A world without US intervention and our cowboy President

[Drew]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008130


Looks lovely. But hey, if we went there we might kill some civilians in the course of operations and that would make it wrong.

[Back]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008130


Looks lovely. But hey, if we went there we might kill some civilians in the course of operations and that would make it wrong.

And killing civilians is not wrong? According to you, killing innocents isn't, and last I checked, that wasn't cool no matter what side of the line you were on.

[Sean of the Thread]

And killing civilians is not wrong? According to you, killing innocents isn't, and last I checked, that wasn't cool no matter what side of the line you were on.

WWII

[Drew]

And killing civilians is not wrong? According to you, killing innocents isn't, and last I checked, that wasn't cool no matter what side of the line you were on.



It's this kind of short sited view that allows the genocide of hundreds of thousands to continue.

[xtc]

Maybe if the cowboy hadn't invaded Iraq we could have helped in Sudan. BBC World News has been running the story of Sudan for a few years now. Maybe Sudan needs more oil and a threat to dump the US dollar before they can noticed by Dubbya, genocide isn't a good reason for this administration.

[Sean of the Thread]

Maybe if the cowboy hadn't invaded Iraq we could have helped in Sudan. BBC World News has been running the story of Sudan for a few years now. Maybe Sudan needs more oil and a threat to dump the US dollar before they can noticed by Dubbya, genocide isn't a good reason for this administration.

Preserving our nation first and foremost is however.

[xtc]

Preserving our nation first and foremost is however.

..you mean stealing oil and terrorizing countries into using US dollars and killing many civilians in the process.

[Artha]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Drew]

I know some of you believe that our President has ill intentions. That he lied, deceived us into war for some flagitious purpose. Obviously I can't convince you of the man's moral character. However I feel that does a great injustice to a man who I feel is a moral man. As a leader you have to make tough choices; Darfur poses little threat to America, Iraq posed a much greater threat. There may have been weapons of mass destruction there, there may not have been, but I know that George Bush believed there were. Was it bungled? Perhaps. Maybe there were weapons but we didn't invade quickly enough before they were spirited away. Even if the weapons never existed we, as a people, have become the kinsman-redeemers to twenty-six million newly free Iraqi people. We have put our blood and our money on the line for them in sacrifice and we will return their land to their families that they never truly owned under their previous leaders.


The genocide in Darfur continues, and we can't commit a force there because the political situation at home won't permit it. But we should be in Darfur. We should be in Cote d'Ivoire. We should be in as many places as we can feasibly be to defeat the forces of evil. I know our President gets mocked for saying things like "the forces of evil" because it sounds like a comic book. However, if you look at what is truly transpiring can you say the murder of two-hundred thousand people is anything but? Does evil even begin to capture the essence of what is happening?


It is surely easier to sit at home ensconsed within our moral walls and safe borders. The blood of our sons needs not be shed for Darfur for us to survive. But it should. A man, a people, a nation is only as good as its actions and self-sacrifice is the greatest nobility of mankind.

[Warriorbird]

It's this kind of short sited view that allows the genocide of hundreds of thousands to continue.

Funny shit. What party voted in droves not to be in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia? GTFO. Republicans all bagged on Gore for coddling up to China but it's a love fest from Bush of nearly as epic proportions.

[Kuyuk]

<<It is surely easier to sit at home ensconsed within our moral walls and safe borders. The blood of our sons needs not be shed for Darfur for us to survive. But it should. A man, a people, a nation is only as good as its actions and self-sacrifice is the greatest nobility of mankind.>>


Then go to Darfur and die for the cause Drew. Make your life worthy.


K.

[Latrinsorm]

It's a lot more important for people to give their life in a constructive sense to this cause. Drew grabbing a rifle and shooting 2 or 3 genocidal soldiers isn't going to solve anything. NATO marching into Khartoum might slow it down, but we have to address the roots of the problem to make progress. The point of invasion is to have less deaths while we're figuring out how to solve the roots of the problem. It's exactly analogous to the balance of charity and justice.

In sum, we have the following choices available:
Watch ourselves kill each other, doing nothing.
Forcibly prevent ourselves from from killing each other. In the process, some of us will die.
Try to understand why we were killing each other in the first place, and work to remedy that problem.

I know which ones I'd pick if I had a nation's armed forces at my disposal.

[Kuyuk]

I say the US jumps in the middle of the fray and blows the shit out of anyone who looks menacing towards us, or those we feel we are protecting at the current moment....again.


K.

[DeV]

Drew,

You can do your part by keeping pressure on the administration to follow through on their words. Why should America be expected to try to solve this particular problem, one might ask? Because we are fully capable of it. You want to talk about the morality of a man. Back in 2003 Bush made speeches highlighting the Clinton administration's failures in dealing with Rwanda and Bosnia. Another reason for greater continued intervention would be that it is the moral thing to do.

