PDA

View Full Version : Stop the Genocide in Sudan



BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 04:20 PM
http://www.democraticaction.org/petitions/sudan.htm

edit:

www.sudanpetition.com

Domitian
06-28-2004, 05:11 PM
I can't believe Nancy Pelosi is at the top of this. She has been one of the most outspoken Democrats against Bush and the war, and now she wants troops sent to Sudan??? I think we should try to help Sudan with a coalition force if this proves to be true, but I won't sign my name with Pelosi's.

So let's look at Pelosi's current record on going to war:

1) She is against a war where there may have been WMD's and there definitely have been mass murders.

2) She is for action where "as many as 30,000 civilians may have been murdered..."

She is one big hypocrite if you ask me...

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Domitian
I can't believe Nancy Pelosi is at the top of this. She has been one of the most outspoken Democrats against Bush and the war, and now she wants troops sent to Sudan??? I think we should try to help Sudan with a coalition force if this proves to be true, but I won't sign my name with Pelosi's.

So let's look at Pelosi's current record on going to war:

1) She is against a war where there may have been WMD's and there definitely have been mass murders.

2) She is for action where "as many as 30,000 civilians may have been murdered..."

She is one big hypocrite if you ask me...

Frankly I don't give a damn who is the advocate of the bill, if your a person with any principles then you'll sign it because of the greater good as opposed to partisan dogmatism, or if you really hate the democrats so much find a petition that is not sponsered by them.

Domitian
06-28-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Frankly I don't give a damn who is the advocate of the bill, if your a person with any principles then you'll sign it because of the greater good as opposed to partisan dogmatism, or if you really hate the democrats so much find a petition that is not sponsered by them.

You can call if partisan, but I will not join ranks with someone whom I consider to be a hypocrite.

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Domitian
You can call if partisan, but I will not join ranks with someone whom I consider to be a hypocrite.

Then look for another petition rather being nothing but a retarded dogmatist! If Gore had been president and wanted to go to war in Iraq for the same reasons with Bush would you not support it because you hate him, whereas you would/did for Bush? If that is the case then you are a purely sequacious fool, the most dissapointing part of all of this is that you don't appear to be the average braindead worshipper (which exists on both sides btw).

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 05:44 PM
Here: http://www.sudanpetition.com/

gluon999
06-28-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Frankly I don't give a damn who is the advocate of the bill, if your a person with any principles then you'll sign it because of the greater good as opposed to partisan dogmatism, or if you really hate the democrats so much find a petition that is not sponsered by them.

I agree.

Why some people can't look beyond partisan politics and stop sucking up to their party, even when it conflicts with their moral princples, is beyond me.

Even though you agree with the princple, but refuse to support it just because of some politician, is simply retarded.

Jimineye
06-28-2004, 05:49 PM
I don't know if I want to sign that. Our troops are already spread through out the world. And after we help them they want us out, and they hate us.

th3 gr34t3st
06-28-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
I don't know if I want to sign that. Our troops are already spread through out the world. And after we help them they want us out, and they hate us.

they hate us in iraq and korea too

Domitian
06-28-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Then look for another petition rather being nothing but a retarded dogmatist! If Gore had been president and wanted to go to war in Iraq for the same reasons with Bush would you not support it because you hate him, whereas you would/did for Bush? If that is the case then you are a purely sequacious fool, the most dissapointing part of all of this is that you don't appear to be the average braindead worshipper (which exists on both sides btw).

I would have fully supported the war under either Gore or Bush. I thought it was a mistake not to depose Hussein in the Gulf War. There were times where I supported Clinton and Gore, although I did not by the time the 2000 election came around.

I fully support action in Sudan if these rumors of mass murder are taking place. I encourage people to sign the petition.

Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi's name taints this petition for me. I cannot support someone who has used their political office to generate such hatred for the person in charge of the country, especially now that she wants something in one country that she opposes in another. It just doesn't make sense to me why she would do this.

If anyone is looking to sign their name to a non-partisan petition for this cause, go to: (http://www.petitiononline.com/darfur/petition.html)

Debaser
06-28-2004, 08:44 PM
I voted, but I accidentally for the democratic one. Didn't know there were non-partisan sites :/

Tom Fulp
06-28-2004, 09:04 PM
Nope. We cant go to Sudan. No WMDs have been found there. We've been told for years now WMDs must be found before initiating a preemtive strike.

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Tom Fulp
Nope. We cant go to Sudan. No WMDs have been found there. We've been told for years now WMDs must be found before initiating a preemtive strike.


...I know your being sarcastic but genocide is considered grounds for intervention.

Tom Fulp
06-28-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
...I know your being sarcastic but genocide is considered grounds for intervention.

Only genocide though. If 100s of thousands of people are murdered, if its not genocide, that is not enough reason to go to war. We all know that. Only genocide qualifies.

I really have a hard time following the convoluted illogic of the Democrats sometimes.

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Tom Fulp
Only genocide though. If 100s of thousands of people are murdered, if its not genocide, that is not enough reason to go to war. We all know that. Only genocide qualifies.

:rolleyes:

First of all I think there are other reasons to go to war than genocide. Secondly, Iraq was obviously not the best place to go first, Iran would have been a better choice. After all they were part of the "axis of evil" and they nearly have nukes whereas Iraq...well...not much else needs to be said.

Tom Fulp
06-28-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
:rolleyes:

First of all I think there are other reasons to go to war than genocide. Secondly, Iraq was obviously not the best place to go first, Iran would have been a better choice. After all they were part of the "axis of evil" and they nearly have nukes whereas Iraq...well...not much else needs to be said.

100s of thousands of people being murdered, but no nukes=no war.

