Lol again with the fake news. Are you pretending to be Trump or whats going on here ?

The Holocaust – between 4 and 17 million deaths (racial motivation)
Holodomor and Soviet famine – between 2.5 and 8 million deaths (political motivation)
European colonisation of the Americas – between 2 and 100 million deaths
Nigerian Civil War – 1 to 3 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Cambodian Genocide – 1 to 3 million deaths (Communist ideological motivation)
Rwandan genocide of 1994 – 500k to 1 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Expulsion of Germans after WW2 – 500k to 3 million deaths (ethnic motivation)
Zunghar Genocide – 480 to 600 thousand deaths (ethnic motivation)
Circassian Genocide – 400k to 1.5 million deaths (political and ethnic motivation)
Armenian Genocide – 1.5 million deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Decossackisation – 300 to 500 thousand deaths (political and ethnic motivation)
Assyrian genocide – 275 to 750 thousand deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Utashe Genocide (aka The Holocaust in Croatia) – 270 to 655 thousand deaths (racial motivation)
Greek Genocide – 200k to 1 million deaths (ethnic and religious (against the Christian minority) motivation)
Darfur Conflict – 178 to 400 thousand deaths (ethnic motivation).

These are the top 15 genocides according to death toll and of these. Christian minorities were actually on the receiving end of three of these genocides.

Another list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll

And another one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll


But hey. Facts don't matter for your kind of hate driven keyboard warriors.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I kind of felt that he wasn't necessarily suggesting a solution, but more saying that it isn't a futile problem. I would love to have seen our country go into Rwanda or Darfur and stop what was going on and I think it could have been done easily. I don't think that is our agenda unfortunately or the agenda of the people in power at least. The American people probably would have been proud of stopping another genocide. I read a book about one of the survivors (lost boys) and it was sickening what he lived through.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

Come on sift, this should be #1.

Omar Al-Bashir has an international arrest warrant on his head after having been convicted of committing war crimes in Darfur. Several of his top generals have also been convicted. One of them was even on video during border fighting telling his forces to take no prisoners.

This is important news people!

What do we call these roles? Jimmy's playing the role of some unusual straight man making us all laugh by being very straight faced insisting that Rosanne is not just joking. It makes it funny, because she'd have to be insane to be serious.

That was the bit, right?

Tell me that was the bit.

Or do we honestly have another celebrity that seriously believes that orphans in places like Liberia, Darfur, the Congo and North Korea wouldn't be starving if only there was more food grown in America?

Scahill summarizes my problem with him early on at the 2 minute mark: I don't care that Muammar Gaddafi is gone.

Let me be clear, I care very deeply that Gaddafi is gone. In fact, that aside most of Scahill's assessment of Libya is agreeable. Of course, the importance of Gaddafi's presence or removal to Libyans can hardly be understated. You simply can not care about the Libyan people and at the same time not care whether or not Gaddafi remained in power.

Scahill goes on to ask how forced regime change fits into international law and order.

The real question is how failing to force regime change against convicted war criminals like Gaddafi and Omar al-Bashir can be justified under international law and order. Every signatory to the convention on genocide is obligated to act to prevent or punish those responsible for committing genocide. Where is the outrage with all the nations that FAILED to support the mission in Libya to stop Gaddafi's promised genocide? Where is the outrage with all the nations STILL FAILING to punish Omar al-Bashir for what he order done in Darfur?

The fallacy here is that only actions should require justification, while inaction never requires any justification at all.

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

>> ^Mazex:

Basically if another country isn't threatening your country, you shouldn't be invading or helping civil wars unless you have significant investments there. China and Russia aren't taking the easy way out, they are taking the correct way, it's none of their business and they have enough problems themselves. America are way too far into international conflicts, it's going to be a devastating bite back soon enough.


Um, I don't know if you're American or not, but if you are, you might want to rethink your viewpoint. You do realize that without the direct and indirect support of the French, Spanish, and Prussians, Americans would still be speaking the Queen's English, don't you? Have a read about how the international community basically ensured the birth of America at this site.

I'm certainly against invading another country (i.e. with the intent to control it after hostilities cease) but I'm also completely against condemning a relatively defenseless population to death simply because an intervention wouldn't be economically profitable. I think maybe you should read more about what happened in both Rwanda and Darfur to fully appreciate what happens when the world collectively shrugs at genocide.

