| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Wed May 11, 2005 12:23 am Sudanese Genocide: 60,000-400,000 Dead |
|
| Quote: | Tallying Darfur terror: Guesswork with a cause
By Marc Lacey The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005
KHARTOUM, Sudan The dead from Darfur have been tossed into the bottom of wells, dumped into mass graves, interred in sandy cemeteries and crudely cremated.
Also among the dead were children who were snatched from the arms of their mothers and thrown into fires, not to mention other villagers dragged on the ground behind horses and camels by ropes strung around their necks.
All of which makes the politically charged task of counting the precise number of victims of the war in western Sudan nearly impossible.
Is the death toll between 60,000 and 160,000, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said during a recent trip to the region? Or is it closer to the roughly 400,000 dead reported last week by the Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization that was hired by the United States Agency for International Development to try to determine whether the killing amounts to genocide?
That was what Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, called the Darfur killings last year. But Zoellick avoided the issue this month and has recently accused advocacy groups of overstating the number of dead to force Washington to adopt much tougher policies against the Sudanese.
Those attempting to tally the terror are engaging in guesswork with a cause. They say they are trying to count the deaths to shock the world into stopping the number from rising higher than it already is.
The Sudanese government has not issued an estimate of its own, although officials in Khartoum label the numbers floating around as propaganda.
With death certificates nonexistent, census figures hopelessly out of date and much of Darfur's population uprooted from its villages and scattered into makeshift settlements and camps, the only way to count is through broad statistical analysis.
To the survivors, the various estimates are impossible to grasp. In the middle of the mayhem, they often had no idea how many people were slain in their own villages when the government-backed militias, known as the janjaweed, swept in.
"So many died," Ibrahim Adam Abdallah said simply, a blank stare on his face, when asked how many lives were lost in Seraf, a settlement in South Darfur that was first emptied a year ago and torched in April, to ensure that no one ever goes home.
John Hogan, the John D. MacArthur professor of sociology and law at Northwestern University who led the crunch of the numbers for the Coalition for International Justice, argues that devising a death toll for Darfur is worth the effort, even if it is an approximation.
"To focus the attention of people, it's important to give them some sense of the scale of what's happening in Darfur," he said.
Error is inevitable, Hogan acknowledged. "Obviously, this is not correct to the person, or even the 10 or the 100," he said. "But it's much better to have information of some kind."
Whatever the actual figure, it is undoubtedly a moving target. People are still dying from sickness, starvation and exposure at rates that experts say are higher than the already elevated rates at which they died before the conflict began in early 2003.
And although Darfur has long been known for its lawlessness, violent deaths are regarded as far higher than normal as well.
The continued insecurity in Darfur and the rugged nature of the vast battlefield make counting its dead particularly error-prone.
The World Health Organization took a stab at the health consequences last year when it estimated that 70,000 people had died over a seven-month period from malnutrition and disease linked to the conflict.
Researchers for the Coalition for International Justice released their more comprehensive review last week. They were not able to get in to Sudan, but under an American government contract they managed to conduct 1,136 interviews with refugees in eastern Chad, asking them whether they had family members who had died in violent circumstances or were missing.
From this survey, the coalition's researchers established a death rate of 1.2 per 10,000, which is high. Applying that figure to the estimated number of displaced people in Chad, the coalition concluded that 142,944 people may have been killed by government forces or allied militias, the main groups targeting civilians.
The Coalition for International Justice then took the World Health Organization study and assuming that same number of people died in the beginning of the conflict from sickness as two years later projected the death estimates for all of Darfur. The total number of health-related deaths came to 253,619, for a total of 396,563 deaths.
That finding has been questioned, most vociferously by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College who has been analyzing Darfur's death rate on his own for months.
Reeves, one of the strongest advocates for the Darfur victims, comes up with a similar total of fatalities - about 400,000 - but contends that the analysis by the Coalition for International Justice overstates the number of people who died of sickness and understates the number killed by violence.
KHARTOUM, Sudan The dead from Darfur have been tossed into the bottom of wells, dumped into mass graves, interred in sandy cemeteries and crudely cremated.
Also among the dead were children who were snatched from the arms of their mothers and thrown into fires, not to mention other villagers dragged on the ground behind horses and camels by ropes strung around their necks.
All of which makes the politically charged task of counting the precise number of victims of the war in western Sudan nearly impossible.
