[Agamemnon]

You said this about Bin Laden being used in advertising

Now you are saying that companies shouldn't be aloud to make money, becuase some of their supplies come from a country with possible ties to Bin Laden.

Lol, finally a debate, i'm so bored!

I think there's a pretty huge difference between using an image of Osama in a touque to sell hats, and directly or indirectly contributing funds to terrorist groups. Unless you think they're the same thing... I don't.

I am sure your argument will be something along the lines of: "Bin Laden is not profiting from the ad campaign that is using him." And you are probably right. But these are 2 sides to the same coin.

What would you like the US to do? They already have troops in 2 Islamic countries, and now you want to invade another? You cry foul for the US invading Iraq, and removing Saddam (who himself contributed to crimes against humanity), now are saying the US isn't doing enough to stop the crimes in the Sudan.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Osama isn't making money off the touque sale. I don't see the 'other side of the coin' on that issue.

I'm (obviously) not a huge interventionist. I'm 'crying foul' because the US administration has talked tough about these kinds of issues, now I'm waiting to see if they 'flip-flop' by calling the situation in Iraq a more necessary and justified war than possible intervention in Darfur. The US has taken it upon themselves to 'root out evil', well, there's a whole lot of evil in Sudan, why don't they take them out? Is it because the military's resources is spread impossibly thin? Is it because the international community would basically disown the US as the leader of liberal-democracy? Is it because the US simply doesn't care or is actually benefiting from the current arrangement?

It seems to be a case of "Your damned if you do, and your damned if you don't". Like i said in my previous post, either another country is going to have to unilaterally move into the Sudan, or it is going to have go through the UN. One is quick, but leads to speculation over motivs(sp). The other takes longer, but is universially accepted.

Well, one that is universally accepted is international trade sanctions. Why not have the UN mandate to every member-state that trading with Sudan is taboo? Because the member-states like trading with Sudan... and a host of other countries. Iran and North Korea do some brisk business because sanctions are in no way comprehensive or completely enforced.

Why is there a need to 'invade' to solve the problem anyway? We never invaded South Africa, but there was still some pretty solid pressure raised in the form of sanctions. Is there no longer the will power among the international community to adhere to sanctions? Should the US be taking a leading role in creating and enforcing them?

Now having said all that, I agree. The world needs to get involved in Sudan, and needs to do it quickly. Martin has already stood up in front of the UN and basically said "You idiots, get off your asses and do something", which I applaud him for. If Canada had any sort of military, we probably could join forces with the US and UK and go it alone. But that isn't going to happen, becuase well, Canada has no military to speak of.

I guess the bottom-line question is, "Why is the international community not taking a more active role in the 'genocide' in Darfur". I mean, its not like sanctions would cripple anyone too badly... except the Arab Gum Company I guess... but screw them.

If the reason the US isn't leading the charge is due to commercial interest in the country, I guess I'm just p*ssed that the interests and profits of a few multi-national companies take interest over a couple thousand people murdered.

Just frustrated I guess.