Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > Off the Court Lounge

Off the Court Lounge Basketball fans talk about everything EXCEPT basketball here

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-29-2007, 09:26 AM   #1
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
Very good NBA starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,369
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat cool
Default Should the US get involved in Darfur?

let me just start out by saying it is truly a tragedy what is happening there since 2003, and it is truly a concern that everyone in the world, not as Americans, or Russians, or French, or Chinese, or etc... but as people, need to be concerned about.


I recently donated $100 to help the cause of alleviating problems there. (hey I'm a student, I can't break the bank)




And the UN is really ineffective with solving this.



but yesterday I came across a group of protesters who wanted the US to use military force to go into Darfur and solve the problem.



um... I won't comment about Middle East or anything, but my point is: would that be a smart choice of action?
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 09:49 AM   #2
different107
National High School Star
 
different107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: michigan
Posts: 1,637
different107 has decent reputation
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

At the moment, if the President authorized any more military action I think the nation would about explode. I hate seeing what is happening as much as anyone else, but at the moment I don't think military force would be the best decision. The UN is quite ineffecive in my opinion anyways. With most of our troops in the Middle East, do we even have the resources needed to go into Darfur?
different107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:13 AM   #3
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
Very good NBA starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,369
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

my point is, I met a group of radicals (whom I am NOT associating with the left wing, just saying they are a group of radicals) on campus who in the past have vehemently disagreed with the US's involvement in the Middle East, who were vehemently arguing for the US to take "moral responsibility" for what is going on in Darfur.




if there were an extra 20,000 troops and the country would be willin to support it, I think wit hthe proper leadership, a region as small as Darfur with a clear cut enemy could easily be controlled and its people liberated and given all the aid.


but that's just me. however, what options are left? possibly the only way anything can be done and scapegoats won't be pointed out, is if a coalition of many different nations sent in "peacekeepers" (really soldiers given a fancy name to appease the media) to resolve the issue.
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:20 AM   #4
Heilige
An Icon Forever
 
Heilige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: location,location
Posts: 3,395
Heilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by different107
At the moment, if the President authorized any more military action I think the nation would about explode. I hate seeing what is happening as much as anyone else, but at the moment I don't think military force would be the best decision. The UN is quite ineffecive in my opinion anyways. With most of our troops in the Middle East, do we even have the resources needed to go into Darfur?


That's woefully inaccurate.

The US Army alone counting Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve, numbers just over 1 million soldiers. "Most of our troops," are right here in the United States.

Skimming over this in wikipedia now. We easily have the resources to send a force in there, but for what purpose? Would they be going in with a mandate allowing them to adapt to changing situations, or would they have their hands tied as seen in 1992-1993 Operation Restore Hope? Further is the question about the "correctness," of a military intervention force, although nobody batted an eye when the French decimated the Ivory Coast, I doubt anyone would view another overt deployment of US forces in the context that it is used and crys of Imperialism would become rampant.

Sorry, but people want to complain about US intervention, so I say leave it to the UN. After all, that's what they're there for.
Heilige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:22 AM   #5
Heilige
An Icon Forever
 
Heilige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: location,location
Posts: 3,395
Heilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCDrivesAPorscheToWork



but yesterday I came across a group of protesters who wanted the US to use military force to go into Darfur and solve the problem.




The problem with this is that they're saying it's okay to invade this country and right whatever their wrongs are, but how many of them say it's wrong for us to invade Iraq/The Middle East and right their wrongs? Since the Sudanese government is being partially implicated in perpetuating the situation on the ground, we would be effectively bringing down another Fundamentalist Islamic regime and creating another puppet-government.

In other words, military intervention by the United States is so far from the answer that it's ridiculous.
Heilige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:24 AM   #6
JtotheIzzo
Cavs eh? Ok then!
 
JtotheIzzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Clevenada
Posts: 13,843
JtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableJtotheIzzo is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

American understanding of the UN and its role is very sad.