Is the death toll between 60,000 and 160,000, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said during a recent trip to the region? Or is it closer to the roughly 400,000 dead reported last week by the Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization that was hired by the United States Agency for International Development to try to determine whether the killing amounts to genocide?
That was what Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, called the Darfur killings last year. But Zoellick avoided the issue this month and has recently accused advocacy groups of overstating the number of dead to force Washington to adopt much tougher policies against the Sudanese.
Those attempting to tally the terror are engaging in guesswork with a cause. They say they are trying to count the deaths to shock the world into stopping the number from rising higher than it already is.
The Sudanese government has not issued an estimate of its own, although officials in Khartoum label the numbers floating around as propaganda.
With death certificates nonexistent, census figures hopelessly out of date and much of Darfur's population uprooted from its villages and scattered into makeshift settlements and camps, the only way to count is through broad statistical analysis.
To the survivors, the various estimates are impossible to grasp. In the middle of the mayhem, they often had no idea how many people were slain in their own villages when the government-backed militias, known as the janjaweed, swept in.
"So many died," Ibrahim Adam Abdallah said simply, a blank stare on his face, when asked how many lives were lost in Seraf, a settlement in South Darfur that was first emptied a year ago and torched in April, to ensure that no one ever goes home.
John Hogan, the John D. MacArthur professor of sociology and law at Northwestern University who led the crunch of the numbers for the Coalition for International Justice, argues that devising a death toll for Darfur is worth the effort, even if it is an approximation.
"To focus the attention of people, it's important to give them some sense of the scale of what's happening in Darfur," he said.
Error is inevitable, Hogan acknowledged. "Obviously, this is not correct to the person, or even the 10 or the 100," he said. "But it's much better to have information of some kind."
Whatever the actual figure, it is undoubtedly a moving target. People are still dying from sickness, starvation and exposure at rates that experts say are higher than the already elevated rates at which they died before the conflict began in early 2003.
And although Darfur has long been known for its lawlessness, violent deaths are regarded as far higher than normal as well.
The continued insecurity in Darfur and the rugged nature of the vast battlefield make counting its dead particularly error-prone.
The World Health Organization took a stab at the health consequences last year when it estimated that 70,000 people had died over a seven-month period from malnutrition and disease linked to the conflict.
Researchers for the Coalition for International Justice released their more comprehensive review last week. They were not able to get in to Sudan, but under an American government contract they managed to conduct 1,136 interviews with refugees in eastern Chad, asking them whether they had family members who had died in violent circumstances or were missing.
From this survey, the coalition's researchers established a death rate of 1.2 per 10,000, which is high. Applying that figure to the estimated number of displaced people in Chad, the coalition concluded that 142,944 people may have been killed by government forces or allied militias, the main groups targeting civilians.
The Coalition for International Justice then took the World Health Organization study and assuming that same number of people died in the beginning of the conflict from sickness as two years later projected the death estimates for all of Darfur. The total number of health-related deaths came to 253,619, for a total of 396,563 deaths.
That finding has been questioned, most vociferously by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College who has been analyzing Darfur's death rate on his own for months.
Reeves, one of the strongest advocates for the Darfur victims, comes up with a similar total of fatalities - about 400,000 - but contends that the analysis by the Coalition for International Justice overstates the number of people who died of sickness and understates the number killed by violence.
KHARTOUM, Sudan The dead from Darfur have been tossed into the bottom of wells, dumped into mass graves, interred in sandy cemeteries and crudely cremated.
Also among the dead were children who were snatched from the arms of their mothers and thrown into fires, not to mention other villagers dragged on the ground behind horses and camels by ropes strung around their necks.
All of which makes the politically charged task of counting the precise number of victims of the war in western Sudan nearly impossible.
Is the death toll between 60,000 and 160,000, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said during a recent trip to the region? Or is it closer to the roughly 400,000 dead reported last week by the Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization that was hired by the United States Agency for International Development to try to determine whether the killing amounts to genocide?
That was what Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, called the Darfur killings last year. But Zoellick avoided the issue this month and has recently accused advocacy groups of overstating the number of dead to force Washington to adopt much tougher policies against the Sudanese.
Those attempting to tally the terror are engaging in guesswork with a cause. They say they are trying to count the deaths to shock the world into stopping the number from rising higher than it already is.
The Sudanese government has not issued an estimate of its own, although officials in Khartoum label the numbers floating around as propaganda.
