Why arent we in Sudan?

I want to see the U.S. stay out of Africa.

Since the decline of colonialism, most of Black Africa, except on the West Coast, has reverted to Tribalism and tribal warfare. This state of affairs has no connection to modern political processes or contemporary civilization, other than replacing spears with automatic weapons.

Under these conditions, Africa can not support it's population, and many millions must die before things stabilize, or become compatible with the rest of the modern world.

It make no difference if this population thinning comes from widespread disease like AIDS, or from wars and campaigns of "ethnic cleansing", it is inevitable and must happen before Africa takes it's step into the 21st Century.

To intervene will only prolong the crisis and waste billions of dollars that could be better spent providing for our own citizens.
 
The Sudan genocide is getting a lot of coverage everywhere except the US.

To my understanding the Arab militia is killing the africans. Also to my understanding the africans are also by and large Islamic. I think this is more in the ethnic cleansing sort of category rather than the religious type thing.

As far as why we aren't in there we're already in 1 more war than we need to be IMO. We started Afghanistan and it still needs a lot of work.
 
Ben Arown-Awile said:
I want to see the U.S. stay out of Africa.

Under these conditions, Africa can not support it's population, and many millions must die before things stabilize, or become compatible with the rest of the modern world.

It make no difference if this population thinning comes from widespread disease like AIDS, or from wars and campaigns of "ethnic cleansing", it is inevitable and must happen before Africa takes it's step into the 21st Century.
Click to expand...


You've hit the nail on the head as far as almost all wars. While I don't think that Iraq and Afghanistan are directly about oil, the reason we have an interest in the area, and the one of the reasons we have this terrorisim problem is kind of fallout from our inabiltiy to support our population, energy wise.

If you look at the problem in the occupied territories, you got the Israelis who are basically reproducing at western levels, and the Palestinians who are having like 5 and 6 kids or more per family. This level of reproduction is the norm in the Arab world. We are amazed at how parents would be proud to send their kids to be martyrs. No wonder. There's more where that come from!

We like to knock France. But when you look at what they are facing you kind of realize what we will be facing in a few years. France has the largest Jewish and Arab population in Europe. All of them being born in the mid east can't stay there! So in France they form a large voting block. Look at the influence the Cuban community has on US politics. Imagine if the arab american voting block becomes large enough to influence the vote in key states. For better or worse I think you would begin to see our mid east policy change.

A real concern for me, to sound like Pat Buchanan for a minute, is that by allowing large numbers of immigrants in from countries that do not share our cultural values not only do we scab out the american worker, but we risk undermining our own ideals and cultures, in the interest of cheap labor and more workers paying into Social Security.

I would think it would behoove us to put a ban on immigration from any country that has citizens or policies that help the terrorists. Let them deal with their unruly elements and unwise population planning.
 
hollowdweller said:
...I would think it would behoove us to put a ban on immigration from any country that has citizens or policies that help the terrorists...
Click to expand...
I would favor a ban on ALL immigration. The last thing we need in this country is more people. We can't even provide for the ones who are already here.

We should close the gates until every American has a good education, a well paying job, decent living quarters, and adequate health care. Then, maybe we can share our wealth with the world, but we need to take care of ourselves first.
 
munk said:
The idea that US intervention is based upon oil, or soley upon our economy is simplistic. That was then and now.


munk
Click to expand...



Great way to put it munk. France really doesn't have much interest in the Sudan, not as much as they do in other parts of Africa anyway. To be honest they would be one of the best countries to go in and calm things down. Not because everybody loves the French in the third world because the French are such great loving people. Look at Somalia they where in charge there untill the US and Pakistan took over the major role of peace keeping there. The French sent in the French Foreign Legion and people learn in short order not to screw around with them. It goes back to the will and power thing I said in my other post. The Legion had enough power and more then enough will. They only had to shoot two or three groups of women and children because they thought they saw a gun ( not saying this is the right thing to do) for the gangs to understand that the Legion meant business and things went well for a while. We all now how it turn out when we went in. You may remember about six to eight months ago there was a lot of trouble in the Gold Coast. The French went in and got everything in order in about two weeks. Note that here in the states it didn't get a lot of coverage, after all we wouldn't want to show the peace loving French, friend to the little people in the world, cracking heads which they will do in a second. It makes me sad that in most countries the French are more feared and respected then the US and also that the world ignores how they deal with problems in other countries and slam us for doing the things we do. And yes I believe that in some places that will never like the US and what it stands for it is important for them to respect the US and to fear the US. Just my 2 cents guys not wanting to offend, sorry to be so long. Mark
 
hollowdweller said:
.

A real concern for me, to sound like Pat Buchanan for a minute, is that by allowing large numbers of immigrants in from countries that do not share our cultural values not only do we scab out the american worker, but we risk undermining our own ideals and cultures, in the interest of cheap labor and more workers paying into Social Security.

I would think it would behoove us to put a ban on immigration from any country that has citizens or policies that help the terrorists. Let them deal with their unruly elements and unwise population planning.
Click to expand...

hollowdweller

I agree with you 100% on this and not doing this will cause great hurt in the future. Mark
 
Ben Arown-Awile said:
I would favor a ban on ALL immigration. The last thing we need in this country is more people. We can't even provide for the ones who are already here.

We should close the gates until every American has a good education, a well paying job, decent living quarters, and adequate health care. Then, maybe we can share our wealth with the world, but we need to take care of ourselves first.
Click to expand...


