Call on our government to act on Genocide in the Sudan

[MrDave]

From MoveOn.org

A major human tragedy is unfolding in Sudan, one that has reportedly
claimed at least 30,000 lives, and could claim hundreds of thousands
more unless the world community works together, starting immediately,
to end it.

But despite the growing catastrophe, the U.S. State Department has yet
to publicly condemn these actions, or even to formally recognize that
the atrocities in Sudan constitute genocide. Such recognition would
make a huge difference, catalyzing the world community to help stop the
bloodshed.

Please make a call to Secretary of State Colin Powell today at:

Secretary of State Colin Powell
202-647-4000 or 202-647-6607 or 202-647-6575

Urge him to:
- Immediately declare the atrocities in Sudan to be "Genocide"; and
- Publicly condemn them.

Please also call your Senators and Representative:



Urge them to demand that the United States recognize the genocide and
condemn it.

Please let us know you're calling, at:

http://www.moveon.org/callpowell.html?id=3016-4238895-h.i.HmAl6ow5DmjvJ5Fo.Q

[hort1]

Screams of Sudan's starving refugees

By Hilary Andersson
BBC Africa correspondent

The 15-month long conflict in Sudan's western province of Darfur has produced what the United Nations is calling "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3840427.stm

----------------------------------------------

Please read this - it's rather long so I won't post the entire articel. It is an unflinching report from someone there on the ground.

Thanks Mr. Dave for continuing to present information on this.

[Txsweeper]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0612usrethink.htm

From the New York Times, June 12th.

[MrDave]

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/0612usrethink.htm

From the New York Times, June 12th.

Sounds good. I hope that the public awareness of this and public pressure has contributed to some of this progress, but it is still happening and needs to be stopped now.

It is sick.

[Mrsloon]

We are in Iraq where many more killings happened and now everyone says we shouldn't be there, what makes you think that Sudan might not be the same. I know that is not the reason we went to Iraq, but it still happened. Don't flame me, just pointing out a fact.

[dandylin]

We are in Iraq where many more killings happened and now everyone says we shouldn't be there, what makes you think that Sudan might not be the same. I know that is not the reason we went to Iraq, but it still happened. Don't flame me, just pointing out a fact.
I think that The Sudan is an "in your face human rights catastrophe", Iraq wasn't and that wasn't the reason we went to Iraq. We did not go to Iraq in answer to a human rights call, if that were the case we were years and years late. What is happening Sudan is a very real, tragic situation that needs to be addressed, condemned and dealt with yesterday

And by the way MrDave, I've done my letter writing on this issue.

[Veuve-Cliquot]

Don't flame me, just pointing out a fact.

Man, this annoys the hell out of me.

What you are REALLY saying here is "I have an opinion that I do not want contradicted."

A thread is a conversation. If you don't want anyone to disagree with you, keep quiet.

[MrDave]

And by the way MrDave, I've done my letter writing on this issue.

Cool. :cool2:


Me too. I didn't get a direct response, but one of my Representatives put me on his newletter list this time.

[mistylynn70]

We are in Iraq where many more killings happened and now everyone says we shouldn't be there, what makes you think that Sudan might not be the same. I know that is not the reason we went to Iraq, but it still happened.

This was the first thing that went through my mind when I read this. How many innocent Iraqi's were killed under the madman's reign? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows the exact number, but it was a hell of a lot. If we had invaded Iraqi to stop it there, you would still be seeing the same comments now (i.e. "This is Bush just finishing what his daddy couldn't, blah, blah, blah"), and if we "invaded" Sudan, the first time a US citizen died there, people would begin screaming about having troops over there, and it would be Bushs' (or really any Presidents' if the truth be told) fault for that too.

[am_sez]

There's an article about Sudan in this week's Time. Can't comment on it because I haven't had a chance to read it yet (too busy reading Mr Dave's 4000 posts). :cool2:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040705-658339,00.html

[Txsweeper]

There's an article about Sudan in this week's Time. Can't comment on it because I haven't had a chance to read it yet (too busy reading Mr Dave's 4000 posts). :cool2:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040705-658339,00.html


Just received my copy in the mail today, I will read up on it tonight!

[dandylin]

This was the first thing that went through my mind when I read this. How many innocent Iraqi's were killed under the madman's reign? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows the exact number, but it was a hell of a lot. If we had invaded Iraqi to stop it there, you would still be seeing the same comments now (i.e. "This is Bush just finishing what his daddy couldn't, blah, blah, blah"), and if we "invaded" Sudan, the first time a US citizen died there, people would begin screaming about having troops over there, and it would be Bushs' (or really any Presidents' if the truth be told) fault for that too.

I think you are off on your assesment a bit, we, first of all, did not go into Iraq on a humanitarian mission, I think people could stomach casualites a bit more easily if it were for the sake of really saving human lives. I, being quite the liberal, can honestly tell you that I place no human life above another. I cannot bear to see anyone, anyone die the way these people in Sudan are dying. This is a military/humanitarian action I could stand behind. While I'm not absolutely sure of the politics involved here ( I really should do more research on the topic) but I can assure you that I would be much more comfortable with the reasons for going into Sudan than with the operations we are currently conducting.