100s of thousands of people are being murdered and there is nukes=war.

If theres genocide, but no nukes=war.

Have I boiled it down petty much?

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Tom Fulp
100s of thousands of people being murdered, but no nukes=no war.

100s of thousands of people are being murdered and there is nukes=war.

If theres genocide, but no nukes=war.

Have I boiled it down petty much?


...

First things its not going to take much to stop the Sudanese government. 2nd things we knew it would take a long occupation with Iraq so it put us in a very poor position to do anything with Iran unless Iraq was stable. So if you want to look at it from a neo-con POV then you take Iran first, help Sudan, and get rid of Saddam once Iran is secure.

Or you could flip those and let one state end up with nukes...yeah that sounds like a better plan letting a member of the "axis of evil" getting nukes :rolleyes:

dave22
06-28-2004, 11:03 PM
Why is it the US's job to fix this problem?? Why can't the UN do it, since some of you have so much faith in the UN. Why aren't the surrounding countries condemning this so-called genocide??

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Why is it the US's job to fix this problem?? Why can't the UN do it, since some of you have so much faith in the UN. Why aren't the surrounding countries condemning this so-called genocide??

The U.S. has to push for a U.N. resolution, if they do then it will happen. Rwanda isn't a mistake that should occur again.

dave22
06-28-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
The U.S. has to push for a U.N. resolution, if they do then it will happen. Rwanda isn't a mistake that should occur again.

Yes, that's true, but the American people don't want to see another Somalia happen. Or maybe this time we could handle seeing our rangers dragged through the streets.

Just because we push for a UN resolution, doesn't mean it will be reinforced. Are they enforced in Iraq or even Israel??

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by dave22
Yes, that's true, but the American people don't want to see another Somalia happen. Or maybe this time we could handle seeing our rangers dragged through the streets.

Just because we push for a UN resolution, doesn't mean it will be reinforced. Are they enforced in Iraq or even Israel??

Well I guess since its in no one's best interest to help us in our war on terrorism because its mainly us and Israel that they are pissed at then we shouldn't get mad if we use the same excuse for Sudan.

dave22
06-28-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Well I guess since its in no one's best interest to help us in our war on terrorism because its mainly us and Israel that they are pissed at then we shouldn't get mad if we use the same excuse for Sudan.

You really believe that a new govt. in Sudan is going to stop the killing??

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by dave22
You really believe that a new govt. in Sudan is going to stop the killing??


If it is supported by an international coalition the killing can be drastically reduced.

Tom Fulp
06-28-2004, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
...

First things its not going to take much to stop the Sudanese government. 2nd things we knew it would take a long occupation with Iraq so it put us in a very poor position to do anything with Iran unless Iraq was stable. So if you want to look at it from a neo-con POV then you take Iran first, help Sudan, and get rid of Saddam once Iran is secure.

Or you could flip those and let one state end up with nukes...yeah that sounds like a better plan letting a member of the "axis of evil" getting nukes :rolleyes:

You act as if you're privy to all of the intel the president and the pentagon have. You know what they know, so you can't possibly make the above judgement with anything approaching any competence. This is what has always bugged me about the Democrats. They act so arrogant, as if they could possibly know better than the president what to do.

You have no idea how tough it would be to defeat Sudan. I seem to remember people being confident Viet Nam would be easy to defeat also.

If we do go to war with Sudan, I expect the Democrats to whine and gnash their teeth and cry their crocodile tears whenever a U.S. serviceman dies.

irpker
06-28-2004, 11:50 PM
There is no solution to religious civil wars, especially when Christians have control of the government and the rebel forces are muslims, who feel slighted by rigged elections.

Also, France, Russia, and Germany can push for resolutions and send their troops to Sudan since they are obviously purely humanitarian nations, and happened to be unoccupied by the current major occupation.

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by Tom Fulp
You act as if you're privy to all of the intel the president and the pentagon have. You know what they know, so you can't possibly make the above judgement with anything approaching any competence. This is what has always bugged me about the Democrats. They act so arrogant, as if they could possibly know better than the president what to do.

You have no idea how tough it would be to defeat Sudan. I seem to remember people being confident Viet Nam would be easy to defeat also.

If we do go to war with Sudan, I expect the Democrats to whine and gnash their teeth and cry their crocodile tears whenever a U.S. serviceman dies.

I find these charges laughable for the following reason:

#1 You call me arrogant when the current President is known for his arrogance.
#2 You say I am a democrat.
#3 You don't even answer my point you just say I didn't know as much as the Pentagon.
#4 Unless for some reason Iraq had nukes and this was hidden from us I am right about Iran being far closer to nukes then Iraq ever was.
#5 We kicked Saddam's ass very easily, we only had problems with the insurgents.

BigKazWSM747
06-28-2004, 11:56 PM
I'll keep this thread in mind the next time anyone brings up the importance of liberating people from tyranny and oppression.

irpker
06-28-2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
I'll keep this thread in mind the next time anyone brings up the importance of liberating people from tyranny and oppression.

You really think Americans would attack foreign Christians, to help Muslims?

Despite how terrible this is, every action taken by a government is political. There's always something to be gained or lost.

Cardinal-Sin
06-29-2004, 12:07 AM
Can't believe some of the responses...
Anyways, I signed it.

Tom Fulp
06-29-2004, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by irpker
You really think Americans would attack foreign Christians, to help Muslims?

Despite how terrible this is, every action taken by a government is political. There's always something to be gained or lost.

Yes, they would. The Democrats were all for killing Christians in Kosovo at Clinton's command. But, kill some Moslems, or horror of horrors, put panties on their head, and by God there will be hell to pay for the attrocities!