[arsenal]

Originally posted by agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Lol, finally a debate, i'm so bored![/b]

I know.. my class is soo boring right now, I need some sort of stimulation or I am going to fall a sleep.

Originally posted by Agamemnon+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>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.[/b]

I percieve it as associating with a terrorist. One is making profits off of a terrorists image. Basically idolizing Bin Laden, and turning him into pop culture.

Originally posted by Agamemnon
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.

If I remember the obsure correlation that I thought of, then I will post it. Right now, I am just going to go with, "Your right".

Originally posted by Agamemnon
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?

Iraq had been under sanctions for 10-12 years. With no evidence produced that their WMD had been destroyed. He had purposelly lied and decieved the world community. If he had been up front and at least shown/or proven that they had all been destroyed, and been a contributing force in the world community, the US probably would not of invaded Iraq. As far as to why the US hasn't done anything with Sudan, probably reasons 1 and 2. I am pretty sure they care, as they have brought it up in the UN. I don't imagine they are making any profit from the current situation.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@
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?[/quote]Sanctions only work if everyone is on board. You get into trouble with "back-door" dealings that effectively render the sanctions useless. Sanctions in Iraq didn't work becuase nations circumvented them. They could work in Sudan, but that doesn't really help the people dying. If the ruling party has a stock pile (of money, food etc) built up, they can ignore sanctions and continue along their merry way. At least for a while. During this time, the people that suffer, are the same people that suffered before sanctions. Invasion basically speeds up the regeim removal process, but prolongs the rebuilding process. Sanctions prolong the regeim removal process, but rebuilding is essential non-existent, depending on the current situation.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon
I guess the bottom-line question is, "Why is the international community not taking a more active role in the 'genocide' in Darfur". [/quote] I wish I knew. If they have their reasons, and they are valid, I would like to hear them. When the international community fails, I guess it falls upon a few nations to take the lead. But they don't get the support of the world community, becuase they have gone alone..Damned if you do, damned if you don't