The UN would have a lot more teeth and be much more effective if the US participated fully like other member states, instead of using it as a political pawn to cast aspersions on difficult international issues.
JtotheIzzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 10:35 AM   #7
Heilige
An Icon Forever
 
Heilige's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: location,location
Posts: 3,395
Heilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation hereHeilige has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Furthermore: just who would we attack? The government denies any involvement with the militia, while clandestinely providing arms. If we move in and take down the government then we'll just be accused of shooting the wrong people. If we take down the militias, then once we're gone the government will go back to it.

Furthermore, there's no threat to the US. No threat at all.

Sounds self-involved, doesn't it? But that's what people keep telling me about Saddam Hussein, that he was no threat, and that we have no business sticking our nose's in the world's affairs.

Basically, that two-edged sword of isolationism means ESPECIALLY not intervening in places like Darfur.

Kind of a painful thing to say, huh? It gets worse.

While the Sudanese government is partially implicated, all of their neighbors have an equal interest in maintaining the genocide. If they aren't actively helping, they're turning a blind eye to it. Sure, you may here the token protest here and there, but there's no real pressure.

The entire situation stinks, IMO. I would rather we went in and did something. But Americans don't want to get involved in a messy, bloody war where there's no benefit to them. Americans don't want to see American soldiers die for somebody else's problem. Most of them are being intractable about American's dieing for a cause that is EMINENTLY more our problem. We have protests, for Pete's sake, about the level of interventionism that kicks in for a situation like Iraq! How much more so for intervention on a truly majestic, truly imperial scale!

The UN, as ineffective as they are, are the only hope they right now. God help them.
Heilige is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:19 AM   #8
The_Masterplan
Banned
 
The_Masterplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,266
The_Masterplan has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

MAn, ifeel out of the blue on this one. I always knew some bad stuff was going on in Darfur but if someone can give me a summary of what is going down there than i would really appreciate it.

The reason why i dont want to look this up is because I searched Darfur in images to see where exactly it was and some nasty pictures came up of babies and i didnt want to read something about it with sickening pictures like that.
The_Masterplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 11:22 AM   #9
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
Very good NBA starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,369
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Masterplan
MAn, ifeel out of the blue on this one. I always knew some bad stuff was going on in Darfur but if someone can give me a summary of what is going down there than i would really appreciate it.



long story short:


Darfur is a region in Sudan

it is kind of a civil war in which the Janjaweed militias (covertly supported by the Sudanese government are targeting the Fur, Zaghawa and Massaleit ethnic groups.

they are committing mass genocide essentially and creating more and more suffering refugees each and every day.

the Sudanese government has said that any attempt to interfere, whether by the UN or other coalition, will be an act of war and they will retaliate and possibly increase their attempts at killing.
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 04:03 PM   #10
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,183
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heilige
Furthermore: just who would we attack? The government denies any involvement with the militia, while clandestinely providing arms. If we move in and take down the government then we'll just be accused of shooting the wrong people. If we take down the militias, then once we're gone the government will go back to it

Funny, that sounds exactly like Iraq.
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 04:42 PM   #11
Lakerz_Forever
Local High School Star
 
Lakerz_Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the A
Posts: 772
Lakerz_Forever has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

my school already is. i go to woodward academy, in colli park, GA. we have been raising money the last two weeks by buying donuts in the morning. i just give money without taking donuts. and tomorrow, Friday, we have a walkathon. i donated 75 dollars and will walk for 2 miles or something like that which will also raise money. i know, it's terrible what is going on over there with genocide and everything, just makes me grateful to live here, in america. i can't imagine what those people go through everday. but to answer the topic, yes, i think we should. it's a crisis and we are, in fact, the world's policeman. the U.N. is also doing something right?
Lakerz_Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2007, 05:38 PM   #12
different107
National High School Star
 
different107's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: michigan
Posts: 1,637
different107 has decent reputation
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heilige
That's woefully inaccurate.

The US Army alone counting Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve, numbers just over 1 million soldiers. "Most of our troops," are right here in the United States.

