You may want to find out, so you can cut thru the bullshit some people post here.

Then you will not be bullshitted by the political type twisting some post here.

This is why I'm convinced women need to rule the world. No stubborn machoism. Eveytime Pat tries to have a Volume it gets turned into the SAME EXACT thread.

Using your favorite word, and Pat's favorite part of the constitution that he seems to quote in every other post, it's called FREEDOM of speech!

Mick, you and I have never bashed each other, etc. In fact I believe that over time we have shown a respect for each other even when having political disagreements. With all due respect, I must ask you this : If my President is in it for the oil, then what is your country and 27 other countries in it for?


Don Cardi

Or take a cab ride with me either! Right LDV, GEOFF, TIS?


Don Cardi

Using your favorite word, and Pat's favorite part of the constitution that he seems to quote in every other post, it's called FREEDOM of speech!

Mick, you and I have never bashed each other, etc. In fact I believe that over time we have shown a respect for each other even when having political disagreements. With all due respect, I must ask you this : If my President is in it for the oil, then what is your country and 27 other countries in it for?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]OUCH!

By the way, great sentence structure!

Ok heres what confuses me Patrick and others that I know personally are pissed(to use such a word) that Bush sent troops into Iraq to help end the genocide.

But yet they want Bush to send troops into Sudan, a place we have no business being in in the first place.

I mean good grief Pat and others get pissed off when the US intervenes in the affairs of other nations But when the Bush administration doesn't intervene They still get pissed.


Like someone already stated What about the UN? Come pat I can remember in another thread you saying the world needs the UN, why aren't you jumping on their case since it's rather obvious they aren't doing anything to stop what's happening in Sudan right now.


Oh yeah I forgot your just using this to basically bash Bush, which happens to be a favorite thing for you to do.

Iceman -

I have posed this very same question to Pat many many times, and he has NEVER given a straight answer! Yes, you are 100% correct, the boy just wants to attack The President on every matter, subject, controversy, issue, or situation that arises ANYWHERE in the world!


Don Cardi

Part--I've donated close to $250 or $300 to charities since I got my job 2 years ago, which I think is a pretty fuggin' good amount for someone my age.

Where Pat Stands on the Iraq War:
I put it in bold so that even DC and FS can possibly understand it. When we first learned of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Bush and his administration told us about the WMDs they were producing. Next, the main reason we entered Iraq was to get Saddam out and get these WMDs. We got Saddam out, but there were no WMDs. After this, Bush and his administration focused on the genocide Saddam did. The genocide was probably the 2nd priority after the WMD issue. Let's put it this way. If there was no intelligence saying Iraq had WMDS, than we wouldn't be there. That's my problem with the Iraq War. I am truly honored to say that we're freeing the people over there. I am just ashamed that we had to lie to go in. Why didn't we just say we wanted to go in there to end genocide?

The UN: The UN has been involved in Sudan since the genocide started! They even got a peace treaty signed, but so far it is failing. As you UN haters say, the UN needs the US, so without the US, it's difficult.

'Bashing' Bush: I wouldn't call it bashing. I'd call it criticizing. He is ignoring Sudan, is in strong favor of the Cuban embargo, and favors immigration. I cannot think of one stance where I agree with him and it makes me feel even better to know that 55 million other Americans feel the same way. Bush might have the majority in America, but I sure as hell doesn't have the majority of the world. -Pat

Regarding the UN: That's great that they are involved, they should be. However if they garnered a peace treaty, and that peace treaty is not working, they need to try something else.

And who says the US isn't assisting the UN here? UN forces have a lot of American servicemen and women in them. We're providing monetary aid. If $65,000,000.00 isn't enough, let's ask some other countries to match it. How much has Canada given? Italy? Poland? The fact is the United States gives more money to these kinds of situations than any other country on the planet bar none, and people have the audaciety to say it isn't enough? I find that sickening. We've given well over a billion to the tsunami relief effort, but how much did other countries donate to us for the hurricane relief in Florida? Or the San Fransisco earthquake? Or the Great Chicago fire? Why does the US have to shoulder all the burden and then get shit on because it isn't enough?

The United States cannot be expected to come in and police every other country in the world (including Iraq). I think the idea that the US is necessary to fix whatever problems they are having in Sudan (I admit, I'm rather ignorant) is pretty arogant. There are plenty of other countries in the world who would be just as capable as we are, are there not?

This is not to say other countries aren't helping, they are, but damnit, it really pisses me off.

Regarding Iraq: The President focused on WMD's because he's a politician and he wanted support from his constituency. People are afraid of terrorists, and Iraq may pose a threat, therefore people will be more inclined to support a war. He did mention genocide from the very beginning but he chose (as did the media) to focus on the chance of WMDs because that would get more support, and it did.