With death certificates nonexistent, census figures hopelessly out of date and much of Darfur's population uprooted from its villages and scattered into makeshift settlements and camps, the only way to count is through broad statistical analysis.
To the survivors, the various estimates are impossible to grasp. In the middle of the mayhem, they often had no idea how many people were slain in their own villages when the government-backed militias, known as the janjaweed, swept in.
"So many died," Ibrahim Adam Abdallah said simply, a blank stare on his face, when asked how many lives were lost in Seraf, a settlement in South Darfur that was first emptied a year ago and torched in April, to ensure that no one ever goes home.
John Hogan, the John D. MacArthur professor of sociology and law at Northwestern University who led the crunch of the numbers for the Coalition for International Justice, argues that devising a death toll for Darfur is worth the effort, even if it is an approximation.
"To focus the attention of people, it's important to give them some sense of the scale of what's happening in Darfur," he said.
Error is inevitable, Hogan acknowledged. "Obviously, this is not correct to the person, or even the 10 or the 100," he said. "But it's much better to have information of some kind."
Whatever the actual figure, it is undoubtedly a moving target. People are still dying from sickness, starvation and exposure at rates that experts say are higher than the already elevated rates at which they died before the conflict began in early 2003.
And although Darfur has long been known for its lawlessness, violent deaths are regarded as far higher than normal as well.
The continued insecurity in Darfur and the rugged nature of the vast battlefield make counting its dead particularly error-prone.
The World Health Organization took a stab at the health consequences last year when it estimated that 70,000 people had died over a seven-month period from malnutrition and disease linked to the conflict.
Researchers for the Coalition for International Justice released their more comprehensive review last week. They were not able to get in to Sudan, but under an American government contract they managed to conduct 1,136 interviews with refugees in eastern Chad, asking them whether they had family members who had died in violent circumstances or were missing.
From this survey, the coalition's researchers established a death rate of 1.2 per 10,000, which is high. Applying that figure to the estimated number of displaced people in Chad, the coalition concluded that 142,944 people may have been killed by government forces or allied militias, the main groups targeting civilians.
The Coalition for International Justice then took the World Health Organization study and assuming that same number of people died in the beginning of the conflict from sickness as two years later projected the death estimates for all of Darfur. The total number of health-related deaths came to 253,619, for a total of 396,563 deaths.
That finding has been questioned, most vociferously by Eric Reeves, a professor at Smith College who has been analyzing Darfur's death rate on his own for months.
Reeves, one of the strongest advocates for the Darfur victims, comes up with a similar total of fatalities - about 400,000 - but contends that the analysis by the Coalition for International Justice overstates the number of people who died of sickness and understates the number killed by violence.
KHARTOUM, Sudan The dead from Darfur have been tossed into the bottom of wells, dumped into mass graves, interred in sandy cemeteries and crudely cremated.
Also among the dead were children who were snatched from the arms of their mothers and thrown into fires, not to mention other villagers dragged on the ground behind horses and camels by ropes strung around their necks.
All of which makes the politically charged task of counting the precise number of victims of the war in western Sudan nearly impossible.
Is the death toll between 60,000 and 160,000, as Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick said during a recent trip to the region? Or is it closer to the roughly 400,000 dead reported last week by the Coalition for International Justice, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization that was hired by the United States Agency for International Development to try to determine whether the killing amounts to genocide?
That was what Colin Powell, the former U.S. secretary of state, called the Darfur killings last year. But Zoellick avoided the issue this month and has recently accused advocacy groups of overstating the number of dead to force Washington to adopt much tougher policies against the Sudanese.
Those attempting to tally the terror are engaging in guesswork with a cause. They say they are trying to count the deaths to shock the world into stopping the number from rising higher than it already is.
The Sudanese government has not issued an estimate of its own, although officials in Khartoum label the numbers floating around as propaganda.
With death certificates nonexistent, census figures hopelessly out of date and much of Darfur's population uprooted from its villages and scattered into makeshift settlements and camps, the only way to count is through broad statistical analysis.
To the survivors, the various estimates are impossible to grasp. In the middle of the mayhem, they often had no idea how many people were slain in their own villages when the government-backed militias, known as the janjaweed, swept in.
"So many died," Ibrahim Adam Abdallah said simply, a blank stare on his face, when asked how many lives were lost in Seraf, a settlement in South Darfur that was first emptied a year ago and torched in April, to ensure that no one ever goes home.
