Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

liberating sudan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Well - the reason Australia, for example, looks the way it does today (and at least somewhat like Denmark ) is because we in the past exported Europeans to go and live there to replace the indigenous population and "reshape" it in our image so to say.

    Same with the Americas and other places.

    You and I are talking in English today, expressing our freedom to do so, and indeed Australia is now an "ideological ally" of the old European "West" if you will..

    That was not an historical necessity and indeed it could have gone down quite differently...

    I wouldn't immediately say that couldn't be repeated in theory, but it has become much more complicated, precisely because we do no longer enjoy the supremacy we once did…, but also because of our idealogy, which changed over time, and came to include the right of self-determination among other things.

    What you're looking for then is not the "liberation of Sudan" but the "colonisation of Sudan"....and indeed that has been tried but failed, for a number of reasons I won't detail here.

    It could be tried again, but NATO won't be the one to do it.


    Last edited by Snowygerry; 20 Jun 19, 07:00.
    Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

    Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
      What you're looking for then is not the "liberation of Sudan" but the "colonisation of Sudan"
      Ok, that comment may be fair. In every country in the world there are individuals who are ideological allies, ie the sort of people who behave the same as the Danish PM. Or behave the same as myself. I would like those Sudanese - my ideological allies, to form the Sudanese government. It doesn't require Danes etc to be permanently stationed in Sudan. It only requires Sudanese of the right persuasion to be in charge, and also for them to ensure that they stay in charge. E.g. by genociding the portion of their population that supports FGM and would otherwise democratically vote to make FGM legal. I don't need the genocide to be carried out immediately, and education may be an effective alternative to genocide, so that's the moral thing to do (if possible). That is the end state I want. I am not the first person to use the term "democratic imperialism", but it is something similar to that. I'm not sure "colonization" is the right term to describe this, as it is purely a matter of bringing the right Sudanese into government, not requiring foreigners to run Sudan. And to me, this is what "liberation" looks like. My Sudanese ideological allies will be liberated if they can have their ideology in power, while still allowing freedom of speech to challenge everything, and the ability to vote on the left/right split of how high taxes and government-run services should be.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
        It could be tried again, but NATO won't be the one to do it.
        I thought of something else. I only need "democratic imperialism" to be implemented at this stage in world history. I am happy for the Sudanese to have universal adult suffrage at this moment, and NATO could do that. It will probably take decades to assess the direction that democratic Sudan is heading, and after that period of time we can decide whether we need to reinvade and put specific Sudanese in charge of the government, or forcibly change the education system or anything else that may be required. I don't know if NATO can do that or whether we need another 9/11 in America, done by Sudanese this time, to reform or nuke Sudan. I am worried that the Americans will nuke Sudan instead of giving our Sudanese ideological allies a chance to carry out their own selective genocide. If America intends to simply use nukes then I'd rather they assist with a "selective genocide" IN ADVANCE of another 9/11.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
          I'm not sure "colonization" is the right term to describe this, as it is purely a matter of bringing the right Sudanese into government, not requiring foreigners to run Sudan.
          That's Neo-Colonialism I think..

          We tried that in Ruanda - we put the "right" Rwandese in charge, but they started oppressing the "wrong" Rwandese, to the point the wrong Rwandese rose up against them and started genociding the right Rwandese like nobodies business.

          Then the other Rwandese invaded again to stop the first, and since they all look alike it was a terrible mess.

          Enfin - it was a bit more complicated than that, but just to say that (Neo)Colonialism is tricky business, you know where you start, but not where it ends.

          General consensus here now is, we're done with that, and we never were adepts at the concept in first place

          I don't need the genocide to be carried out immediately, and education may be an effective alternative to genocide..
          That's very reassuring to hear.

          Edited to be sure.
          Last edited by Snowygerry; 21 Jun 19, 01:40.
          Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

          Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
            Ok, that comment may be fair. In every country in the world there are individuals who are ideological allies, ie the sort of people who behave the same as the Danish PM. Or behave the same as myself. I would like those Sudanese - my ideological allies, to form the Sudanese government. It doesn't require Danes etc to be permanently stationed in Sudan. It only requires Sudanese of the right persuasion to be in charge, and also for them to ensure that they stay in charge. E.g. by genociding the portion of their population that supports FGM and would otherwise democratically vote to make FGM legal. I don't need the genocide to be carried out immediately, and education may be an effective alternative to genocide, so that's the moral thing to do (if possible). That is the end state I want. I am not the first person to use the term "democratic imperialism", but it is something similar to that. I'm not sure "colonization" is the right term to describe this, as it is purely a matter of bringing the right Sudanese into government, not requiring foreigners to run Sudan. And to me, this is what "liberation" looks like. My Sudanese ideological allies will be liberated if they can have their ideology in power, while still allowing freedom of speech to challenge everything, and the ability to vote on the left/right split of how high taxes and government-run services should be.
            You forget a small detail : the Sudanese are Muslims and they do not want democracy made in the USA .
            East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet .
            There is no need to intervene in Sudan to change the Sudanese in liberal Americans : in 1789 USA was surrounded by dictatorships, and this did not hurt the USA .
            Last point : what you propose is impossible :
            1 the nations outside the US refuse your proposals
            2 USA is not strong enough
            3 democracy is an exception in the history of mankind and the logical evolution is a return to a world full of dictators .
            4 what Fukuyama said ( The End of History and the universalisation of western liberal democracy ) is nonsense :democracy is threatened in the USA and the West ,by the same liberals who want to impose arrogantly their ideology on the rest of the world .
            People in the USA and Western Europe are less free than 60 years ago and the situation will empire .
            Don't intervene in the business of other countries, unless they are a danger for you . Remember what happened in 1992 when old Bush ( already gaga ) intervened in Somalia : operation Restore Hope resulted in a cruel defeat and ignominious withdrawal.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by ljadw View Post
              3 democracy is an exception in the history of mankind and the logical evolution is a return to a world full of dictators .
              I agree that democracy is not a natural state of humans. But it is the one I support, which is why I would like to see a world war to install democracy.

              Don't intervene in the business of other countries, unless they are a danger for you .
              The beautiful thing about 9/11 is that it forced America to confront danger from individuals, not just governments. So now it is necessary to get involved in every single country in the world and make sure something is being done such that every single citizen is horrified by the thought of American citizens being killed by terrorists. If you still don't think 9/11 is enough, my advice to my ideological allies in Sudan would be to carry out a terrorist attack on America to force America to deal with Sudan because Sudan is a danger to the US.

              Remember what happened in 1992 when old Bush ( already gaga ) intervened in Somalia : operation Restore Hope resulted in a cruel defeat and ignominious withdrawal.
              It didn't need to be a defeat. And there is no reason why Sudan should be a defeat when Afghanistan and Iraq proved successful.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                I agree that democracy is not a natural state of humans. But it is the one I support, which is why I would like to see a world war to install democracy.


                The beautiful thing about 9/11 is that it forced America to confront danger from individuals, not just governments. So now it is necessary to get involved in every single country in the world and make sure something is being done such that every single citizen is horrified by the thought of American citizens being killed by terrorists. If you still don't think 9/11 is enough, my advice to my ideological allies in Sudan would be to carry out a terrorist attack on America to force America to deal with Sudan because Sudan is a danger to the US.


                It didn't need to be a defeat. And there is no reason why Sudan should be a defeat when Afghanistan and Iraq proved successful.
                You have no ideological allies in Sudan ,
                Afghanistan and Iraq were not successful .
                The Soviets failed in Afghanistan, US also .

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  You have no ideological allies in Sudan ,
                  After the liberation of Iraq, I spent an enormous amount of time in the Iraqi blogs, talking to Iraqis, and I identified one Iraqi who was basically a clone of me. From twitter I can see that I have Sudanese allies. ie people who want to overthrow their dictator.

                  Afghanistan and Iraq were not successful .
                  They were totally successful. A bit bloodier than I had hoped for, but ultimately we stood up two democracies and got locals to volunteer to do the fighting.

                  The Soviets failed in Afghanistan
                  No, that's US propaganda. The Soviets achieved all their objectives and had successfully stood up a communist dictatorship. All they needed to do was keep funding it. Yeltsin cut off the funding, causing the collapse.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                    After the liberation of Iraq, I spent an enormous amount of time in the Iraqi blogs, talking to Iraqis, and I identified one Iraqi who was basically a clone of me. From twitter I can see that I have Sudanese allies. ie people who want to overthrow their dictator.


                    They were totally successful. A bit bloodier than I had hoped for, but ultimately we stood up two democracies and got locals to volunteer to do the fighting.


