TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Devil Came on Horseback
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Devil Came on Horseback

post #1 of 12
10/30/07 at 1:16pm
Thread Starter 
Has anyone seen that documentary or read that book?

I saw the documentary last night and it was really worth watching. It's about an American (whose name I can't remember) who was sent to Darfur as a military observer. He was not sent to stop the genocide, only to document it and take pictures.
After coming back to the US, he shared the information and pictures he had from the genocide, thinking that if only the world knew what was happening, there would be help sent immediately.

It is truly heartbreaking to think of how naive he was in that assumption. Also, there has been so much discussion of Rwanda in the last few years, with so many people asking why the world just watched it happen and did nothing to help. We have been so willing to look back at Rwanda and say "never again", and yet it is happening again and we are once again watching it happen.
Reply
post #2 of 12
10/30/07 at 2:40pm
Genocide will continue to happen so long as it only happens to peoples and races and countries thought to be of no value to civilized countries. What strategic or economic value does Darfur have? There's insufficient incentive to intervene. I guess people's lives alone don't have enough value.
Reply
post #3 of 12
10/30/07 at 5:12pm
No, but on FreeSpeech TV I saw a video of two desperate men who were brought to English-speaking journalists. Those guys were from Darfur and were trying to get word out to the Americans that their people were in dire straits - they were convinced that if the U.S. knew, the Americans would surely send help. those desperate people were so wrong, so wrong
Reply
post #4 of 12
10/30/07 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Genocide will continue to happen so long as it only happens to peoples and races and countries thought to be of no value to civilized countries. What strategic or economic value does Darfur have? There's insufficient incentive to intervene. I guess people's lives alone don't have enough value.
yea that.

anway what would you suppose we do? go into a another country where we are not wanted? to stop a civil and reglious war? You know that same thing that people say we should get out of IRAQ because of. How do we stop the supply of guns and ammo coming from IRAN into Darfur?

So you want to send american troops to die for someone that does not want are help? you can say the UN , but that is mostley going to be american troops doing the dying.So that once again people could accuse the US and the west of attcking muslims . it may sound cold but sorry its not worth it. Sure its a feel good thing. I would love to help, But to do so would in the long run, cost us lives, and well you know, we would just be the evil americans sticking there nose in again to someplace where its not wanted.
Reply
post #5 of 12
10/31/07 at 4:43am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
yea that.

anway what would you suppose we do? go into a another country where we are not wanted? to stop a civil and reglious war? You know that same thing that people say we should get out of IRAQ because of. How do we stop the supply of guns and ammo coming from IRAN into Darfur?

So you want to send american troops to die for someone that does not want are help? you can say the UN , but that is mostley going to be american troops doing the dying.So that once again people could accuse the US and the west of attcking muslims . it may sound cold but sorry its not worth it. Sure its a feel good thing. I would love to help, But to do so would in the long run, cost us lives, and well you know, we would just be the evil americans sticking there nose in again to someplace where its not wanted.
I think there's a big difference between invading a country and sending peacekeeping troops. In Iraq, the US bombed the country, destroyed the infrastructure and created chaos. That was an invasion, not a peacekeeping force. That's why they are not wanted there.
A peacekeeping force would mean sending troops on the ground to protect civilians and allow humanitarian workers to go in safely. That's it. Of course the Sudanese government doesn't want them there... but we shouldn't need to get permission of a genocidal government to protect its people.
Reply
post #6 of 12
10/31/07 at 5:00am
I think it would have to be a UN-sanctioned operation. The US couldn't go in there unilaterally. Well, we could, be then I suppose it would be viewed as an invasion. If it was the UN with world support, then it would be an intervention.
Reply
post #7 of 12
10/31/07 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
yea that.

anway what would you suppose we do? go into a another country where we are not wanted? to stop a civil and reglious war? You know that same thing that people say we should get out of IRAQ because of. How do we stop the supply of guns and ammo coming from IRAN into Darfur?

So you want to send american troops to die for someone that does not want are help? you can say the UN , but that is mostley going to be american troops doing the dying.So that once again people could accuse the US and the west of attcking muslims . it may sound cold but sorry its not worth it. Sure its a feel good thing. I would love to help, But to do so would in the long run, cost us lives, and well you know, we would just be the evil americans sticking there nose in again to someplace where its not wanted.
Hear hear.
Reply
post #8 of 12
10/31/07 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
anway what would you suppose we do? go into a another country where we are not wanted? to stop a civil and reglious war? You know that same thing that people say we should get out of IRAQ because of. How do we stop the supply of guns and ammo coming from IRAN into Darfur?