John Hogan, the John D. MacArthur professor of sociology and law at Northwestern University who led the crunch of the numbers for the Coalition for International Justice, argues that devising a death toll for Darfur is worth the effort, even if it is an approximation.
"To focus the attention of people, it's important to give them some sense of the scale of what's happening in Darfur," he said.
Error is inevitable, Hogan acknowledged. "Obviously, this is not correct to the person, or even the 10 or the 100," he said. "But it's much better to have information of some kind."
Whatever the actual figure, it is undoubtedly a moving target. People are still dying from sickness, starvation and exposure at rates that experts say are higher than the already elevated rates at which they died before the conflict began in early 2003.
And although Darfur has long been known for its lawlessness, violent deaths are regarded as far higher |
http://www.savedarfur.org/
^If anyone is interested to learn further, or learn about how they can help.
!GRAPHIC PICTURES--VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED!
This child had his face bashed in, presumably with a rifle butt, during a massacre in Hamada in January.
This man was castrated and then shot in the head. This is a common fate of male prisoners taken by the Janjaweed.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 6:28 am |
|
The Canadian government is going to send 150 peacekeeping troops. 
Yes . . . I wish the number was bigger too.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 7:23 am |
|
I don't get it. Africans killing other Africans because they're Africans?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 7:42 am |
|
People are killing people no matter who they are. It is sad though. Tragedy saddness almost everybody
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 9:23 am |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | The Canadian government is going to send 150 peacekeeping troops.
Yes . . . I wish the number was bigger too. |
Same here. Now, the so-called "peacekeeping" Un is failing to truly act in this matter. It's horrifying.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 1:30 pm |
|
you all should watch hotel rwanda. It is sad, but it is a must see movie. You will really get a good idea on how they lived.. and what they had to go through.
I gagged when I saw the first pic. how dare you for showwwwiinnnnggg it!!!
So sad...
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 2:56 pm |
|
There was a warning.
Pretty disgusting that people can do this to one another, and that the UN is failing to even try to create a solution.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 3:05 pm |
|
the world does not care about them. I feel it is because they are racist. I mean, if they cared they would help them. But they are africans...
(i'm not racist)
edit:: I know there was a warning. But that did not prepare me.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 3:21 pm |
|
(I'd have thought the "GRAPHIC PICTURES" in big red text would have given it away. Apparently I was wrong)
I'm sure their ethnic origion has nothing to do with it. I mean, there's Kofi Annan, etc. Countries probably just don't want to commit the resources and man power, not to mention money. Pathetic.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
zero
Rear Admiral
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 4566
Location: Texas
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 3:41 pm |
|
^dude, don't try to make a deal out of this. I am not complaining about the pictures. All I said was they are disturbing. Drama!
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 3:53 pm |
|
Not a big deal, just pointing out that there was a warning,  You made it seem as if there was none, sheesh.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:39 pm |
|
What one human being can do to another never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:40 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | (I'd have thought the "GRAPHIC PICTURES" in big red text would have given it away. Apparently I was wrong)
I'm sure their ethnic origion has nothing to do with it. I mean, there's Kofi Annan, etc. Countries probably just don't want to commit the resources and man power, not to mention money. Pathetic. |
The Un, which is supposed to intercede in such matters, is now a useless, pathetic organization, which is clearly seen in Rowanda and the Sudan. They won't do anything. But who knows why...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:43 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | The Un, which is supposed to intercede in such matters, is now a useless, pathetic organization, which is clearly seen in Rowanda and the Sudan. They won't do anything. But who knows why... |
I could say the same about the US government. Lets not pin this all on the UN no one else did anything either.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | The Un, which is supposed to intercede in such matters, is now a useless, pathetic organization, which is clearly seen in Rowanda and the Sudan. They won't do anything. But who knows why... |
I could say the same about the US government. Lets not pin this all on the UN no one else did anything either. |
Tell me, please: what is the primary objective of the Un?
Also tell me, why is the US suddenly responsible for policing the world? I thought we weren't supposed to do that
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:45 pm |
|
LMAO! OMG, that's just too good!
If we did anything, wouldn't we just be "interfering" with other nations again? Or do you find this an acceptable use of our military, and the oppression of the Iraqi people less of a crime?
Hmmm...
