It says we are imposing sanctions. Isn't that what everyone in hindsight says we should have done to effect change in Iraq?
Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
It has been genocide for a long time.
This is why I lack faith in the UN and why I didn't really care when the UN did not support going into Iraq. There were many other much better reasons to care about whether or not to go into Iraq.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Genocide is a completly different beast. There is only a small window of opportunity to actually do something. This is it and it's closing fast. 50,000 are already dead and 1.2 million are at risk of dying by the end of the year. Comparisons to Iraq are absurd. Kerry has the right idea of what to do. Apparently, he learned the lessons from Rawanda. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03sudan.html Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Sanctions were imposed on Iraq.
Be careful because now UNICEF will blame the US for every death that occurs in Sudan after the sanctions take effect.
And what does Kerry want to do? Is he willing to committ American soldiers? What if "occupying" Sudan becomes necessary, is he willing to let it turn into another Iraq? In reality he'll just twidle his thumbs clamoring for international support that he knows will never come, never willing to actually unilatterally committ US soldiers.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And yet, Bush, who doesn't need international cooperation to commit troops can't seem to do anything about this but ask for sanctions. You know, it's rather sickening to watch people use arguments against invading Iraq as some type of aha! argument in Darfur. They aren't the same. It's not "let's play political payback" and "eat your words." Eat your own words. Where the heck is Bush? Why was the humanitarian crisis in Iraq so important? Why isn't the imminent death of hundreds of thousands bothering anyone in this administration to the point that they are actually willing to do something?
At this point and time, conservatives make me sick. I'm ashamed to be an American because of you and I'm flat out dead dog tired of being a "fellow human being."
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I hear you Kayla. It's all about scoring points for both sides. Sadly, daily sound bites on Fox and CNN don't actually save lives. Everyone's playing the wrong freaking game Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Unfortunately, Bob, I agree with you. The problem is that no one agrees on what the rules are or even the ultimate goal of the game. Every entity has their rallying cry and their own agenda, makes for a very confusing and unwinnable (game).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At this point and time, conservatives make me sick. I'm ashamed to be an American because of you and I'm flat out dead dog tired of being a "fellow human being."
Fine. Then my incentive to reach any accord with you would be what, exactly?
Edit: Especially since the last time this was discussed, you refused to believe that we might be too extended to do anything on our own, yet would provide no hard data to back it up.
Dagonee
[ September 09, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sanctions rarely, if ever, actually work.
By the time the leaders might feel some impact, the offenses for which sanctions were imposed have been finished.
Sanctions would not have worked in Iraq - it certainly didn't persuade Saddam to leave Kuwait any sooner and I highly doubt it will bother the leaders sanctioning genocide much, either.
-Trevor
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dag, how has your life been affected by the war? It hasn't, has it? You can't tell me that we are overextended. Sure, you won't let homeless people live with you, but as soon as your sisters house burns down, it's amazing how quickly you have room. We could do it if we really wanted/felt we needed to. And in Rwanda, a very few UNAMIR made a big difference. Something as easy as jamming their radio signals would have made a huge difference. Have you read Bystanders to Genocide? http://thereitis.org/displayarticle73.html There is something we could do. We just don't want to.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Ya know what Kayla, I'm not inclined to bury more American soldiers because of your moral outrage.
The US is not the only country to maintain a standing military.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kayla, when you can demonstrate your knowledge of our force capabilities, let me know. Until then, I keep hearing that we're overextended from people with actual military experience.
I'm interested as to why UN action in this case is so anathema to you.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur? Where are the "bleeding heart" liberals? Its you, Tom, Lalo, and a number of other liberals that make me sick. You're willing to condemn conservatives as bigots without any reasons that connect the two terms. I lambast Kerry because he won't do anything either. I also point out that what we can do is limited because I am a realist. I want the United States to use as much force as it can to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, there isn't much force left. National Guard units are overworked as it is fighting Sadr, Charley, Frances, and Ivan. It doesn't help that Europe's governments are still denying that there is genocide. Before you condemn the US, condemn France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and all the other nations of Europe that standby.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Obligatory let's all play nice comment.
Obligatory go to hell comment.
Come on, keeds.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, totally agree that sanctions--particularly sanctions of oil--are really stupid.
I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. I do think the US, rightly or wrongly, has its plate full right now and that it would be nice to see other countries in the world step up to the plate and commit troops. Maybe Mr. Bush can give a little of that stuff he apparently thinks grows on trees to support the effort.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dag, we are about to bring home 70,000 troops from Europe. They could just as easily be deployed to Darfur.
quote: There are currently more than 100,000 American troops in Europe, including about 70,000 in Germany, and another 100,000 in the Asia-Pacific region. About 150,000 additional troops are now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Personally, I don't think we need 100,000 troops in Europe. Neither does Bush, apparently. What we could use would be some troops in Darfur.
Tmedina, you realize that with the finding of genocide, we have the moral obligation to act, right? It's not my moral outrage. It's part of the Geneva Convention. Not that we haven't thrown that out the window too.
nfl, I don't see Tom or Lalo in here using liberal reasons not to invade Iraq as reasons to not stop a genocide. Clinton makes me sick also. His bewilderment over the Rwanda genocide is nauseating. However, the liberals aren't the ones who are throwing aha comments about. That would be you. And I have no need to condemn Europe. They are the bright, shining example of what democracy and moral uprightness. They aren't the ones that who are supposed to be better than the rest of the world. They don't claim moral superiority.
Storm, maybe if Bush hadn't blown all the US credibility with the war in Iraq, there would be more support now.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And I don't see anyone using "conservative" reasons not to intervene either.
The point is, and its why I'm sick of people like you, Tom, Lalo, and others is because you are so quick to call those that lean to the right all sorts of names. This pisses me off especially when Tom calls me a bigot after I expresses disagreement with the proposed Michigan law that bans things like partner benefits or when you condemn conservatives after I expressed the my desire to do anything we can to help those in Dafur. Apathy runs just as strongly in liberals camps as it does in conservative ones.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
(to Kayla)For the Sudan crisis? I'm not clear. What does one have to do with the other?
[ September 09, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
National guard deployments are already going way long. Retired personnel are already being called up on stop-loss orders.
Again, quite simply, what do you have against the UN taking the lead on this?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Storm, maybe if Bush hadn't blown all the US credibility with the war in Iraq, there would be more support now.
You mean maybe if September 11th had happened two years later than it did Europe would support us.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Because if the UN takes the lead then she can't blame conservatives.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Kayla--the 70,000 coming home from Europe is a mass reduction to be undertaken over the next 10 years. The US is over-extended. Ask anyone in the reserves who miss thier family and are looking at a second, or third rotation into Iraq.
France, Germany, Australia, Canada, all have large militaries that may be used in this endeavor if their governments wished. I like the idea of Presiden Bush's to help support the Pan-African Military in intervening. They don't have any sophisticated military gear, so perhaps the US or better, NATO, could supple technical support.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
We don't have a moral obligation to waste lives needlessly in a vain, if moral effort to make a gesture.
And you may not like to hear this, but the US is not the world police force. How refreshing would it be to have the UN actually agree on something?
