we're already overcommitted as it is?
Because we're a net debtor nation?
Because we are running record deficits?
Because Congress would blow a fuse if we tried?
Because we have no "national interest" at stake?
Because if we went in, President Kerry would just pull them out after his landslide victory?
 
Because we already did the Moganbishu (sic) mile, and we learned if we can't commit don't step?

Still, I hate big die offs.

munk
 
Do I have this correct? All non moslems are being killed or enslaved?

munk
 
I was under the impression the majority of 'black africans' in the area were not Moslems.



munk
 
The UN cannot make value judgements- it might offend someone- like the perpetrators.

There's no oil/money kickbacks for a food program possible here......



munk
 
munk said:
Do I have this correct? All non moslems are being killed or enslaved?

munk
Click to expand...


Yes munk you have it correct. There are only a couple of countries that have both the power and the will to go into places like the Sudan and do what needs to be done. The US has the power but not the will to take care of the kind of problems that places like Sudan have. A county like China has the power and the will but could care less about what is happening unless it causes problems for them. After all they have no problem killing their own people so they would have no problem killing the people that needed to be killed. There are a few other countries that fit into one group or the other, will or power, but few that have both. I fear for what is to come in the next few years.

Mark
 
There are recent reports out of the Congo about Forest Pygmies being hunted and eaten as tribal wars rage out of control in the area. The UN is being urged to investigate.
 
The idea that US intervention is based upon oil, or soley upon our economy is simplistic. That was then and now.


munk
 
I didn't hear anything about Sudan on the Convention coverage this week. A terrorist disaster of this magnitude ought to warrant at least a mention. Or did I miss it?
 
"NooooooooooooooOil"


Er, ah, oil in Afghanistan? Lots of poppies. Let's pretend the U.S. government wants to corner the opium market. Yah. that's it. ;)
 
Is it your contention then, that convention coverage stopped intervention in Sudan? or just Bush?

Mark said it very well- we are overstretched, even if we choose to intervene. Fox News interviewed several experts about this- and if I'm not mistaken, the Ambassador to the Sudan. We have called for UN action.

The truth is there are world wide crisis every year and which ones are addressed largely a crap shoot.

France has interests in this area- where are they? The Germans? NO oil for Germans, too?


munk
 
Bri in Chi said:
I didn't hear anything about Sudan on the Convention coverage this week. A terrorist disaster of this magnitude ought to warrant at least a mention. Or did I miss it?
Click to expand...

Did you hear anything about Sudan from Boston or from the "Nightly News" this week? Face it, people just don't care enough, and the "opinion molders" in politics and the media are busy playing the power game right now. Look at the hundreds of millions being spent - left and right so to speak - on the presidential campaign. What sort of humanitarian effort could that buy? But our "leaders" will cry over the heaps of dead when the media gets around to telling us. Rwanda anyone? Let's see, that was in . . . .
 
Hi Guys
This disaster is big news in NZ, every news show, ads for relief etc. on the other hand US politics has a lower profile??. From my reading of the situation, African Moslems(and other religions) are being attacked and displaced by Arab Moslems. The attackers rape burn and torture as independant malitia groups. The government has repeatedly failed to rein them in.
There has been a civil war going on here for some time.

Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top