During the time that Saddam was committing most of his crimes, we looked the other way. To call what we did in Iraq a humanitarian mission is inacurate, at the least.

[mistylynn70]

During the time that Saddam was committing most of his crimes, we looked the other way. To call what we did in Iraq a humanitarian mission is inacurate, at the least.

I don't believe I called what we did in Iraq a humanitarian mission. However, the needless slaughter of Iraqi's at the hand of a madman have now ended, and people no longer have to live in fear of being killed by him or one of his crazy sons. Yes, war does suck (and I am sorry, but "humanitarian missions" that use guns are wars just the same) and people will die - military as well as innocents. And at what time was he committing most of his crimes? Over the last decade? The last two decades? I for one am glad that man is no longer in power, regardless of how he got out of power and why he was taken out. I hope the Iraqi's can rebuild their country, and be able to live the life that everyone deserves.

[Twochef]

This was the first thing that went through my mind when I read this. How many innocent Iraqi's were killed under the madman's reign? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows the exact number, but it was a hell of a lot. If we had invaded Iraqi to stop it there, you would still be seeing the same comments now (i.e. "This is Bush just finishing what his daddy couldn't, blah, blah, blah"), and if we "invaded" Sudan, the first time a US citizen died there, people would begin screaming about having troops over there, and it would be Bushs' (or really any Presidents' if the truth be told) fault for that too.

Last count I heard on Saddams killing was at least 300,000. The libs and dems raised a stink about removing Saddam, could you imagine the stink they will raise if we go into Sudan? They couldn't give a good **** about anyone being exterminated as long as a Republican is in the White House.

[NHGrits]

I don't believe I called what we did in Iraq a humanitarian mission. However, the needless slaughter of Iraqi's at the hand of a madman have now ended, and people no longer have to live in fear of being killed by him or one of his crazy sons. Yes, war does suck (and I am sorry, but "humanitarian missions" that use guns are wars just the same) and people will die - military as well as innocents. And at what time was he committing most of his crimes? Over the last decade? The last two decades? I for one am glad that man is no longer in power, regardless of how he got out of power and why he was taken out. I hope the Iraqi's can rebuild their country, and be able to live the life that everyone deserves.


I agree! And I do believe that in the longer run, many will benefit from Iraq's liberation and newly found freedom.

[gunnerclark]

We did go into Somalia on a humaniterian mission and the second it got rough public opinions and polls got us pulled out with no result.

The problem is that people want us to go in and make things better, without influencing(?) them at all. Either we go in and make changes so it will not happen again or it is a waste of time. We went in to Haiti and all we did was stop violence and get Aristede put into power with him promising reform, But all he did was use the same corrupt system with the same old problems, So we had to go in again and fly him out and try again.

If we do not change the system that caused it then we should not go in.
But it will not work because the second we try to change the system the fringe screams imperialism and the newspapers drool over the fringes hate of our system of government that protects their right to hate it. :mad2:

So no. I do not think we should get involved because we will not be allowed to do it right. The last time we had the ability to change the "system" it was after WW2 and we rebuilt Germany and Japan. Places that still have their own culture and enjoy the freedom of democracy. The fringe of today supported by the media will not let the government do what needs to be done. :frown3:

[dandylin]

I don't believe I called what we did in Iraq a humanitarian mission. However, the needless slaughter of Iraqi's at the hand of a madman have now ended, and people no longer have to live in fear of being killed by him or one of his crazy sons. Yes, war does suck (and I am sorry, but "humanitarian missions" that use guns are wars just the same) and people will die - military as well as innocents. And at what time was he committing most of his crimes? Over the last decade? The last two decades? I for one am glad that man is no longer in power, regardless of how he got out of power and why he was taken out. I hope the Iraqi's can rebuild their country, and be able to live the life that everyone deserves.

Yes people die, but I'd rather see young American lives put at risk for a good reason.

[dandylin]

We did go into Somalia on a humaniterian mission and the second it got rough public opinions and polls got us pulled out with no result.

The problem is that people want us to go in and make things better, without influencing(?) them at all. Either we go in and make changes so it will not happen again or it is a waste of time. We went in to Haiti and all we did was stop violence and get Aristede put into power with him promising reform, But all he did was use the same corrupt system with the same old problems, So we had to go in again and fly him out and try again.

If we do not change the system that caused it then we should not go in.
But it will not work because the second we try to change the system the fringe screams imperialism and the newspapers drool over the fringes hate of our system of government that protects their right to hate it. :mad2:

So no. I do not think we should get involved because we will not be allowed to do it right. The last time we had the ability to change the "system" it was after WW2 and we rebuilt Germany and Japan. Places that still have their own culture and enjoy the freedom of democracy. The fringe of today supported by the media will not let the government do what needs to be done. :frown3:


It's not up to us to "do it right", but it should be up to us to help stop the slaughter and restore stability so that this situation can be sorted out by the people who should do the sorting.

[Twochef]

Yes people die, but I'd rather see young American lives put at risk for a good reason.

I'm sure the Iraqis will be happy to see that in your opinion they have less right to live than those in Sudan.

[dandylin]

I'm sure the Iraqis will be happy to see that in your opinion they have less right to live than those in Sudan.