And until we consolidate our forces or clear up some of our outstanding issues, morality will have to take a back seat to practicality and pragmatic decision making.
-Trevor
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
One more thing. I think, though I'm not entirely positive, that currently the majority of units stationed in Europe are rear support and not combat arms.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm pretty sure a majority of military units everywhere with the exception of the Marines are support or "civilian" troops. By civilian I mean scientists, doctors, and things like that.
Trevor, it is not needless when we are preventing the extinction of an entire people. The fact that they were by chance born in Sudan does not make them any less valuable then you. Don't ask a fireman or policeman to put his or her life on the line for you if you don't think its worthwhile for our soldiers to save those in other countries. The US may not be world's police force, but since we do have a capability we do have the moral responsibility and we if we don't go by our morals then what compels society to not degenerate into anarchy? What make us better than other primates? How do we justify killing animals for food if we can't justify our lives being worth more than theirs?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur?
*raises hand*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. Granted. What I mean is a higher percentage than the normal, what, 9 in 10 ratio of rear support to combat arms, because most are already in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
And tell me what is the point of sending a fireman into a three alarm fire with a squirt gun?
Very dramatic, very noble and ultimately pointless.
Of course, I'm sure it would make great public relations and be infinitely cheaper to lose one man and let the building burn to the ground rather than commit an effective operation to combat the fire and save surrounding buildings.
-Trevor
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
There was something recently on NPR regarding the sheer amount of "civilian" forces in place in Iraq - such as armed security since there aren't enough regular military forces - that receive minimal training - and certainly not effective combat training. It gives one pause . . . I wish I could remember the name of the report - it was very disheartening - particularly for families that are facing the loss of their "reservist" for the second or third time around . . . anyone hear it or remember what the name of it was . . . ?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Heh. Give me a gun and a plane ticket.
I don't seem to have any luck finding a job locally - getting blown up seems to be a pleasent alternative.
-Trevor
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
But you wouldn't be fine with a fire truck putting out a camp fire before it turns into a forest fire. You would say, "Its not been proven that its a threat yet, let's not waste resources." Then when it did become a forest fire you would say, "Its too big to control now, no point in wasting lives for a pointless cause."
In the last thread on Dafur you argued that we shouldn't intervene because it wasn't genocide yet. Well now it is. But now according to you its too late to act. Why is that? Because we waited too long to find out if genocide would break out. No one thought that anyone would actually try to exterminate an entire religious group during World War II so they decided to ignore it. I ask that we don't make that same mistake again, that we learn from history. And while you're talk might make it sound that you want the same, you are not willing to act when the need arises. You overplay the threat to American lives, and downplay the threat to the survival of an entire race of people. How many must die before you proclaim, "Never again," and yet even then again it will happen because even after the Holocaust, even after Pol Pot, even after Rwanda and Kosovo no one is willing to act. "Show us the proof." you say. "Hitler was an anomaly." you insist. But in the mean time while you twiddle your thumbs men, women, and children die.
I think Kayla wants too much. She wants an invasion of Sudan that the American military cannot bear. I would like that because it would save more lives than could be counted, but I know its unrealistic. Instead we should do what we can. We can send our carrier fleets to the Arabian Ocean just off the coast of Sudan. From there we can begin an air war similar to what we saw in Bosnia. We can also use B-2s and B-52s to make long range bombing runs while the rest of air force finds a home. By that I mean there must be a bordering country that supports our actions. We can also exert more pressure on the UN to declare it genocide and get the Security Council to "authorize" war. We can commit our small amount of remaining soldiers to join a coalition of other nations that are willing to act. Sudan's neighbors and other African nations can be persuaded that helping is in their best interest. By that I don't mean bribes or threats, but to show them how bad it would be if Sudanese militia men started following refugees into their countries. Nations like the UK, Austrailia, and Italy may also join. Others like France and Russia may also commit troops if we exert enough pressure. If we say that name that ends all discussions enough times the nations of Europe may finally get the picture. If we point to the beaches of Normandy and its decorations Europe may finally get the picture. But if we do none of these things than we condemn thousands if not millions to die. I do not blame this on conservative or liberals, Republicans or Democrats, I blame this on isolationism which is again taking root as people draw the parallel to Vietnam
[ September 10, 2004, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So, have we come to the agreement that sanctions rarely work, and that military force is the only thing that has proven effective in dealing with repressive regimes?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well, if you're familiar with the last thread on this, you'll know it's been a topic of interest for me for the past couple of years.
Here's my take on our actions there and where I hope they will lead:
First, I do believe that the administration has designs to send troops to Darfur and Sudan in general. Right now, we're the ones beating this drum the loudest in the UN and building support. However, it's becoming more and more obvious that Khofi Annan isn't likely to make the UN move on anything in Africa. Perhaps he has his own prejudices there, or, more likely, he believes that Africa is best suited to solve its own problems and would avoid the Europeans from coming back in to "save the black man."
Khofi sat and fiddled during Rwanda and in Liberia it fell to the French and Americans to help out.
Why would we go there? First off, this is, without a doubt a public relations coup if we can pull it off. Secondly, this is a good deed. No one can question the reasoning behind it.
Thirdly, it is a blow against radical Muslim groups that could and do spawn terrorists. Fourth, one doesn't have to look to far back to the point when Al Qaeda used the Sudan as their home base.
What I would like to see is the US send a convoy of supply ships laden with food, medicine and emergency supplies. Dock the ships and surround them with American soldiers, then proclaim that the supplies are for Darfur and march them to those who need them, bringing the security troops (and many of them with them).
Once they arrive in the Darfur region, they should proclaim this as a "No Fire" zone and vigourously enforce it. And yes, that means hunt down anyone who enters the region with the intent, or even capability, of causing harm there.
Provide the aid, provide the security, hunt down the scum doing these savage acts to other human beings.
And let the Sudanese government howl and wring their hands.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
We really need to apply sanctions to France, since that is the nation that has obstructed international efforts to end the carnage in Sudan--because France gets a lot of its oil from Sudan and wants to maintain good relations with the inhumane government. This is typical of France's behavior throughout history. Totally selfish, no regard for others.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Snicker. Ron, I'm really looking for the hidden sarcasm tag on that one.
NFL, it seems you and I are bound to be at opposite ends of almost any argument.
Full-scale military intervention isn't practical, for a variety of reasons, most of which have been detailed on this thread.
As for your fire truck reference - that would be a suitable application of force to achieve the desired objective. My argument remains we do not have the military force necessary to mount such an operation.
I'll have to re-phrase the rest of my post, except for the "twiddling my thumbs while men, women and children die." People die on a daily basis and my thumbs need exercise.
-Trevor
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Really, our air force and navy is doing what exactly? Oh yeah, that Al Queda built a whole navy with carriers and cruisers complimented by Tomahawk missiles... There is nothing stopping us from using our navy and air force and there is nothing stopping us from bringing our case to the UN. Even if the UN as whole doesn't act we may at least convince enough members to undertake an operation. If Kofi Annan, who really is powerless by the way, is afraid of the white man coming to save the black man then thats fine because we should be targeting Sudan's African neighbors for help first and foremost, they can provide the manpower even if not the hardware. Trevor, you still have not provided one reason why we can't do what I have proposed except for vague claims that we don't have the man power. I'm not suggesting a 100,000 plus troop invasion, just an operation similar to Kosovo.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:How many people on this board Kayla, aside from you and me, have said that they would be willing to committ American soldiers to resolve the situation in Dafur? Where are the "bleeding heart" liberals? ... Apathy runs just as strongly in liberals camps as it does in conservative ones.
