quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
The US stance is usually to let people choose their own government...as long as it's US-backed and democratic.

How is it really democratic if we only accept it if it goes according to our rules, and interest and what we want? Let them choose "as long as" is not letting them choose.

quote:

Not to say we shouldn't do something about obvious cases like genocide, but no one nation should protect the entire world.

But that's the problem, "obvious cases like genocide" are not so obvious, people were debating for a while if this was actually genocide, simply to not have to get involved.

quote:

if we have the means and the power, and the influence, someone must step up to end oppression.

But who polices the police? In other words, if the US is to police the world, how do we decide what's oppression and what's not? We haven't exactly had the best track record in determining what's "best" for people. The US stance is usually to let people choose their own government...as long as it's US-backed and democratic. If we can't really see beyond our own goals, we aren't really cut out to help other people who might have different goals than us.

Not to say we shouldn't do something about obvious cases like genocide, but no one nation should protect the entire world.

boycott the sudan, and get the rest of the world to do so. That's the only way you're going to stop it. sending money doesn't do sh*t quite honestly, because the government over there is so corrupt it can't go anywhere but to their leaders' pockets. And what's money going to do for the people against ethnic genocide...?
Sending supplies is all well and good but I think the people would prefer freedom from oppression... not supplies. You need to defeat the idea of hate in that nation, you cannot beat it with "awareness" in the US or supplies. Force must be used, whether economic (boycott) or militaristic. Ideas are the hardest things to defeat.

And to answer the question of whether the US should "police the world," if we have the means and the power, and the influence, someone must step up to end oppression. If people in their own country don't have the power to, then what is the rest of the world supposed to do? It's what we've been doing since the end of WWII; and whether we've had alterior motives or not, we had the power to make a difference. Only retrospectively can one decide whether our difference and our part played in a global conflict was for the good or the bad. History is history.

To be more accurate, the government is made up of officials, a country is made up of citizens. Haven't you taken an international government class yet? Or do you really think that every citizen has a seat in government? I suggest you read up on some current history of Africa. Here's a good place to start: http://allafrica.com/

quote:

The whole issue is the corruption of government and the poverty of its citizens,

The goverment is made up of citizens.

I hope I'm not reading your post wrong racedriver, but it sounds like you are blaming the problems of African nations (which is a vague concept) on the citizens. Are you serious? The only ones who are even able to waste money and corrupt society in this case are the government officials and the people who are running the country. The whole issue is the corruption of government and the poverty of its citizens, thats basically the driving force behind many conflicts in Africa.

Yes, but the crap life suffered by these african nations is due to the people who comprise them. It is not just some bad luck that they got dealt. They do it to themselves. If they'd stop wasting money on weapons and arming their children and fighting mental wars amongst themselves while their people starve... You know what Im saying? You subsidize them, you are subsidizing their crazy wars.

My school's humanitarinism society just did a night commute this weekend to raise awareness about things like the kids in Darfur, only this was geared towards the kids in Uganda, but it was for all those places that need our support. We walked three miles with signs supporting the cause and slept over night in a parking lot to raise the awareness in our community. I thought it was very effective and really showed that there are concerned people about the situations happening in places like Darfur and Uganda.

quote:

so the reason why the US wont help the Sudan are...because the gov. supports "terrorism"

Just curious where you got that information? Please support your claims. Don't just throw stuff out there like that without providing any information.

And I think what racedriver means by policing the world is that the U.S. shouldn't have to be the ones always moving into different countries to "help" the situations. And no, it definitely shouldn't be like that. We need leaders from other international communities to step up and find the best solution to a problem like this. You cannot have one country telling another country what they can and cannot do. With the case of Darfur, crimes against humanity have taken place and are not ceasing because the government refuses to do so and therefore is not right in any sense.

I mean, US can't police the world, as in its too big!

quote:

Originally posted by RaceDriver205:
US can't police the world.

Will you explain that to me, so when can we and when can we not?

Yeah, money isn't going to do much to save these people. An army or military supplies would be good. US can't police the world.

While we're at it, saving Zimbabwes Boers from their genocide would be nice too.

If you want to help the people in Darfur, please donate a dollar or more at this website: http://darfurwall.org/

IF NOT YOU, THEN WHO? IF NOT NOW, THEN WHEN?

so the reason why the US wont help the Sudan are...because the gov. supports "terrorism" and the human rights violations.. Hey isnt that why we went into Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by sweetiepie20:
if we told bush there was oil resources in Darfur, then they would go there, and that is just a little sad, that the Bush admin. doesn't care about anything but oil, and money.

there are oil resources in Sudan, and I am sure the Bush administration is aware of it.

If you look at past occurrences of genocide, not much has been done internationally until quite a few years have gone by. It's a shame really that it is so difficult for action to be taken on issues like this. It requires so many political decisions to be made and there has to be an agreement that a situation actually falls under the terms of genocide. People throw this word around a lot but it's much more difficult to define than anyone thinks. Without an agreement over something being genocide, then the international community will do nothing, and that is just one aspect of this. Think about political agreements and interests between countries and how many forces other countries are willing to sacrifice over to another country.
And what is worse, while the U.N. may have terms that define genocide and state that something SHOULD be done, there is nothing there to reinforce that something actually BE done. It is completely up to the decisions of other countries to take actions.

quote:

Originally posted by hopefulcanyon:
It's so sad to come to this board and see that the first post was made in 2003, and we're 2007 today. Over 4 years have passed by, and still, nothing much has changed. It is so easy to feel hopeless about this situation.

As YV said, the thread didn't start in 2003, but the conflict in Darfur has been raging since 2003.

Okay, so they gave us a second chance and once again the J1C is going to the Save Dafur Coalition! Here is the link:

http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2335

Click as many times as you can!

I hope the click 1 project is going to be for the genocide in Darfur

quote:

It's so sad to come to this board and see that the first post was made in 2003, and we're 2007 today. Over 4 years have passed by, and still, nothing much has changed.

Well actually, the first post was on 2006, by me. But I've been a member of YN since 2003, so I think you confused the two. But yes, it's sad that nothing has been done yet.

if we told bush there was oil resources in Darfur, then they would go there, and that is just a little sad, that the Bush admin. doesn't care about anything but oil, and money.