Your threads have nothing to do with this discussion. So how about you go eat some cheese to go with that whine and leave us all alone?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Are countries such as the US just as bad as the Janjaweed for allowing
I can't discuss my censorship in my thread......... My censorship thread got censored. I love that whine cheese thing though. You are pretty clever, did you just make that up??Bubbalo wrote:
Your threads have nothing to do with this discussion. So how about you go eat some cheese to go with that whine and leave us all alone?
No, it got locked. Censoring it would be removing it. Either way, don't derail this thread.lowing wrote:
I can't discuss my censorship in my thread......... My censorship thread got censored.
Nope. I used to tabletop wargame, and whine/cheese jokes were fairly common (cheesy being a term for unbalanced/overpower, like the n00btube was).lowing wrote:
I love that whine cheese thing though. You are pretty clever, did you just make that up??
Bah, you stole my line!lowing wrote:
For the sake of arguing............Do you maintain that controlling the flow of information and ideas is not censorship? If not, how is closing a thread and forbidding anyone to post their thoughts and ideas in those threads NOT censorship?Bubbalo wrote:
No, it got locked. Censoring it would be removing it. Either way, don't derail this thread.lowing wrote:
I can't discuss my censorship in my thread......... My censorship thread got censored.Nope. I used to tabletop wargame, and whine/cheese jokes were fairly common (cheesy being a term for unbalanced/overpower, like the n00btube was).lowing wrote:
I love that whine cheese thing though. You are pretty clever, did you just make that up??Bah, you stole my line!lowing wrote:
please start another thread on this issue, I do not want this thread to fill with spam.lowing wrote:
For the sake of arguing............Do you maintain that controlling the flow of information and ideas is not censorship? If not, how is closing a thread and forbidding anyone to post their thoughts and ideas in those threads NOT censorship?Bubbalo wrote:
No, it got locked. Censoring it would be removing it. Either way, don't derail this thread.lowing wrote:
I can't discuss my censorship in my thread......... My censorship thread got censored.Nope. I used to tabletop wargame, and whine/cheese jokes were fairly common (cheesy being a term for unbalanced/overpower, like the n00btube was).lowing wrote:
I love that whine cheese thing though. You are pretty clever, did you just make that up??Bah, you stole my line!lowing wrote:
is the situation in sudan more or less a civil war? who wants to step into an open civil war? i would expect that everyone that is upset at the situation in Iraq right now (which arguably IS a civil war) would be speaking out against going in.
we can of course use sanctions and so forth. honestly, i think the world needs action right now. there are many places in the world being victimized by this religious crap. where do we start?
we can of course use sanctions and so forth. honestly, i think the world needs action right now. there are many places in the world being victimized by this religious crap. where do we start?
Seriously, I tried...........It got censoredKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
please start another thread on this issue, I do not want this thread to fill with spam.lowing wrote:
For the sake of arguing............Do you maintain that controlling the flow of information and ideas is not censorship? If not, how is closing a thread and forbidding anyone to post their thoughts and ideas in those threads NOT censorship?Bubbalo wrote:
No, it got locked. Censoring it would be removing it. Either way, don't derail this thread.lowing wrote:
I can't discuss my censorship in my thread......... My censorship thread got censored.Nope. I used to tabletop wargame, and whine/cheese jokes were fairly common (cheesy being a term for unbalanced/overpower, like the n00btube was).lowing wrote:
I love that whine cheese thing though. You are pretty clever, did you just make that up??
Bah, you stole my line!
Taken from a post i made a few months ago:
And I hope that everyone realizes that by saying that countries who remain neutral are just as bad as countries actively committing atrocities are really damning everyone. The UN isn't stepping in, into a situation which is as black and white as it gets. That's pretty much everyone. So Ken, the next time you make a thread header, try to make it a little less obvious that you're out to slander your own country for simply doing what everyone else is. Slander everyone equally instead, for as human beings its EVERYONE'S duty to stop shit like this, not just us.
We've been over this.. just change Zimbabwe to Sudan.iamangry wrote:
When? When we've finished with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Sudan etc. Unfortunately in this age there is an unreasonable gap in the quality of people's lives throughout the world. To avoid sounding jingoist, the great American democracy cookie cutter can only be applied to one area at a time. But the question should not be when will America and Britain do something, they already are. The real question is when will the rest of the world stand up and do something? What about the United Nations? Why don't they act on the behalf of the people of Zimbabwe? It is not the responsibility of only the United States and Britain to help the oppressed peoples of this world, rather it is the responsibility of all those who have freedom and justice at home to help their neighbors seek it as well. What about Russia? What about China? What about the collective military power of Western and Central Europe? People may say that the United States went into Iraq because they had oil, and it may be true. Maybe we got tired of being the only nation who followed the UN's sanctions (France, Germany, Russia, and China all have proven oil ties to post sanction Iraq). Regardless of the reason, the Iraqis have a chance at democracy now, and only time will tell if they will embrace it. The point is, the United States is doing something here and now to change the world in an attempt to make it better. I ask you all, what is your nation doing to help the oppressed?