To top it off, it is exactly the kind of thing our administration has been advocating. However a plausible solution is nothing short of difficult to adminster given the gravity of the situation. The EU's role in all of this; they'd rather make a fuss over the Palestinians while the people of Darfur die by the hundreds of thousands, are forced to flee their home by the millions, are raped, starved, and outright murdered. And Kofi Anon, pfft, he makes it appear as if the UN is powerlessness and impotent (which they have proven to be time and again despite themselves) when it comes to anything other than setting up profitable trade deals and capitalzing off of globalization.

Reasons not to commit any of our military forces to action in the region include the fact that our US military is presently stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. This gives the admin all the more reason to investigate every possible way to pressure the government of Sudan, specifically Khartoum, to bring about an end to the mass murder they're at best ignoring, and at worst actively supporting, without our military invading this country. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52442-2005Jan31.html

The shear lack of humanity in that region alone is staggering. Ultimately, no single government should be held accountable to the rest of the world. There are obvious dangers in any single government assuming the position that it can do whatever it wants without regard to the intricacies of the situation. The US can't please everyone and this shouldn't be their primary responsibilty, but it certainly can be as we are the recognized world leader. This is a reason I don't find much fault with the response of the Bush administration to the atrocities.

I do believe our government needs to apply massive, increased pressure to the EU, UN, AU, and the Sudanese government if there is to be any hope of stopping this "genocide". We can't do it alone and there exists a primary responsibility for the rest of the world to step up and assist these victims of mass-murder without automatically finding fault with the US government for not doing enough.

[Daniel]

Thought I was on last page:

Warriorbird

^

Both Parties are hypocrites.

[Skirmisher]

I know that George Bush believed there were.

No, you do not.

Though you THINK he believed so I'm sure.

[Drew]

There are obvious dangers in any single government assuming the position that it can do whatever it wants without regard to the intricacies of the situation. The US can't please everyone and this shouldn't be their primary responsibilty, but it certainly can be as we are the recognized world leader.



Certainly we all can agree that genocide is a good enough reason to play world sheriff?


In general I agree with the rest of your post though.

[Drew]

No, you do not.

Though you THINK he believed so I'm sure.




I do KNOW it like I know Mongolia exists. I've never met a Mongolian. I've never been there, I've never met someone who's been there. But I'm still convinced to my satisfaction that Mongolia does, in fact, exist. I know Mongolia exists, I know George Bush believed that.

[Drew]

Funny shit. What party voted in droves not to be in Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia?



I don't know if this is true or not but assuming it's true: politicians of all stripes are scum. There are a rare few who are not corrupt (JC Watts comes to mind) but they rarely get anywhere in politics. I believe GW is a moral man, which is a rarity in politics. The republicans have done tons and tons of crap I don't believe in since coming into power. I voted for them because I want smaller government, no trade subsidies, and a hard line stance with China. We see how well that worked out. The difference is that even given all the republicans problems, the democrats are exactly the same. Some people like the believe that their side is better, they both suck. It's just that my evil still tends to legislate closer to my beliefs than your evil.

[Warriorbird]

Government is bigger. There are trade subsidies. There is no hard line stance with China. The Republicans are even worse about large government than the Democrats are, which is difficult to do. Your belief that the President is moral is hilarious to me.

[Drew]

Government is bigger. There are trade subsidies. There is no hard line stance with China. The Republicans are even worse about large government than the Democrats are, which is difficult to do. Your belief that the President is moral is hilarious to me.



The things I mentioned were things I voted for the Republicans for and didn't see. Although Democrats definately have the crown for large government. Universal healthcare anyone?

[Warriorbird]

Never happened. Deficit has tripled in 10 years under a Republican Congress.

[Drew]

Never happened.

Yeah, I know, the Republicans stopped it.

[Skirmisher]

I do KNOW it like I know Mongolia exists. I've never met a Mongolian. I've never been there, I've never met someone who's been there. But I'm still convinced to my satisfaction that Mongolia does, in fact, exist. I know Mongolia exists, I know George Bush believed that.

Having faith that he is not lying does not in any way equate to the untold amount of physical evidence that can be brought forth to prove the existance of Mongolia.

You are making an analogy that is completely invalid.

I actually think we should go and try to peacekeep or at least stop the wholesale killing going on.

We have discussed US intervention in Africa before and I was for it then and am for it now as not only a moral thing to do but also as something extremely positive for the US.

[Warriorbird]

"Yeah, I know, the Republicans stopped it."

And proceeded to spend the money elsewhere.

[Sean of the Thread]

"Yeah, I know, the Republicans stopped it."

And proceeded to spend the money elsewhere.

Lol I was gonna respond to this post but your damn avatar hijacked me and I must say I'm rather amused.


PIZZA!

[Warriorbird]

:D