Go back
Why Representative, Republican Government Is Good

Why Representative, Republican Government Is Good

Debates

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your post. You seem to be suggesting (and I'm sure you're not) that anarchy is preferable to governmental authority. What did you mean?
What I'm saying that in a lot of African Countries and South Africa is considered the queen of Africa, there is no rule of law. That is why you get periodic genocides and ethnic cleansing. South Africa is a country that is at peace, but because there is no rule of law it has 28,000 murders a year (in a population of about 45 million). This statistic is quite a lot higher than the deaths in the middle-east crisis which could be said to be in a state of war.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
It's not civil war. It's ethnic cleansing. The Civil War, while containing atrocities committed by both sides, was fought by relatively equal groups of men. You want to talk about mass murder and unspeakable atrocities? Look no further than Darfur.
Atrocities are committed in every war, war itself is an atrocity. If you did any research into the situation in the Sudan rather than simply accepting the US government's version of events hook, line and sinker, you'd realize that there's been a war going on for almost 20 years in the Sudan. You'd also realize that the claims of "genocide" are reckless and exaggerations. There is killing and too much of it in Sudan, but the suden interest of the US government is fueled by hostility to the Islamic government of Sudan. The problem of the Sudan can be handled by its government and the Organization of African Union (who have arranged peace talks and ceasefires) without Westerners attempting to overthrow the government of the Sudan for global power politics. The West can, and should, provide humanitarian aid to relieve the suffering caused by the long drought in the Sudan (who's effects are worsened by the war) but that's all.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I don't know Shouth African domestic politics well enough to speak intelligently on why 28,000 murders were committed last year. A stable, representative, republican government, where the rights of minorities are protected, when you add in jobs and the chance to make your life better, I think, would prevent alot of the things we're seeing in Africa. ...[text shortened]... t it's in our self-interest to promote and foster stable, peaceful republics wherever possible.
Actually it proved that if you constantly interfere in other people's countries it tends to p**s them off.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Well...let's see...Sudan...

What do we know about the country?
It's split up in two main fractions: Moslims to the North and Christians to South.
And...it...has...oil...

Oh well...
I wonder who could be fuelling the flames of violence down there!
No. Surely not in Sudan as well...
A quick google search:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW407B.html

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=2&ItemID=6352

Oh deary me...looks like the representative Republican government of the US is at it again!

I'm so shocked.

pfffft.

However, there is a little twist to the story of Sudan:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm

Vote Up
Vote Down

The longstanding war in Southern Sudan and the more recent crisis in Darfur are distinct conflicts, in that one 'side' is different. At least, that's my understanding.

To put it in overly simple terms, the war was between 'North' and 'South'. Darfur is between groups probably backed by the 'North' and, um... 'West' I suppose for the other side. I'm actually not 100% clear on the origins and associations of the people in Darfur, and it seems to me they can't properly be described as a side in a conflict anyway, as the situation is more like raids on a civiliain, non-organised populace.

I point all this out because the Darfur situation happened at almost the same time as a formal peace deal was established in the war. It's that peace deal which is in danger after the death of Garang, who had been the leader of the South and who under the peace deal became vice-president.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
You said that the problem of the Sudan can be handled by its government. The problem of the Sudan [b]is the government. The Sudanese government sponsors the janjaweed militia, who ride around killing people in the most unspeakable ways possible. Sure, there's been war on the continent, and probably for longer than 20 years. Rwanda, Sudan, Ethio ...[text shortened]... the million killings and million more refugees. Seems like putting your finger in the dyke. [/b]
A "million" killings? Cite a source for such a claim.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
A "million" killings? Cite a source for such a claim.
1994. The Genocide of Rwanda. 4 million Hutu's killed by the Tutsi's. I might have confused the two sides, but there you go. Watch "Hotel Rwanda", although its distorted by hollywood, its a pretty good depiction of the attrocities that happened.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by no1marauder
A "million" killings? Cite a source for such a claim.
I'm not even gonna start on Somalia and Ethiopia.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
1994. The Genocide of Rwanda. 4 million Hutu's killed by the Tutsi's. I might have confused the two sides, but there you go. Watch "Hotel Rwanda", although its distorted by hollywood, its a pretty good depiction of the attrocities that happened.
And that has what to do with the situation in Sudan, 2005??

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I'm seeing 300,000 on genocidewatch.org. But the real question is how many does it take before it's worth paying attention to?
I'm asking for a "killings" figure in Darkur without including those dying in the famine. Your question is a valid one and the answer would depend on the particular situation and what can be reasonably accomplished. So far as I know, the sides in Sudan have agreed to a ceasefire and are talking of a peace deal; how much more "attention" is needed (besides famine relief)?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
That is also the difference between the USA and say a country like South Africa. There are about 28,000 murders per year in South Africa, which is more than all the casualties in Iraq for the past year, which incidently is in a state of war, while SA is supposed to be at peace. The rule of law has everything to do with it.
Iraq is in a state of war? Who declared war on who?