|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 25th, 2006 09:06 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
"Probably not, but its still a huge factor that can't be ignored." If only, IF ONLY this adminstration had some record of thinking of huge factors that can't be ignored when implementing military options. |
||||
| Apr 25th, 2006 08:01 AM | |||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
And there is a huge diference between playing nice and binging the domestic stability of your country to a crashing halt. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| Apr 25th, 2006 02:22 AM | |||||
| kahljorn |
Dahc 
|
||||
| Apr 25th, 2006 12:25 AM | |||||
| Ant10708 |
Chad 
|
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 11:16 PM | |||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
...but it's not a tactical position on the map that will be the deciding factor on wether or not we get involved. |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 10:07 PM | |||||
| kahljorn | Does that mean chad is a shitty country or that all the other countries are in chad? And if all the other countries are in chad why's there's still a genocide and what's the problem? | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 09:25 PM | |||||
| Big Papa Goat | Chad | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 07:10 PM | |||||
| kahljorn |
Yea I forgot america is the superest bombastic superest powerst greatest powerest awesomest cuntry in the world and we are the only ones who can save the world!!!!! To me it seems obvious that if dafur(or chad or wherever the genocide is now) is such a controversy and we are a bit over extended, even if it's for a stupid war, some of the other countries in the world that have a heart should do it or something. Obviously nobody cares though, in light of the possible consequences. America's not the only shitty country out there, but it seems like the only one that people bad mouth constantly. Let's start listing other shitty cuntries that aren't helping the world but constantly talk shit on america(even if it is a piece of shit). So where are the other cuntries in this issue? |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 05:09 PM | |||||
| mburbank | I'll say. With very limmited power came a great sucking chest wound. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 05:07 PM | |||||
| El Blanco | Look where all his "responsibility" mumbo jumbo got him. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 05:05 PM | |||||
| ItalianStereotype | well, no, obviously not. if uncle ben is so uppity about this great responsibility, he should be the one to do the bombing. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 03:43 PM | |||||
| mburbank |
Are you saying Spider-Man should bomb them? 'Cause that's wak. |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 02:48 PM | |||||
| Ant10708 | With great power comes great responsibilty. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 02:23 PM | |||||
| kahljorn |
Why is the united states the only nation responsible for things that happen world-wide? I'm sure someone has brought that up already, and if so sorry for saying it again. |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 01:48 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | We can just bomb them. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 01:28 PM | |||||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Because they don't border Sudan. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 11:56 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
So... Uhm... I was refering to Kev's post that Intervention with Sudan would assuredly become a quagmire. You are familliar with conversations, yes? How the build on things that get said between people? And "It sounds like any action other than sitting around and having polite conversation on message boards is unbefitting to you." -Kiddielit Aside from the fact that you don't know what unbefitting means, "I would like them (house ans senate) to vote on a resolution saying that by tying the US down in a missrepresented, war of choice in Iraq we have severely limmited our ability to respond to ther global needs. I would like to see this as a major argument for at least working toward extricating ourselves from Iraq. I would like to see us pressure the UN for snactions, actions and demands the way we pressured them in the lead upo to the Iraq war. Do you recall the "Do what I say or become irrelivant" approach. If we are getting into the business of saber rattling with even nukes on the table, how about we rattle those sabers at Kahrtoum who we know for a fact are engaged in genocide as opposed to Iran RIGHT NOW who may at some point in te next decade acquire a weapond of mass destruction?" None of those things involve polite conversations on Message boards. Can you read? As to what I can personally do my own self beyond messge bords, I can hector my representatives, which I do, and vote, which I do, and protest, which I do. What did you have in mind? Join the armed services and relinquish all choice about what I do, or beome a mercenary nd fly immediately to darfur? |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 11:21 AM | |||||
