Political Crossfire Forums

[Mapmaker15]

We stayed "the hell away" during the beginning of WWI. I would think that, "staying the hell away" and minding our own business has already proved pretty futile.
Of course many people would say that we should have stayed "the hell away" in Vietnam too.
Also, isn't this crisis the sort of thing that the AU is made for? I mean if the African Union exists for any reason (or exists at all, other than on paper) then this is what it is for...
If we back the Union then maybe they get enough weight to make a difference. Too bad there isn't oil in Darfur.

[Bushmills]

lovebush wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Let other nations manage it -- Perhaps the UN is willing to send a force there.


YEA. they would be helpful like they were in rwanda and the congo. :lol:

And damn helpful on the borders of the Israel and some Arab nations.

French UN General for example threatened to attack Israel if Israel wouldn't stop airborne intelligence operations on South Lebanon's border. That's so great, guess who is letting Allah's party to possess and launch tens of thousand of rockets.

[cool_chick]

Bushmills wrote: lovebush wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Let other nations manage it -- Perhaps the UN is willing to send a force there.


YEA. they would be helpful like they were in rwanda and the congo. :lol:

And damn helpful on the borders of the Israel and some Arab nations.

French UN General for example threatened to attack Israel if Israel wouldn't stop airborne intelligence operations on South Lebanon's border. That's so great, guess who is letting Allah's party to possess and launch tens of thousand of rockets.

Should Lebanonese conduct airborne intelligence operations on the north Israeli border? Would that be acceptable?

[cap'n queasy]

It's extremely bizarre that the French team in Lebanon is so worried about Israeli flyovers but has absolutely no concern whatsoever with trying to disarm an illegal terrorist army or stopping them from importing more weapons.

One has to wonder "What the hell are they thinking?".

[Numb]

cap'n queasy wrote: It's extremely bizarre that the French team in Lebanon is so worried about Israeli flyovers but has absolutely no concern whatsoever with trying to disarm an illegal terrorist army or stopping them from importing more weapons.

One has to wonder "What the hell are they thinking?".
"Well, at least the press won't be on my ass."

[Richard Owl Mirror]

It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.






Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

[The Newb]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.






Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

do you not beleive and have stated that the u.s. should not be world police? i find this statement interesting on those grounds

[Richard Owl Mirror]

The Newb wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.

Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

do you not beleive and have stated that the u.s. should not be world police? i find this statement interesting on those grounds

There is a vast difference between telling Governments how they should function
and stopping the killing of 100's of 1000's of innocents.
People keep linking the claim that the reason we went into Iraq was to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Only problem about that is it happened during the Reagan administration and
Donald Rumsfeld went to make peace with Saddam two weeks after learning about these same attrocities.
Where was the outrage back then? When the slaughter was still fresh ?
Preventing the killing is far more important than bringing to justice
someone 20 years after the innocents have laid in mass graves.

People are being killed, maimed, raped and starved to death TODAY, in the Sudan and Chad.
That is a role for a Superpower to intervene.
The problem lies in the fact that the USA wants something in return for it's humanitarian aid.
Compassion seems to be an afterthought with our Government.

[sLiPpY]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The Newb wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.

Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

do you not beleive and have stated that the u.s. should not be world police? i find this statement interesting on those grounds

There is a vast difference between telling Governments how they should function
and stopping the killing of 100's of 1000's of innocents.
People keep linking the claim that the reason we went into Iraq was to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Only problem about that is it happened during the Reagan administration and
Donald Rumsfeld went to make peace with Saddam two weeks after learning about these same attrocities.
Where was the outrage back then? When the slaughter was still fresh ?
Preventing the killing is far more important than bringing to justice
someone 20 years after the innocents have laid in mass graves.

People are being killed, maimed, raped and starved to death TODAY, in the Sudan and Chad.
That is a role for a Superpower to intervene.
The problem lies in the fact that the USA wants something in return for it's humanitarian aid.
Compassion seems to be an afterthought with our Government.

What if:...I'm not willing to sacrifice my neighbors, for folks who can't learn how to behave or defend themselves in some third world s**t hole.

Now if everyone agrees to go with the Rangle draft, and everyone who is of age...has to send someone from their own family to police some third world s**t hole. Then ok.

[Revenant]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The Newb wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.

Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

do you not beleive and have stated that the u.s. should not be world police? i find this statement interesting on those grounds

There is a vast difference between telling Governments how they should function
and stopping the killing of 100's of 1000's of innocents.
People keep linking the claim that the reason we went into Iraq was to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Only problem about that is it happened during the Reagan administration and
Donald Rumsfeld went to make peace with Saddam two weeks after learning about these same attrocities.
Where was the outrage back then? When the slaughter was still fresh ?
Preventing the killing is far more important than bringing to justice
someone 20 years after the innocents have laid in mass graves.

People are being killed, maimed, raped and starved to death TODAY, in the Sudan and Chad.
That is a role for a Superpower to intervene.
The problem lies in the fact that the USA wants something in return for it's humanitarian aid.
Compassion seems to be an afterthought with our Government.

We really aren't getting anything out of Iraq anymore. It's been officially a worthless venture. Hell we aren't even getting oil and we're paying for everything Iraqi from our pockets rather than oil revenues.

Technically, the rebuilding of Iraq has turned into more of a "humanitarian" effort than was originally planned.

So you're telling me you want our troops removed from one s**thole and inserted into another s**thole at your disgression. No dice.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

It's appearing that the vast majority of posters in this thread are for Isolationism, is that correct?

Or do we only conduct business with those left standing ?

[Ameriman]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: It really amazes me how most people talk of Government, Military alliances yet,
leave out the individual from the equation.






Sitting back, saying let someone else worry about the problem is akin to witnessing a violent crime and walking away,
uninterested and unmoved to action.
I pity those who harbor no compassion for the downtrodden and abused.

So you wanna pull out of Iraq?

[The Newb]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:

There is a vast difference between telling Governments how they should function
and stopping the killing of 100's of 1000's of innocents.
People keep linking the claim that the reason we went into Iraq was to stop the slaughter of innocents.
Only problem about that is it happened during the Reagan administration and
Donald Rumsfeld went to make peace with Saddam two weeks after learning about these same attrocities.
Where was the outrage back then? When the slaughter was still fresh ?
Preventing the killing is far more important than bringing to justice
someone 20 years after the innocents have laid in mass graves.

People are being killed, maimed, raped and starved to death TODAY, in the Sudan and Chad.
That is a role for a Superpower to intervene.
The problem lies in the fact that the USA wants something in return for it's humanitarian aid.
Compassion seems to be an afterthought with our Government.

really? kind of hypocritical of you, our soldier will be shot at will die, and innocent civilians will die in darfur as well.

but all of that is ok as long as its not in iraq? what do you think will happen when we leave iraq? the same thing that is happening in darfur? i bet it does look at the civil war atrocities now happening, and tell me honestly that you think it will not get worse without our troops intervention in iraq.....just because you think one cause is greater than the other at the moment, and you despise the leaders decision to invade one country you are willing to sell those innocents out for another .....

that is blatantly disturbing, yet you find nothing wrong with it. i suggest you think about both sides long and hard and then ask yourself why the rest of the world ( those that you claim dislike us ) do not do something, do you nlot think that it would "show us up"? or do you think that it should be our issue, and no one elses? if that is the case drop the world police act and look at the way things are, where we will be, and how we should get there

[Mr. Sunshine]

Send in Clooney. :lol:

Notice how we invaded Iraq based on a U.N. resolution. Where is the U.N. on Darfur? Check for people hiding under their desks. 8:)

[Kilo Tango]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote:

Would the United States Government be complicit in Genocide due to their other goal of fighting a War on Terror ?

Should the United States Government commit a military force equal to the task
of quelling the Genocide that is taking place in Darfur ?

WHY would the United States Government not take action in this Genocide yet,
use Genocide as a pretext to the invasion and occupation of Iraq ?

Has our military commitment in Iraq weakened our response to stop a Genocide elsewhere in the world?
In my opinion, the answer is YES

THE U.S. IS COMPLICIT TO GENOCIDE IN DARFUR BECAUSE OF THE WOT?

:gdgf:

This is rich. Now it's our job to rush in and save the day. World police (but only when it's something the left has stamped with its approval) to the rescue. :roll:

Maybe you haven't heard, the EU has decided there is no "genocide." If you want to talk about complicity you need to look at the world and not blame us for every ill of humanity.

The European Union wrote: The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

...

