Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack
First off the situation in Darfur isn't technically a genocide. It is inhumane (as the UN has said) but it's a civil war over land. If you're going to come up with a strategy to deal with the problem calling it genocide and deploying the troops is ignorant. The United States invaded a country and ignored some of the internal events that turned out to be explosive; look how well that worked out for them. The irony of that undermines almost your entire post. It isn't genocide the UN has already acknowledged that made attempts to deal with the problem.
Now as for the UN doing something about it...I agree it's been disappointing but what do you expect them to do? The situation has barely changed (in regards to how much force they have.) A UN force in Darfur would be whatever the African Union has and maybe help from a some country like India. They don't have the military force to effectively end it. They've had to use diplomacy and send all the aid they could - which is difficult when Khartoum isn't letting peacekeepers in. I agree the UN for the most part sucks but saying "oh they're doing nothing about Darfur and they're not even willing to acknowledge it's genocide" is just ignorance on your part.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by toretorden
I have a friend who's travelling to south korea soon to work in a lab for 5 weeks. She's a bit nervous with the current situation .. :p
I agree with Ethan that I don't think intervention by America is the way to go as it is now. Not to offend guys, but I don't fully believe in USA's ability to set things right in North Korea. USA as a nation with democratic elections every four years is not really that stable either and I don't believe that "peace and good stuff in North Korea" is gonna win enough votes or support in the american people. There are deep lying problems between North and South Korea and killing Kim Jung-Il won't fix all that, someone could replace him. It'll take more time, possibly years which may span new presidential elections in USA with a change in political winds.
It's a nice idea perhaps, but as I said, I think that could be a long and costly process. I don't think USA has the resources to do that and I don't think it's in the interest of the american people, at least not for the years it might take to do the job so that it's worthwhile.
|
To calrify, Ethan took a comment made in passing and tried to paint us as Neo-con's.
I don't think one person here has actually suggested, and stood behind a decision to invade North Korea, Iraq, or Sudan.
That being said, if Darfur isn't a genocide would you care to comment on why the State department has labeled it as such? Is our State Department well otu of line? The UN as I understand it thinks that the killings are random, but that the intent isn't there. That sounds to me like a lawyer trying to get first degree murder down to manslaughter, not sound policy. The Sudanese government is at the very least backing Janjaweed forces.
I had to sit through a semesters worth of Genocide discussion when I was going for my political science degree. If I took nothing else from the course it was that we shouldn't shrink the concepts or the experiences down to something we can understand. To do so allows us to rationalize them, and if we're in the market to stand against government backed mass murder, then we really ought to not limit it with our definitions.
I think when we're talking Genocide, people tend to go to the Shoah and compare it. Few genocides are comparble to Nazi Germany (and we keep finding out new things as well, so its tough to compare), but if you look at the Bosnian genocide, where you had mass graves in soccer stadiums and its up front masking of whats really going on, I think theres little difference save for semantics between Darfur and what happened in Bosnia.
But honestly, for the record, no ones suggesting the US invade N. Korea. I believe i've posted before in this thread that we need to divest, even with Aide, to the region.