Human Rights Abusers

by **DanGenck** on Wed May 24, 2006 7:02 am

One of the main arguments for war in Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction argument fell through, has been that we are in Iraq to free oppressed people who have had personal freedoms violated.

If that truly is our new international policy, I hope someone is taking a hard look at doing something here-

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05 ... index.html

**Sponsor**

by **Hackalicious** on Wed May 24, 2006 7:33 am

There is genocide happening right now in Darfur, and there are more human slaves alive today than were ever taken from Africa in the trans-atlantic slave trade, and 3.8 million people died in the Congo war that just ended 3 years ago, etc, etc, etc.

Meanwhile, America will eagerly waiting to see who wins of American Idol and following up on TomKat's new baby. CNN will be running a story on Al Gore's new movie, while Fox will expose the liberal media's war on Memorial day or spend some 5 hours talking about a pretty white college girl who went missing from a beach resort.

Great. Now I've depressed myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

by **Sonny** on Wed May 24, 2006 7:37 am

Wait, liberals complained we shouldn't have liberated the people of Iraq --- But now we should liberate those in the Congo/Dafur? I'm confused.

by **DanGenck** on Wed May 24, 2006 7:45 am

I think that liberal complained that if your policy is to free oppressed people, then maybe you should do it everywhere and not resource rich areas of the world only

by **peterwho** on Wed May 24, 2006 8:26 am

It was my understanding that we were following the strategy that the critics of the war in Iraq would have preferred: Kofi Annan and the United Nations has this under control - they are taking a diplomatic approach to the problem, building a coalition and consensus.

This is (still) on the Secretary General's web page:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/474/12/PDF/N0447412.pdf?OpenElement

For more information on the burning issues facing Mr. Annan, take a look:

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/index.shtml

All that being said, I tend to agree with the sentiment: Why are we the only country in the world that will take any action?

An example closer to home: Although the U.S. is in close proximity to Haiti, it was the French who laid waste to the country and then abandoned it. Why shouldn't France be held accountable for the current problems?

by **DanGenck** on Wed May 24, 2006 8:57 am

France? Accountable? Woah woah woah...

by **sohotrightnow** on Wed May 24, 2006 10:17 am

I think that liberals complained that if your policy is to free oppressed people, then maybe you should do it everywhere and not resource rich areas of the world only

Well said.

by **StrykerFSU** on Wed May 24, 2006 10:27 am

I think that liberals complained that if your policy is to free oppressed people, then maybe you should do it everywhere and not resource rich areas of the world only

I recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett. Dr. Barnett goes into great detail about the role of the US as a global peace keeper. In short, increasing global security is a step-wise process especially as it becomes more apparent that the US will be forced to bear the burden both militarily and economically. PS: he's a democrat.

I wonder why relief of human rights abuse has to be an altruistic act in order to be justified. Additionally, who is allegedly profiting from the resources in Iraq? Last I had heard, the UN might know something about French, German, and Russian business men profiting from Saddam's bribes funded by the Oil-For-Food program.

by **yourmom** on Wed May 24, 2006 10:30 am

"help! help! I'm being oppressed!!!!!!!!"

by **SLUDoubleDeuce** on Wed May 24, 2006 1:24 pm

DanGenck wrote:France? Accountable? Woah woah woah...

Just to illustrate your point...

by **OAKS** on Wed May 24, 2006 1:52 pm

Many of you men have never opened chardonnay under fire...

by **semilaxed** on Wed May 24, 2006 2:00 pm

who do we shoot in sudan, and in these other countires. who are the bad guys. I think what justifies the iraq war is the fact that the oppressed people in iraq have more ablity to hurt the US than the people in sudan.

by **sohotrightnow** on Wed May 24, 2006 3:09 pm

I think what justifies the iraq war is the fact that the oppressed people in iraq have more ablity to hurt the US than the people in sudan.

Where does one come up with such a claim? What facts prove this? What does this even mean?

by **ZagGrad** on Wed May 24, 2006 3:37 pm

Quote:
I think what justifies the iraq war is the fact that the oppressed people in iraq have more ablity to hurt the US than the people in sudan.

Where does one come up with such a claim? What facts prove this? What does this even mean?

Yeah, what?

by **semilaxed** on Thu May 25, 2006 1:05 am

sorry i was at work and my boss walked in while i was typing it so i was kinda bsing it.

Im just going to use a simple analogy for this.

Iraq is like the cat Burglar that stays at home in his fancy house and plans his attack so that he can do something big and get away with it for sure. He wants to make an impact be famous and get in the news paper. Maybe he hates you because you helped the neighbor disable his car after he parked it in the neighbors yard.

Mean while sudan is like a person in the rough part of the city on the other side of town just looking to make his life a little bit better for now.

Now how do you protect yourself and your belongings. Lock your door? The cat Burglar is still going to get all your stuff eventually. You have to hope the police get him before he gets you. The small time guy isn't going to try as hard hes going to go after whats easy. And thats the people around him.