                    No, that's US propaganda. The Soviets achieved all their objectives and had successfully stood up a communist dictatorship. All they needed to do was keep funding it. Yeltsin cut off the funding, causing the collapse.
                    There is no democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, because these countries are Muslim countries and the Islam and democracy style USA exclude each other .
                    There is an Iranian occupation army in Iraq and the Taliban is still terrorizing Afghanistan : thus : no success .
                    About Sudan , a Muslim country and thus hostile to Western democracy : only naive Americans believe that someone who wants to overthrow a dictator is a good guy who wants American democracy . A Sudanese who wants to overthrow the dictator does not want to change Sudan in a democracy ;those in Iran who wanted 40 years ago to overthrow the Shah wanted an other dictatorial regime : that of the Ayatollas .
                    The Soviets failed in Afghanistan , they never controlled the country and when they left, their Quisling regime collapsed .
                    There was no need to send an American Army to Afghanistan : BL was killed by Special forces ( his killing was condemned as expected by Cuba, venezuela,Hamas, Iran, Amnesty International, Code Pink ( funded by the mentor of Hillary = Soros ) .
                    In Iraq the only thing to do was to leave immediately the country after the war and to replace Saddam by one of Americas sons-of - a bitch . But, as usual, the liberals spoiled he victory of the US soldiers .
                    Last edited by ljadw; 20 Jun 19, 14:44.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                      There is no democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, because these countries are Muslim countries and the Islam and democracy style USA exclude each other .
                      This is the sort of thing we heard from detractors prior to western liberation. I have no idea how you can look at the millions of Afghans and Iraqis turning out to vote - at the risk of their lives in some cases - and still not see the democracy. It's real. There are over 300 political parties in Iraq to choose from.

                      There is an Iranian occupation army in Iraq
                      This same line is used by others except they say that the rulers in Iraq and Afghanistan are US puppets. I wish all you conspiracy theorists could agree on who is controlling all these puppets.

                      and the Taliban is still terrorizing Afghanistan : thus : no success .
                      That's irrelevant to Afghanistan being a success. The Taliban are not strong enough to overthrow the government and the Afghan government will eventually prevail so long as we stay engaged to assist them with funds and training and air power.

                      About Sudan , a Muslim country and thus hostile to Western democracy
                      It's not hostile to democracy. But it is not expected to look exactly like the western democracies, in fact the western democracies themselves look different.

                      only naive Americans believe that someone who wants to overthrow a dictator is a good guy who wants American democracy .
                      A Sudanese who wants to overthrow the dictator does not want to change Sudan in a democracy ;those in Iran who wanted 40 years ago to overthrow the Shah wanted an other dictatorial regime : that of the Ayatollas .
                      Just because they failed in Iran doesn't mean that they will fail in Sudan. And they didn't fail in Tunisia either. Why not bring up the more modern Tunisia as an example?

                      The Soviets failed in Afghanistan , they never controlled the country and when they left, their Quisling regime collapsed .
                      No, their Quisling regime lasted for YEARS after the Soviets left, and most likely would have lasted indefinitely if the money and arms hadn't been cut off by Yeltsin. We'll never know for sure though.

                      There was no need to send an American Army to Afghanistan : BL was killed by Special forces ( his killing was condemned as expected by Cuba, venezuela,Hamas, Iran, Amnesty International, Code Pink ( funded by the mentor of Hillary = Soros ) .
                      There may have been no "need", but spreading democracy is exactly what America needs for its long-term protection. We picked up an ally.

                      In Iraq the only thing to do was to leave immediately the country after the war and to replace Saddam by one of Americas sons-of - a bitch . But, as usual, the liberals spoiled he victory of the US soldiers .
                      No. What we needed in Iraq was to find out what was instilled in the brains of Iraqis. What was wrong with these nutcases that made them (or their brethren at least) do 9/11 - giving their lives to kill Americans instead of giving their lives to kill Saddam. Why Saddam was an Arab hero. These were supposed to be the smartest Arab Muslims so if democracy was going to work anywhere, this is where it would work. The alternative was to genocide all Arabs or all Muslims or both, as a solid response to 9/11. Instead we found that the majority of the Arab Muslims in Iraq had no desire to kill Americans and were willing to work with Americans. This spared them from the genocide (which may still take place in places like Saudi Arabia).

