Why do you even bother to ask questions? You should just tell us all what you know we believe, and explained why it is in error. It would save you quite a bit of time since you seem to have that all worked out already.
Kwame, you have an interesting point. What is your theory on why the big interest on Darfur and not the Congo? I know Darfur has oil and it is Muslim. I haven't read much else on the subject. I have been curious as to seeming over emphasis on it in comparison with other equal or large catastrophes. Is Darfur being Muslim seen somehow as being a "global war on terror" thing or somehow related to defending Zionism in Palestine? Point me to some research. Save an old guy some google time.
It doesn't help that failed elections in Africa are like blizzards in winter. I guess when there's little to no economic infrastructure, the only place to make any real money is in government, so any election has the potential to explode into hellfire and chaos. I'm surprised that my father's home country, Cameroon, hasn't had more instability despite being one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. But where you're wrong about America is we have probably the largest and most diverse media on the planet. We also have high internet connectivity with little to no censorship, so if we want to check New Statesman or Dawn or spend our lunch break on the Africa section of BBC News or New York Times, we can, in a second, for free. You can probably go into a second-tier state school in a remote part of the country, like North Dakota or Alaska, and their library or online research catalog will have every decent scholarly journal about Africa you can find.
So, one terrorist is a direct threat, but a nation the supports and finances a terrorist is not? No one but you is talking about going to war in this thread. Just because someone is a threat does not imply that the only policy action is attacking them or taking over that country. Because they have a stated hatred for the US and are attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a direct threat to the US. Because they can kill millions of Americans. And the leaders of the country that is trying acquire them believes the US is the Great Satan. The dots are not terribly hard to connect. These go together. When you have two candidates, and one is extremely anti-US and the other isn't, and the one that is extremely anti-US essentially usurps power despite the will of its people, that makes that country more of a threat. Beyond that, in general, democracies historically do not go to war with each other for a number of reasons, primarily dealing with the will of the people. If Iran is not a democracy and cannot vote out unpopular leaders, that makes them more of a threat. None of these things individually make Iran a direct threat. All of them combined certainly do. If you equate Iran and Iraq, then you have no clue what you're talking about. The two countries share very little in regards to their geopolitical status except a border. As far as things I know/learned, I do know that no one here has suggested any Bush policies to be enacted on Iran - that's a simple strawman you set up that has nothing to do with anything. I also know that it is dumb to assume a nation that considers you its sworn enemy (The Great Satan), has significant military resources, does not concern itself with international laws, directly supports and finances terrorists, is working towards access to nuclear technology, and is unconcerned with the will of its people is a threat.
No problem my man. I started a thread about it here in the D&D, but it received no responses: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=171064 I think it should answer your questions. I would also add that savedarfur.org (which has generated a lot of the attention towards the situation in Sudan) was initially started by Zionist and right wing Christian organizations and they really wanted to play up the whole notion of "Arab" Muslims killing "African" Muslims, because it would further demonize Arabs and help feed preconceived notions that they're barbarians, savages, etc...and to probably create rifts between black African and Arab communities in other places. But Mamdani and others have really exposed this particular agenda of these groups within the savedarfur coalition by pointing out, among other things, the obvious fact that all sides essentially have the same ethno-racial background and composition. They also share linguistic similarities. The Janjaweed speak Arabic, the Fur speak Arabic, and the Masalit and Zaghwa also speak Arabic (to a lesser extent) as well. One last thing is that the Congo possesses natural resources as well, but savedarfur has used its influence and money to bring in celebrities to help raise awareness. Most people don't read the supposed largest and most diverse forms of media that you speak of. The average person doesn't inform themselves about Africa or some other part of the world by reading scholarly journals. Also, there is a lot of good information out there, but you really have to search and dig deep because it's suppressed. Most people aren't going to put forth that type of effort. The corporate/mainstream media here is what dominates. They, in conjunction with the government, decide what's newsworthy (usually based on a political agenda) and what is an issue and what is not. For example, it was the corporate/mainstream media that had the average person believing that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs while scholars and Middle East experts were saying that was bs. And we all know which opinion won out.
I will never specifically address any of your "issue challenges" no matter how serious or trivial they may be. I won't be a part of your crusade.
[ Well the US supports and finances terrorists? Agree Oh well a minor threat, sure. I did not know that was what you were talking about. You made it seem like a big deal and still do. Is there any wonder considering what we have done to them. We in our more diplomatic way have a stated hated of them as far as I can see. Probably so. We have threatened to attack them directly often. See Bush and Obama has not ruled that out as far as I know. Our proxies, Israel do this almost weekly. Why? only neo-cons or their fellow travellers believe they are close. Iran has never threatened to nuke the US. I 'm not sure we can say the US or its proxy Israel have not threatened to nuke Iran. After our invasion of Iraq and our non-invasion of N. Korea it makes a lot of sense for Iran to try to defend itself against the US by acquiring nukes. . Not for those who have bought the assumptions behind this neo-con inspired nonsense. Stating it does not prove it. Some logic here. However, Iran is not a big threat regardless of candidate. This is a tenant of neo-con thought. NOTE I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE A NEO-CON. See WWI and other numerous examples. The US is still a democracy and goes to war frequently. Granted we do not refer to those we attack as democracies and most actually aren't. Of course we have overthrown many democracies, which can be seen as a form of warfare. As I argued above when comparing their forces without ours. Iran is not a threat. To argue "more" is not helpful in any but the most abstract sense. This keep this practical and real world. Glad you admit finally that your initial points raised do not make a direct threat. Combining them does not enhance your claims much in my opinion. On this we can agree, but the same simplisitic reasoning is being used as to why Iran is a big threat as was used by Bush as to why Iraq was a big threat. Does this not give you pause? Why do this since you say they are so different in their geopolitical status? Well I think that is undertandable given your almost verbatim repetition of Bush's reasons why Iraq and now for you Iran is a big threat. Sorry if you did not mean to imply any action should result from this identical set or arguments. Even if you are so peaceful, I think it is not wise to repeat this line of reasoning if yo don't want war. Cetainly those who do are using the same line of reasoning. Why do I suspect you bought into Bush's reasoning and supported the Iraq invasion. Keep repeating your inedividual points which you admit aren't direct threats but somehow conclude they combine to be a direct threat. "The great satan sound" bite is effective for neo-cons, their fellow followers etc, or perhaps so frightening for some, but should not be a substitute for examining the context of the quote-- perhaps its internal polical reasons for being used with a population that is still not happy with the US overthrow of a moderate democracy and support for a brutal dictator for many years, our support for Sadam' invasion of Iran which killed at least a million etc. "The great satan soundbite" should not substitute for analysis of whether Iran is an actual threat and its mere incantation is ineffective for those who don't freak out at the mere words.
