BF2S Forums High-Ranking Obama Official Refuses to Acknowledge the Genocide

bogo24dk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

bogo...there is one way to solve that in africa, and thats a full scale multi nation invasion.  you support that?

So you will invade country's which are doing ok by African standard and say what ?

you need those "ok" countries for bases and such.  now answer the question.

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

So first you say that nobody cares about Darfur, and then when I show you a lot of people indeed do, you try to deny it by claiming "oh, it's just a movement".

Wow. And um, was there NOT military intevention in Bosnia? You anger Wesley Clark.

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/a … lark_f.jpg

You wouldn't like Wesley Clark when he's angry.

MOAB just earlier stated that there was military intervention in Bosnia to stop the ethnic cleansing and the people who committed the act were hunted down and are still being hunted down. But I'm sure you just conveniently skipped over that post.

Are you going by that road where i have to explain every sentence for you. And not all words should be taken literally. How old are you ?
If you call a military intervention at the end of the war. Where even the serbs where looking for a looping hole to end. Then sure it's a intervention.

bogo24dk wrote:

Why don't you adress all the points which i have written ?

bogo24dk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

So you will invade country's which are doing ok by African standard and say what ?

you need those "ok" countries for bases and such.  now answer the question.

The hole africa is not one country. It's as saying America and southamerica are the same. You have to look at each individual case and then you can decide what's good for them. Colonial time is over thanks to US for that.

bro...its simple.  Blue UN food trucks aint gonna cut it.  what is your solution?

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Are you going by that road where i have to explain every sentence for you. And not all words should be taken literally. How old are you ?
If you call a military intervention at the end of the war. Where even the serbs where looking for a looping hole to end. Then sure it's a intervention.

bogo24dk wrote:

Why don't you adress all the points which i have written ?

Let me make it clear. Hunting down bad guys after they did it is not going to save all those lifes who have died in the concentration camp.
It's a good thing but it's one which is to late.

So you're saying we should've never saved anyone left in concentration camps in WWII just because 12 million had already died?

You're making close to no sense.

Poseidon wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Are you going by that road where i have to explain every sentence for you. And not all words should be taken literally. How old are you ?
If you call a military intervention at the end of the war. Where even the serbs where looking for a looping hole to end. Then sure it's a intervention.

Let me make it clear. Hunting down bad guys after they did it is not going to save all those lifes who have died in the concentration camp.
It's a good thing but it's one which is to late.

So you're saying we should've never saved anyone left in concentration camps in WWII just because 12 million had already died?

You're making close to no sense.

It dosen't make sence becasue you jumped from Bosnia to ww2. WW2 was almost impossible to stop. But bosnia and many other genocide could have been stopped with military intervention at the start of the war not at the end.

bogo24dk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

The hole africa is not one country. It's as saying America and southamerica are the same. You have to look at each individual case and then you can decide what's good for them. Colonial time is over thanks to US for that.

bro...its simple.  Blue UN food trucks aint gonna cut it.  what is your solution?

Pretty simple. Invest in those country's by making it lucrative for company's to move there. And at the same time keep pressure on the governments. Many of those in power are more interested in staying in power then making it a big fuss. And situations like darfur needs a military intervention not cheap talks.

Of course this is just one example which cant be applied to all.

I amazed that seems simple to you.  China is trying to move there for oil, but they get kidnapped a lot.  Well, not just China but you get the idea.  Isn't what you are suggesting the cause of the problem in the first place?

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

So first you say that nobody cares about Darfur, and then when I show you a lot of people indeed do, you try to deny it by claiming "oh, it's just a movement".

Wow. And um, was there NOT military intevention in Bosnia? You anger Wesley Clark.

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/a … lark_f.jpg

You wouldn't like Wesley Clark when he's angry.

MOAB just earlier stated that there was military intervention in Bosnia to stop the ethnic cleansing and the people who committed the act were hunted down and are still being hunted down. But I'm sure you just conveniently skipped over that post.

Let me give you an example wich you could understand. If a guy who is stronger is trying to kill and beside you you have to cops saying. Stop you shoulden't kill him to the guy who is killing you. Would you say they care about you ?

/ps it's an example of a big picture i hope you can fill who is who ?

