Save Darfur!

by Sailor Ripley 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  restrangled

  Yes there is plenty of oil, just Not for the U.S.......but I'm sure that will get changed one way or another.

  From AFROL News:

  After all, Sudan is believed to hold Africa's greatest unexploited oil resources, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea. US oil companies are barred from operating in Sudan and other Western companies are chased from the country by the Washington administration. The Canadian oil company Talisman Energy is even facing charges of "complicity in genocide and war crimes" in a US court due to its past engagements in Sudan. At present, Asian oil companies dominate the field in Sudan.

  R.
• 

  Sailor Ripley

  I still haven't heard when it's okay to die. Are Saddam's victims less miserable than those in Darfur?

  Out of Iraq but Save Darfur. This makes little sense to me.

  I'm for Peace but I'm also for protecting the US. If it takes violence then go big. But that's not the point of this thread. I'm asking a question because I want to know. I truly don't understand when it's okay.
• 

  Dansk

  Jeff,

  What's wrong with the "Free Tibet" campaign? The Dalai Lama himself is asking - and has continually asked since 1950 - for non-violent action! Over 1,000,000 Tibetans have been murdered/displaced/imprisoned and for what? Just so China can grab a peaceful country and absorb it - then rape it of all its wealth!

  I don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but no military action is being sought over Tibet, just the uniting of countries to condemn Chinese imperialism. The UN is silent, because it isn't politically wise to condemn a growing military and economical power. Politics, politics, politics - everything is politics. Life is cheap!!

  I wonder what would happen if China threatened India?

  Ian
• 

  juni

  tetra said:

  i think it is time the US got out of world affairs for a while. so no, i do not think sending american troops anywhere, including darfur, is going to help africa.

  the US can finish itself in iraq, and when it is done, it should sit down and shut up for a few decades, and concentrate on their own inner problems

  I agree with this statement. Our military was set up originally to protect our borders not try to solve the worlds' problems. Self interest and selfish gov't heads have redefined our objective in the world's affairs.
• 

  Jourles

  I think the US has a duty to look after other countries affairs. If they cannot govern themselves peacefully and without using violence as an end, then the US gov't owes it to their citizens to protect them. There is nothing wrong with overthrowing a dictatorial leader to save thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. The US had a duty to take out Saddam. He was a threat to the world and especially to the region.

  That's enough. I was going to write quite a bit more, but I'm about to make myself sick. (I bet some of you who know how I tend to write about such matters were thinking, "WTF is Jourles talking about?!?")
• 

  Dansk

  Jourles,

  For US shouldn't we be substituting UN?

  In principle I agree with what you said, but would rather the UN showed its teeth for a change.

  Ian
• 

  free2beme

  It such a mess, that to apply effort would only make a bigger problem. Which is proven right all the time. How about this, France, Norway and Brazil do something about it and leave the USA out of it. No matter what you do, it all comes down to "MORE MONEY AND MORE TROOPS FROM THE USA!!!" Let some other countries deal with it for a change and leave us out of it.