Political Crossfire Forums

[CountryGuy]

OK... I'm soulless for expecting US troops to be more than the worldwide police force. :roll:

Let me present another place where a "few thousand troops and some helicopters" got us into trouble: Somalia. I really don't care for a repeat of that debacle. You are incorrect on the needs for such a mission. Do you have any links from reputable sources stating that is all such a mission would require?

This needs to be a mission of all nations, and standing police forces are best suited for the UN. You may not care about it, but at the same time the US is NOT the UN, either.

I never said the US could / should not be part of that force, assisting with troops and/or supplies. But unilaterally entering this country would not help our position with other countries, would excaserbate the opinion of those who think we're trying to be imperialistic, and would further stretch our already taxed military.

[Ellron]

CountryGuy wrote: OK... I'm soulless for expecting US troops to be more than the worldwide police force. :roll:

Let me present another place where a "few thousand troops and some helicopters" got us into trouble: Somalia. I really don't care for a repeat of that debacle. You are incorrect on the needs for such a mission. Do you have any links from reputable sources stating that is all such a mission would require?

This needs to be a mission of all nations, and standing police forces are best suited for the UN. You may not care about it, but at the same time the US is NOT the UN, either.

I never said the US could / should not be part of that force, assisting with troops and/or supplies. But unilaterally entering this country would not help our position with other countries, would excaserbate the opinion of those who think we're trying to be imperialistic, and would further stretch our already taxed military.

Im not saying to invade the country.

Im saying send troops over to the area like the neighboring country Chad where the bands are going over the border to kill people over there.

Chad would probably be very happy to take in some of our troops.

But our country does s**t and just sits there, doesnt even talk about it. Sad.

[Numb]

I'm not to educated on the darfur crisis.
Who is getting massacred?
Why?
Whats Darfur's government doing?
How is this any diffrent from Somalia?

[Revenant]

Ellron wrote: Ozzone wrote: Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: I think its completely hypocritical of anyone complaining about unilateral action in Iraq, to suggest unilateral action elsewhere (and I use unilateral from a leadership role -- There are of course several allies helping us in Iraq).

Where's the outcry for the UN?

Where's the outcry for France? Germany? Spain?

O please...

Have a helping of reallity.

Why should we help them?

Economic, social, and power potential for the future. To have friends in an area with oil is always good.

Like Iraq?

Quote: Also to stop the killing because there human and we are human.

Like Iraq?

Quote: UN cant do anything because of China veto power.

Like Iraq?

Quote: The difference between this conflict and Iraq conflict is that it would only take a couple thousand troops and helicopters to kill many of the raiding bands.

Until they started using innocents as human shields like Iraq?

Wow!!

I still dont beleive you dont get it.

Iraq was a foolish mistake which was horrible executed.

THe reps messed up.

This mission is feasible and can be done with much less for UNLIKE Iraq.

Ya liberating Iraq is a noble idea but its a stupid idea.

Sudan is noble and intelligent..Next.

It is neither, we would be facing the exact same problem as Iraq. Nice try though.

Partisanship makes me laugh.

[CountryGuy]

Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: OK... I'm soulless for expecting US troops to be more than the worldwide police force. :roll:

Let me present another place where a "few thousand troops and some helicopters" got us into trouble: Somalia. I really don't care for a repeat of that debacle. You are incorrect on the needs for such a mission. Do you have any links from reputable sources stating that is all such a mission would require?

This needs to be a mission of all nations, and standing police forces are best suited for the UN. You may not care about it, but at the same time the US is NOT the UN, either.

I never said the US could / should not be part of that force, assisting with troops and/or supplies. But unilaterally entering this country would not help our position with other countries, would excaserbate the opinion of those who think we're trying to be imperialistic, and would further stretch our already taxed military.

Im not saying to invade the country.

Im saying send troops over to the area like the neighboring country Chad where the bands are going over the border to kill people over there.

Chad would probably be very happy to take in some of our troops.

But our country does s**t and just sits there, doesnt even talk about it. Sad.

Of course Chas would be happy -- Then it would be our troops in the crosshairs, not theirs. And sitting in Chad would do nothing for Darfur -- Isnt' that your focus?

