[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.