Bush is still ignoring the genocide in Sudan. He has mentioned 'terrorism' and 'security' dozens upon dozens of times in his recent speeches to Congress and to US citizens. Has he even mentioned Sudan once? Does he even know what genocide was? Who wants to bet that we'd be in Sudan right now if they were a major oil trader with us?

The US has donated a small sum of $65 million to Sudan relief efforts. That is nothing when compared to the Iraq War ($200 billion) or the tsunami relief ($1 billion). Billions have also been put into the effort to get the Taliban out of Afghanistan.

Even Bush's partner in crime, Tony Blair, has been to Sudan twice. He has also worked with the UN to find peace in Sudan. A peace deal was made and was supposed to be in effect on January 1st of this year. The violence has continued. The US must act now and put troops into Sudan to end murder. Where are the conservatives who are praising Bush for ending Saddam's reign of genocide? It's the same thing, folks. There's just no oil.

Yeh, Bush really deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He can't make peace in a country in the Middle East and he won't even try to make one in a country without any oil. What a peaceful man. -Pat

From the NY Times:

This photo was taken in the village of Hamada on Jan. 15, right after a Sudanese government-backed militia, the janjaweed, attacked it and killed 107 people. One of them was this little boy. I'm not showing the photo of his older brother, about 5 years old, who lay beside him because the brother had been beaten so badly that nothing was left of his face. And alongside the two boys was the corpse of their mother.

This photo shows the corpse of a man with an injured leg who was apparently unable to run away when the janjaweed militia attacked.

This is a photo of a man who fled barefoot and almost made it to this bush before he was shot dead.

Last is the skeleton of a man or woman whose wrists are still bound. The attackers pulled the person's clothes down to the knees, presumably so the victim could be sexually abused before being killed. If the victim was a man, he was probably castrated; if a woman, she was probably raped.

What's Kerry, or any dem, doing about it? :p

Are you kidding or what? I think EVERY Democratic Senator has mentioned Sudan numerous times. The only Republican Senator I can think of (who mentioned it) is McCain. I also find that comment to be pointless. Kerry (or any other Senator) isn't the President. -Pat

They can mention it all they want - but what are they DOING about it?

And -- and you may be right about the oil issue, I'm not that single-minded -- BUT - maybe it just seems like Somalia again. And who needs that?

Don't get me wrong, though - it's a terrible thing, of course! Truthfully, I have no idea really what it's all about. But to criticize Bush? How long has this been going on? What did Clinton do about it? :rolleyes:

It's been going on for 2 years. 220,000 are dead at a rate of 10,000 a month. -Pat

Why, tho? What's their beef? (Really, I have no clue)

Pat- since when does Sudan not have any oil?

I don't know the races/religions/nationalities etc.. in Sudan but I believe it's the government who is trying to get rid of a certain race/religion etc..

Darfur is the region in Sudan where this is going on.

Compared to countries in the Middle East, wise guy. -Pat

Darfur is the region in Sudan where this is going on.[/b][/quote]You missed the "WHY" and "WHAT'S THEIR BEEF" part.

Wasn't being a wise guy, just making sure you had your facts straight.

Darfur is the region in Sudan where this is going on.[/b][/quote]You missed the "WHY" and "WHAT'S THEIR BEEF" part when you repeated yourself. [/b][/quote]Why what? The government wants to get rid of the black Sudanese. I don't know why. Maybe they're Hitler fans. -Pat

You don't know why... but just assume they're wrong? Granted, there probably aren't many reasons to legitimately slaughter throngs of innocent people... but... I'd at least wanna know WHY before I started trashing an unrelated government for not intervening....

Hey, it's great to be a spectator every once and a while! I am sitting back and enjoying this one! Popcorn anyone?


Don Cardi

Yes please

Now you are learning Don Cardi.

Same old twists. He never answers half the real questions aimed back at him, but wants to pin everyone else to the wall with his.

But if you notice, a less snotty tone with Geoff, then the rest of the board.


It is always Bush's fault and never the rest of the worlds. We are the world's police, we aren't the world's police. We are the world's Police.

Hey, what month is this? Is it our month to run the world or is it some other country's turn?

I find it disgusting that you 3 are making a joke out of genocide. Why don't you start commenting on the 6 million Jews that died in the Holocaust too?

And JG, I answered your questions. This is very much like the Holocaust. The Sudanese government is killing all of the black Sudanese because they simply don't want them there. It's the same as the Holocaust, except the Sudanese government isn't a threat to the West. -Pat

That's really disgusting, DC.

Just as I find it disgusting that you would prefer the Iraqis be back under the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. You say that Bush should not have invaded Iraq, which removed a genocidal dictator. Yet at the same time, we should be playing a part in the Sudan, because there is genocide occuring? It seems to me that you prefer to attack whatever Bush does, and the fact that this can lead to some inconsistencies in your positions doesn't seem bother you in the least.

As for my opinion on the Sudan, the world must obviously do something to end what is occuring. Perhaps the vaunted U.N. should start doing something in the area beyond sending a few workers to "assess" what is happening, since the U.S. military is rather occupied in Iraq at the moment. After all, isn't the U.N. supposed to be the group that helps to solve situations such as this?

