Darfur Thread

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
Darfur Tops U.S. Report Citing World's Worst Human Rights Abuses

Tuesday, March 06, 2007


WASHINGTON — The ongoing genocide in Sudan's Darfur region was the world's worst human rights abuse last year, the United States said Tuesday, in a report concluding that freedoms have eroded elsewhere, including fledgling U.S.-backed democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256984,00.html
 
IHateGovernment said:
The debacle in Iraq will discourage any other foreign excursions for many years to come.
Click to expand...
They'll only be UN troops. Bush has done more to give power to the UN than any other President before him. Nobody will move again without that UN nod, for quite some time.
 
Damocles said:
They'll only be UN troops. Bush has done more to give power to the UN than any other President before him. Nobody will move again without that UN nod, for quite some time.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO


well I guess He did but it was as everything bush has done it turned out to the be opposite of his intentions.
 
uscitizen said:
ROTFLMAO


well I guess He did but it was as everything bush has done it turned out to the be opposite of his intentions.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. His actions are often totally inexplicable unless you get into the CFA (or is it GFI?) or Illuminati, or whatever, conspiracy and think they are trying to create a one-world government under the UN...
 
IHateGovernment said:
The debacle in Iraq will discourage any other foreign excursions for many years to come.
Click to expand...

What bush did in iraq, wasn't peacekeeping. It was an invasion and assualt on a sovereign nation.

Peacekeeping, at its best, is both a diplomatic and military exercise. Clinton wouldn't put NATO troops into either Bosnia or Kosovo, until both the serbians and their adversaries mutually agreed to an accord and permanent ceasefire.
 
What bush did in iraq, wasn't peacekeeping. It was an invasion and assualt on a sovereign nation.

Peacekeeping, at its best, is both a diplomatic and military exercise. Clinton wouldn't put NATO troops into either Bosnia or Kosovo, until both the serbians and their adversaries mutually agreed to an accord and permanent ceasefire.

Cypress the argument of the Bush administration that this mission was done to liberate the Iraqis and free them from the tryanny of Saddam may have been rejected by many but was accepted by many as well. Recent events have caused many to question whether if is wise to send our army to other countries in the name of helping other people.

I think the North Korean dilemma most clearly shows this.
 
IHateGovernment said:
What bush did in iraq, wasn't peacekeeping. It was an invasion and assualt on a sovereign nation.

Peacekeeping, at its best, is both a diplomatic and military exercise. Clinton wouldn't put NATO troops into either Bosnia or Kosovo, until both the serbians and their adversaries mutually agreed to an accord and permanent ceasefire.

Cypress the argument of the Bush administration that this mission was done to liberate the Iraqis and free them from the tryanny of Saddam may have been rejected by many but was accepted by many as well. Recent events have caused many to question whether if is wise to send our army to other countries in the name of helping other people.

I think the North Korean dilemma most clearly shows this.
Click to expand...

The iraqi government never approved, nor sanctioned, having our soldiers come into their country. That's war. That's an invasion.

The serbian govenrment acquised and agreed to allow NATO soldiers to put boots on the ground, and provided peacekeeping between serbs and bosinas. Obviously, they only did that after economic pressure, and air strikes. but, the point is, peacekeeping is only the end result of succesful diplomacy. Its not the means to an end.
 
Cypress you speak as if you need to educate me to the difference between the situations. My original statement regarded the publics perception of things not my own.
 
IHateGovernment said:
What bush did in iraq, wasn't peacekeeping. It was an invasion and assualt on a sovereign nation.

Peacekeeping, at its best, is both a diplomatic and military exercise. Clinton wouldn't put NATO troops into either Bosnia or Kosovo, until both the serbians and their adversaries mutually agreed to an accord and permanent ceasefire.

Cypress the argument of the Bush administration that this mission was done to liberate the Iraqis and free them from the tryanny of Saddam may have been rejected by many but was accepted by many as well. Recent events have caused many to question whether if is wise to send our army to other countries in the name of helping other people.

I think the North Korean dilemma most clearly shows this.
Click to expand...

But that was not the reason we invaded, that came later after we invaded and found no nukes or WMD's , or links to the 911 attack :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top