| Kulturkampf | I am not sure about this, burbank, you even call a proposed intervention that would be a humanitarian intervention a quagmire -- even before the nature of it is undetermined and doesn't exist. It sounds like any action other than sitting around and having polite conversation on message boards is unbefitting to you. | ||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 10:59 AM | |||||
| mburbank |
First of all, I disagree that we could support two quag,mires simultaneously. That being said: "What would you like for them to do, aside from voting on a resolution to invade Sudan?" I would like them to vote on a resolution saying that by tying the US down in a missrepresented, war of choice in Iraq we have severely limmited our ability to respond to ther global needs. I would like to see this as a major argument for at least working toward extricating ourselves from Iraq. I would like to see us pressure the UN for snactions, actions and demands the way we pressured them in the lead upo to the Iraq war. Do you recall the "Do what I say or become irrelivant" approach. If we are getting into the business of saber rattling with even nukes on the table, how about we rattle those sabers at Kahrtoum who we know for a fact are engaged in genocide as opposed to Iran RIGHT NOW who may at some point in te next decade acquire a weapond of mass dstruction? ou act as Resolution to invade is the only thing we could do apart from what we are doing right now. "We coulddo all of this, and stay in Iraq." I disagree "That, m friend, would be the definition of quagmire." And that's why. Again, I think there are things we could and should be doing way before moving into another quagmire. My question to yours, is if we can't move on Sudan becaue it would be a quagmire, why is it allright to maintain a quagmire in Iraq? I think quagmires might be unnaceptable, I think that argument can be made, but how can you say We must continue to perpetuate quagmire A becuase if we don't it will get worse, but we must not become involved in quagmire B which we know is getting worse . I am not sure if Iraq warranted humanitarian intervention or not. There has been no national debate about our policy on what warrants humanitarian intervention. We did not go to Iraq for the purposes of humianitarian intervention, and any that has taken place since we've been there (which is a sliding scale, and debatable by people of good faith) has been incidental. If I go to a burning house with full knowldge it is burning in order to sell girlscout cookies, and while I am there pee on the fire, It does not transform me from a girlscout cookie salesman into a fireman. Likewise, we came very close to supporting the Iraqi genocides. We at very least turned a blind eye. If you are arguing that THAT's what deserved our intevention in Iraq. I could even agree. BUT. If we are going to develop a national plicy of humanitarian interventions, which is NOT the Bush doctrine, as opposed to a policy of preemtive war, Which is the BUSH doctrine (and I mean officially, in writting, from the horses mouth, not some airy fairy conspiracy theory), then their needs to be robust, political, debate. Should we adopt a National policy that involves humanitarian intervention in any way beyond 'Oh, we fucked up the mission really bad, inasmuch as we ever knew what it was, I guess we are here for humanitarian intervention' we need to start thinking about what circumstances cross the line. I think the Genoicde we are watching coming out of Khartoum is more agreggious than anything that was going on in Iraq. NOTE TO REACTIONARIES: That does not mean I think what was going on in Iraq was great and not day went by that I wasn't overwhlemed with love for Sadaam Hussein. |
||||
| Apr 24th, 2006 07:27 AM | |||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
|
||||
| Apr 23rd, 2006 09:08 PM | |||||
| El Blanco |
There is also a logistics issue. We don't have friends in the neighborhood that will hook us up with staging points. In fact, several of those governments are hostile towards us. That gives any opposition political and strategic cover. With Iraq, we had troops and bases in Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already. |
||||
| Apr 23rd, 2006 02:00 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I don't want to say I told ya so, but the timing of this seems surreal: From Reuters: April 23 - Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden urged his followers to prepare for a long war against Western would-be occupiers in Sudan's Darfur region, according to an audiotape attributed to him and aired on Sunday. and a quote from the text presumed to be Bin laden: using some differences between some tribesmen, and turned them into a blind war between them that destroys all in preparation to send crusader troops to occupy the region and steal its oil under the guise of preserving security there." The best part about this argument is that American college kids (and Geggy) will soon be saying the same thing. Quote:
The UN has unfortunately been equally slow to resond to this. Whether or not we were in Iraq, it would be risky, irresponsible, and potentially galvanizing (for radical muslims) if we went alone into Sudan. I don't think Iraq/Sudan is a prisoners dilemma. We could easily stop the janjaweed. We could easily keep them out of Chad, and we could easily topple the corrupt government in Khartoum that turns a blind eye to their activities. We coulddo all of this, and stay in Iraq. But Sudan is a "special" place in th war on terror, and paticularly to Bin Laden himself. He helpd finance and weaponize their country. He encouraged and supported an Arab regime. Whether he actually made th above statement or not, he and his supporters will not allow America to "liberate" Darfur. That, m friend, would be the definition of quagmire. Quote:
Secondly, I know you're not saing this Max, but I'll be damned if you're not coming pretty close to saying that Iraq didn't warrant humanitarian intervention. They most certainly did. From Global Business Network: "Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power" You yourself Max said that genocide never went away after WW II. Do you think a Kurd or a Shiite might agree with you??? |
||||
| Apr 23rd, 2006 01:44 PM | |||||
| Kulturkampf |
I have a bit of interest in the conflict -- I think it is odd how they massacre each other endlessly over religious and ethnic strife. You know, the US and other G8ers all responded to the conflicts earlier in the year by convening a UN meeting that meant essentially nothing --- perhaps the UN actually cannot work miracles? Who would have thought. We are needed in Sudan, but to have pretended that we were not needed in Iraq is absurd -- it is not as if Iraq or Sudan can really be prioritized properly being that they are both entirely different situations.. In a way, I do see what you are saying. |
||||
| Apr 22nd, 2006 12:30 PM | |||||
| mburbank |
No, I don't trust the mission to this administration. No, I would not favor go in with military force without a plan. I wouldn't support that under any scenario. Those are two of the reasons I don't support what we are doing in Iraq. My point; Is there EVER a situation where we should step in with our army in a situation that does not directly and immidiately involve the security of the USA. I'm not sure. Maybe. BUT. If there is, I think trying to formulate a plan to stop genocides (and as a Jew the whole 'never again thing' makes me nuts, because genocide is an ongoing phenomenon and barely took a breather after WWII) should be the A1 absolute top of the list. Kev; I'm aware that what I'm really looking for is a time machine. I know we are in Iraq now. I am not calling for an immediate withdrawl from Iraq and transfer of those troops to the border of chad. I am calling for a drastic rethinking of our foreign policy. I think we as a nation should be talking and debating what we are doing. When the subject of Darfur comes up politically, most of our representatives are deaf. I know talking and debating sounds callous and futile in the face of genocide. But our nation is a vast, slow beast and we are in a terrible place. I will take a lot of effort to9 change the direction we as a nation are headed, turn around and offer even the possability of being useful anywhere else. My point is that as long as we are bogged down in wars of choice like Iraq, we lack the money and mobility to even try to help when all hell is going on somewhere else. That is a cost of the war we are in that needs to be counted along with Iraqi lives and american money and dead soldiers. That yet again genocide is taking plce while we watch and do nothing. |
||||
| Apr 22nd, 2006 12:14 PM | |||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
God damnit, I had a whole long reply to this and lost it. Quote:
My knowledge on the matter is limited, too. The extent of my knowledge comes from newspapers and a Sudanese bar buddy who is the prez of some PAC trying to liberate southern sudan. Yes the janjaweed ar the bad guys, but who are they? 16-year old kids kids who had an AK-47 put in their hands? Who finances them??? It's my impression that the people in Darfur have been getting used and shat on for years and years now. They have been a political volleyball for all sides involved. Do we support an independent and democratic southern Sudan? Do we oppose the predominantly Arab government in Khartoum? Do you believe for one minute that that wouldn't get twisted around by terrorists and Ward Churchill into some form of Western capitalist imperialism?? Did i mention there's oil in southern Sudan......UH OH!!! NO BLOOD FOR OIL, GEGGY!! Do we put troops on Chad's border??? How long do they stay there? What's the timetable!!? WHERE'S THE PLAN!? Would you trust this mission to the Bush administration (who I actually feel have done more for Africa than most recent presidents.....and that's Robert Redford talking, wink wink). You all may call it political convenience, but I think there are MANY considerations to make before we grab our guns and go get the bad guys. btw, if y'all are interested, there is a big demonstration planned in DC for next Sunday, April 30. It's a trip, but it mightb worth it. You can also donate money and sign the usual petition stuff here: http://www.savedarfur.org/rally/. |
||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||||