That was ridiculous and you know it

[Twochef]

Really? I've heard you do nothing but gripe over the situation in Iraq. You have moaned and groaned that we are over there and soldiers have died for an unworthy cause. Why in the world are you promoting Sudan when you haven't cared one flip about the Iraqis?

[dandylin]

Really? I've heard you do nothing but gripe over the situation in Iraq. You have moaned and groaned that we are over there and soldiers have died for an unworthy cause. Why in the world are you promoting Sudan when you haven't cared one flip about the Iraqis?

I care about the Iraqis, have you read anything about what's going on in Sudan? A bit different set of circumstances, these people are begging for some help.

And don't pull that patriotic crap, yes, our young people have died for an unworthy cause. They are not protecting our freedom, they didn't go over to "free a people" they went out of revenge and as a way to control the oil flow in the Middle East. They can't help that they died for an unworthy cause, they had to, they were ordered. So don't call up the patriotic drivel, it doesn't apply.

[Twochef]

I know all about Sudan and have known for some time. I also know that if Pres. Bush decided to do anything about it he would be bashed by the very people who 'claim' they care. Why don't you take your petition for help to the UN, France, Germany or one of the Soviet countries? They all know what's going on.

As far as your further remarks about Iraq-BS!

[Txsweeper]

The U.S. is gathering forces with the U.N. and attempting to put peacekeeping forces in place, but those forces will come from within Africa. The U.S. is pulled a little thin right now, like it or not.

It's a sad situation, I hate seeing innocent people starved, raped and murdered for what amounts to ethnic reasons. I do hope that other countries, such as France and Germany stand up and send aide, but that is doubtful.

[dandylin]

I know all about Sudan and have known for some time. I also know that if Pres. Bush decided to do anything about it he would be bashed by the very people who 'claim' they care. Why don't you take your petition for help to the UN, France, Germany or one of the Soviet countries? They all know what's going on.

As far as your further remarks about Iraq-BS!

You are just ridiculous today, go take a nap.

[mistylynn70]

Yes people die, but I'd rather see young American lives put at risk for a good reason.

I'm sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding you - weren't the Iraqi's that were killed being murdered for the same thing?? Basically for no reason at all, other than the whim of an ego-maniac and his two crazy kids. Why do you feel that the Iraqi people do not deserve to be liberated, and the Sudanese do? Like I said before, it doesn't matter to me why we went to Iraqi in the first place, but they have been liberated and are now in control of their country's future.

I think your opinion of the military going to Iraqi to protect the oil flow from the mid-east is true. If you don't think that is important, I am guessing you either don't drive, or don't mind paying $2 for a gallon of gas. Someone needs to make sure the world gets oil, because we all need it, and if the US is the one that has to step up to the plate and do that, then so be it.

I would like to think that before any military action is taken, the cost of US lives and civilian casualties is looked at and weighed against the benefit to America first and then the rest of the world. In cases such as Sudan, I would like to see it be a WORLD effort to resolve the conflict, not a US invasion that will just harbor more ill will towards my country and its leader.

[mistylynn70]

I care about the Iraqis, have you read anything about what's going on in Sudan? A bit different set of circumstances, these people are begging for some help.

And don't pull that patriotic crap, yes, our young people have died for an unworthy cause. They are not protecting our freedom, they didn't go over to "free a people" they went out of revenge and as a way to control the oil flow in the Middle East. They can't help that they died for an unworthy cause, they had to, they were ordered. So don't call up the patriotic drivel, it doesn't apply.

The Iraqis would have been killed had they begged for help, and the ones that spoke out against the murdering became victims themselves.

And PATRIOTIC CRAP?? What the heck is that? Is is so difficult to support your country, and the soldiers who fight for it? Those soldiers didn't go over there for revenge, they went their because that is their job. And then they have to come back and read the papers, and watch the news and hear all about the negative sentiments of people just like you. Regardless of my opinions on why they were sent over there, I am going to support the troops and welcome them home, and mourn when they die. If I don't like the reason they went over there in the first place, then I won't re-elect the man who sent them. Most true soldiers feel it is an honor to serve, and die, for their country and do not see the cause as an unworthy one. It's a shame that you do.

[Twochef]

:clap: :yay: :cheer:

[NHGrits]

mistylynn70

Bravo!

[MrDave]

I'm glad to see we all agree that those million or so people in Sudan who are at risk of death deserve our help.

[mistylynn70]

I'm glad to see we all agree that those million or so people in Sudan who are at risk of death deserve our help.


MrDave, I think underneath it all, we all have a big heart & want to see the world made a better place! :lendhand:

[MrDave]

MrDave, I think underneath it all, we all have a big heart & want to see the world made a better place! :lendhand:

Good point. So true.

[dandylin]

I'm sorry, maybe I am misunderstanding you - weren't the Iraqi's that were killed being murdered for the same thing?? Basically for no reason at all, other than the whim of an ego-maniac and his two crazy kids. Why do you feel that the Iraqi people do not deserve to be liberated, and the Sudanese do? Like I said before, it doesn't matter to me why we went to Iraqi in the first place, but they have been liberated and are now in control of their country's future.