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html


Actually, ROM, the Bush administration has declared it a genocide whereas your precious United Nations has declined to do so.
:lol:

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Kilo Tango wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:

Would the United States Government be complicit in Genocide due to their other goal of fighting a War on Terror ?

Should the United States Government commit a military force equal to the task
of quelling the Genocide that is taking place in Darfur ?

WHY would the United States Government not take action in this Genocide yet,
use Genocide as a pretext to the invasion and occupation of Iraq ?

Has our military commitment in Iraq weakened our response to stop a Genocide elsewhere in the world?
In my opinion, the answer is YES

THE U.S. IS COMPLICIT TO GENOCIDE IN DARFUR BECAUSE OF THE WOT?

:gdgf:

This is rich. Now it's our job to rush in and save the day. World police (but only when it's something the left has stamped with its approval) to the rescue. :roll:

Maybe you haven't heard, the EU has decided there is no "genocide." If you want to talk about complicity you need to look at the world and not blame us for every ill of humanity.

The European Union wrote: The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

...

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html


Actually, ROM, the Bush administration has declared it a genocide whereas your precious United Nations has declined to do so.
:lol:


Artical published on August 10, 2004 :gdgf:
The European Union wrote: The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html


Quote: your precious United Nations
How did this become MY precious United Nations ?

[soldierofsoul]

I thought liberals didnt like policing the world, so is it if 400,000 die, is that the number...so 93,000 a year in Iraq was not enough? OK now I see, its a numbers thing...

[Ozzone]

Bushmills wrote: You know why there is a total chaos in Sudan?

First of all it's radical islamic nation, which cannot allow any foreign forces on its holy land.

Second of all, China got major oil intrests in Sudan and it's sure they don't want that relationship to broke because of Security Councils involvement, so we won't see any UN's forces there (maybe it's just good thing).

China Invests Heavily In Sudan's Oil Industry

CHINA’S INVOLVEMENT IN SUDAN: ARMS AND OIL

BINGO!

[Bushmills]

cool_chick wrote: Bushmills wrote: lovebush wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Let other nations manage it -- Perhaps the UN is willing to send a force there.


YEA. they would be helpful like they were in rwanda and the congo. :lol:

And damn helpful on the borders of the Israel and some Arab nations.

French UN General for example threatened to attack Israel if Israel wouldn't stop airborne intelligence operations on South Lebanon's border. That's so great, guess who is letting Allah's party to possess and launch tens of thousand of rockets.

Should Lebanonese conduct airborne intelligence operations on the north Israeli border? Would that be acceptable?

No. Israel isn't in a war with the Lebanon, but with Hezbollah. However, Lebanese government and UN forces in the area should be held accountable for Hezbollah's acts of terror, illegal arming and the bypassing of disarming that several UN resolutions call for.

If radical Jewish terrorist organizations were bombing Lebanon from Northern Israel repeatedly, while Israeli government wasn't doing anything about it, Lebanese should unquestionably conduct what ever intelligence operations they see necessary.

[Kilo Tango]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote:

Would the United States Government be complicit in Genocide due to their other goal of fighting a War on Terror ?

Should the United States Government commit a military force equal to the task
of quelling the Genocide that is taking place in Darfur ?

WHY would the United States Government not take action in this Genocide yet,
use Genocide as a pretext to the invasion and occupation of Iraq ?

Has our military commitment in Iraq weakened our response to stop a Genocide elsewhere in the world?
In my opinion, the answer is YES

THE U.S. IS COMPLICIT TO GENOCIDE IN DARFUR BECAUSE OF THE WOT?

:gdgf:

This is rich. Now it's our job to rush in and save the day. World police (but only when it's something the left has stamped with its approval) to the rescue. :roll:

Maybe you haven't heard, the EU has decided there is no "genocide." If you want to talk about complicity you need to look at the world and not blame us for every ill of humanity.

The European Union wrote: The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

...

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html


Actually, ROM, the Bush administration has declared it a genocide whereas your precious United Nations has declined to do so.
:lol:


Artical published on August 10, 2004 :gdgf:
The European Union wrote: The EU said yesterday there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene.

"We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan.

Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1279835,00.html


Quote: your precious United Nations
How did this become MY precious United Nations ?
:gdgf:

2006 and the EU is still doing nothing!