That about sums it up as good as you can.

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.

:laughing:

This is a silly thread, I'm glad Darkest Hour is not President of America, or we'd be in for another pointless war, which might not end the way America might hope.

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.

why is it everyone wants to **** with america...?
i mean like why not england..
america is always involved with a war or something i mean the british people are *******s....lol [no offense to anyone british]
but i mean like seriously

Well, after WWII, North Korea was to be managed by the Soviet and South Korea was supposed to be managed by the United States. There were plans to unify, but an escalating cold war put an end to that and separate governments formed. Then USA were involved in the Korea war of course ..

There's a reason for it like there is with everything.

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.

I had assumed when you made the statement that Kim Jong-Il should be assassinated by the United States killed then you to justify your statement with "rationale" you had meant it. It's especially confusing, after so much debating, that it's only now that you've started saying it was a joke.

In regards to the United States labeling it genocide I have no idea why they've done it I can only speculate. As a whole it is a tribal conflicting; though if it helps you feel better the UN did specifically charge the Sudanese President, al-Bashir, with three accounts of genocide for slaughtering three tribes. The thing is though, the conflict as a whole, is a brutal (the brutality is mostly on the part of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed) civil war, semantically. While the atrocities (e.g. rape, mass graves) can be comparable to the Stalinist purges or Nazi Germany the problem the UN has with labeling it genocide is the lack of a genocidal motive, even if the conflict is between tribes divided by ethnicity. The African Union, the United Nations, Amnesty International all of them realize this and I think they'd be more familiar with the conflict and more of a place to judge it then the United States.

I think a lot of the reason it's considered genocide in America is because...well look at when it was declared genocide. During the 2004 election by George W. Bush and John Kerry backed him. This is all semantics but you said yourself you can't deal with the conflict if you're in denial (or deluding yourself) to the reality of it. Treating this internal conflict as merely genocide when there could be something more going on could be a mistake in bringing about a solution. For instance there's a structural inequity in the way the government operates, it doesn't meet all the rights of citizens (the rebellion this inspired probably has more to do with why the Sudanese government decided to back the Janjaweed) and there were also problems dealing with agriculture. To ignore these and treating it like a racially motivated dispute is again, ignorant. At this point I do think the only solution would be mass graves for the Sudanese army and Omar al-Bashir's head on a platter.

And again you blantantly bull**** to get your point across. Like I said, tremendous republican.

All the Best,
Big3

Yeah and well before that you'd responded saying Kim Jong-Il was committing genocide and deserved to be taken down because of it. Then you continued responding to my posts offering counter-arguments. Really it's only now that you've decided to argue a non-interventionist stance that I've been arguing for all along. It's also interesting because of the domestic abuse comparison you made to me when I stated the opinion you restated here:

Maybe before lashing out at me for being a "Republican" you need to make sure you at least have an opinion to be lashed out at.