I think your opinion of the military going to Iraqi to protect the oil flow from the mid-east is true. If you don't think that is important, I am guessing you either don't drive, or don't mind paying $2 for a gallon of gas. Someone needs to make sure the world gets oil, because we all need it, and if the US is the one that has to step up to the plate and do that, then so be it.

I would like to think that before any military action is taken, the cost of US lives and civilian casualties is looked at and weighed against the benefit to America first and then the rest of the world. In cases such as Sudan, I would like to see it be a WORLD effort to resolve the conflict, not a US invasion that will just harbor more ill will towards my country and its leader.

I don't know how to answer many of your arguments. I don't think in the way you do.

And for the record, no I don't mind paying $2 a gallon for gas. In my opinion it should be higher, it would encourage conservation and less pollution. All the money that is going into getting at that oil would be better served in researching other energy sources. I don't drive an SUV, I have no intention of driving and SUV and I live in a state and do things that would support that decision on my part, but I choose not to, for precisely the reason you are arguing. Heck, we only have one car and economical one at that.

There would be no "invasion" more a police action, we invaded Iraq, the situation in Sudan is very different, the same rules cannot nor do they apply.

[dandylin]

The Iraqis would have been killed had they begged for help, and the ones that spoke out against the murdering became victims themselves.

And PATRIOTIC CRAP?? What the heck is that? Is is so difficult to support your country, and the soldiers who fight for it? Those soldiers didn't go over there for revenge, they went their because that is their job. And then they have to come back and read the papers, and watch the news and hear all about the negative sentiments of people just like you. Regardless of my opinions on why they were sent over there, I am going to support the troops and welcome them home, and mourn when they die. If I don't like the reason they went over there in the first place, then I won't re-elect the man who sent them. Most true soldiers feel it is an honor to serve, and die, for their country and do not see the cause as an unworthy one. It's a shame that you do.


I support our troops so much that I protested the war that has killed so many of them. I have never said a negative word about any soldier. Again, so many people here seem to think that your government and your country are the same thing, they aren't and the soon we all realize that the better off we all will be.

I will repeat one more time, those soldiers most certainly are not dying for our country, they are dying over lies. And many are beginning to get angry over it, as they should. And we should support their anger and get to the bottom of all the lies that have killed so many of our young men and women and so many innocent civilians.

[Twochef]

"I support our troops so much that I protested the war that has killed so many of them. "

Why don't you go on a military message board, tell them you were a protestor (enemy supporter), and tell them you would like their appreciation and some thank you's.

[pattyepye]

"I support our troops so much that I protested the war that has killed so many of them. "

Why don't you go on a military message board, tell them you were a protestor (enemy supporter), and tell them you would like their appreciation and some thank you's.

A protester and an enemy supporter ARE NOT the same things. One thing that is so frustrating to me is that for some reason, military persons, and past military persons, think they have some magical insight into the workings of the government, and are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. That is not a truth to me. There are people who oppose, protest war for religious and ethical reasons. They are not traitors by any stretch of the imagination. If they are required to serve in the military, they choose conscientious objector status. They are as patriotic as the next, and probably have more peaceful dreams than those who choose violence. Every person knows their own level of comfort..

[Kym]

Twochef...let me get this straight...are you saying that if a person protests the war they are supporting the enemy? That's a completely illogical statement.

[Twochef]

Saddam thought he had it made because of all the protestors. Here and abroad. He really thought those guys were going to save his sorry a**. While protestors are carrying out their little lamentations the enemy gets more emboldened and more determined to kill our soldiers. They know what's going on here and they know what the protestors did for the North Vietnamese. They know an enemy divided is easier to defeat. They put out propaganda and play it for all its worth so we'll cut and run. They depend on their allies (protestors) to do half their work for them.

[Txsweeper]

I am of the belief, based on past experience, that protesting war can damage a great deal. I read somewhere that the protesting of the Vietnam War actually caused an early withdraw, damaging the U.S. and the moral of a lot of people. In searching for that information, I ran across this and thought it was appropriate. Not that I don't believe in protesting, I just think that we do more harm than good.




Domestically, the Vietnam War had profound effects in the US. Following the successful Civil Rights movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s, antiwar protest fueled the growth of a vibrant youth counterculture. Public opinion, extremely important in any war, turned decisively against US involvement in Vietnam by the end of the 1960s. Unlike most previous wars, the American media soured public opinion through a highly critical stance. The Tet Offensive (1968), a devastating tactical defeat for the Vietnamese communists, was portrayed by the press as a loss for the US. Because of this media portrayal, the Tet Offensive ended up being a decisive victory for the Vietnamese communists. In 1971, several prominent newspapers published the Pentagon Papers, top-secret documents that proved the government had lied about Vietnam operations. As a result of the Vietnam War, the relationship between the media and the government changed profoundly, and the government lost a considerable amount of public trust that it may never entirely recover.

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/vietnamwar/summary.html

[pattyepye]

Saddam thought he had it made because of all the protestors. Here and abroad. He really thought those guys were going to save his sorry a**. While protestors are carrying out their little lamentations the enemy gets more emboldened and more determined to kill our soldiers. They know what's going on here and they know what the protestors did for the North Vietnamese. They know an enemy divided is easier to defeat. They put out propaganda and play it for all its worth so we'll cut and run. They depend on their allies (protestors) to do half their work for them.

I don't think Saddam cared a rat's butt about protesters. The enemy gets more emboldened to kill our soldiers, because, for obvious reasons, they are the enemy. While protesters may make a detraction, it is only fodder for the evening news.

You don't divide a country by having protesters....you become a picture of the democratic process.

[Twochef]

Just ask any Viet Nam vet what the protestors did for their moral.

[Txsweeper]

Just ask any Viet Nam vet what the protestors did for their moral.


Oh, I know, I was alive and well in the 60's and 70's and my brother was drafted, my father is retired military and my ex was a Navy Seabee during the end of the war. It's one of the reasons I detest John Kerry and refuse to dismiss his actions as being "caught up in the moment".

[dandylin]

"I support our troops so much that I protested the war that has killed so many of them. "

Why don't you go on a military message board, tell them you were a protestor (enemy supporter), and tell them you would like their appreciation and some thank you's.

And you are an ignorant redneck.

[Twochef]

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! :razz:

[MrDave]

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you! :razz:

Ah, another great debating technique.

I'm sorry TwoChef - I didn't realize you were only 5 years old. Now all of your posts make sense.

[MrDave]

"I support our troops so much that I protested the war that has killed so many of them. "

Why don't you go on a military message board, tell them you were a protestor (enemy supporter), and tell them you would like their appreciation and some thank you's.

:trolls:

[dandylin]

Thank you for your support MrDave. :)

[Twochef]

Ah, another great debating technique.

I'm sorry TwoChef - I didn't realize you were only 5 years old. Now all of your posts make sense.

Oh yes, dandylin calling me an 'ignorant redneck" was a mature debating tool. By the way, isn't that considered a personal attack?

[dandylin]

Oh yes, dandylin calling me an 'ignorant redneck" was a mature debating tool. By the way, isn't that considered a personal attack?
Isn't calling someone an enemy supporter considered a personal attack? You do things like that constantly, you have never a nice thing to say to anyone, even your jokes are mean-spirited

Debate isn't lively when it resembles FoxNews, it's lively when people are informed and can make statements based on fact, not on the latest mass email sent to them.

[Twochef]

dandylin, I suggest you go back and read some of your own posts before you accuse others of being mean spirited. You can check out any facts I post anytime you want.

[NHGrits]

A protester and an enemy supporter ARE NOT the same things. One thing that is so frustrating to me is that for some reason, military persons, and past military persons, think they have some magical insight into the workings of the government, and are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us. That is not a truth to me. There are people who oppose, protest war for religious and ethical reasons. They are not traitors by any stretch of the imagination. If they are required to serve in the military, they choose conscientious objector status. They are as patriotic as the next, and probably have more peaceful dreams than those who choose violence. Every person knows their own level of comfort..


Since I took the statement "past military persons, think they have some magical insight into the workings of the government......" let me reply to your statement.

In a way protester and an enemy supporter are the same thing. Their protesting takes away from those who are willing to fight and die for their country by 1) excempting themselves from the fight, so one less person the enemy most combat, 2) causing morale problems for those in the military when the "protesting" gets to the extremes it did for 'nam, and 3) discouraging others from joining the military because they will have to face the scorn of those who protest. This in turns "supports" the enemy by giving the enemy the false belief that they will win, causing a surge in their fight, plus, "supports" the enemy's effort by perhaps lessening our military might by the few that succomb to their protest for fear of being shunned, as many wear during 'Nam. So support and protest can, in fact, be the same.

And actually their is a BIG deal between conscientious objector and those who serve. One is willing to die for us all while one is not. It's especially a big deal when that conscientious objector is not only that, but interferes with the morale, spirit or kudos of those who willing stand, fight and die for their country.

[NHGrits]

Oh yes, dandylin calling me an 'ignorant redneck" was a mature debating tool. By the way, isn't that considered a personal attack?


mrdave,
true. the ignorant redneck statement was a bit much. dandylin is just as bad. She accused me of being rude, but that could be said of her also. It seems we all tend to get a bit obnoxious at times. Well except for txsweeper, cowleyh, yourself, drjohn, but then I don't remember pechuna, iggy, and a couple others getting rude, either. Craps, is myself and twochef the only obnoxious ones???? hmmmmm.

[MrDave]

mrdave,
true. the ignorant redneck statement was a bit much. dandylin is just as bad. She accused me of being rude, but that could be said of her also. It seems we all tend to get a bit obnoxious at times. Well except for txsweeper, cowleyh, yourself, drjohn, but then I don't remember pechuna, iggy, and a couple others getting rude, either. Craps, is myself and twochef the only obnoxious ones???? hmmmmm.


I'm trying to be rude tonight. So it isn't working?

Hmmm. Have to work on that.

You are right - we all do get rude at times.

[Veuve-Cliquot]

Don't feed the crabs!!!! :wink2:

[pattyepye]

NHGRITS-
And actually their is a BIG deal between conscientious objector and those who serve. One is willing to die for us all while one is not. It's especially a big deal when that conscientious objector is not only that, but interferes with the morale, spirit or kudos of those who willing stand, fight and die for their country.


That's it in a nutshell....better than others, ready to give your life for your country, superior, holier than thou, better than the rest, BE ALL YOU CAN BE. Puke-ola.

[pattyepye]

Don't feed the crabs!!!! :wink2:

:laugh::laugh:

[NHGrits]

That's it in a nutshell....better than others, ready to give your life for your country, superior, holier than thou, better than the rest, BE ALL YOU CAN BE. Puke-ola.


glad to know you consider those to whom this discription applies as someone who would make you puke. That's okay, we fight and die for right to puke.

[Txsweeper]

That's it in a nutshell....better than others, ready to give your life for your country, superior, holier than thou, better than the rest, BE ALL YOU CAN BE. Puke-ola.


Puke-Ola :shock: :shock: I've never heard you cuss before pattye, you surprise me! :laugh2: :laugh2:

[pattyepye]

glad to know you consider those to whom this discription applies as someone who would make you puke. That's okay, we fight and die for right to puke.

Well thank you, I really appreciate that, you are so brave. Ms Grits you were basically saying a person does not have the right to be a conscientious objector. That is totally incorrect. The Quakers in this country, assume that position because of religious beliefs. So you are saying that the military culture is more important than a person's relationship with their "higher power". Think again,

[pattyepye]

Puke-Ola :shock: :shock: I've never heard you cuss before pattye, you surprise me! :laugh2: :laugh2:

Well Ms Sweeper, I think puke-ola is relatively mild, don't you? :laugh: Sorry, I have been brow-beaten by family members with this mentality, and I think it is so wrong. Every person is important, not only soldiers. When we get up and go to work, and serve in whatever capacity we serve, we are doing our part. And when we speak out, right or left, we are doing something to add to the good of the all. Sorry to cuss?, guess I'm on the rude list now.

[Txsweeper]

Well Ms Sweeper, I think puke-ola is relatively mild, don't you? :laugh: Sorry, I have been brow-beaten by family members with this mentality, and I think it is so wrong. Every person is important, not only soldiers. When we get up and go to work, and serve in whatever capacity we serve, we are doing our part. And when we speak out, right or left, we are doing something to add to the good of the all. Sorry to cuss?, guess I'm on the rude list now.


I was just trying to ease the strain here.....and yes NHGRITS, I can be bit**y myself, although I try hard to refrain from taking things out on you guys. (I beat the dog instead. just joking!).

You have every right to feel the way you feel Pattye and NH has every right to feel the way she does. She served our country and I respect her for that. I also respect those who choose not to serve, for whatever reason they have, but I don't want them cramming those reason down my throat or in my family's face if it's because they "don't believe in this war". Go silently and step away from the podium, you'll gain more respect that way. (Not you, them)

Wasn't there a song once that said "what if there was a war and noone showed up?"? What would happen if everyone began protesting and no one joined our military? We'd be facing genocide ourselves at the hands of our enemies.

Be thankful for those who WILL serve and yes, give them just a pinch more respect because of their decision to do so. One day you may really need them.

[NHGrits]

Well thank you, I really appreciate that, you are so brave. Ms Grits you were basically saying a person does not have the right to be a conscientious objector. That is totally incorrect. The Quakers in this country, assume that position because of religious beliefs. So you are saying that the military culture is more important than a person's relationship with their "higher power". Think again,


Nope, wasn't what I was saying at all. I began by explaining how "protester" and "enemy supportor" were related. I then went on to state the difference between a conscientious objector and someone in military. Never said you didn't have the right to be one, merely explained the difference when it came to protecting the rights of our country. conscientious objector protects our rights through other means then those of us who were or are in the military. I have a grienvence against those who I have known to be a "consceintious objector" because of how they behaved during desert storm/desert shield. Those who made this claim only did so after being alerted they would be going to war. (After using the college and other benefits given to them by the Army.) Kinda warped my thinking towards those who would claim their are co's. They should never have joined the Army. I believe you are asked this when you join. I apologize if my ranting on the military is irating. It's very hard for me not to talk about it as it was part of my life for many years and something I am proud of.

[NHGrits]

I was just trying to ease the strain here.....and yes NHGRITS, I can be bit**y myself, although I try hard to refrain from taking things out on you guys. (I beat the dog instead. just joking!).

You have every right to feel the way you feel Pattye and NH has every right to feel the way she does. She served our country and I respect her for that. I also respect those who choose not to serve, for whatever reason they have, but I don't want them cramming those reason down my throat or in my family's face if it's because they "don't believe in this war". Go silently and step away from the podium, you'll gain more respect that way. (Not you, them)

Wasn't there a song once that said "what if there was a war and noone showed up?"? What would happen if everyone began protesting and no one joined our military? We'd be facing genocide ourselves at the hands of our enemies.

Be thankful for those who WILL serve and yes, give them just a pinch more respect because of their decision to do so. One day you may really need them.


Thanks txsweeper. I realize I may tend to go overboard, can't help myself. I go on and on it may not be easy for some to understand how much you actually sacrifice being in the military. I tend to want to put the military on a pedestal, I know, but I tell ya, military life isn't easy, and those guys/gals deserve all the kudo's they can get. I'll try to refrain from going off on tangents, tho. :smile5:

[pattyepye]

She served our country and I respect her for that. I also respect those who choose not to serve, for whatever reason they have, but I don't want them cramming those reason down my throat or in my family's face if it's because they "don't believe in this war".

I appreciate your view, and I, like you, don't want to see them cramming it down my face that they believe in war and served.Be thankful for those who WILL serve and yes, give them just a pinch more respect because of their decision to do so. One day you may really need them.

I dont' think more respect is due one person over another, whatever their line of work. If that were the case, I would give my surgeon almost the status of deity. :laugh:

[dandylin]

I would llike to apologize to Twochef for calling him an ignorant redneck. It wasn't nice and I should have addressed the him/her in a pm.

I, at times, can be just as rude as other anyone else on this board. And I will try harder not to be.

I will try to be big enough not to turn things personal even in response to someone who has already done so.

[Txsweeper]

I would llike to apologize to Twochef for calling him an ignorant redneck. It wasn't nice and I should have addressed the him/her in a pm.

I, at times, can be just as rude as other anyone else on this board. And I will try harder not to be.

I will try to be big enough not to turn things personal even in response to someone who has already done so.



Us Rednecks were a bit taken back! :laugh2:

It takes a big person to apologize when you don't have to, we appreciate you more for it :flirt:

[am_sez]

Us Rednecks were a bit taken back! :laugh2:

It takes a big person to apologize when you don't have to, we appreciate you more for it :flirt:
So were us ignorant people! Redneck? Well, I never... :goofy2:

Whew, glad I wasn't around yesterday. Got pretty hot in here.

[Twochef]

I would llike to apologize to Twochef for calling him an ignorant redneck. It wasn't nice and I should have addressed the him/her in a pm.

I, at times, can be just as rude as other anyone else on this board. And I will try harder not to be.

I will try to be big enough not to turn things personal even in response to someone who has already done so.

Why thank you dandylin, that's very nice of you. Feel free to pm me and call me names any time you want. LOL! I will endeavor to be more charming than I already am.

I think it's time for a

:grouphug:

[pattyepye]

SWEET!!!

[Maineiac]

Please forgive me for getting a little off topic here, but I really would like to know where the term "redneck" originated from. Also the term "hick"...

Anyone know where they came from?

[NHGrits]

I would llike to apologize to Twochef for calling him an ignorant redneck. It wasn't nice and I should have addressed the him/her in a pm.

I, at times, can be just as rude as other anyone else on this board. And I will try harder not to be.

I will try to be big enough not to turn things personal even in response to someone who has already done so.


dandylin,
That was very nice of you to apologize. I too, have tried to refrain from my rudeness (shhh voices in my head!!!) but I know this political forum makes us all a little crazy. (I have a hard time controlling my rants at times.) May I take this opportunity to follow dandylin's lead and apologize to anyone I might have offended. (Well, except for mrdave, I so enjoy stomping on his toes!!! :tongue4: it's hard to get him going.)

as for the term redneck, growing up in Georgia, I heard it explained as: Due to the fact many southern men worked outside (farmers) the back of the neck would often turn red from the sun and thus the term "rednecks". Don't know how true that explaination is, tho.

[Txsweeper]

I also heard the term redneck was attributed to the "cowboys", "ranchers" etc. who worked outdoors all day and they would sunburn. They often wrapped their necks with bandanas to shield the sun. In fact, they still do.

[MrDave]

I would like to apologize as well for my outbursts.

I'm sure I will fly off the handle again, someday. Yesterday I was willing to take it to the limit but I had to go shopping for cat food (only my cats can dictate to the High Dictator).

I will just have to be smugly content that my debating skills are superior and just realize that some of us are not up to my level. :wink2: :wavy:

[am_sez]

Please forgive me for getting a little off topic here, but I really would like to know where the term "redneck" originated from. Also the term "hick"...

Anyone know where they came from?
Here's an interesting site for looking up word origins: www.wordwizard.com


Hick has been a pejorative since the mid-16th century, meaning 1. any inhabitant of the countryside, a peasant, a farmer; 2. a potential victim, a gullible simpleton; and as a 20th century US adjective, unsophisticated or naive. Its etymology is, apparently, based on a corruption of the proper name ‘Dick’, which when used as a generic can mean a country bumpkin. The most famous instance of hick came in a celebrated Variety newspaper headline of the 1920s. In the showbiz journal's incomparable speelling it ran ‘Hix Nix Stix Pix’, i.e. country folk don't like movies about their own environment. (‘Stix’ / ‘Sticks’ being another term for the countryside)

The term redneck first meant 'an uneducated white farm laborer in the South'. It comes from the literal notion of one's neck being colored red by sunburn from working in the fields all day. In its earliest use, recorded especially in Arkansas and Mississippi, redneck was used chiefly by other Southerners as a disparaging term for lower-class people. More recently it has been applied by Northerners to Southerners in general. The most recent extended sense is 'a bigot or reactionary', that is, a person whose views resemble those attributed to the Southern working class. Redneck is first attested in 1830, but seems to have been very rare before the twentieth century.

[am_sez]

I will just have to be smugly content that my debating skills are superior and just realize that some of us are not up to my level. :wink2: :wavy:
:tongue2:

[Txsweeper]

Long time rival welcomes Powell, talks human rights
By Associated Press
Thursday, July 1, 2004

KHARTOUM, Sudan - Over the years, secretaries of state generally have avoided Sudan, partly the result of its poor human rights record. But Colin Powell made a 23-hour visit here this week precisely because he believes the country's rights performance is so sorry.

As Powell sees it, thuggery by Arab militias against black Africans in western Darfur province has created a humanitarian catastrophe.

He appealed to Sudanese leaders to rein in the militias, ease restrictions on humanitarian access to Darfur and take steps to promote a political settlement between the rival factions. He believes he made some headway.

The announcement of Powell's visit here - the first by a secretary of state since 1978 - sparked some wild rumors on Khartoum streets. One had him planning to fly here in the company of 300 Marines. It was not clear what they would do once they arrived.

A Sudanese reporter, speaking to an American colleague, wondered why Powell was making such a fuss about Darfur with so many people dying in Iraq. The Sudanese government seems to think that Darfur's problems have been greatly exaggerated - the product of an obsessed American media.

U.S. ties with Sudan have been strained for years. Washington has imposed 12 separate sanctions against Sudan, some of them a result of the State Department's designation of Sudan as a terrorist country, a status that brings automatic penalties under law.

Still, the two countries have had reason to keep channels open. With the help of the United States and other countries, the Islamic government has made significant progress toward ending its 21-year old struggle with non-Muslims in southern Sudan - a conflict that has left more than 2 million dead.

Also, Sudan has pleased U.S. officials by sharing information with the administration about international terrorist activities.

Powell flew to Sudan from Turkey Tuesday night and went straight to the office of President Mar el-Bashir, who quickly promised to rein in the Arab militias and to take other steps to improve the lot of the more than 1 million people in Darfur uprooted by conflict.

As a stick, Powell warned that the United States might take the issue to the U.N. Security Council if Sudan ignored the problem. He believes that got Bashir's attention because no government wants the stigma of Security Council sanctions.

On Wednesday, when much of Khartoum was celebrating the 15th anniversary of Bashir's rise to power, Powell was off to Darfur, flying westward over thirsty, rust-colored Sahara sands. It was one of those rare days when Powell showed up for work in a sport shirt instead of a coat and tie. The temperature hovered around 100 degrees.

It was not clear whether Powell knew what to expect when he visited the al-Shouk camp for the displaced in eastern Darfur. Would he find emaciated children?

In fact, there was very little sign of the human suffering and depression so common at camps for the uprooted. Powell's visit was a joyous occasion, with tens of thousands offering a warm welcome, many struggling just to get a glimpse of him. They seemed healthy and well fed. The most obvious sign of deprivation was the row upon row of ramshackle housing, consisting mostly of plastic sheeting.

Powell said al-Shouk was better off than other camps in Darfur, which lack the same level of humanitarian access. He suggested that many of Darfur's homeless have not made it to camps and are out on their own. And he believes thousands will die in Darfur during the summer even under the best of circumstances.

But by the time Powell's plane departed Sudan Wednesday at dusk for Indonesia, his next stop, the Sudanese seemed fully on board with the U.S. proposals for Darfur. Powell's main question was whether they would follow up their words with action.

``These people want to go home,'' he said, alluding to Darfur's displaced. ``They need to go home and they can't go home unless they feel safe.''

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=34031

[damaris]

I am going to call Colin Powell tomorrow. I hope he answers.

[mistylynn70]

I'm glad his boss sent him over there. Come on you Bush bashers, isn't this a good thing??

[cowleyh]

Latest news is that France is trying to block sanctions because they have *gasp* oil interests there. Some other info I browsed has China teaming up with France and promoting the construction of a pipeline directly into China. Is France protecting a murderous regime...again? For financial reasons alone? I assume so.

*waiting patiently for the 'oil issue' to be turned back onto the bush family*

[Aisling]

Just some background on conscientious objectors. (This is related to the draft obviously; I think it would be very rare for a conscientious objector to enlist in the military.) A number of them served in Viet Nam as medics, by the way. Can someone tell me again what Dick Cheney was doing during Viet Nam?

http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/conscription.html

Conscientious objectors
A "conscientious objector" is an individual whose personal beliefs are incompatible with military service, or sometimes with any role in the armed forces. The reasons for refusing to serve are varied. Many conscientious objectors are so for religious reasons -- notably, the Quakers are pacifist by doctrine and Jehovah's Witnesses, who, while not strictly speaking pacifists, refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they believe Christians should be neutral in worldly conflicts. Other objections can stem from a deep sense of responsibility toward humanity as a whole, or from simple denial that any government should have that kind of moral authority.

The legal status of conscientious objectors has varied over the years and from nation to nation. Currently, conscientious objector status is recognized in both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Many conscientious objectors have been imprisoned for refusing to participate in wars. In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that it is not necessary for a conscientious objector to have a religious basis for their beliefs.

Some conscientious objectors are unwilling to serve the military in any capacity, while others are willing to serve in non-combatant roles; in World War I, many conscientious objectors drove ambulances, often under fire. In World War II, some conscientious objectors volunteered for hazardous scientific experiments.