See, if you could've written that in English a human could understand, yeah.

bogo24dk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

Pretty simple. Invest in those country's by making it lucrative for company's to move there. And at the same time keep pressure on the governments. Many of those in power are more interested in staying in power then making it a big fuss. And situations like darfur needs a military intervention not cheap talks.

Of course this is just one example which cant be applied to all.

I amazed that seems simple to you.  China is trying to move there for oil, but they get kidnapped a lot.  Well, not just China but you get the idea.  Isn't what you are suggesting the cause of the problem in the first place?

Ok, think for a min. Mass invasion it's like uniting the black people against the white. Each case should be considered individual.

nope.  you ever been there?

Poseidon wrote:

Don't forget the massive grassroots movements to stop the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. But those aren't important either.

What movement to stop the genocide in Rwanda?

It was facilitated by the French and Americans....

Mostly the French. Bastards.

bogo24dk wrote:

usmarine wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

The hole africa is not one country. It's as saying America and southamerica are the same. You have to look at each individual case and then you can decide what's good for them. Colonial time is over thanks to US for that.

bro...its simple.  Blue UN food trucks aint gonna cut it.  what is your solution?

Pretty simple. Invest in those country's by making it lucrative for company's to move there. And at the same time keep pressure on the governments. Many of those in power are more interested in staying in power then making it a big fuss. And situations like darfur needs a military intervention not cheap talks.

Of course this is just one example which cant be applied to all.

Well, actually, a lot of Africa's problems have resulted from corporate influence.  Currently, it is very lucrative for some corporations to move to Africa for the sake of collecting the various natural resources there.

Nigeria is a perfect example of Big Oil reaping the benefits of global oil trade while investing very little of the profit in Nigeria itself.  It's part of the reason why there is a major terror organization that fights the big oil companies there.  Desperation ends up creating a situation where many people are willing to side with terror groups in order to get some of the money involved.

So, there is plenty of corporate investment in Africa, but most of it accumulates among the elite rich in these countries.

Darfur might need some sort of military intervention to fix things, but we'd also have to commit to rebuilding the country and setting up a new government (since the current one is clearly too corrupt to keep in place).

Turquoise wrote:

Ottomania wrote:

Why risk an ally by declaring an uncertain Genocide? Well done high ranking Obama official. Bush was good at subject too.

It is certain though.  My argument is that Turkey lost its relevance as an ally after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Nowadays, Turkey is a country that we should trade with, but we have good reason to criticize your country for not admitting to something so obvious.

There's no pressing need to placate Turkey on this topic, and while there's also no pressing need to antagonize Turkey either, it looks very bad when a country turns a blind eye to a genocide or when it accepts some other country denying it exists.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/cumulative.htm

If you like reading.

I think the Armenian "Genocide" is something that should be open for debate. Yes, it was horrible what happend, yes the Turks sucked balls for letting it happen, causing it to happen, but personally I would not call it genocide.

As far as I know, genocide is defined by deliberate mass murder with the intention to wipe out a specific ethnic group or at least get rid of as much of them as possible. Holocaust was genocide, Rwanda was genocide, Bosnia was genocide, Armenian issue was deportation gone really really bad. Even though the result was that very many Armenians died and the Turkish government obviously cared very little about that, it was not orchestrated genocide in my opinion.

bogo24dk wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

It it's not a Jewish genocide it's not important.

You see, it's a statement like that coupled with the frequent Israel hate you tend to spew which really makes me question your agenda.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Yeah, I guess the international response to the ethnic cleansing that took place and the subsequent hunting of the people responsible means it wasn't important. Only Jews are important remember.

Don't forget the massive grassroots movements to stop the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. But those aren't important either.

You got me i am a nazi and every morning i sieg heil at the picture of adolf hitler and i pray for killing jews.

/so you know i am being sarcastic

Let me remind you here about the concentration camps in bosnia or mass genocide in Rwanda. Where somebody giving a damn about them.
How many genocides have there been since ww2. And did any one care about them. But yet the only one we are thought since we are in school is the Jewish death camps. Don't get me wrong it's a tragedy what happened. But focusing on one and ignoring the others is ignorant.
I remember the main focus about learning ww2 death camps was suppose to stop happening again. Guess what ? If it happens again tomorrow nobody will give a damn unless there is some interest in it.

Well, we started with the Boer War and the concentration camps there tbh. Was a modern history class so it wasn't gonna go back too far to look for ethnicity-based killings.