[/qb][/QUOTE]Where Pat Stands on the Iraq War: I put it in bold so that even DC and FS can possibly understand it. When we first learned of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Bush and his administration told us about the WMDs they were producing. Next, the main reason we entered Iraq was to get Saddam out and get these WMDs. We got Saddam out, but there were no WMDs. After this, Bush and his administration focused on the genocide Saddam did. The genocide was probably the 2nd priority after the WMD issue. Let's put it this way. If there was no intelligence saying Iraq had WMDS, than we wouldn't be there. That's my problem with the Iraq War. I am truly honored to say that we're freeing the people over there. I am just ashamed that we had to lie to go in. Why didn't we just say we wanted to go in there to end genocide? [/QB][/QUOTE]

right on 'Tric. remember, that B*shs "boys" have been trying real hard to get the US in iraq for several years. To B*shs credit, he was pressured to send troops to iraq as soon as he took office(pre-911) and he decided against it--or Advised against it--

'Tric- make sure your feelings dont go unheard. Be sure to send a letter to your Congressman telling him how you feel. There are several websites which help you do this and even one that i came across that has letters written for you that all you have to do is send. we need all the help possible. Getting B*sh out of office will not bring peace to this world but it will be at least a step in the right direction.

O and dont put too much stock in some of the comments made by some people above. You never know what you are going to get on the internet. most of those comments were extemely childesh and unintelligent and i wouldnt be suprised if they really are children typing them

Okay, first, what's up with the astrisk? I can see no point in it whatsoever.

Second, I think that a website that offers prewritten letters to congressmen where "all you have to do is hit send" is a really bad idea. It's just going to be boilerplated garbage, and the senator or whomever won't read it (most won't read electronic corruspondence you'll find, they require physical letters). A person should be writing their own letters that consist of their own thoughts instead of letting some ananymous website do it for them. What a terrible, terrible idea.

Third, I'm getting really sick of all this nonsense about Bush being unable to think for himself. That's just rediculous. He has advisors, all leaders do and for good reason.

And finally, if Bush went to Iraq simply for oil, why the hell does gas cost (on average) $1.97 a gallon? It seems to me that if he went to the country as a conquorer then the US would be enjoying the fruits of that, but we're not, because we (specifically Bush or his "handlers") don't control the oil exports of another country.

Sorry if I sound like an unitelligent child to you.

people write Bush as B*sh because to them that name is a "bad word" on a lot of sites you will see people write "kiss my a*s" :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How creative :rolleyes:

By going into Iraq and by Bush telling countries with dictators that they will be free, we're, in essence, telling the world that we will help them without actually saying it. Did you see that Bush recently added Cuba and Castro to his Axis of Evil?

To my knowledge, some African nations are actually against the UN and its' peace treaty! They're supporting the genocide! -Pat

I don't know if I really agree with your logic behind telling the world we will help them. That's simply impossible, we can only do so much good (or bad a lot of times). And no, I didn't hear that Bush added Cuba to the Axis of Evil. I'll have to read about that.

The Africa thing? I'm sure there are plenty of countries that are against the UN going into the Sudan and imposing treaties and whatnot, but I don't think this amounts to a tacit support of genocide. There are myriad reasons why a country would be against this, not the least of which is valueing the independence of a neighboring country, or the fear that your own country could be next. You have to understand, there is a lot of ignorance about this genocide, and people not supporting the UN resolutions in Sudan are probably either unaware of it, or simply not taking it into acount. Certainly no one (well, some people I guess would) would support genocide, tacitly or otherwise.

Patrick, I remember that you had argued that US should spend its money first on poverty, unemployment and education in US. Now why would you like to divert money to Sudan when it can help its own citizens with that money?

You think that is expensive? It costs me equivalent of $4.5 a gallon

And we should, but like I said, Bush has said that we will help any country under a tyrant, such as Iraq. We've opened the door to several countries now. -Pat

Really it sucks! If you make $2500/year and only give $250-300 in that time period -- equates to about 5-7% of your income.

Just my humble (yeah right ) opinion of someone who works in development for a not-for-profit organization

I am also curious as to which charities you donate to.
Just my opinion

Pat, Pat, Pat ..... Your heart is in the right place but your ignorance of the facts and your obvious love of blame Bush for everything is obviously shining very brightly.

The UN shopuld take the lead from the US and declare the Sudan crisis a genocide.

1. The US did so back in September and The UN has yet to do so.

2. The United States began negotiations at the United Nations (in the fall of '04)on a Security Council resolution that threatens to consider new sanctions against Sudan if it fails to crack down on the militias, and calls for the establishment of a U.N. commission of inquiry to determine whether Sudan and the militia are responsible for genocide.