Skimming over this in wikipedia now. We easily have the resources to send a force in there, but for what purpose? Would they be going in with a mandate allowing them to adapt to changing situations, or would they have their hands tied as seen in 1992-1993 Operation Restore Hope? Further is the question about the "correctness," of a military intervention force, although nobody batted an eye when the French decimated the Ivory Coast, I doubt anyone would view another overt deployment of US forces in the context that it is used and crys of Imperialism would become rampant.

Sorry, but people want to complain about US intervention, so I say leave it to the UN. After all, that's what they're there for.

I put it in question for because I wasn't sure about our resources. I wasn't stating that we had too few soldiers.
different107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2007, 09:59 AM   #13
baseketball4life
NBA Superstar
 
baseketball4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,906
baseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterbaseketball4life is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
let me just start out by saying it is truly a tragedy what is happening there since 2003, and it is truly a concern that everyone in the world, not as Americans, or Russians, or French, or Chinese, or etc... but as people, need to be concerned about.


I recently donated $100 to help the cause of alleviating problems there. (hey I'm a student, I can't break the bank)




And the UN is really ineffective with solving this.



but yesterday I came across a group of protesters who wanted the US to use military force to go into Darfur and solve the problem.



um... I won't comment about Middle East or anything, but my point is: would that be a smart choice of action?
the US is already in the middle east and they f*ucked that up so until they are done screwing up the middle east i dont think they should do anything. also even if they did so something in darfur odds are they would just make it worse like the middle east.
baseketball4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2007, 10:36 AM   #14
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
Very good NBA starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,369
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat coolVCDrivesAPorscheToWork is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Bush admitted he fuct up Iraq because of

a lack of organization and leadership.
VCDrivesAPorscheToWork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2007, 12:02 PM   #15
Sean77
High School JV MVP
 
Sean77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 576
Sean77 has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Should the US get involved in Darfur?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heilige
That's woefully inaccurate.

The US Army alone counting Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve, numbers just over 1 million soldiers. "Most of our troops," are right here in the United States.

Skimming over this in wikipedia now. We easily have the resources to send a force in there, but for what purpose? Would they be going in with a mandate allowing them to adapt to changing situations, or would they have their hands tied as seen in 1992-1993 Operation Restore Hope? Further is the question about the "correctness," of a military intervention force, although nobody batted an eye when the French decimated the Ivory Coast, I doubt anyone would view another overt deployment of US forces in the context that it is used and crys of Imperialism would become rampant.

Sorry, but people want to complain about US intervention, so I say leave it to the UN. After all, that's what they're there for.

True, there's over a million soldiers in the Army alone, but that does not mean the Army has 1 million combat-ready soldiers. The majority of troops in any branch are in non-combat specialties, about 70%. True, once bullets start flying, everyone's infantry, but logistically speaking it would have to be an extreme case to have ALL our troops overseas.

You might say, "So you think Darfur's not an extreme case?" Of course it is, but so Somalia when Mohammad Farah Aidid was ruling things with an iron fist. UN sent guys over there, they got ripped up. US sent guys over there, we got ripped up and had a soldier's dead body dragged through the streets. What the US goverment meant to be a clean quiet execution turned into a mess, because we underestimated those guys over there.

That's why neither UN nor US helped out in Rwanda, that's we we pulled out of Haiti's situation, and that's why we won't help out in Darfur. Which funny, because we did send Marines to Liberia to help with the Monrovia situation. We're too busy picking the wrong battles to fight. When I was in the Army, I would much sooner go help out the rest of our guys with the Katrina victims than go to Iraq. As a soldier I would rather put my efforts towards an actual humanitarian mission, because that was my job in the military. In some respects, that's what Iraq could've been, and in the beginning after Saddam was overthrown there were Iraqis who were glad about it. Now it's a different story. I fear that even if we did go to Darfur under the Bush administration, it would turn out worse.
Sean77 is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:12 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy