The slaughter had been going on freely for 17 months up to that point. Declaring it genocide so late in the game is more of a move to save face than anything else. For years after they labelled it genocide, they didn't do anything about it either.
As for your slippery slope argument, I'm not sure what's the difference between real/perceived genocide when 200,000+ civilians have been gang-raped and slaughtered by bandits and aircraft weapons paid for by the Sudanese government, funded by China (who hosts the 2008 Olympics under the motto "One World, One Dream") and supported by companies publicly-traded in the US.
"As if Darfur is the only place where people are dying by the boatload. The attention on Darfur is for one reason: "Strategic Oil-grab powerplay to give us leverage over china."
Yes, the professors and students actively protesting the genocide are interested only in oil! Ha! It's the simple fact that at least 200,000 and more likely 400,000+ civilians have been mass slaughtered by their own government that has enraged people.
The connection to China is simply the result of Sudan's trade deals with the country. Other nations' fear of China is the reason the genocide has continued unabated for 4 years. The UN has done nothing despite saying "NEVER AGAIN" after the Rwandan Genocide last decade.
"As for Ron Paul: Regulation for the sake of humanitarian interventionism=harming the American Economy for no reason that benefits us."
Humanitarian intervention? Who mentioned that? Not me. I only mentioned divestment - telling companies that if they support the Sudanese government's genocide, we will not give them any of our government contracts. Nowhere does that involve sending any troops or humanitarian groups to another country.
"The bill he voted against was a pre-invasion war drum and I'm glad he voted against it."
The bill was passed almost unanimously. Where's the war? Where's the troops? The bill never had that intention (have you read it?).
You're a joke of a person living in a bubble, pretending there's no penalty for inaction, no such thing as blowback (rather like Giuliani's idiotic claims that won so many Paul supporters).
Paul was my only choice for president until I heard about this vote. Now I have no choice.
That's only because it's what Wikipedia says. The speed of sound in the interstellar medium depends on the density of the medium, which varies, so it's different everywhere.
In space, it is much higher than the speed of sound on earth. Tens of kilometers per second, a couple orders of magnitude faster than on earth. See, space is not empty.
The speed of sound in the interstellar medium is much higher than it is on earth. In case you didn't know, space is not empty. Vacuum is, but space isn't.
"I can't help wondering if it would be good for the country to have a single term of someone like him to undo some of the damage that the last few incumbents have done, and then elect someone more moderate."
What changes would be made? All of his suggestions are legislative changes. He can't make any of these changes without the backing of the legislative branch, which has very few libertarian types.
So it did nothing more than cause a burn on his chest, but the pressure was high enough to break his ribs and spine? Does anything seem odd about this?
"The best way to help in Darfur and Sudan is to be part of a UN force"
Please, you need to inform yourself. Start by watching the US-tax-dollar-funded PBS Frontline special released last week. Every second of the program explains how the UN has done nothing stopping the genocide, simply because China is Sudan's key supplier, and nobody wants China angry at them. The most they're willing to do is to make idealistic statements, saying, "hey, that's not nice, please stop".
A choice quote from the program is made by one of the leaders of the movement to stop the genocide, who explains that the most useful knowledge gained from the last 4 years of inaction by the UN is that despite their saying "never again" after the Rwandan Genocide, the UN is ultimately useless for these purposes. You should keep that in mind when the 2nd major genocide of the 21st century occurs (which it will).
"...and to be apart of any multinational embargoes that happen..."
If he kept it that simple, maybe I could understand, but he had to pad his speeches with more convincing (less harsh) but false and spurious arguments.
"For example, if your ISP is spying on you, and you don't want that, you would be able to take appropriate action: change ISP's, use encryption, use Tor, etc."
I live in an apartment and only have one choice of ISP. What do you suggest I do? I also edit Wikipedia a lot, and Wikipedia has banned most Tor IPs. What do you suggest I do?
Please do not confuse divestment with intervention - there is too much at stake for people to (purposely or ignorantly) confuse the two. There's a big difference between the US government saying to companies, "if you are providing the Sudan government with the equipment to help them mow down their own people, then you will not be entitled to any US government contracts" (ie, divestment) and the US government sending troops over there to protect the victims (intervention).
I can understand Paul being against intervention, but not against divestment.
"Why aren't those being killed fighting back?"
Unlike the Sudanese government, the victims are just villagers, not being supported heavily by China or other companies. Sudan sends out helicopters that mow them down in the middle of the night, one village at a time.
"Is there anywhere they could go?"
They have tried running across the west border to Chad, but the murderers, who are simply bandits paid by the Sudan government, followed them across the border, and are now attacking the humanitarian camps.
"Can we simply kill all the aggressors, and are there none that would simply replace them?"
The aggressors on the ground are bandits (they do the raping and torture) - it'd be hard to fight them off, but they and the helicopters and planes that do the mass killing are funded by the Sudanese government and China, and companies which US citizens invest in. Telling those companies we will not support what they support has been effective in Sudan. For Paul to act otherwise (ignorantly or not) is ridiculous.
A very good summary of Paul's general views. While I was entirely supportive of Ron Paul until very recently, I do agree with a lot of the Constitutional "hands off" approaches, however I believe that this only works up to a point. Companies are much too skilled at fucking people over these days. It doesn't make sense any longer for a government to assume that the free market will just work itself out. It's ignorance more than anything that drives these sweeping arguments that are basically saying "leave me alone, I don't want to get involved, I don't care what's happening"
Here is Paul's speech in which he confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war - two completely separate issues (the Sudanese government even said that they were delaying a peace agreement to end the civil war, in order to have a "lasting solution in Darfur").
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country."
This should read:
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that company."
...until I found out about his opinion regarding the Darfur genocide (watch this excellent Frontline special online if you have no clue what is happening over there).
While I can understand his not wanting to send troops over there to stop the government from slaughtering its own people, I can not understand his voting against the Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1), which intended "to require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies".
Basically, the act says that if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country.
When I read Paul's argument, I was even more appalled. Not only did he ignore the currently-known results of divesting from Sudan (in other words, it's working!), he also had the gall to (purposely?) confuse the Darfur genocide with the completely separate North-South civil war. So his basic argument was "we shouldn't be getting involved with other countries' civil wars"
Maybe 12,000 years ago that was true, but not today. Otherwise you might as well say humans aren't native to anywhere but Africa, or that land creatures aren't native to anywhere but the sea.
"We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions. We observe gradients both of decreasing genetic diversity as a function of geographic distance from the Bering Strait and of decreasing genetic similarity to Siberians--signals of the southward dispersal of human populations from the northwestern tip of the Americas. We also observe evidence of: (1) a higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America, (2) a relative lack of differentiation between Mesoamerican and Andean populations, (3) a scenario in which coastal routes were easier for migrating peoples to traverse in comparison with inland routes, and (4) a partial agreement on a local scale between genetic similarity and the linguistic classification of populations. These findings offer new insights into the process of population dispersal and differentiation during the peopling of the Americas."
Methinks this trend will create a network of vast underground datacenters so large that archaeologists of the distant future will be left wondering whether we were created by metallic silicon creatures.
Slashdot Mirror
The slaughter had been going on freely for 17 months up to that point. Declaring it genocide so late in the game is more of a move to save face than anything else. For years after they labelled it genocide, they didn't do anything about it either.
As for your slippery slope argument, I'm not sure what's the difference between real/perceived genocide when 200,000+ civilians have been gang-raped and slaughtered by bandits and aircraft weapons paid for by the Sudanese government, funded by China (who hosts the 2008 Olympics under the motto "One World, One Dream") and supported by companies publicly-traded in the US.
"As if Darfur is the only place where people are dying by the boatload. The attention on Darfur is for one reason: "Strategic Oil-grab powerplay to give us leverage over china."
Yes, the professors and students actively protesting the genocide are interested only in oil! Ha! It's the simple fact that at least 200,000 and more likely 400,000+ civilians have been mass slaughtered by their own government that has enraged people.
The connection to China is simply the result of Sudan's trade deals with the country. Other nations' fear of China is the reason the genocide has continued unabated for 4 years. The UN has done nothing despite saying "NEVER AGAIN" after the Rwandan Genocide last decade.
"As for Ron Paul: Regulation for the sake of humanitarian interventionism=harming the American Economy for no reason that benefits us."
Humanitarian intervention? Who mentioned that? Not me. I only mentioned divestment - telling companies that if they support the Sudanese government's genocide, we will not give them any of our government contracts. Nowhere does that involve sending any troops or humanitarian groups to another country.
"The bill he voted against was a pre-invasion war drum and I'm glad he voted against it."
The bill was passed almost unanimously. Where's the war? Where's the troops? The bill never had that intention (have you read it?).
You're a joke of a person living in a bubble, pretending there's no penalty for inaction, no such thing as blowback (rather like Giuliani's idiotic claims that won so many Paul supporters).
Paul was my only choice for president until I heard about this vote. Now I have no choice.
"Other posters are saying..."
That's only because it's what Wikipedia says. The speed of sound in the interstellar medium depends on the density of the medium, which varies, so it's different everywhere.
The speed of sound on earth is about 0.3 km/s. In the interstellar medium, it is tens of km/s.
In space, it is much higher than the speed of sound on earth. Tens of kilometers per second, a couple orders of magnitude faster than on earth. See, space is not empty.
No, it is not. It is the interstellar medium. Read: termination shock.
The speed of sound in the interstellar medium is much higher than it is on earth. In case you didn't know, space is not empty. Vacuum is, but space isn't.
"I can't help wondering if it would be good for the country to have a single term of someone like him to undo some of the damage that the last few incumbents have done, and then elect someone more moderate."
What changes would be made? All of his suggestions are legislative changes. He can't make any of these changes without the backing of the legislative branch, which has very few libertarian types.
So it did nothing more than cause a burn on his chest, but the pressure was high enough to break his ribs and spine? Does anything seem odd about this?
"The best way to help in Darfur and Sudan is to be part of a UN force"
Please, you need to inform yourself. Start by watching the US-tax-dollar-funded PBS Frontline special released last week. Every second of the program explains how the UN has done nothing stopping the genocide, simply because China is Sudan's key supplier, and nobody wants China angry at them. The most they're willing to do is to make idealistic statements, saying, "hey, that's not nice, please stop".
A choice quote from the program is made by one of the leaders of the movement to stop the genocide, who explains that the most useful knowledge gained from the last 4 years of inaction by the UN is that despite their saying "never again" after the Rwandan Genocide, the UN is ultimately useless for these purposes. You should keep that in mind when the 2nd major genocide of the 21st century occurs (which it will).
"...and to be apart of any multinational embargoes that happen..."
This is the whole point of Sudanese divestment.
Except I work from home and need to video conference. Wireless internet is too slow for that.
If you want to find out how the people who represent YOU have voted, type in your ZIP code here.
Learn about Divestment
Divestment status
Divestment legislation status
That's a fine and dandy answer to my second statement. Now how about my first statement?
If he kept it that simple, maybe I could understand, but he had to pad his speeches with more convincing (less harsh) but false and spurious arguments.
"For example, if your ISP is spying on you, and you don't want that, you would be able to take appropriate action: change ISP's, use encryption, use Tor, etc."
I live in an apartment and only have one choice of ISP. What do you suggest I do? I also edit Wikipedia a lot, and Wikipedia has banned most Tor IPs. What do you suggest I do?
Please do not confuse divestment with intervention - there is too much at stake for people to (purposely or ignorantly) confuse the two. There's a big difference between the US government saying to companies, "if you are providing the Sudan government with the equipment to help them mow down their own people, then you will not be entitled to any US government contracts" (ie, divestment) and the US government sending troops over there to protect the victims (intervention).
I can understand Paul being against intervention, but not against divestment.
"Why aren't those being killed fighting back?"
Unlike the Sudanese government, the victims are just villagers, not being supported heavily by China or other companies. Sudan sends out helicopters that mow them down in the middle of the night, one village at a time.
"Is there anywhere they could go?"
They have tried running across the west border to Chad, but the murderers, who are simply bandits paid by the Sudan government, followed them across the border, and are now attacking the humanitarian camps.
"Can we simply kill all the aggressors, and are there none that would simply replace them?"
The aggressors on the ground are bandits (they do the raping and torture) - it'd be hard to fight them off, but they and the helicopters and planes that do the mass killing are funded by the Sudanese government and China, and companies which US citizens invest in. Telling those companies we will not support what they support has been effective in Sudan. For Paul to act otherwise (ignorantly or not) is ridiculous.
A very good summary of Paul's general views. While I was entirely supportive of Ron Paul until very recently, I do agree with a lot of the Constitutional "hands off" approaches, however I believe that this only works up to a point. Companies are much too skilled at fucking people over these days. It doesn't make sense any longer for a government to assume that the free market will just work itself out. It's ignorance more than anything that drives these sweeping arguments that are basically saying "leave me alone, I don't want to get involved, I don't care what's happening"
Here is Paul's speech in which he confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war - two completely separate issues (the Sudanese government even said that they were delaying a peace agreement to end the civil war, in order to have a "lasting solution in Darfur").
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country."
This should read:
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that company."
...until I found out about his opinion regarding the Darfur genocide (watch this excellent Frontline special online if you have no clue what is happening over there).
While I can understand his not wanting to send troops over there to stop the government from slaughtering its own people, I can not understand his voting against the Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1), which intended "to require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies".
Basically, the act says that if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country.
When I read Paul's argument, I was even more appalled. Not only did he ignore the currently-known results of divesting from Sudan (in other words, it's working!), he also had the gall to (purposely?) confuse the Darfur genocide with the completely separate North-South civil war. So his basic argument was "we shouldn't be getting involved with other countries' civil wars"
Maybe the ground has a slight tilt.
The rocks wouldn't by themselves leave such deep impressions and well-developed ridges along the path unless they were moving through mud.
Maybe 12,000 years ago that was true, but not today. Otherwise you might as well say humans aren't native to anywhere but Africa, or that land creatures aren't native to anywhere but the sea.
People can't really help where they're born.
"We examined genetic diversity and population structure in the American landmass using 678 autosomal microsatellite markers genotyped in 422 individuals representing 24 Native American populations sampled from North, Central, and South America. These data were analyzed jointly with similar data available in 54 other indigenous populations worldwide, including an additional five Native American groups. The Native American populations have lower genetic diversity and greater differentiation than populations from other continental regions. We observe gradients both of decreasing genetic diversity as a function of geographic distance from the Bering Strait and of decreasing genetic similarity to Siberians--signals of the southward dispersal of human populations from the northwestern tip of the Americas. We also observe evidence of: (1) a higher level of diversity and lower level of population structure in western South America compared to eastern South America, (2) a relative lack of differentiation between Mesoamerican and Andean populations, (3) a scenario in which coastal routes were easier for migrating peoples to traverse in comparison with inland routes, and (4) a partial agreement on a local scale between genetic similarity and the linguistic classification of populations. These findings offer new insights into the process of population dispersal and differentiation during the peopling of the Americas."
Methinks this trend will create a network of vast underground datacenters so large that archaeologists of the distant future will be left wondering whether we were created by metallic silicon creatures.