Concerns:
1. The Sudanese are obviously pissed at this declaration from the U.S and Colin Powell they say it will only make it more difficult to resolve what they describe as an internal problem. (of course they are not going to admit to a genocide!)

2. United Nations -- officials from a number of Security Council member nations expressed concern that Powell's statement would complicate efforts to win broad support for a new resolution. Both the African Union and the Arab League have said there is no genocide. China and Russia dont believe either. The European Union said it does not have enough information.

Bottom line (Again) Let's stop bashing the US just because you have a contempt for the President. The US did take a lead on this issue and hopefully the UN will follow suit.

Also -- it is not like this has been a problem for the last 2 years. The Sudan conflict (civil war) whatever you wanna call it has been going on for years. It has just been brought to the front recently with the latest minority uprising.

Great post Partagas!

The question tho, will the boy listen. My guess will be NO!

Many people have gone the same route. With little change.

Really it sucks! If you make $2500/year and only give $250-300 in that time period -- equates to about 5-7% of your income.

I am also curious as to which charities you donate to.
Just my opinion [/b][/quote]12 %, but I think it's good for someone my age. I donate to the American Cancer Society and donate money to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. I also take part in food drives. And like I said, I give pocket change to other things.

Kofi Annan has said many times that the Sudan crisis was genocide. Am I misunderstanding what you said? UN submits Sudan genocide report

What is there to determine? The Arab government and Arab militias are killing the black Sudanese. Why do we need to make sanctions that will fail, just like they did in Iraq?


The civil war started in 1983, but the genocide has been happening moreso in the last 2 years.

Really it sucks! If you make $2500/year and only give $250-300 in that time period -- equates to about 5-7% of your income.

I am also curious as to which charities you donate to.
Just my opinion [/b][/quote]12 %, but I think it's good for someone my age. I donate to the American Cancer Society and donate money to the Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. I also take part in food drives. And like I said, I give pocket change to other things.

[/b][/quote]Just want to make sure I have my math clear. You indicated you make about $2,500 annually and you got your job two years ago, that equates to $5,000. Over that same period you donated $250-300. That equates to 5-6%. I may have been a little harsh also. While I believe you could give more (as I think everyone could [should]) I do appreciate everyone that gives anything

You think that is expensive? It costs me equivalent of $4.5 a gallon [/b][/quote]That's pretty bad, but I think you're missing my point, which is this: If Bush went to war with Iraq because of oil, oil prices should have gone down instead of up.

Kofi Annan has said many times that the Sudan crisis was genocide. Am I misunderstanding what you said? UN submits Sudan genocide report

[/quote]Umm I guess you are "misunderstanding" what I stated as the UN has never said that the tragedy in Sudan is genocide. Take a look at the related article from the same BBC web site you just referred to: US convinced of Darfur \'genocide\'

US convinced of Darfur 'genocide'

About two million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur
The US is standing by its claim that Sudan is committing genocide in the Darfur region, despite a UN report stopping short of using the term.
Washington called for the United Nations to set up a special court to try those accused of war crimes in the conflict in Sudan.

It also urged the Security Council to consider imposing sanctions on Sudan.

The report said the Council should refer the case to the International Criminal Court, a move the US opposed.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the Security Council had to take action and hold suspected war criminals in Sudan accountable.

"Such grave crimes cannot be committed with impunity. That would be a terrible betrayal of the victims, and of potential future victims in Darfur and elsewhere," he said.


Sudan rejected the report as unfair and incorrect, while Darfur rebel groups said it did not go far enough.

Meanwhile, the African Union, which is in charge of monitoring a shaky ceasefire between the govenment and the rebels, says some of its observers were shot at on Monday while investigating a bombing that the UN blames on Sudan's government.

Court rift

The report - prepared by a five-member UN-appointed commission - said the Sudanese government "has not pursued a policy of genocide" although "in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent".

It pointed to "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur".

But US state department spokesman Richard Boucher took issue, saying: "We stand by the conclusion that we reached [in September 2004] that genocide had been occurring in Darfur."

The report named, in secret, alleged war criminals it said should go before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Mr Boucher said the UN and the African Union should set up a tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.

He also called for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to Sudan and targeted sanctions against the government there.

BBC state department correspondent Jonathan Beale says the US will discuss these proposals with Council members in the coming days but it is likely to be out of step with a number of key allies who believe the ICC should now become involved.

The US does not recognise the ICC, which it fears could be used for politically motivated prosecutions of US soldiers and diplomats.

Human cost

More than 70,000 people have been killed in the two-year conflict that has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis in Darfur and some two million have fled their homes.