I agree, but the only problem I see is that with an aging population lack of immigrants will mean upping the SS deduction on workers. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but a lot of people would. If we totally took SS out of the budget and then went for a balanced budget I think we could do it.

Probably the best approach would be to avoid any tax cuts or spending increases until the national debt is paid off. Then the money used to pay the interest on the national debt could be used to shore up Social Security. Right now the political will is to cut taxes when we run a surplus( and even when we don't) rather than reduce the long term debt. That leaves us with paying a lot of interest.
 
I would not favor a ban on immigration. That is cause I too would like to live in the US in a couple of years. I just love that place and would hate to get banned. It seems that the US doens't want me though. Too bad, makes me feel really sorry.

cheez
 
richardallen said:
I would not favor a ban on immigration. That is cause I too would like to live in the US in a couple of years. I just love that place and would hate to get banned. It seems that the US doens't want me though. Too bad, makes me feel really sorry.

cheez
Click to expand...

Where do you live now? Why would you like here more than there? Just wondering??
 
I was pretty down on immigration, even though my mother is one (an immigrant), until it hit home, again. My sister did field work for her doctorate in Africa. She met and fell in love with an African. She had to come back without him and found out she was pregnant. She just had the baby a month ago and the father is still over there. It has proven VERY difficult to get him over here. From experience, I can tell you that it is already hard to get into this country legally. That is why so many come in illegally. The illegal ones make up the cheapest and largest work force. There is a strong migrant, illegal immigrant population in my are, so I see this first hand. Most are paid under the table and contribute nothing to SS. Is there a solution? I don't know. But when it hits close to home, it sure looks different.
 
Ben-around is right about Africa, unfortunately. A most unpolitically correct point of view too.

I see no way to fix the immigration mess in the US. Europe does not allow millions of illegals to pour across it's borders in any of its nations.

Recently France was in deep doo in one of it's AFrican protectorates- someone here surely knows the details. They were sending more troops in- hardly neccesary if the FL was as terrible as reputation. But it does bring up a question- if the FL's tactics are so brutal, why then would France have the gall to criticise the US actions in Iraq regarding 'collateral damage'?


munk
 
munk said:
Ben-around is right about Africa, unfortunately. A most unpolitically correct point of view too.

I see no way to fix the immigration mess in the US. Europe does not allow millions of illegals to pour across it's borders in any of its nations.

Recently France was in deep doo in one of it's AFrican protectorates- someone here surely knows the details. They were sending more troops in- hardly neccesary if the FL was as terrible as reputation. But it does bring up a question- if the FL's tactics are so brutal, why then would France have the gall to criticise the US actions in Iraq regarding 'collateral damage'?


munk
Click to expand...
Not sure which place of poo you are talking about munk. It could be several sadly. They criticise us because it gives them power (people side with them against us and respect them for standing up to the evil US) not because they really care. They know that people will go hey France is right the US is brutal and sloppy without given any thoughts to the facts. Many of the countries that make claims such as this are giant hypocrites when it come to the use of force and " violations of human rights". They know that people around the world and here in the US will jump on the bash the US bandwagon with little to no thought. If we come out against some of Frances actions in Africa I think that people will say thta we don't understand what is really going on or that we are outright lying. As far as the Legion goes I will see what I can find as far as examples, the French always have the fall back argument that the Legion is nothing but foreign mercenaries and you should expect some questionable actions from them at times (I know for a fact that they have used that argument before).
 
If you are a Democrat then the polls dictate your willingness, in a limit fashion to commit troops.
If your a Republican then it depends on any business interests existing in the region.
In short we only go to places are corrupt leadership wants and not because people are suffering. Besides we have been stealing all their medical personnel for the last several years.

Sharks_Edge (A.K.A. Troll Shark)
Karl B.
 
Sharks_Edge said:
If you are a Democrat then the polls dictate your willingness, in a limit fashion to commit troops.
If your a Republican then it depends on any business interests existing in the region.
In short we only go to places are corrupt leadership wants and not because people are suffering. Besides we have been stealing all their medical personnel for the last several years.

Sharks_Edge (A.K.A. Troll Shark)
Karl B.
Click to expand...



Using your statements above why did we overthrow Slobodan Milosevic? Good luck.
 
stealing medical personnel?

We subcontract all that sort of thing to our Alien spacecraft friends.




munk
 
I don't like what's going on either, but I'm glad we're not involved, if the US was then:

- It would cost billions to fix the problems.
- Americans would get killed in the process.
- In another 1 to 10 years it would start all over again.

There's some problems that can't be fixed.
 
DaveH said:
I don't like what's going on either, but I'm glad we're not involved, if the US was then:

- It would cost billions to fix the problems.
- Americans would get killed in the process.
- In another 1 to 10 years it would start all over again.

There's some problems that can't be fixed.
Click to expand...

you said it nearly 800 usa soldiers dead in iraq and close on 4000 injured.
arms legs blown off, lost eyesight paralysed ect. what a waste.
the iraqis dont want a government installed by the usa. they will just overthrow the gov when the usa troops leave and install there own by force.

how sad :(
 
Install their own theocracy. Common system for a poor, uneducated, powerless and superstitious populous...
 
it worked in japan and germany ( to a limited extent)
granted, we had to occupy japan for seven years and confiscate every last weapon, but eventually it worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top