US policy that ignores the slaughter of Christians and others in the SUDAN

[Bill the Cat]

Absolutely not. This is just another reason to wonder why some Christians think they can support Trump.

Then you are ignorant on how foreign relations actually work.

[Charles]

He is the President of the US of A - it is my responsibility to pray for him. I do.

Praying for someone is not the same as supporting them as politicians and supporting most or in some cases everything they do. I am sure you know the difference.

[Cow Poke]

Praying for someone is not the same as supporting them as politicians and supporting most or in some cases everything they do. I am sure you know the difference.

Which is exactly why I said I'm praying for him --- some of your colleagues dishonestly proclaim that some of us "support Trump" where we do not, at least not to the extent they falsely accuse.

[Charles]

Then you are ignorant on how foreign relations actually work.

Or I have a different opinion on how they should work and where to draw the line. Political disagreements are usually based on difference of opinion. I have ideas and ideals that are so strong that I do not wish to compromise them. People who have had such ideas and ideals have sometimes changed history and how things "actually work".

[Bill the Cat]

Or I have a different opinion on how they should work and where to draw the line.

So where would you draw the line?

Pakistan? Hosting the Taliban, executing people for speaking bad about Muhamad, over 1,000 "honor killings" every year. Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Bribery, embezzlement, and corruption are rampant. Egypt? Regularly murders protesters for peacefully protesting. Uzbekistan? Tortures and murders people for merely practicing their religion outside the state's rules. Bahrain? Murders peaceful protesters and jails members of the press that are critical of the government. Myanmar? Routinely brutalizes ethnic and religious minorities. Azerbaijan? So corrupt that the voting authorities posted the results of their dictator's reelection a day before voting actually happened. Ethiopia? Regularly imprisons journalists and dissidents and committed war crimes multiple times in the past decade. Tajikistan? One of the highest concentrations of traffickers in heroine and widespread torture of political dissidents. Rwanda? Several assassinations of political opponents, journalists and other enemies. Honduras? The world's murder capital. Uganda? Qatar? UAE? Kyrgyzstan?

When is corrupt too corrupt for your palate?

Political disagreements are usually based on difference of opinion.

True. But that's not the question, about mere disagreements. It's about condoning human rights violations and how far we are willing to bend as a nation.

I have ideas and ideals that are so strong that I do not wish to compromise them.

Then you would be as isolationist as they come, because EVERY country does something that is evil.

People who have had such ideas and ideals have sometimes changed history and how things "actually work".

Again, not what is in view here. The OP asks about normalizing relations with the Sudan and their record of human rights violations. I'm saying that those who are against this normalizing should be against having normal relationships with every nation if they want to be consistent.

[oxmixmudd]

So where would you draw the line?

Pakistan? Hosting the Taliban, executing people for speaking bad about Muhamad, over 1,000 "honor killings" every year. Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Bribery, embezzlement, and corruption are rampant. Egypt? Regularly murders protesters for peacefully protesting. Uzbekistan? Tortures and murders people for merely practicing their religion outside the state's rules. Bahrain? Murders peaceful protesters and jails members of the press that are critical of the government. Myanmar? Routinely brutalizes ethnic and religious minorities. Azerbaijan? So corrupt that the voting authorities posted the results of their dictator's reelection a day before voting actually happened. Ethiopia? Regularly imprisons journalists and dissidents and committed war crimes multiple times in the past decade. Tajikistan? One of the highest concentrations of traffickers in heroine and widespread torture of political dissidents. Rwanda? Several assassinations of political opponents, journalists and other enemies. Honduras? The world's murder capital. Uganda? Qatar? UAE? Kyrgyzstan?

When is corrupt too corrupt for your palate?




True. But that's not the question, about mere disagreements. It's about condoning human rights violations and how far we are willing to bend as a nation.



Then you would be as isolationist as they come, because EVERY country does something that is evil.



Again, not what is in view here. The OP asks about normalizing relations with the Sudan and their record of human rights violations. I'm saying that those who are against this normalizing should be against having normal relationships with every nation if they want to be consistent.

No, not 'every nation'. Some are worse that others. The SUDAN is one of the worst.

And we are talking about initiating a new position, not reascending an existing one. And there is a difference.

Jim

[Bill the Cat]

No, not 'every nation'. Some are worse that others. The SUDAN is one of the worst.

I've listed several "of the worst" that we either have or developed normalized relations with. It isn't unusual to normalize relations with countries that have poor human rights records. Our nation only has adversarial relationships with our military foes.

And we are talking about initiating a new position, not reascending an existing one. And there is a difference.

Jim

No we are not. The US has had on and off relations with the Sudan since 1956. , and the normalizing of the relationship comes with strings.

As the result of an intensive bilateral effort focused on achieving progress by Sudan in five key areas of engagement (countering terrorist groups, ending the threat of the Lord’s Resistance Army, ending the government’s offensive internal military operations, ending Sudan’s destabilizing role in South Sudan, and improving humanitarian access),

[Charles]

I've listed several "of the worst" that we either have or developed normalized relations with. It isn't unusual to normalize relations with countries that have poor human rights records.

It is the good old "someone else did it" or "it is not unusual" type of argument. Many posters on tweb used it quite often thought it does nothing to show what is right or wrong morally speaking.

[Bill the Cat]

It is the good old "someone else did it" or "it is not unusual" type of argument. Many posters on tweb used it quite often thought it does nothing to show what is right or wrong morally speaking.

If we refused relations with every country that does something morally wrong, we'd all be extreme isolationists.

[Charles]

If we refused relations with every country that does something morally wrong, we'd all be extreme isolationists.

Your reply does not answer the point. You are rather pointing to one extreme that we can all agree we should not go to. That does not imply everything except for the extreme is ok. So what is your point apart from what we all knew already?

[Bill the Cat]

Your reply does not answer the point. You are rather pointing to one extreme that we can all agree we should not go to. That does not imply everything except for the extreme is ok. So what is your point apart from what we all knew already?

My point is that we have normalized relations with all sorts of non-adversarial immoral nations, so the Sudan wouldn't be any different. Unless a nation is a direct threat, we don't refuse normal diplomatic measures.

[Charles]

My point is that we have normalized relations with all sorts of non-adversarial immoral nations, so the Sudan wouldn't be any different. Unless a nation is a direct threat, we don't refuse normal diplomatic measures.

So back to the appeal to common practise. I was asking why it was right or wrong. Do you understand the question?

[Bill the Cat]

So back to the appeal to common practise. I was asking why it was right or wrong. Do you understand the question?

You're asking the wrong question. It's beyond too simplistic. It is wrong to have normal diplomatic relations with a country that is actively trying to destroy yours. Anything else is a sliding scale.

[Charles]

You're asking the wrong question. It's beyond too simplistic. It is wrong to have normal diplomatic relations with a country that is actively trying to destroy yours. Anything else is a sliding scale.

You are moving a bit closer but you are not quite there. You have not really even started to explain why or how this sliding scale works.

[Bill the Cat]

You are moving a bit closer but you are not quite there.

I am right where I planned on being. Understanding that international politics is rarely clean or moral.

You have not really even started to explain why or how this sliding scale works.

I don't need to. This is about the Sudan, and why normalizing relations now that they have made promises of concessions to clean up their human rights violations. Our relationship was adversarial for years because their government permitted their militants to routinely attack our military in the region. That has stopped, hence the move toward normalization of diplomacy.