Many of the refugees, mostly non-Arabs, say that militiamen backed by security forces have ridden into their villages on horses and camels, slaughtering the men, raping the women and stealing whatever they can find.

The Sudan government denies backing the Janjaweed militia and blames the violence on rebels who took up arms in February 2003.

Kofi Annan has said many times that the Sudan crisis was genocide. Am I misunderstanding what you said? UN submits Sudan genocide report

[/quote]Umm I guess you are "misunderstanding" what I stated as the UN has never said that the tragedy in Sudan is genocide. Take a look at the related article from the same BBC web site you just referred to: US convinced of Darfur \'genocide\'

US convinced of Darfur 'genocide'

About two million people have been forced to flee their homes in Darfur
The US is standing by its claim that Sudan is committing genocide in the Darfur region, despite a UN report stopping short of using the term.
Washington called for the United Nations to set up a special court to try those accused of war crimes in the conflict in Sudan.

It also urged the Security Council to consider imposing sanctions on Sudan.

The report said the Council should refer the case to the International Criminal Court, a move the US opposed.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the Security Council had to take action and hold suspected war criminals in Sudan accountable.

"Such grave crimes cannot be committed with impunity. That would be a terrible betrayal of the victims, and of potential future victims in Darfur and elsewhere," he said.


Sudan rejected the report as unfair and incorrect, while Darfur rebel groups said it did not go far enough.

Meanwhile, the African Union, which is in charge of monitoring a shaky ceasefire between the govenment and the rebels, says some of its observers were shot at on Monday while investigating a bombing that the UN blames on Sudan's government.

Court rift

The report - prepared by a five-member UN-appointed commission - said the Sudanese government "has not pursued a policy of genocide" although "in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent".

It pointed to "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur".

But US state department spokesman Richard Boucher took issue, saying: "We stand by the conclusion that we reached [in September 2004] that genocide had been occurring in Darfur."

The report named, in secret, alleged war criminals it said should go before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Mr Boucher said the UN and the African Union should set up a tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania.

He also called for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to Sudan and targeted sanctions against the government there.

BBC state department correspondent Jonathan Beale says the US will discuss these proposals with Council members in the coming days but it is likely to be out of step with a number of key allies who believe the ICC should now become involved.

The US does not recognise the ICC, which it fears could be used for politically motivated prosecutions of US soldiers and diplomats.

Human cost

More than 70,000 people have been killed in the two-year conflict that has exacerbated a humanitarian crisis in Darfur and some two million have fled their homes.

Many of the refugees, mostly non-Arabs, say that militiamen backed by security forces have ridden into their villages on horses and camels, slaughtering the men, raping the women and stealing whatever they can find.

The Sudan government denies backing the Janjaweed militia and blames the violence on rebels who took up arms in February 2003. [/b][/quote]So the US admits there is genocide, but wants the UN and African Union to solve it. The African Union is pretty much telling the US and UN to screw off. The UN needs the US.

BTW, $300 donated at $2,500 a year is 12 % a year. -Pat

My bad -- your comment earlier was that since you got a job two years ago -- you contributed $250-300 during period. I took it as you donated $250-300 during that two year period not annually so I will give you the benefit of the doubt

I'm well aware of General Powell's speech at the UN, but then after the way he was sidelined by his own government I don't have any reason to expect any sincerity from that corner.

Some notes:

The original report said the Council should refer the case to the International Criminal Court, a move the US opposed. The US opposed it, the US not the UN, not the Human Rights Commision, the US!

Ok, so Kofi say's the Security Council has to take action, has the US made a case to the Security Council yet? Which members of the Security Council would vote against said action and why?

" Washington called for the United Nations to set up a special court to try those accused of war crimes in the conflict in Sudan."

We already have a "special court" so why give kudos for the US calling for something we already have which it itself won't sign up to? If the US was really concerned with Darfur, etc they would accept the vast majority of the world's decision to use the existing court and not dither over setting up a "special" one. Of course, the UN also has a responsibility to also get the hell in there and help in any way they can. If the UN members and/or the US or the African states really gave a damn this slaughter would have been halted months ago.

Also, I am sickened by the jokes at the beginning of this thread. It is sad what this board has reduced itself to.

I like English Bulldogs

Oh wait...my bad. For a second I thought this was the Random Post Whoring Thread.

Very nicely said, SB.

I find it ridiculously ironic how when something is screwed up internationally, it's somehow Bush's/the U.S.' fault, and when we DO voice an opinion or try to do something about an international issue, we're supposed to stay clear and "let the U.N. handle it." Talk about impossible to please or talking out of both sides of one's mouth... :rolleyes: Same "Dem" story over & over