Pat, how much money have you donated to Sudan?

Just as I find it disgusting that you would prefer the Iraqis be back under the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. You say that Bush should not have invaded Iraq, which removed a genocidal dictator. Yet at the same time, we should be playing a part in the Sudan, because there is genocide occuring? It seems to me that you prefer to attack whatever Bush does, and the fact that this can lead to some inconsistencies in your positions doesn't seem bother you in the least.

As for my opinion on the Sudan, the world must obviously do something to end what is occuring. Perhaps the vaunted U.N. should start doing something in the area beyond sending a few workers to "assess" what is happening, since the U.S. military is rather occupied in Iraq at the moment. After all, isn't the U.N. supposed to be the group that helps to solve situations such as this? [/b][/quote]I disagree with the fact that we entered Iraq to get WMDs, not to end genocide. One has to read the Resolutions to see that Bush wanted to go into Iraq for genocide. Now that we know Iraq had no WMDs, Bush is trying to use genocide as the excuse. He cannot switch it. He said WMD and like I said, someone must have read the Resolutions to find that genocide was happening.

DMC, I have donated pocket change. -Pat

that is, very digusting to be joking about this

U say the US doesnt have to play world police but then how do you justify Iraq---o right WMD my fault

Tric, B*sh is not doing anything because he has no motive. Actually B*sh woldnt do anything like that on his own anyway. He needs his "boys" to tell him what to do- adn THEY have no motives in this situation. Do you realize that all the main players in getting B*sh to go to Iraq had been trying to get the US to go to Iraq for years. Really they just dont give a crap about Sudan. They are doing just fine in Iraq

they are living their dream

Rather than continuously blaming "Big Bad Bush" over not doing something, why not lead by example? You complain in other threads about people not donating money here or there yet you don't do it either.

Seems to me that SOMEONE should donate money, just not YOU. You have a job, you could easily donate half of your paycheck to these people if that's what you really want.


That is your quote from Pat's Thoughts 49, yet I remember you saying you bought an Eminem CD, with that $15 someone could have bought shampoo or soap?

WHY is it okay for others to give their money, yet you go out and spend money and not donate and it's okay?

People go out and buy $200,000 cars. I bought a $15 CD. I'm lucky if I get $2,500 a year. BTW, I DO donate money to charities. I even volunteered at a homeless shelter a few years back. -Pat

People go out and buy $200,000 cars. I bought a $15 CD. I'm lucky if I get $2,500 a year. BTW, I DO donate money to charities. I even volunteered at a homeless shelter a few years back. -Pat [/quote]Volunteering is great and I applaud you for that. The point you are missing is that it's okay for YOU to buy a $15 cd because it's something you want, but it's not okay for someone to buy a car because it's something they want.

So if you get 2500/year you should donate 1000 to charity then you will have a leg to stand on in getting people to donate rather than just saying "you should"

Since you only make 2500 you feel you shouldn't have to donate because then you wouldn't have enough money? Maybe people buying 200,000 cars feel if they donate they won't have enough money. Who is to say what is enough money based on lifestyle?

People go out and buy $200,000 cars. I bought a $15 CD. I'm lucky if I get $2,500 a year. BTW, I DO donate money to charities. I even volunteered at a homeless shelter a few years back. -Pat [/quote]Volunteering is great and I applaud you for that. The point you are missing is that it's okay for YOU to buy a $15 cd because it's something you want, but it's not okay for someone to buy a car because it's something they want.

So if you get 2500/year you should donate 1000 to charity then you will have a leg to stand on in getting people to donate rather than just saying "you should"

Since you only make 2500 you feel you shouldn't have to donate because then you wouldn't have enough money? Maybe people buying 200,000 cars feel if they donate they won't have enough money. Who is to say what is enough money based on lifestyle? [/b][/quote]Then those people are idiots. Let's put it this way. If I made 1 million a year, ATLEAST $200,000 of that would be going to charity. I wouldn't live in a house with 50 acres or own a yacht. I'd live in a middle class house or apartment with one or two cars that aren't out of the ordinary when it comes to price. -Pat

You honestly can not say that UNTIL YOU HAVE THE MILLION.

So why are those people idiots for not donating and you are not? People can say that a million is too much for a person to earn, but when you are in that lifestyle and everything that goes along with it that million is proportional to a normal person's 50k/year.

I am honestly saying it right now, so get up off of it and stay off of it.

I never said anyone was an idiot for donating. I said people who make that much money and spend it on $200,000 cars instead of feeding the poor or helping them are idiots. I wouldn't live the 'millionaire lifestyle.' Like I said, I'd live middle class. I don't need money to be happy. I'd be more happy if I knew my money fed people and helped end poverty. -Pat

I am honestly saying it right now, so get up off of it and stay off of it.

I never said anyone was an idiot for donating. I said people who make that much money and spend it on $200,000 cars instead of feeding the poor or helping them are idiots. I wouldn't live the 'millionaire lifestyle.' Like I said, I'd live middle class. I don't need money to be happy. I'd be more happy if I knew my money fed people and helped end poverty. -Pat [/quote]You are either missing the point or just refusing to address it.

Tell me your point so that I can address it.