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                        Note that I am open to the idea of forcibly converting all Muslims to Christian if you think that is what is required for them to be defacto clones of Switzerland/Denmark/South Korea. A democratic Afghanistan/Iraq is just preparing the ground for that. I believe that genocide or forcible conversion is better than simply doing nothing and allowing foreign states like Pakistan to develop nukes and/or sponsor terrorism. We still need to forcibly collect Pakistan's nukes, and hopefully a democratic Sudan will be one of the actors that is supporting such an action.
                        Well partner I was surprised at your responses itt. Your using the term genocide, are you serious about this type of language?

                        Do you think all Jews should be converted to Christianity? On account that in Israel, interfaith marriage is outlawed.

                        India is Hindu majority and has widespread poverty, do you think Indians should be force converted to Christianity?
                        Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                        Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                        George S Patton

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post
                          It didn't need to be a defeat. And there is no reason why Sudan should be a defeat when Afghanistan and Iraq proved successful.
                          Utterly delusional.

                          Im done trying to talk sense to a brick wall.


                          Comment


                          • #43
                            THIS THREAD IS VEERING INTO DANGEROUS TERRITORY. CALLING FOR GENOCIDE IN ANY WAY< SHAPE OR FORM IS AGAINST FORUM RULES. PLEASE TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT GOING FORWARDS. GOING FORWARDS OFFENDING POSTS WILL BE REMOVED.
                            THANK YOU
                            ACG STAFF

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Stonewall_Jack View Post
                              Well partner I was surprised at your responses itt. Your using the term genocide, are you serious about this type of language?
                              It's more as an intellectual exercise. What is the natural/response to 9/11? Some people wanted to turn Afghanistan into a glass desert. THAT would be genocide/terrorism in itself. I on the other hand wanted to see Afghanistan LIBERATED. I am the one who is AGAINST genocide. I am in favor of democracy and giving people the opportunity to reform via the democratic process and aided by freedom of speech. Note that if Iran is allowed to develop nukes and nuked Los Angeles there is NO SENSIBLE response to that. Nuking Tehran in response would just be killing a whole lot of our ALLIES. Most of the people in Iran are against their dictator, and need to be FREED not NUKED. Nuking Tehran is basically genocide and I am AGAINST doing that!

                              Moderator - I hope this clarifies my use of the word "genocide". It is just "who we need to kill in response to 9/11". If you think that the only person who needed to be killed in response to 9/11 is Osama Bin Laden personally, then the "genocide" would be limited to one person, so it's not really a genocide. If you think those who harbored or supported OBL, ie the Taliban and Al Qaeda need to be killed, then I'm not sure if that is classified as genocide.

                              Do you think all Jews should be converted to Christianity? On account that in Israel, interfaith marriage is outlawed.
                              Note that I am not even saying that Muslims should be converted to Christianity. I actually went the other way myself, and converted from atheism to Islam. Although these days I'm a Muslim in name only (I no longer attend my local mosque to pray). Why? If there's going to be a genocide against Muslims, I want to argue that it is possible for Muslims to be no threat whatsoever to America. I am an Americophile Muslim. But if America still feels the need to forcibly convert Muslims to Christianity or any other religion, I am happy to convert. If America doesn't give me a chance to convert, and decides to kill all Muslims, well, that's my bad luck. Moderator please note that I am against genocide of Muslims because I'm one of them!

                              India is Hindu majority and has widespread poverty, do you think Indians should be force converted to Christianity?
                              Hindus didn't do 9/11 and it appears to be a benign religion. I don't think America is suggesting that Hindus are a threat. I've never heard any calls from Americans to bomb Hindus. However, if America chooses to bomb/genocide Hindus because they are perceived to be a security threat, then the lesser evil would be to forcibly convert them to whatever religion (or sect of Christianity) America considers to be benign. Moderator please note - I am AGAINST the genocide of Hindus!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paul Edwards View Post


                                Note that I would have been happy to genocide 90% of Iraq's population (as a response to 9/11) if that was what was required to get a functioning democracy.
                                Ah, really ?

                                Isil would force Islam on US population even if they need to kill 90% of your population, so your clique are the same type of mentals. Everything you touch turns into filth. Actually people like you are the reason of their existance, and of Al Qaeda too.

                                How much of of them are guilty for 9 11 and how much of them already died ?

                                Who gives you the right to force your ideology ( + with the cost of KILLING 90% of population)


                                Lets pretend you were drunk durring typing of thwt post.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X