It is quite possible that such people are not apathetic about the situation, they are just apathetic about discussing it, specifically with you.
[That is, discussing it here is something you are absolutely welcome to do. I don't want to discuss it with some people here, as what I do in my real world life to address this issue is depressing enough to me. I certainly don't want to be besieged here about it. But my lack of excitement at debating any given topic here isn't hand-in-hand with lack of excitement elsewhere.
I think we should send troops. I think we should keep pressuring the UN. I write letters about it, I send money. And I talk about other things at Hatrack, which -- to give full due -- was where I became educated about Darfur.]
[And edit again: newfoundlogic, I don't find you depressing. I'm glad you are here discussing this. It's just that I'm pretty sure if we were to engage in serious discourse about it, my own failings and inability to maintain perspective would lead me to say un-nice things. I think I could talk to Scott R or Dag about it, but that would be in email, as I would never restrict a public thread in such a way.
It's a mess that goes past perspective to me. That's a confession of weakness, by the way, not a statement of bragging rights about how much I care.]
[ September 10, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
nfl, I don't want a full scale invasion! I want something more than half assed suggested sanctions at the UN. By the way, the UN, at the US's urging, pulled troops out of Rwanda. And if you read what worked in Rwanda, you'd understand that I'm not asking for much. Jamming the radios would have been incredibly helpful. A couple of hundred soldiers saved thousands of lives.
If Africa actually thought that the US would bring down the wrath of God the next time the started committing genocide, I think they'd think twice. However, they know that we will "study" the situation, "monitor" the situation, discuss what to do about the situation, then maybe suggest sanctions, then by the time they are done slaughtering all offending races, we might actually impose sanctions.
Moving a carrier fleet and even just pretending that we are sending ground troops would probably be enough to save hundreds of thousands. Really, I'm not asking for much. In the beginning, even less would have been required. But we wait too long when things like this happen. We don't want to be bothered. For some reason, politicians and the media think that we don't care. Or that we don't have the resources. And we are the world's police force. Who else will do it? Not the UN. The UN is to busy being kowtowed by us. We are the reason the UN pulled out of Rwanda. We pull our troops out of the UNAMIR, and the UN doesn't have much left. The US provides the majority of the UN funding and troops. Either we want the ideal of having a UN and are willing to fund it and provide troops until we can cajole the rest of the world into doing more, or we quit the UN and stop pretending that we aren't the world's police force.
And if we weren't in this ridiculous war in Iraq to begin with, whether or not we "could" do anything would be moot. But, I'm still of the opinion that we could do something if we wanted to. Hell, we could ask for volunteers and I bet there'd be thousands willing to go stop a genocide.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As per Iraq, shouldn't we wait until the U.N. authorizes troops to be sent in?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:So, have we come to the agreement that sanctions rarely work, and that military force is the only thing that has proven effective in dealing with repressive regimes?
No, we have agreement that it's complicated. In my eyes, sanctions(the etymolgy of the word is intriguing, and how it's come to mean what it means in today's political discourse is telling) are an off-shoot of terrorism, they knowingly target poor civilians because most of the time the government officials, if they are corrupt, which is usually why we impose sanctions, are going to get whatever they want anyway.
Sanctions to effect the political process are only slightly more artful than sending a plane into the Trade Center to disrupt the economy. It's works, kind of, but they do create an incredible amount of enmity.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kayla, for the record, I'm very worried about this, and so is the rest of my family. I would like to see America do a lot more about it, and I've always been confused about why we didn't see more about this in the media. I am not sure what we could do, but I'd like to hear some ideas and see some plans. This isn't something I want to ignore.
[ September 10, 2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Nicholas Kristoff in the NY times devoted about two months worth of coverage during the run up and happening of the genocide.
We didn't here about it because Americans are clannish and unimaginative, and the media reflects this. We didn't here about it because people in the battle ground states are too busy trying to shore up their pork to worry about the Sudan. We didn't hear about it because no candidate wanted to sell this as a battle on the war on terror. I'm not surprised or disappointed in the American apathy towards the genocide, but don't be surprised when I'm distrustful of those same Americans to do anything more complicated than drive a forklift.
[ September 10, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Sara, when reading my comments regarding individual apathy it is very important to remember the context of the statements. The context is that I'm getting really pissed off the people on this board are ready to start blaming conservatives for the world's problems when liberals haven't shown that they're any different. Clearly there are liberals who are outspoken about the situation in Dafur, but there are also conservatives outspoken as well. The fact that Kayla admits that Clinton did nothing about Rwanda shows that this isn't a liberal conservative issue. Remember, Colin Powell is a REPUBLICAN.
Kayla, if people want to volunteer they can take a flight now, but what are they going to do there other than get shot at. I suppose they can buy replica UN peacekeeper helmets and maybe Janjaweed won't shoot them, but...
Storm, you are joking right? Knowing that the UN won't ever "authorize" force at least not until there are 6 million corpes, gas chambers, and crematories you really want to wait for UN approval? Should the UK and France have waited until the League of Nations "authorized" war on Germany?
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: Heh. Give me a gun and a plane ticket.
Now that is the attitude that more American men need to have, we tend to sit and complain about how the government doesn't take care of us, but why should it, most of us would do anything to avoid risking our own lives in the interest of our government, which tends to be interested in acting as a one country international police squad.
It is only time before Bush does exactly what he did with Iraq, he'll plead with the UN, then he'll get tired of it, and take on the burden of another conflict. The US has and always will have the "city on a hill" concept in our heads.
As far as our military being stretched thin, yep it is, it is stretched thin because we have no draft, and we have very little motivation to join the army.
quote: We really need to apply sanctions to France, since that is the nation that has obstructed international efforts to end the carnage in Sudan--because France gets a lot of its oil from Sudan and wants to maintain good relations with the inhumane government. This is typical of France's behavior throughout history. Totally selfish, no regard for others.
I second that.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
These comments about France being totally selfish, without regard for others, "throughout history" -- I'd like to know what the hell you're talking about, please. I can't think of anything that makes France worse than any other nation.
Are nations other than the US capable of sending troops around the world? Realistically, no. The British are the only other nation with the ability to support any signifigent movement of troops across oceans, especially into hostile territory. So lambasting Europeans and Canadians for not sending troops to the Sudan is kind of pointless, because we couldn't do it if we wanted to.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It isn't a Democrat/Republican issue. And it's not as if we need 20,000 people with shot guns to buy plane tickets. It's an issue of politicians who are incapable of articulating the tough message. It's about Americans who equate action with violence.
The problem is that politicians are so scared that the good families in the mid-west and the south are so self-centered that they would not accept a candid claim for help from the Sudan, and the politicians sure as heck are scared of passing the can around for people to pay for it.