How do we stop the violence without not only invading, but setting up shop in every major city and town to ensure peace ensues. Damn near impossible when most of the damage is being done by hundreds (thousands) of roving bands. Definitely impossible with only a "few thousand troops and some helicopters".

Our military is already taxed to the limit -- Where are the troops coming from? Should we have a draft for Darfur?

Let's say we find the troops, get the world's support, and enter. Say we get REALLY lucky and the bands stop fighting. Now what? When do we leave? What's keeping them from starting again when we do? What's keeping this from turning into the same guerilla-style warfare we see in Iraq?

You have a country you want us to enter that's not friendly to us, that hasn't asked for us, without international backing, with forces we don't have available, and without a plan to fix things. I'm glad your willing to risk other's lives for your cause celebre.

[Ellron]

CountryGuy wrote: Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: OK... I'm soulless for expecting US troops to be more than the worldwide police force. :roll:

Let me present another place where a "few thousand troops and some helicopters" got us into trouble: Somalia. I really don't care for a repeat of that debacle. You are incorrect on the needs for such a mission. Do you have any links from reputable sources stating that is all such a mission would require?

This needs to be a mission of all nations, and standing police forces are best suited for the UN. You may not care about it, but at the same time the US is NOT the UN, either.

I never said the US could / should not be part of that force, assisting with troops and/or supplies. But unilaterally entering this country would not help our position with other countries, would excaserbate the opinion of those who think we're trying to be imperialistic, and would further stretch our already taxed military.

Im not saying to invade the country.

Im saying send troops over to the area like the neighboring country Chad where the bands are going over the border to kill people over there.

Chad would probably be very happy to take in some of our troops.

But our country does s**t and just sits there, doesnt even talk about it. Sad.

Of course Chas would be happy -- Then it would be our troops in the crosshairs, not theirs. And sitting in Chad would do nothing for Darfur -- Isnt' that your focus?

How do we stop the violence without not only invading, but setting up shop in every major city and town to ensure peace ensues. Damn near impossible when most of the damage is being done by hundreds (thousands) of roving bands. Definitely impossible with only a "few thousand troops and some helicopters".

Our military is already taxed to the limit -- Where are the troops coming from? Should we have a draft for Darfur?

Let's say we find the troops, get the world's support, and enter. Say we get REALLY lucky and the bands stop fighting. Now what? When do we leave? What's keeping them from starting again when we do? What's keeping this from turning into the same guerilla-style warfare we see in Iraq?

You have a country you want us to enter that's not friendly to us, that hasn't asked for us, without international backing, with forces we don't have available, and without a plan to fix things. I'm glad your willing to risk other's lives for your cause celebre.

The bolded shows your ignorance of this topic.

The muslim militants are coming over the Chad border to kill the fleeing blacks.

Also the violoence is in the south where it is rural and not gigantic cities.

So it is completly different then IRaq militarily.

Also military helicopters vs people on camels is a huge advantage and we could wipe the floor with them.

We dont even try and supply the blacks who are fleeing to fight back or send military advisors to organize them.

All i want is some kind of positive respons to the issue from our country.

[CountryGuy]

Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

Of course Chas would be happy -- Then it would be our troops in the crosshairs, not theirs. And sitting in Chad would do nothing for Darfur -- Isnt' that your focus?

How do we stop the violence without not only invading, but setting up shop in every major city and town to ensure peace ensues. Damn near impossible when most of the damage is being done by hundreds (thousands) of roving bands. Definitely impossible with only a "few thousand troops and some helicopters".

Our military is already taxed to the limit -- Where are the troops coming from? Should we have a draft for Darfur?

Let's say we find the troops, get the world's support, and enter. Say we get REALLY lucky and the bands stop fighting. Now what? When do we leave? What's keeping them from starting again when we do? What's keeping this from turning into the same guerilla-style warfare we see in Iraq?

You have a country you want us to enter that's not friendly to us, that hasn't asked for us, without international backing, with forces we don't have available, and without a plan to fix things. I'm glad your willing to risk other's lives for your cause celebre.

The bolded shows your ignorance of this topic.

The muslim militants are coming over the Chad border to kill the fleeing blacks.