On the whole "going to war in Libya is unconstitutional" score, I think Yglesias has it right when he says it's congress's abdication of power rather than a Presidential power-grab.

I don't mind if something changes and we generally see Congress assert and enforce their sole control of the power to declare war, but I do mind if it just turns into the casus belli for Republicans to "impeach" Obama for doing what every post-WWII President has done without consequence.

On the specific merits of military intervention in Libya, I don't buy that this is about helping Libyans. I don't doubt that there are many people who believe that's what this is about inside the administration. I might even believe Obama himself has been convinced of this. I personally think that if Libya didn't have oil, then the very prospect of intervention never would've been seriously raised in the White House.

If it is for humanitarian reasons, then I think we need a formal code of ethics and conduct for these sorts of things that would explain why Libya is in need of urgent intervention, and why Darfur, Iran, Bahrain, North Korea, Myanmar, etc. aren't.

Big government is bad. I also agree with you.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Military dictatorships are bad. I agree with you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Military dictatorships are bad. I agree with you.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Nazi Germany? Maoist China? Soviet Union? Reality agrees. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

Darfur? Somalia? Reality does not agree with you. Boom.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
It would stop centralized violence and coercion, which is the type that leads to wars and police states. Boom.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Anarchy would do nothing to stop violence or coercion.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
However you want to justify is cool. I support your decision. It is a scary thing sometimes to call into a radio show and challenge a nonviolent, non-coercive argument with an argument in favor of violence and coercion. Let me know if you ever get up the courage.

I simply asked a straightforward question. It is a fact that the US invaded and continued the Vietnam War under false pretenses. And facts are darned things.

I'm amazed you're so eager to call someone who leaks confidential documents but apparently are willing to fully brush off a government lying to it's people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

You know what annoys me the most about what you say is you just don't have any consistent beliefs. Your only consistency seems to be that you always just happen to agree with Republican rhetoric.

If you were really concerned about Vietnamese deaths, you would have realised that a communist regime would have been a far better outcome, spared countless lives and would have resulted in a conversion to capitalism gradually just like Vietnam is doing now.

And hey, I bet you opposed intervention in Kosovo when Clinton was in office, right? Quite ironic if so, right?

And what about intervening in Rwanda and right now in Darfur? Against that too I'm guessing?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Your loaded question was actually the most civil response.
Wouldn't release 'em. Why be a traitor when the Pentagon Papers had zero effect on the Democrat-run Vietnam War?
False pretenses? You mean, communists didn't murder 2 million Vietnamese?
At least Ellsberg was ready to accept his fate.

@ quantumushroom

If you had gained access to the Pentagon Papers, would you have made them available or kept hidden that the US invaded Vietnam under false pretenses?

Geesus and blankfist,
Yes, citizenship is bestowed upon birth in most countries, and yes, taxes are a pretty basic, common sensical part of a successful civilization. (I'd lurve to here some examples to the contrary if you've gottem) There aren't many countries that don't have taxes. The few exceptions are failed states like Darfur and Somalia.

If you don't like living in a modern civilization, you can either go galt and move to darfur, go off the grid -unibomber style- or work from the inside to change our system to something more anarchical. The last one probably won't happen, because I don't think there has ever been a successful country that didn't have taxes, so just basic common sense is your enemy in this fight.

Beyond all this, I'd think you two would be more happy, because we are about to see government elected on all that free market rhetoric that you both so oft spew.

A huge wave of corporate candidates wrapped in the flag, waving free market ideology have been swept into office, taking over a majority of state legislatures, governors mansions and the house. That combined with a supreme court in the pocket, a filabustable senate and a President who doesn't like to use executive orders very often (which is basically the only thing he can do from here on out), means that free market ideology will have free reign. I expect you will see much privatization, deregulation and tax cuts in areas that benefit big business. Also, Iran is back on the table, because markets just love all the money there is to be found in the weapons of war and the plunder of resources. Tax giveaways to the super-rich are also taking a front seat.

It's ugly, smelly and not too bright, but it's still your baby, it has your DNA. Kiss the baby.