It's not even the fault of families, it's the fault of the officials being scared to talk sense to the families. It's dishonesty and incompetence, and the reason we need more smarter more articulate and courageous leaders, and in public office in a democracy, you can't afford one not to have clear-sighted wisdom and be able to articulate the situation and engage in a meaningful dialogue about the issue. ____
Even further, it's our love of common sense. Common sense doesn't yield anything. You have to wrestle with the situation. You have to anticipate, and none of that comes with common sense, it comes from thinking well about the appropriate issue. That's the charge put to the American people, and that's the charge the politicians are scared to put to the people. Common sense is for people who have gotten on in their life by money, good looks, or a trade, and not by the use of any sense.
[ September 10, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
Well said Irami
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Really Foust? France has an aircraft carrier, one of the world's top air forces, and a large conventional force but can't sustain any sort of overseas operation? France's military is top notch. They have two completely new fighters that can knock all of America's fighters with the exceptions of the F-15 and and the F-22 out of sky. They have one of the "original" nuclear arsenals. They have a sizable navy complete with cruisers, destroyers, and nuclear subs. They were perfectly capable of sending soldiers to Kuwait in 1991 and to Afgahnistan in 2001. They maintain military bases in many African countries. If Austrailia can send the third largest contingent to Iraq, France can do its share in Sudan. France is not alone however. Japan's "Self Defense Force" is becoming one of the world's most capable militaries. Russia has thousands of tanks just rusting away. Germany has a small yet extremely capable military force capable of deployment. China has thousands upon thousands of soldiers whose only purpose is to look menacingly across the sea at Tawain. All of these countries and many more could act, but choose not to.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
nfl, get out of my deviously clever trap.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
nfl, you are taking my comments about conservatives out of context. I'm sick to death of the conservatives who will use genocide as political fodder. I'm sick to death of conservatives who blocked judicial nominations whine about how their nominees are being blocked. I'm sick of conservatives who said Bush didn't need the UN because the UN was useless now say that the UN should take care of Darfur. And trust me, liberals often disgust me too, but at least they didn't pretend that we needed to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds and now stand back and say nothing and do nothing about Darfur.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So there's no room in your worldview for someone to honestly think Iraq and Darfur are different situations requiring different solutions?
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that. If you mean what I think you mean, you have obviously not understood a word I've said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I mean just what I said - is it possible for someone to honestly and reasonably believe that the U.S. should go in to Iraq without the UN but go through the U.N. for Darfur?
Dagonee
[ September 10, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
No.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine. Then piss off and be sick.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Why should the UN listen to us? We called them irrelevant. We should do something about Darfur and ask the UN to help. We should encourage them to help. But considering how we treat the UN, in both words and actions, I don't think we can really rely on them being to quick to jump on any request we make. That, and the fact that by the time we make a decision by committee, hundreds of thousands more could be dead, we don't have the time. You piss off.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am pissed off. I'm pissed off at the conspiracy theorists on this board. I'm pissed off at people who assume the worst about the motives of people who disagree with them. I'm pissed off when legitimate questions about capabilities are shrugged off and dismissed as political expediency.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Why do liberals seem to continually have memory lapses regarding Iraq and the UN? We went to the UN and we got a resolution authorizing war. We wanted another, but what was the point when France, Russia, and China all said they would veto it? I consider the UN useless because we couldn't get a resolution, I didn't say we shouldn't get a resolution because the UN is useless.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
For the record, I respect people who supported the Iraq war due to humanitarian and human rights reasons, and who continue to support American intervention elsewhere based on those reasons.
quote: is it possible for someone to honestly and reasonably believe that the U.S. should go in to Iraq without the UN but go through the U.N. for Darfur?
Certainly. If you believe Iraq was a imminent and serious threat to American security, then yes, we do have right to invade that country without UN support.
edited to add: Modified "threat"
[ September 10, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I say we do nothing. I did not support the war in Iraq because I would be unwilling to kill or die for any or all of the reasons offered, and I feel it is wrong to ask someone else to kill or die for me.
The same applies here; what do I care for Sudanese? Enough to feel vaguely bad about it, but not nearly bad enough to die for them. How can I ask that of another person?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You're one of those people who would have protested against our involvement in World War II aren't you? If all people are motivated by pure selfishness then humanity is doomed to exterminate itself.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I believe we were actually attacked in World War II, and that the danger was credible. I do not feel safer for having invaded Iraq, and I do not believe the US will be safer if it tries to stop the Sudanese massacre.
If your violent death would suddenly end the slaughter in the Sudan, would you hand someone a gun and tell them to start shooting? If not, why do you feel you have the right to spend someone else's life? If so, you have the moral high ground. You still have no right to waste another's life.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Be fair now. Danzig's view might not be too different from that of many Americans.
Ask Americans if they are against genocide, they will all say yes.
Ask Americans if we should send aid and use diplomatic pressures, they will all say yes.
Ask Americans if they would send their own sons and daughters to die in a foreign conflict that is not directly related to our national security concerns...
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I am more than willing to be against genocide if all I have to do is to type out words.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And frankly I'm disgusted at the attitude of all those Americans. This is the time when comparisons to the Holocaust are most needed. People's emotions need to be awakened. If we tolerate genocide in one place we tacitly comply with its occurence the next time. Everytime we turn a blind eye we condemn more to death. What upsets me most is that it was I in those concentration camps and ghettos. Hitler wanted to kill me. Granted I wasn't alive in 1945, but if Hitler had his way I wouldn't be alive now.
Faust, from your point of view why not just give into Japan's demands? Why not just sell them their oil and steel? It doesn't affect you personally, its not your children dieing in Manchuria and the Philipines. In fact you would probably benefit economically from it. Sure you would feel bad for those poor savages, but you would be rich selling war materials to nations that are at war.
If our country were at war at war and needed soldiers I would sign up before they could draft me. In fact I would probably be in the military now if it weren't for dietary (I keep Kosher) and physical (I'm actually under the minimum weight per height) restraints. Would I die for a stranger? No. Would I put my life on the line with a high probability of paying the ultimate price for a stranger. Absolutely. Furthermore, the men and women in the military signed up for that life and its what most of them want now. Most of them are probably yearning for some action right now if they aren't in Iraq or Afgahnistan. They chose that life and its not like sending them to Sudan is a death sentence or even close.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Furthermore, the men and women in the military signed up for that life and its what most of them want now. Most of them are probably yearning for some action right now if they aren't in Iraq or Afgahnistan.
Really? Can you share with us your reasonings behind this?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Because your typical marine, soldier, sailor, and airman joined because he/she wanted to fight for their country. They aren't some poor college kids who just needed some money. They joined specifically for that oppurtunity. They don't like being stuck training and training without putting that training to use. Are there some who just joined for the scholarships? Yes, but they are the minority. Furthermore, the soldiers we would be sending to Sudan would most likely be Special Forces. The type of people who didn't want to leave Somalia even after the Black Hawk Down incident.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Excuses, excuses. You are not in now, and are sending someone else. You are willing to ask someone else to risk their life for something that will not benefit them.