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:49 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | The Un, which is supposed to intercede in such matters, is now a useless, pathetic organization, which is clearly seen in Rowanda and the Sudan. They won't do anything. But who knows why... |
I could say the same about the US government. Lets not pin this all on the UN no one else did anything either. |
Tell me, please: what is the primary objective of the Un?
Also tell me, why is the US suddenly responsible for policing the world? I thought we weren't supposed to do that |
The UN was formed after WWII to prevent WWIII. And as for the US policing the world? We had no problems invading Iraq.
| Theresa wrote: | LMAO! OMG, that's just too good!
If we did anything, wouldn't we just be "interfering" with other nations again? Or do you find this an acceptable use of our military, and the oppression of the Iraqi people less of a crime?
Hmmm... |
The Iraqi government wasn't comitting genocide, and we invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:51 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: |
| Theresa wrote: | LMAO! OMG, that's just too good!
If we did anything, wouldn't we just be "interfering" with other nations again? Or do you find this an acceptable use of our military, and the oppression of the Iraqi people less of a crime?
Hmmm... |
The Iraqi government wasn't comitting genocide, and we invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. |
Kiteeeeey, again, that wasn't the only reason for the invasion, And it wasn't? Tell that to the Kurds, bet they'd be grateful to know that. And tell that to the people who didn't agree with everything Saddam did and had their children raped and killed in front of them, had their tongues cut out for speaking their minds, bet they'd like to have that information, too. It's the same thing, this is just on a much more massive scale. Both are horrible, and both need to be stopped.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:55 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | Tell me, please: what is the primary objective of the Un?
Also tell me, why is the US suddenly responsible for policing the world? I thought we weren't supposed to do that |
The UN was formed after WWII to prevent WWIII. And as for the US policing the world? We had no problems invading Iraq. |
Actually, study up.
The Un is primarily a peacekeeping organization (get it: UN PEACEKEEPERS?) and it was not created to prevent WWIII.
Iraq was also a different situation, but what I'm saying is what would the outcry be if we put a great military effort in the Sudan? Should we put troops there, yes. Would I permit a larger task force? Very likely. But would the Left in this country allow it to happen? No. But isn't it the Un's job to deal with this situation, hmmm?
| Theresa wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: |
| Theresa wrote: | LMAO! OMG, that's just too good!
If we did anything, wouldn't we just be "interfering" with other nations again? Or do you find this an acceptable use of our military, and the oppression of the Iraqi people less of a crime?
Hmmm... |
The Iraqi government wasn't comitting genocide, and we invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. |
Kiteeeeey, again, that wasn't the only reason for the invasion, And it wasn't? Tell that to the Kurds, bet they'd be grateful to know that. And tell that to the people who didn't agree with everything Saddam did and had their children raped and killed in front of them, had their tongues cut out for speaking their minds, bet they'd like to have that information, too. It's the same thing, this is just on a much more massive scale. Both are horrible, and both need to be stopped. |
You are right there. However, there were MILLIONS of Kurds killed, and there was MORE than just that done to the poor Iraqi people
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | The Iraqi government wasn't comitting genocide, and we invaded Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction. |
Wow. Thats scary that people believe that.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:56 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Kiteeeeey, again, that wasn't the only reason for the invasion, And it wasn't? Tell that to the Kurds, bet they'd be grateful to know that. And tell that to the people who didn't agree with everything Saddam did and had their children raped and killed in front of them, had their tongues cut out for speaking their minds, bet they'd like to have that information, too. It's the same thing, this is just on a much more massive scale. Both are horrible, and both need to be stopped. |
I agree, it does need to be stopped, but even though what the Iraqi gov't was doing was wrong, we could have waited.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:57 pm |
|
^How many more needed to die before you would find helping them acceptable?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | ^How many more needed to die before you would find helping them acceptable? |
Exactly. And here he's talking about us interfering with the Sudan. I just don't get the contradiction
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 5:03 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | ^How many more needed to die before you would find helping them acceptable? |
Its not that I don't find helping them acceptable, but no one likes america anymore, except the canadians. Its not exactly a great place to live. Stopping genocide is one thing, trapsing into a country because we suspect them of something isn't a very good idea, and while they may be killing their citizens, this is going to come out wrong, but until it threatens a population, perhaps we shouldn't get too involved.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Wed May 11, 2005 5:05 pm |
|
Yeah, I'm hoping that came out wrong. One life isn't as important as a thousand lives is what I'm gathering... Yeah, totally disagree.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
