For all you 'do-gooders' out there: what should be next on the agenda and why?
Poll
Which deserves the most attention: which next?
| Sudan (Darfur) Genocide | 28% | 28% - 10 | ||||
| Iran Nuclear Question | 22% | 22% - 8 | ||||
| North Korea Nuclear Certainty (!) | 22% | 22% - 8 | ||||
| Zimbabwe Despotism | 2% | 2% - 1 | ||||
| Myanmar (Burma) Oppression | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Palestinian Statelessness/Oppression | 2% | 2% - 1 | ||||
| Sri Lankan Separatism | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| Other...elaborate | 0% | 0% - 0 | ||||
| I don't believe in Intervensionism at all | 5% | 5% - 2 | ||||
| I only believe in very limited intervensionism | 14% | 14% - 5 | ||||
| Total: 35 | ||||||
Darfur no question about it. Iran, North Korea that's our own fault and in my opinion should be solved with diplomacy. What's going on in Darfur right now is horrible, Genocide on a mass scale is much more important then the politics brought on by our ignorant government.
Iran loomes largest on the radar. It's lead by an unstable man who is developing nukes for the sole purpose of using them to achieve his goal of bringing about the end of the world so Islam can rule.
To bad the Sudanese government will not allow UN peace keepers. The militia just hijack the aide that is sent in there now.CommieChipmunk wrote:
Darfur no question about it. Iran, North Korea that's our own fault and in my opinion should be solved with diplomacy. What's going on in Darfur right now is horrible, Genocide on a mass scale is much more important then the politics brought on by our ignorant government.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
In terms of threats to world peace, definitely Iran. In terms of threats to human rights, I believe Darfur....
Although, I think they've said Iran would be close to impossible to invade on a full-scale attack.
But I think Campoe is talking about Iraq war supporters.. so forget what I said
Although, I think they've said Iran would be close to impossible to invade on a full-scale attack.
But I think Campoe is talking about Iraq war supporters.. so forget what I said
Zimbabwe. Mugabe has fucked that place up, and I think theres a better chance of fixing that.
Palestine. Apparently the US had great success in the 1990s when the CIA and DoD sent security advisers to the PLO to train them. Eventually the Israelis and Palestinians were doing joint patrols. So I think that situation can go beyond the current "unpleasantries" with a return to (somewhat) more evenhanded US leadership.
I assume this thread is devoted to world attention because the US itself obviously need to devote more attention to it's borders.
That let's sneak into a country and have a protest shit got old quick.
That let's sneak into a country and have a protest shit got old quick.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-02 21:20:24)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Id say Darfur by a long shot. It really proves were the international communities agenda lies. Not with humanity as thats sustainable. And proves that Iraqi is a crock of shit. Oil on the other hand isn't sustainable.
Iran. Too psycho to have nukes. He will use them.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Sudan, then Iran, then N. Korea
EDIT: On second thought, save Iran for last, N. Korea is the lesser threat of the 2, but Iran is more unstable, so if we move in, it's just gonna be like poking the bull with the stick.
EDIT: On second thought, save Iran for last, N. Korea is the lesser threat of the 2, but Iran is more unstable, so if we move in, it's just gonna be like poking the bull with the stick.
Last edited by Elamdri (2006-12-02 22:44:29)
I vote Darfur, then its a split between Myanmar and Zimbabwe.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I tend to be isolationist, but since I know we'll continue to be an interventionist country, my vote goes to Darfur.