Low weight? Hell, I am about 5'8" or 5'9" and weigh around 120, and I am addicted to anything that will keep me from being sent off to die in some godforsaken hellhole. I doubt I personally will ever have to kill or die for your causes if I do not feel like it.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm 5'7" and don't even weight 110, that puts me 20 pounds underweight and over 10 pounds under the minimum. Like I said, I would put my life on the line if it were that simple, and its not like we're just throwing soldiers into the frying pan. What right do you have to say that thousands should die while you live in relative luxury?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Because our positions are random accidents of birth, and no matter how hard I try I cannot feel guilty for something that is not my fault. I did not cause the situation in the Sudan, as long as I am not shipped over there it will not affect me, and I swore no oaths to protect the Sudanese (or anyone else for that matter). It is not my fault, not my problem, and not my responsibility.
I have the right to say that thousands should die while I live in relative luxury because I am not the one killing them, and they are not the ones responsible for my relative luxury.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I wish you were the one in the concentration camp. I wish those that took such positions could actually understand the ramifications of such positions. Of course I don't actually want anyone to be in a concentration camp, I just wish you had the wisdom to see past your own selfishness.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:McCain predicted that, after the war, the Pentagon would find filling the military ranks to be difficult because the battles in Iraq are being fought with a force that is nearly 40 percent National Guard members and reservists -- who did not expect this kind of duty.
quote:Over the following 11 months, more than 50,000 National Guard and Reservists would be deployed abroad; they now make up 40 percent of the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. These "citizen-soldiers," who had expected to serve one weekend a month, were now being sent for unknown and ever extended durations to the front lines, leaving behind families and full time jobs. These National Guard and Reservists are often the sole family breadwinners, and many work in local police and fire departments, so their absence weakens already insufficient local and state first-response capabilities.
I don't know if the 40% statistic still holds true. Does anyone have a newer number?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Ah yes, I am selfish because I value my own life above that of others. Others who care nothing for me, and do not know I even exist. I see.
Apparently you do care. What are you doing to stop this? Organized any public awareness campaigns? Written to your elected representatives expressing the importance of this issue to you? (Well, that last one is probably no better than arguing about it on Hatrack, but some people believe politicians care.) Organized some sort of relief for them? Donated any money to those who are doing the above?
My positions do not put anyone into concentration camps, asshole. Hitler put people into concentration camps. My indifference would mean nothing if other people were actually decent humans, and I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of others.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Ah, so if you saw a baby drowning you would let it drown rather than catch a cold? Simply because I don't know someone's name does not diminish that person's worth.
National Guard members and reservists also understood that if there were a war they would be called up. I don't think they tend to think they're just there for the sake of saying we have national guard units.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:But the gap the Pentagon is worried about is after tens of thousands of Guard soldiers return home next year. Will many quit?
Right now Guard units are above their quotas. Some officials say that is because of a poor job market, but a survey done by the Guard, of 5,000 troops, suggests that over 20 percent will not re-up after a year on active duty.
A quarter of all the Army Guard is now on active duty, which is not what most signed up for. Most expected to serve at home for disasters and homeland security, training on Saturdays and Sundays and a few weeks in summer, not in an overseas war with no end.
[ September 11, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
I might save it, but I would have no moral obligation to do so. Not that this is the same situation as rescuing a drowning baby.
Sudan is not the US's problem. I do not think it is likely that it would become a quagmire, but I am opposed to anything that raises the chances of a draft however minutely.
You hope I end up in a concentration camp. I hope you end up dying slowly, painfully, but inexorably in a foreign land, away from everyone you love, for no better reason than someone said, "Go!" and you went, or were forced to go, to line the pockets of Halliburton or save the lives of people who are not your friends or family. But not really, of course; I just wish you had the wisdom to see that all your noble sentiments will get people killed so that others can profit. Why are the Sudanese worth more than me, or the people in the armed forces?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Beren, how many national guardsmen on average reup during wartime or peacetime? Its great to claim what you think other people expect. But in reality what they expect is to serve one weekend a month and fulltime if a war occurs.
Its not just that Sudanese are dieing, its that they are being EXTERMINATED, as in there won't be anymore Black Sudanese if the Sudanese government and Janjaweed get their way.
I don't see how us stopping genocide enriches Haliburton's pocket, it seems to me that you're coming up with BS reasons to avoid responsibility.
Please, please, please never dial 9-1-1, because clearly it would be a waste of resources since the paramedics, firemen, and policemen don't know you.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:NFL: Its great to claim what you think other people expect. But in reality what they expect is to serve one weekend a month and fulltime if a war occurs.
May I remind you that you were the first to speculate what men and women in the military expect out of their service:
quote:NFL: Furthermore, the men and women in the military signed up for that life and its what most of them want now. Most of them are probably yearning for some action right now if they aren't in Iraq or Afgahnistan.
The difference is, I backed my opinion up with sources.
[ September 11, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
By sources you mean opinions right? Or are all national guardsmen ignorant idiots who live in a dream world where only good things happen and people never die?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
In order to fill the gaps in our (apparently)sparse military, private firms are being used for far more than support services - indicating a serious lack of available military personnel OR some pretty astonishing opportunities for government contractors to "line those pockets" - perhaps a little of both?
And as far as reserve military forces go, it's promoted as an opportunity for "adventure" and to build skills during 12 weekends each year and two weeks in the summer - with the possibility of being put into action within the state you reside - in case of fire, floods, mobs. The possibility of serving long term overseas is not what reservists expect.
quote:USA > Military from the May 03, 2004 edition
War-zone security is a job for ... private contractors?
Security firms play a huge - if fuzzy - role in Iraq, second only to US, British military. But rules are few, critics say.
By Clayton Collins | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
For hundreds of foreign companies in the lucrative but perilous pursuit of business in violence-racked Iraq, security - especially the use of private forces instead of military personnel - has become an increasingly vexing issue.
As violence surged to new levels last month, many companies felt a need for the help of more security personnel. But they - as well as the US government, which hires private contractors for some security roles - are finding it harder to persuade highly trained, professional guards from the private sector to put their lives at risk, observers say.
The result, critics fear, may be a growing force of less disciplined, more mercenary guards thrown into a volatile situation with few rules to guide their actions.
Within Congress and among security experts, concern about the proliferation of private-sector guards in Iraq is mounting.
"A lot of those people are cowboys - cowboys and scary people," says Steven Schooner, a contracting expert at George Washington University Law School.
In a letter last month to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 13 congressional Democrats advanced the case that war-zone security was a job for the military, not private forces.
Over the past month, ever since the bodies of US contractors working for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) were hung from a bridge near Fallujah, many US and other foreign firms have shifted as much as 25 percent of their operating budgets to security, observers say. Security firms represent the third largest contributor of forces to the occupation, after the US and British militaries.
"Generally, what we do is fill the gaps that the military or police departments don't have the resources to fill," says David Katz, president of Global Security Group, a consulting firm with offices in New York and Chicago and clients in Iraq. "The best people have a combination of paramilitary experience and protective experience."
In Iraq, with highly trained military personnel sustaining casualties, such gap- filling may be too great a task, Mr. Katz adds. As trained contractors, who are often ex-military types, decline assignments in Iraq despite the high pay, "you may have other people filling the gap."
