Page 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:05 pm
by GORDON
From here.
Edited By GORDON on 1099509150
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:33 pm
by Mommy Dearest
How are we going to pay for it, and where are the troops comeing from? Oh and let's not forget, How are we getting out?
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 12:02 am
by thibodeaux
You get out by WINNING.
Edited By thibodeaux on 1098850195
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:27 am
by TheCatt
You touched on it, but I think the fundamental issue is the scarcity of resources.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:46 am
by TheCatt
thibodeaux wrote:You get out by WINNING.
That worked well in Germany.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:49 am
by thibodeaux
As long as they're not dying by the thousands, I thought it didn't matter.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:03 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:You touched on it, but I think the fundamental issue is the scarcity of resources.
This is true... but is the basis of economic success in the United States solely based on the availability of natural resources, here in the 21st century?
I was under the impression that it is not, which is why I think there must be a "way" in Sudan.
I could be wrong.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:04 am
by GORDON
Mommy Dearest wrote:How are we going to pay for it, and where are the troops comeing from? Oh and let's not forget, How are we getting out?
A small percentage of out total troop strength is currently in Afghanistan and Iraq, no matter what else you've been told.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:06 am
by Paul
Mommy Dearest wrote:How are we going to pay for it, and where are the troops comeing from? Oh and let's not forget, How are we getting out?
I agree! Their lives aren't worth the financial cost to us.
Also, sacrificing one American military volunteer in place of 300 or so foreign women/children/innocents is wrong because American lives are at least 1000 times better.
No... wait. On second thought, I don't believe that. It's the duty of the Haves to help the Have-nots, because nobody else can. It might hurt us a little, but it's hurting them a lot.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:20 am
by TheCatt
thibodeaux wrote:As long as they're not dying by the thousands, I thought it didn't matter.
Bush is Hitler.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:21 am
by GORDON
I thought someone would call me on it... but White Man's Burden is a really negative view of the idea you can improve the lot of "brown people." It suggests the entire practice is futile.
Is THAT true? I don't know that there's enough evidence. Historically, when western countries try to "improve" brown countries, they did it as permanent occupiers.... which introduces an entirely new set of problems.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:23 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:You touched on it, but I think the fundamental issue is the scarcity of resources.
This is true... but is the basis of economic success in the United States solely based on the availability of natural resources, here in the 21st century?
I was under the impression that it is not, which is why I think there must be a "way" in Sudan.
I could be wrong.
Solely? No.
Largely? Yes.
America's vast reserve of natural resources, and sheer abundance/density of natural resources has made it more competitive than places where such resources had to be brought in, or finished good purchased. This advantage allowed superior economic growth in the 1700 and 1800's upon which our nation has built.
But eayh, ther's a better way for sudan.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:25 am
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:I thought someone would call me on it... but White Man's Burden is a really negative view of the idea you can improve the lot of "brown people." It suggests the entire practice is futile.
Is THAT true? I don't know that there's enough evidence. Historically, when western countries try to "improve" brown countries, they did it as permanent occupiers.... which introduces an entirely new set of problems.
I would argue that such occupations can have large short-term disadvantages for the people, but larger long-term benefits.
India would be a good example. They struggled under the class sytem, but once the whities disappeared, they kept all the benfits from the occupation and are building on the,
Sorta like slavery in the US. Bad for slaves, good for their ancestors.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:13 pm
by thibodeaux
TheCatt wrote:Bad for slaves, good for their ancestors.
Because they made money selling their descendants into slavery?
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 3:11 pm
by TPRJones
the signatories are squabbling over whether or not the ethnic cleansing is technically a genocide
What
The
Fuck?!
You have got to be joking.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:59 pm
by TheCatt
thibodeaux wrote:TheCatt wrote:Bad for slaves, good for their ancestors.
Because they made money selling their descendants into slavery?
Desecendants, whatever.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:57 pm
by thibodeaux
I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!! HAHAHAH LOLOLO OMGWTF.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:46 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:the signatories are squabbling over whether or not the ethnic cleansing is technically a genocide
What
The
Fuck?!
You have got to be joking.
No joke.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:03 pm
by TPRJones
I don't know about you, but that pretty much finishes up any usefulness of the UN as far as I'm concerned. When they can't even decide if someone who is killing everyone they can get their hands on of a certain race is really genocide or not, then there is a serious problem with thier priorities.
What are they thinking? That it's not really genocide until you've finished the job? Seems like would be a little late then to me. I guess if you promise to leave one alive then they'd be willing to not press the genocide issue, maybe?
Fucktards.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:19 pm
by GORDON
TPRJones wrote:I don't know about you, but that pretty much finishes up any usefulness of the UN as far as I'm concerned. When they can't even decide if someone who is killing everyone they can get their hands on of a certain race is really genocide or not, then there is a serious problem with thier priorities.
What are they thinking? That it's not really genocide until you've finished the job? Seems like would be a little late then to me. I guess if you promise to leave one alive then they'd be willing to not press the genocide issue, maybe?
Fucktards.
France is against action.
I can't find the article which said China and others disputing the genocide, but here's a very new story about the UN making noises like they care: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/international/africa/27nations.html