I say we let it sort itself out, that always works.
but its genocide! its like ww2! people are getting raped and people are dieing and starving!
USA should do nothing, if we do something then the world will be like "zomg like USA is policing the world" so I think the USA should do nothing.
The UN should do somehting. Something that is like actually constructive becuase they seem to never enforce their sanctions on people.... Or make things better....
I think the U.S. should get involved...cause like no one is doing anything...
I think the Rowandan conflict was worse; anyways, it should be sorted out internally, unless an established government asks for someones help, and even then it should be minimal.
this should be ww3...because
Deaths
Accurate numbers of dead have been difficult to attain, partly because the Sudanese government routinely intimidates and censors journalists attempting to cover the conflict.[30]
In September 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated there had been 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the beginning of the conflict, an 18-month period, mostly due to starvation. An updated estimate the following month put the number of deaths for the 6-month period from March to October 2004 due to starvation and disease at 70,000. These figures were criticized, because they only considered short periods and didn't include violent deaths. [31] A more recent British Parliamentary Report has estimated that over 300,000 people have died, [32] and others have estimated even more.
In March 2005, the UN's Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland estimated that 10,000 were dying each month excluding deaths due to ethnic violence. [33] An estimated 2 million people had at that time been displaced from their homes, mostly seeking refuge in camps in Darfur's major towns. Two hundred thousand had fled to neighboring Chad.
In an April 2005 report, the most comprehensive statistical analysis to date, the Coalition for International Justice documented 400,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict began, a figure most humanitarian and human rights groups now use. [34]
On 28 April 2006, Dr. Eric Reeves argued that "extant data, in aggregate, strongly suggest that total excess mortality in Darfur, over the course of more than three years of deadly conflict, now significantly exceeds 450,000," but this has not been independently verified. [35]
dats from wikipedia
The US can't help out on every situation though. We already interevened in the Middle East conflict and look what that got us into. I agree with everyone else, let it sort itself out.
Lol, Wikipedia says Janjaweed on that page. Hehe.
moonrocks...just like farty...
ITS NOT THAT FUNNY!
I agree that the United Nations should actually do something. It would help them to re-establish themselves as a respectable authority, something that they have largely lost due to their inaction concerning many large and terrible events that have occurred over the past 60 years. It is the 21st century, and I believe that we should all step up and say that genocide is no longer acceptable whatsoever, and every person has the implacable right to be treated humanely. At this point in time, nobody gives a damn about what the United Nations says.
yea...the bush adminastration is calling it genocide...the UN isnt calling it genocide..for some reason..so they wont do anything..lazy UN
QUOTE(Moonrocks @ Aug 16 2006, 11:08 AM)
Lol, Wikipedia says Janjaweed on that page. Hehe.
[right][snapback]545736[/snapback][/right]
The Janjaweed are the people responsible for the "genocide".
The UN should do something, but I wouldn't be opposed to U.S action as long as it was positive and not imperialistic.
I agree, though that will never happen. They pose no threat to America, and Bush really has nothing to gain from helping them, so why would America commit forces to peacekeeping in Africa? I mean, we all know that nobody in Bush's administration really gives a damn about anybody but themselves.
As far as humanitarian aid goes, the United States should step in with the United Nations as well. But I fear that the US will not enter simply to stop the war, but to help one side win.
QUOTE(MasterJohnny @ Aug 14 2006, 12:47 AM)
but its genocide! its like ww2! people are getting raped and people are dieing and starving!
[right][snapback]544691[/snapback][/right]
There is tons of genocide all over the world. This wouldn't be the first time no one has helped prevent genocide in another nation In WW2, we did nothing for a long while. Many people talk about the U.S. favorably when discussing WW2, but if you think about it every one knew millions of Jews were being slaughtered yet the U.S. didn't step in the moment it started happening. This is the same thing. The U.S. probably wont step in until more people have died. And at the moment, all of the military resources of America are exhausted due to the middle eastern conflict.
QUOTE(MasterJohnny @ Aug 15 2006, 01:06 AM)
this should be ww3...because
[right][snapback]545166[/snapback][/right]
No, it shouldn't. How many nations are involved in this? One. Perhaps it could start a world war, but so far no genocide has ever started a world war (not even WW2).
QUOTE(Dr.Shotgun @ Aug 20 2006, 10:53 AM)
The UN should do something, but I wouldn't be opposed to U.S action as long as it was positive and not imperialistic.
[right][snapback]547863[/snapback][/right]
Well said.
We knew people were being rounded up in WWII, but I don't think anyone could have imagined the atrocities being committed.
Well there was that whole "appeasement" thing that went on as well, where no one would stand in the way of Hitler (after his first few run-of-the-mill invasions) because Germany was screwed in WW1.
Of course no one would guess that millions would be killed in a "racial cleansing" scenario, but they weren't all killed in a few months. We had time to attack and didn't.