In general, some analysts say, it is more cost effective to hire support staff - cooks and truck drivers, for example - than to have trained soldiers fill those roles. That's despite a pay scale that has spiked in Iraq. Thomas Hamill, the driver for a Halliburton subsidiary who escaped his Iraqi captors over the weekend, went to the war zone for the pay - and, even now, may stay.
On the tactical security front, the number of private workers is unknown - "a problem of lack of accounting and accountability," says Peter Singer, national security fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. But he estimates that as many as 20,000 people in Iraq now handle jobs that used to be held down by military personnel. "Everything from logistics to training to security work," says Mr. Singer, regardless of whether the client is the US Defense Department, the CPA, or private firms.
The problem isn't only the numbers of these private guards, it's the fuzziness of their roles, critics say. Private firms - even ones with well-credentialed staff - have already stepped well beyond the job of guarding facilities and conducting other protective services, says Mr. Schooner.
"The bottom line is that contractors are fighting now," he says, citing a recent action in which security firm Blackwater USA reportedly engaged Iraqi resistance fighters to support US marines. The company "brought in their own reinforcements, they brought in helicopters, they brought in munitions," says Schooner.
"We've already got a contract on the street ... to use a firm" to secure an area in Baghdad known as the green zone, he adds. "That's military, man. That's all there is to it."
In the near term, Schooner says, tolerating private-sector mission creep toward soldiering in Iraq could allow Washington to "mask the human cost" of the military and reconstruction efforts, because deaths of private security guards are more difficult to monitor than are military losses.
The Defense Department counters that a bright, clear line exists between security and combat operations. Private security firms the department hires are forbidden to cross it. "None of them have been hired for combat operations," says Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, a DOD spokesman.
The US government has hired private security firms for specific tasks, such as guarding top civilian administrator Paul Bremer and various facilities, which frees up soldiers for combat. Ties between the US government and specific security firms get murky, because many of the firms it hires subcontract work to others.
Government contractors employ small arms and their use of force is essentially limited to self-defense under "the laws of the country," Colonel Yoswa says. "Some companies that are working for the coalition do have some limited immunities." He would not elaborate on what that means.
Murkiness about the rules of engagement is what bothers critics and has the Defense Department scrambling.
"There is no policy, that is why we're trying to develop one," says Glenn Flood, another Defense Department spokesman. "We want to try to get something that can clarify, because right now we're all over the place - or they're all over the place - in trying to come up with something."
Singer is pleased to see more attention being paid to the roles of private companies in international conflict. Firms that did not even exist before the Iraq conflict have won major contracts there, he says.
"Suddenly people on the congressional and public side are saying, 'We didn't know there were this many guys, and they're doing what?' " Singer adds. "There is now a push for regulation and accounting that ... hadn't gotten any traction before."
Related stories:
04/02/04
Private firms take on more military tasks
09/03/03
US's 'private army' grows
page of articles Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Not the same; I pay taxes. If I had the option, I would not pay the taxes and not use the services. As long as I pay, I will use as I need to. If the Sudanese are offering us money that would make it a different situation, although I would still be against intervention. I would be more than willing to pay less taxes in return for the police never bothering me again.
What have you done for the Sudanese besides argue about it on Hatrack?
Us stopping genocide does not AFAIK enrich Halliburton; that was Iraq. Us stopping genocide makes you feel better. I am not avoiding responsibility, I have no responsibility.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So poor people who can't pay taxes shouldn't have the benefit of calling 9-1-1? What about non-citizens in the US? Tourists?
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
For the third time, what (if anything) are you doing to help the Sudanese in any that makes a difference?
The state of our nation's health care is really getting into a topic that I would rather discuss on another thread, but the short answer is that I also reject the concept of obligation to the poor. I do not ask them to pay for my drugs; I am not going to pay for theirs if I can get away with it. They are perfectly free to let me die in the gutter if they ever get the opportunity. I will not condemn them for it, because despite being unlucky for me they would have done nothing wrong. Non-citizens know or should know the risks they are taking when travelling, as should tourists.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What exactly can I do as a civilian other than to support our nation taking action. If I were in the military I would be eager to go over and help, but I'm not in the military and as I have mentioned am not even eligible. I give to charities as generously as I can although I haven't seen any that I would believe would actually help the people in Sudan who are suffering from genocide. In the United States speech is actually often the most you can do and is actually quite a bit.
Since you don't want to pay for any government services then why not anarchy? Why have a government?
If a tourist gets mugged I still think we should try to protect him. If he has a heart attack I still think we should try to save his life. If not out of kindness, then the expectation that they would do the same for us. The same goes for Sudan, I expect we should help them if just for the very least that I would want an army to liberate me if I were in a concentration camp.
Again I repeat that we are not simply sending soldiers to their deaths. There is no reason to suspect that any given soldier would die if we attempted to liberate Sudan. There is no reason to believe a single American would die if we just used long range bombing and cruise missile attacks.
Again I ask what makes us better than other animals if not for our sense of moral obligation?
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote: Guard survey hints at exodus By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY
Last year, about 16% of all Army Guard troops left the military as a result of retirement, injuries or a decision not to re-enlist, a figure slightly below the annual historical average of 18%. Among Guard soldiers returning from deployments in the USA and overseas from 2001 to 2003, only 12.5% left, statistics show.
The survey results are raising concerns, given the strains on Guard and Reserve troops and widespread worries that part-time soldiers are being relied on too much in the war on terrorism. Some 97,000 soldiers — about 28% of the 350,000-member Army Guard — are now on active duty in the USA or overseas.
The Pentagon will continue to rely heavily on the Army Guard and Army Reserve in Iraq, where by May, nearly 40% of the more than 100,000 U.S. troops will be Guard or Reserve.
Some military personnel analysts believe the survey hints at the leading edge of an exodus because part-timers are losing patience and don't want to be treated like full-time troops....
Ryan points to a recent survey in the Navy Times newspaper that showed 8 out of 10 U.S. troops say the force is "stretched too thin."
****
There is no exodus yet. Army Guard retention rates have run well above average in the past three months for new and mid-career soldiers. Guard officials were unable to explain why. Army Reserve officials say the Reserve's retention rates are artificially high now because "stop loss" orders bar soldiers from quitting during the Iraq conflict, but Guard officials downplay that as a factor in the Guard's retention rates.
[ September 11, 2004, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Thank you for answering. Speech is nothing. If I buy an email list and spam everyone on it saying, "Genocide is bad; do something about Sudan," do I regain the moral high ground? You sound like those voting registration people.
Why not anarchy? Why have a government? It makes no difference to me whether I have to obey the man with a gun and a uniform or just the man with the gun. I need no men with guns to tell me what to do; right and wrong are immutable. Laws are irrelevant; I break the ones I feel like breaking and obey the ones I feel like obeying. If rape were legalized, I still would not do it. Some people do it already.
As it happens I do want to pay for some government services, such as fire (but not police) departments, roads, and a military. I would voluntarily pay for those services, just as I pay my rent every month. However, between a choice of all the services we have now and no services I would choose none.