So you want to send american troops to die for someone that does not want are help? you can say the UN , but that is mostley going to be american troops doing the dying.So that once again people could accuse the US and the west of attcking muslims . it may sound cold but sorry its not worth it. Sure its a feel good thing. I would love to help, But to do so would in the long run, cost us lives, and well you know, we would just be the evil americans sticking there nose in again to someplace where its not wanted.
And isn't it a shame that the situation in Iraq (and so many other countries over the last 50 years) has led to the world being so infuriated with US intervention that the times when they actually are genuinely needed, they hold back because of the backlash over their hegemonist policy. I guess Darfur, as Coaster said, has no economic or military significance to the US. So it's more convenient to say that you're not going to go because you don't want to be accused of sticking your nose in again - but I bet if there was something in Darfur the US wanted, you'd be there with bells on, waving your liberation flag and marching under your umbrella of `democracy'.

Sound bitter? Probably, but I'm tired of self-serving international politics. Those people need help, desperately. And always politics and personal gain get in the way. I know you'll all be thinking, `There goes Sarah again, always bashing America' but I'm equally ashamed and angry that Australia has done nothing in this crisis. There is no excuse for the inaction of our countries in the plight of Darfur.
Reply
post #9 of 12
10/31/07 at 6:46am
self-serving international politics? that all politics are about.

The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death,

in other words there is nothing to gain for the state there is no reason to die
Reply
post #10 of 12
10/31/07 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
self-serving international politics? that all politics are about.

The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is matter of life and death,

in other words there is nothing to gain for the state there is no reason to die
You know - while I was sitting in interminable traffic on the way to work this morning I was thinking just that. Politics is entirely self-serving - and that's a shame. I reminded myself of `The Lord Of The Flies' - when everything started out with the aim of peace and order, and descended into chaos. I refuse to believe, though, that this is inevitable for humans. We can be good and altruistic and unselfish - we just need to be encouraged to do so. I feel that, unfortunately, too often we are shown the path of invasion, dominance and power by our leaders.

We should all take a leaf out of Ghandi's book - I'm sure what is going on in Darfur at the moment would have torn at his heart. And he proved that non-violence can be successful, I really believe that. More people should follow his example - I think we'd be pleasantly surprised - no, amazed - at what could happen.

PS - I just bought `The Art Of War'. I'm going to read it after I've finished the series I'm reading now. Max said it's a fabulous book.
Reply
post #11 of 12
10/31/07 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
I think politics is self-serving to the interests of the state. No question.
But as "democratic" as our Western governments are, these policies don't even serve the interests of the population. I really believe that the people do not want to watch a genocide happen. Unfortunately, they feel powerless to influence the states, and the states themselves have no interest in ending the genocide.

Somehow, we managed to create these powerful institutions that don't work for our interests, and that we feel we don't control.
Reply
post #12 of 12
10/31/07 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marie-p View Post
I think politics is self-serving to the interests of the state. No question.
But as "democratic" as our Western governments are, these policies don't even serve the interests of the population. I really believe that the people do not want to watch a genocide happen. Unfortunately, they feel powerless to influence the states, and the states themselves have no interest in ending the genocide.

Somehow, we managed to create these powerful institutions that don't work for our interests, and that we feel we don't control.

to send to are troops there, serve no reason. AS soon as do, both sides or all sides will just turn on us. Then we become the bad guy again.

if you send in UN peace keeping troops, they are just going to be targets.
unless you give them permission to remove all threats to peace in the area.
Which means you have a war/peace action on your hands again. to do the normal UN thing will do little but get people killed.

Plus they do have some oil there, and the chinese have been there for awhile, i doubt the chinese will vote yes for UN peace keeping forces.
once again, we come back to self-serving politics.

As much as i would like to help, as would most people i dont see anyway to do it. You dealing with groups/clans/ different reglions, who all dislike and want to kill each other. with china already having a foot hold.

Sucks i know, but i dont see a way to do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
We should all take a leaf out of Ghandi's book - I'm sure what is going on in Darfur at the moment would have torn at his heart. And he proved that non-violence can be successful, I really believe that. More people should follow his example - I think we'd be pleasantly surprised - no, amazed - at what could happen.
Non-violence only works when you are dealing with a group that does not want to kill everyone. such as the british in india, american civil right movement

i would really have doubts about it use in the case of lets say, nazi germany, Darfur
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › The Devil Came on Horseback