Something the media won't cover...

[fisch]

I think people are overlooking a very important point here. People are being systematically killed. It should not be a matter if you want US dollars to help foreign people. It should be a matter of if you are willing to look the other way towards genocide, which it seems some people are.
I realize that there are numerous ways money could be spent in the US to help people. But people here have a chance. People are not dying here because they are of a particular race or religion, but people over there are, and its not right. Some things are more important than money and I think we all can agree that a human life is.

 

[Bearfan]

I'm not prepared to tell my best friend (Leuitenant, US Army) to go and die in some country that has no bearing on the US. His oath is to protect the US and obey the orders of those appointed over him, which he would do. His oath was not to serve as a world cop.

 

[ReefRaff]

Some things are more important than money and I think we all can agree that a human life is.

Agreed. Thats why it should be up to the media to donate the necessary rescoursces, and air time. Also, If the president decides to send troops to control this, we would never leave, so it's best we don't go. as a matter of fact, it would be best we pull all our troops from all foreign countries all together

It should be a matter of if you are willing to look the other way towards genocide, which it seems some people are.

So be it.

 

[alrmc4]

i usually try to stay out of this type of discussion i hate politics and it seems what we do or do not get involved in is based on politics but here is a quote for you to really think about...
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Bearfan]

I don't believe by not sending our husbands, wives, children, best friends in the military to die there we are accepting it. I don't have as big a problem with the money part. Send a billion dollars, that's what we spend every week occupying Iraq, just not our countrymen that should be protecting this nation, not policing others.

 

[alrmc4]

bearfan i am not trying to agravate or cast negative feelings towards anyone that is one reason i do not like political things i have a almost 22 year old son i would not want him to go fight anywhere i do not like killing in any way shape or form. and the quote was not a statement for or against.. in a perfect world there would be better ways of getting a resoulution to this than blood shed i do not have the answer it was just meant as a perspective to think about no offence please.

 

[deli_conker]

Quote:

By helping ourselves we can better help others.

No offence, but Shocked . I remember a time, not too long ago, when helping others was the best way to help ourselves.

I'm not talking about "it's better to give than receive" or "I have achieved a greater state of personal enlightenment by helping others in need." I'm talking about the fact that one day America will be spent and unable to help anyone (including ourselves) if we don't start taking a proactive stance where America takes care of it's own problems first before those of other nations.

Analogy
America is a big old bus. And it drives around the world. People want on the bus and people want off the bus. Drive, drive, drive, pick up, let off. The problem is that the bus will eventually run out of gas if it doesn't fill up every now and then. Oil changes. New tires. Brakes. Etc, etc. If the bus doesn't do the maintanance needed to keep it running, then it's going to break down. Who will ride the bus then? Nobody will. No driving, no picking up, no letting off. No helping other people in other nations that desparately need it.

I'll change my statement...

By helping ourselves we can better help others in the long run.

Hmm, let's see. Armed, mounted, professional soldiers against starving woman and children--who do you think will win?

Hmm, I don't know. I do know that the Continental Army (American Revolution) faced starvation constantly. They were out manned and out gunned as well. A lot of people lost their lives during that time fighting for something they believed in. Was it worth it?

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps perpetrate it."

That's a great quote. Too bad passively can be interpretted in so many ways. I think I read earlier that the U.S was going to impose sanctions; too passive for some I suspect.

I don't know. Maybe we should send Dr. Phil over there to ask them "Why do you hate the Darfur?"

 

[alrmc4]

and the quote was not a statement for or against.. in a perfect world there would be better ways of getting a resoulution to this than blood shed i do not have the answer it was just meant as a perspective to think about no offence please.
deli_conker if you would have read my reply post i am not arguing here

 

[Bearfan]

By the way, I don't take offense. I think this is a good discussion. I don't take it as arguing.

 

[deli_conker]

deli_conker if you would have read my reply post i am not arguing here

I did read your reply post. I didn't take it as an arguement. I reread my post and the part where I quoted you may be interpretted as sarcasm; I did not intend for it to be that way. I just think that some people believe diplomacy (in this situation) is too passive. There should be more urgency, but by whom and how?

The original topic was just to shed some light on what is happening to the Darfur has turned into a "should the US help the Darfur" dicussion. Sure we should, just not with troops.

In my opinion, if you feel strongly enough to do something about it, then do so. It's a free country...

 

[alrmc4]

oic you know what another reason for me to skip posting on these kinds of subjects not good at translateing words to tone of voice i stand corrected

 

[deli_conker]

You'll have that from time to time. I'm usually less ambiguous in my posts though. Just a reminder to myself to proof read a bit better...