Look, I'm not under any illusion that what happened in Greece, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc. are some sort of high points of the civilization. But in the grand scheme of things, it was an issue that's very different from what's going on today. There was an actual country whose leaders could be reasoned with.


Somehow, I have this grave suspicion that you too think that we're there because of oil/Halliburton.


United States was at war with France, UK, and Germany (and that was a pre-emptive war, if you remember) at different times. Japan is an ally of the U.S. and, but according to the logic of the left, they should've been plotting against us for the past 60 years.





I never said, or implied anything different.

I know what the word jihad means, thank you. If somebody does not comprehend it and takes the wrong impression out of this, that their fault; I am not going to censor myself, just because someone might misunderstand me.

Gotta love those "peace-loving" Muslims.

:-$

So umm ...

The BBC right now, I just saw.

"The UN does not consider this genocide" <-paraphrased.

"The UN on the other hand, considers it equally damning ..."

"They act may have carried genoical intent"

"The acts involved displacement, killing, rape and torture"


Now till yesterday i did not know what genocide meant. but umm ... exactly either my English is getting really really really weak or statement 2, 3, and 4 pretty much contradict point 1.

nope, checked your english against my english and i got the same results.

scroll up though, there's some hope somewhere in the next 6 years.

I was talking to my friend about this, and he said that the UN is right, because what's happening in Sudan does not fall within the definition of "genocide". Is that true? I guess what I mean to ask is, are you guys arguing that the UN is wrong in not classifying it as a genocide and it is indeed a genocide (and what stipulates that), or are you saying that, yeah, it's not genocide, but the UN should act anyways?

Because the statement is that the UN is only legally obligated to stop it if it's genocide, so if it's not, they don't have to do anything, right? (Even though I completely agree that they should be doing something).

Also, my friend has some great ties with people from different countries, and he said he spoke to a Sudanese man that apparently claims that "this isn't much of a physical war, it is more people stealing cattle and than others going hungry" and that this is just "tribal fighting", nothing close to genocide.

I was just curious on this and wanted more info, because I don't always trust my friend in terms of facts (he's the type that loves to speak as if he knows more than he really does, heh).

PEACE, Mike

70,000 people died and 2 million were displaced from their homes.

Let's call it a "wedding party gone awry".

Of course it's a genocide, the only reason the UN won't classify it as such is because some powerful countries don't want to take action.

But does it fall under the definition for genocide?

"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, religious, or ethnic group."

According to my friend, it didn't. Obviously it's a horrible thing, but his argument was that the UN are not legally obligated to do anything because it really doesn't fall under the definition of genocide.

Sorry if I'm bugging you, I'm just really curious, and I want to be able to respond to his comments.

PEACE, Mike

Including the US, right?

The definition according to the UN:

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It most certainly applies here.

Look, I know the temptation to blame the U.S. for all the world's problems is an easy one, but this is not one of those cases.

Whatever you may say about other U.S. endeavor's, there certainly has been a call to action from the U.S. government to classify the situation in Sudan as genocide.

U.S. Calls Killings In Sudan Genocide

I wasn't blaming the US for anything. I was just curious because I wasn't sure what our stance on it was.

MikeQ. I will post for you something i posted earlier and you tell me what the hell the UN is trying to say.

be a judge on these statements. i heard them with my own ears on BBC.