There is reason to suspect that some soldiers will die. If I were going, and got killed, then one would be too many. I cannot ask someone else to fight my war. You care, you go.
We are not better than animals; most humans are a good deal worse. Dogs have a sense of moral obligation anyway. Notice that chimps, probably the most intelligent animal, are almost as evil as humans. On the other hand, why should we try to be better than animals?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Because your typical marine, soldier, sailor, and airman joined because he/she wanted to fight for their country. They aren't some poor college kids who just needed some money.
I'm not sure where these "stats" come from. How does this explain all the people who signed up for the military when we weren't fighting a war? Most of the time our soldiers are not expecting to go to the front lines and kill or be killed. Granted, many of them probably do feel that way, but I like to see a source that backs up this assertion about the motives of most people in the military.
I also think there's a difference between wanting to fight for your country and being willing to.
[ September 11, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There is a non-negligible percentage of military who needed the money or the discipline or the trade knowledge.
There are obvious problems with the genocide, besides there is an extent to which the contempt we show for the political systems in the rest of the world makes it hard for us to have friends.
After we stop the fighting, there is the deposed power who see us as invaders and saved people who may eventually, if we are not minding our Ps and Qs, consider us occupiers. If the deposed party is in the majority, the situation only gets worse. There is usually only one land, so you can't just split them up into countries, and the a stable peace process is infinitely harder to grow. You can use Germany and Japan for examples, although I think it's ridiculous to do so. Somalia is a better example and I'm not so sure we knew what we were doing when we got there, either.
I imagine the first thing we do is listen to folks like Francis Deng who know the area but aren't tied to business interests there. The problem isn't that we don't assume enough responsibility, its that we do assume we have all of the answers.
[ September 11, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote: At this point and time, conservatives make me sick. I'm ashamed to be an American because of you and I'm flat out dead dog tired of being a "fellow human being."
I agree Kayla. But I also gotta say this. People wonder why "bleeding heart" liberals and people from all over the world hate Bush. This is why. What Kayla said right there. George W. Bush has done such a poor job around the world and has had such a hypocrytical and horrible foreign policy that he has divided an already divided world. In the face of 9/11, and on its anniversary, we should be a world united against those people that want to kill us. Instead, because of the policies and actions of the Bush administration, we are a world deeply polarized. I used to never think that conservatives were bad or stupid. I always lived by the motto that there was more that unites us than divides us. Is that really true anymore? I dont think so. By perpetrating such a horrible presidency on the rest of the world, Bush has made it easier for terrorists to win. He has made the saying "united we stand, divided we fall" ever so real.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Right. Because disagreeing about policy is naturally the fault of only one side, right?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What I can't stand is people who blame everything on "liberals" or "conservatives".
Which, by the way, are really nothing more than arbitrary labels given to people who have common ideas or goals, most of the time.
IMO, of course.
[ September 11, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
This isn't my quarrel, I know, but I have to say that I think Danzig's got you there, nfl. All you're doing is just talk. You don't have a stake in this. That doesn't in itself invalidate your argument, but it does make all your moral indignation at and death camp wishes for Danzig pretty damn offensive.
I suggest you either stick to discussing the issue or, if you insist on taking everything that comes out of Danzig's mouth as a personal grievance, at least put something personal on the line first. 'I wouldn't be alive if Hitler had come to power and people like you are HITLER-ENABLERS!' doesn't count.
Oh, and I just can't not call you on this:
quote:Would I die for a stranger? No. Would I put my life on the line with a high probability of paying the ultimate price for a stranger. Absolutely.
I'm picking up a strong odor of bullshit here. Death for a stranger, no; probable death for a stranger, absolutely? Please, explain to me why the chance of survival makes such a huge difference.
Plus, a high chance of death for the individual, multiplied by a large number of individuals, practically means certain death for some of those individuals. I'm not sure where your squirming is getting you.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Both candidates are afraid of advocating military action because neither side knows whether Americans are ready to take on another humanitarian mission while we are still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Our finger-pointing sessions on Hatrack is a smaller version of the political shitstorm that will be stirred up if either candidate advocated military intervention.
If Kerry advocated military action, Bush camp will jump on Kerry for flip-flopping on the issue of Iraq.
If Bush advocated military action, Kerry camp will say bush is getting us into another war that we don't "have to" fight.
Even if both parties eventually agree that military action is needed, the Democrats will still bitch about how we could've saved more people in Sudan if not for the unjustified invasion of Iraq. The Republicans will bring up, once again, charges that Kerry voted against funding for the military.
I really hope Bill Clinton takes the lead on this issue. He said on Larry King Live that his biggest mistake as president was not acting quickly enough in Rwanda. This is his chance to use his popularity for something other than pimping his books or giving $15,000 lectures.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
So a sizable majority of people from just about every nation in the world is upset with the US Foreign policy because the US had the gall to act unilaterally in Iraq.
The US and UK are pretty much alone in declaring that the atrocities in Darfur are genocide. The rest of the world is not convinced for varying reasons.
The US is wary of making enemies again by acting unilaterally based on its interpretation of the actions of the Sudanese government and we are all surprised because ????
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The chance of survival means everything That's why I would be willing to join the military, but not strap a bomb to my chest.
Why is there a high chance of death for anyone? Just because I would be personally willing to undergo that doesn't mean that military intervention in Sudan results in that. Like I said we can avoid any military deaths by using long range bombing and cuise missiles. While I don't want a single American soldier to die, I would be willing to sacrifice one for thousands of innocent Sudanese civilians.
I also made it clear if you listened to the entire post that I don't actually want Danzig to be in a concentration camp, I do want him to actually understand the severity of it though.
I'm really disgusted by all the people who hold the selfish view that, "Its not me dieing, its not my problem."
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Ok, as a Canadian, I think I have something of value to contribute here. Canadians make up the largest contingent of UN peacekeepers. We have been involved in every peacekeeping mission since its inception. The whole idea of peacekeeping was put forward by one of our prime ministers, Lester B. Pearson, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. That said, peacekeeping needs to either change radically, or it will fade into irrelevancy. During the Rwandan genocide, there were Canadian peacekeepers present, who could have prevented the genocide had the UN authorised force, which they never found cause to do. The Canadians had no choice but to watch from the front lines as hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. The UN, or something like it, is the only way these kind of humanitarian missions can be carried out on the international scene with some kind of legitimacy. I believe the best solution would be for a new world governing body to be set up, to compete with the UN, one which would only permit democracies as members. The priorties of the UN are in the right place in theory, however, in practice, too many states with cruel or selfish agendas can negate any good might be accomplished.
That said, for all those who are using the cries for intervention as some kind of justification for the war, I have this to say. What did the US do while genocide was actually being committed in Iraq. When it happened after the first Gulf War, nothing. This may have seemed prudent at the time, but it was nothing short of disasterous in the long run. In 1988, when Saddam was at his most sadistic? The US was actively arming him. Why no intervention then? Because controling the political climate of the Middle East has always precidence over humanitarian concerns when the US intervenes in the area. In Darfur there are no competing interests. Any intervention would be overwhelmingly due to the building moral outrage over the unfolding events.