And I hope that everyone realizes that by saying that countries who remain neutral are just as bad as countries actively committing atrocities are really damning everyone. The UN isn't stepping in, into a situation which is as black and white as it gets. That's pretty much everyone. So Ken, the next time you make a thread header, try to make it a little less obvious that you're out to slander your own country for simply doing what everyone else is. Slander everyone equally instead, for as human beings its EVERYONE'S duty to stop shit like this, not just us.
The UN can't step in, because they have no active military, and cannot use combat forces on loan from others in internal affairs unless they have permission.iamangry wrote:
The UN isn't stepping in, into a situation which is as black and white as it gets.
I know this.Bubbalo wrote:
The UN can't step in, because they have no active military, and cannot use combat forces on loan from others in internal affairs unless they have permission.iamangry wrote:
The UN isn't stepping in, into a situation which is as black and white as it gets.
My question is, why doesn't YOUR country loan forces to the UN to take care of this matter? If being neutral makes people just as bad as those committing the atrocities, than you are just as guilty as we are.
Even if Australia did loan forces to the UN, they couldn't use them, as I have already explained.
Really, then how did the UN act in Iraq in 1991??
Because that wasn't an internal issue.
wait, but darfur, which is located in Sudan, is? That doesn't make any sense to me. How is the massacre of thousands of innocents an internal issue for the UN?? Does the UN have an internal genocide committee or something????
Darfur is entirely contained withing Sudan. As such, it is an intranational issue, and the UN cannot act without the permission of Sudan
The Gulf War was a military act by Iraq against Kuwait. As such, is was an international issue, and the UN acted in accordance with the authorisation of the Security Council, an international organisation.
lolKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Force the Sudanese government (which is decidedly complacent itself on the issue, even allegedly supporting some of marauding forces) into doing something.
Everything does not have to be solved with a gun/troops. Use the biggest force we can - $$$
"force the Sudanese government into doing something"
hit the nail on the head there champ
touche, i failed to see it that way. However, since one group is being persecuted by another in a country, can we really call it a single nation? In a civil war, is the nation in question fighting itself, or does it split, become two sovereign entities, both of which deserve recognition until a resolution is met? In the American civil war, there were two governments in America, that of the Confederates and the of the Union. Was that then an internal affair, or could we consider that an honest engagement between two sovereign nations? I don't know, and I don't care how it plays out legally, I just know that what is going on over there is an example of what humanity can sink to if the moral people of the world do not choose action. That's my country, that's your country, and that's everyone else's country as well. Is it right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state? No. Is it right to allow the senseless killing of thousands of innocents? No. So which means more to us, not meddling in the affairs of others, or turning a blind eye to genocide? I choose the latter, and I believe that the UN should choose the latter as well.
Not to be slightly off-topic, but the UN is like a goddamn paper tiger; they have no true power at all. When shit hits the fan, and theres some country in trouble, they go like 'well we'd like to help you, but we can't.' The UN shirks responsibility and does little to reprimand its own members, even when some countries (like China) have severe humanitarian issues. The UN, as someone stated, doesn't really have an army--unless you count the US, since we always end up going in to do the dirty work (Desert storm, Kosovo, to name two of them).
Clearly the problem is the UN is indecisive; they're all huff and no stuff. When it times to put boot to ass and remove butchers from their throne, they chicken out. When thousands of people are being massacared in Darfur, they claim 'intranational affair' and can't do jack. I don't care what the fuck international laws stop them from going in to stop this: on the basic level, Genocide is occurring--plain and simple. What DOES the UN actually do, besides shuffle paper around, and make verbal reprimands of countries that have these kinds of things happening? Words are no good unless you have the might to back them up.
Clearly the problem is the UN is indecisive; they're all huff and no stuff. When it times to put boot to ass and remove butchers from their throne, they chicken out. When thousands of people are being massacared in Darfur, they claim 'intranational affair' and can't do jack. I don't care what the fuck international laws stop them from going in to stop this: on the basic level, Genocide is occurring--plain and simple. What DOES the UN actually do, besides shuffle paper around, and make verbal reprimands of countries that have these kinds of things happening? Words are no good unless you have the might to back them up.
Yes. Well, no, but only because the technical term is state. In the same way that China and Taiwan are, currently, the same state. There is only one representative in the UN, and the borders are internationally recognised. For it to become two states it would require a new government to form and to be internationally recognised (which, basically, means a seat on the UN).iamangry wrote:
However, since one group is being persecuted by another in a country, can we really call it a single nation?
So you expect Kofi Annan to go in and wage war with entire countries on his own?Magius5.0 wrote:
Clearly the problem is the UN is indecisive; they're all huff and no stuff.
He's not on his own silly, he's got a internationally funded army.
Did I get it right Bubs?
Did I get it right Bubs?
No, he doesn't have an army. That's the point of what I was saying.
What about my other question?
Duly answered.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Are countries such as the US just as bad as the Janjaweed for allowing