I'm rambling. I'll stop. For now.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Saddam never became less sadistic, his capablity to carry out some of his "sadistic" plans was diminished after the Gulf War but his torture chambers that were in operation up until the day we liberated Baghdad showed that he never lost the passion. What did we do in 1988? Nothing. On the other hand what could we have done in the at specific incident. Saddam dropped gas on the Kurds and that was it. I still think that should have been enough to remove him power and I would advocate removing him at that point. I'm still not sure why the UN is the only way legitimacy can be acheived. Kosovo wasn't a UN mission, it was a NATO one. Furthermore, the UN's predecessor the League of Nations never authorized the UK and France to declare war on Nazi Germany. Seeing as how democracies are currently blocking involvement I don't see how an all democratic UN would help the case for intervention.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Because your typical marine, soldier, sailor, and airman joined because he/she wanted to fight for their country. They aren't some poor college kids who just needed some money.
I can tell you from personal experience this statement is wrong in many ways. If you think people in the military WANT to fight in wars, you are on some serious crack, my friend. Believe me when I tell you that most people in the military would be quite content pulling in their paycheck for their entire careers without firing a single shot or ever having to spend any time in the field.
If you don't think the chance at hefty college tuition reimbursement isn't something that a lot of them join for, you are wrong.
Many people in the military are patriotic, but please don't believe that just because they are in the military that they love their country, or are willing to suffer more for their country any more than a teacher, a doctor, a nurse, a police man, a protestor, a writer, a college student, or anyone else. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, their likes and dislikes. The country needs people from all walks of life and philosophies to make it great, not just a warrior class.
[ September 12, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A lot of soldiers join for the hefty college reimbursement, but most do not and some of those who do, stay because they do love the military life. Many enlisted men never go to college.
What does the country needing people from all walks of life have to do with anything? You may not care for people in the military, but I do put a special honor upon those who wear the uniform, because they put their life on the line to protect me and my family. I thank teachers, doctors, and others for their services to me, but they aren't dying for my freedom.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
nfl:
quote:The chance of survival means everything That's why I would be willing to join the military, but not strap a bomb to my chest.
And I am asking you why.
quote:Why is there a high chance of death for anyone?
I'm going off your answer to Danzig's question ('Would I put my life on the line with a high probability of paying the ultimate price for a stranger. Absolutely.').
quote:I also made it clear if you listened to the entire post that I don't actually want Danzig to be in a concentration camp
That doesn't make it any less offensive.
quote:I'm really disgusted by all the people who hold the selfish view that, "Its not me dieing, its not my problem."
How are you making it your problem any more than Danzig is? You are both doing exactly nothing. The only difference is that Danzig thinks exactly nothing is exactly what should be done, while you think something should be done--but this something does not in any way involve you.
Understand that this does not discredit your argument. There's no reason why you can't argue for a course of action that would, if pursued, have nothing to do with you. But it does make me, since you like using that word, disgusted to see you trying to lord it over Danzig from the moral high ground you've supposedly gained from having nobler thoughts.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You're very selective with what you quote. For I think the third time, just because I would be willing to risk paying that price does not mean that in this specific current situation that same risk exists. The fact that I am willing to take such a large risk includes taking lesser risks. The fact that is common sense AND that I already said this annoys me that I have to explain it again.
quote: How are you making it your problem any more than Danzig is? You are both doing exactly nothing. The only difference is that Danzig thinks exactly nothing is exactly what should be done, while you think something should be done--but this something does not in any way involve you.
I am doing what I personally can. Which is to try to convince others of the need to act. If enough people are convinced then action will be taken by those capable of it.
Finally, the attack to what I am personally doing amounts to an ad hominen attack that doesn't actually discredit any of my arguments. By supporting action as to opposing it I do have the "moral high ground."
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I would really hate it if this debate ends with NFL joining the army just to prove Danzig wrong.
Just out of curiosity, how do devout Jewish soldiers cope with life in the military without a gauranteed supply of Kosher meals. Are they forced to eat non-Kosher food?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Like I said, the army wouldn't even except me and even if they did I would probably flunk out of basic within a week.
Although to be honest a lot of Jews would consider how I keep Kosher to be "fake." I don't mix meats and cheese, don't eat anything from a pig, don't eat anything with pig extracts like gelatin, don't eat shellfish, but I don't make sure the beef I eat is Kosher although I do make sure I eat only all beef hot dogs. Regardless its extremely difficult to make the military accomodate your dietary preferences. If there were a war requiring a draft I would still sign up before they could draft me, I would just probably lose even more weight.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: You may not care for people in the military, but I do put a special honor upon those who wear the uniform, because they put their life on the line to protect me and my family. I thank teachers, doctors, and others for their services to me, but they aren't dying for my freedom.
Sigh. Nothing in my post indicated that I did not care for people in the military. I was in the Army for three fun filled years. So, I know that most people in the military are no more special than anyone else in the country. It annoys me to see military service put on a pedestal, as you are doing. Putting yourself through a four year college is harder than what many people do in the military. Anyone in reasonably decent shape and five working brain cells could be in the military. It pays very well for unskilled labor, which is where most of the people are at when they join the military. Most of the time, it's not very demanding. Depending on your mos, you get most bank holidays off. You can't get fired from your job. Unless you are a complete and utter jackass, most people do o.k. in the military.
While soldiers are 'dying for freedom' (99% plus don't and most will never come under fire or threat of fire), many other people in the country contribute to freedom in very appreciable ways and the maintenance of the American culture and the well being of the citizens. It means little to die for freedom if other aren't doing their jobs to maintain the quality of life in America.
I appreciate what you're saying. The military is needed. The warrior class is important. But again, it's no more important than many other professions that make the country what it is. Many of those professions have a higher fatality rate over a ten year period than many occupations in the military.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
*sigh* After the last couple of days news, I suspect there is no point in bothering with Sudan. The troops will go in, the militias will shoot at them--then the people who are under attack will also begin shooting at them for invading their beloved country--another thousand soldiers will die--and finally we will have to leave without having succeeded. Oh, and the UN will do nothing, then blame us for doing it our way.
[ September 13, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
nfl:
quote:For I think the third time, just because I would be willing to risk paying that price does not mean that in this specific current situation that same risk exists. The fact that I am willing to take such a large risk includes taking lesser risks. The fact that is common sense AND that I already said this annoys me that I have to explain it again.
Nowhere do I imply that this situation involves a high risk. I'm just questioning your statement on its own terms.
By the by, the fact that you have still not answered my question despite typing another paragraph of text annoys me.
quote:Finally, the attack to what I am personally doing amounts to an ad hominen attack that doesn't actually discredit any of my arguments.
Indeed it doesn't. It only discredits you.
quote:I am doing what I personally can. Which is to try to convince others of the need to act. If enough people are convinced then action will be taken by those capable of it.
What have you done other than flounce about on internet forums displaying your moral indignation to whoever has the temerity to disagree with you?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I do not ask them to pay for my drugs; I am not going to pay for theirs if I can get away with it. They are perfectly free to let me die in the gutter if they ever get the opportunity. I will not condemn them for it, because despite being unlucky for me they would have done nothing wrong. Non-citizens know or should know the risks they are taking when travelling, as should tourists.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)