Also the violoence is in the south where it is rural and not gigantic cities.

So it is completly different then IRaq militarily.

Also military helicopters vs people on camels is a huge advantage and we could wipe the floor with them.

We dont even try and supply the blacks who are fleeing to fight back or send military advisors to organize them.

All i want is some kind of positive respons to the issue from our country.

What the heck are you talking about -- The bolded text has NOTHING to do with Iraq! It has to do with putting our soldiers out in the field to be targets for these rebel bands!

So the militants are coming across the border -- Do we have enough troops in your "few thousand and a few helicopters" to cover the entire border? Do we not chase them across the border, or is the border line "base" in some sort of sick game of tag?

Yes, helicopters are better than camels. But when your enemy can mix in with the civilian population, its not always the case. Its no longer the Revolutionary War where one side's troops line up against the other sides. Never mind what will happen the first time there are civilian casualties from friendly fire.

Military advisors are used to support organized militias and/or armies. They are not used to arm and train civilians fleeing carnage.

You're not even making sense. I appreciate you want to help them, but what you're asking and your reasons makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Ellron]

CountryGuy wrote: Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote:

Of course Chas would be happy -- Then it would be our troops in the crosshairs, not theirs. And sitting in Chad would do nothing for Darfur -- Isnt' that your focus?

How do we stop the violence without not only invading, but setting up shop in every major city and town to ensure peace ensues. Damn near impossible when most of the damage is being done by hundreds (thousands) of roving bands. Definitely impossible with only a "few thousand troops and some helicopters".

Our military is already taxed to the limit -- Where are the troops coming from? Should we have a draft for Darfur?

Let's say we find the troops, get the world's support, and enter. Say we get REALLY lucky and the bands stop fighting. Now what? When do we leave? What's keeping them from starting again when we do? What's keeping this from turning into the same guerilla-style warfare we see in Iraq?

You have a country you want us to enter that's not friendly to us, that hasn't asked for us, without international backing, with forces we don't have available, and without a plan to fix things. I'm glad your willing to risk other's lives for your cause celebre.

The bolded shows your ignorance of this topic.

The muslim militants are coming over the Chad border to kill the fleeing blacks.

Also the violoence is in the south where it is rural and not gigantic cities.

So it is completly different then IRaq militarily.

Also military helicopters vs people on camels is a huge advantage and we could wipe the floor with them.

We dont even try and supply the blacks who are fleeing to fight back or send military advisors to organize them.

All i want is some kind of positive respons to the issue from our country.

What the heck are you talking about -- The bolded text has NOTHING to do with Iraq! It has to do with putting our soldiers out in the field to be targets for these rebel bands!

Ya, your right it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with Darfur. You know the subject we are talking about?

So the militants are coming across the border -- Do we have enough troops in your "few thousand and a few helicopters" to cover the entire border? Do we not chase them across the border, or is the border line "base" in some sort of sick game of tag?

You dont have to cover the whole border. Just make an area where the blacks can go to be safe.

Yes, helicopters are better than camels. But when your enemy can mix in with the civilian population, its not always the case. Its no longer the Revolutionary War where one side's troops line up against the other sides. Never mind what will happen the first time there are civilian casualties from friendly fire.

Thats where your wrong. THEY CANT MIX WITH THE POPULATION. One population is black and the other Arab/muslim. The population is friendly as well since your protecting them. Thirdly the populations are small so intell would be easy to get with translators.

Military advisors are used to support organized militias and/or armies. They are not used to arm and train civilians fleeing carnage.

Arm and train civilians...umm sounds nothing like a militia..
Besides that your logic doesnt make sense. Since there even less defensless we shouldnt give them help. How does that make sense?
Few more years and the mistake of not intervening will be seen.

[CountryGuy]

Ellron wrote: Ya, your right it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with Darfur. You know the subject we are talking about?
Yes, I do know the subject. You do realize YOU are the one who brought up Iraq, right? You don't share your account, do you? Take a look back in the thread - maybe someone hacked your account. :wink:

Ellron wrote: You dont have to cover the whole border. Just make an area where the blacks can go to be safe.
Ahh. So any killings that were to occur anywhere else would be fair game, and we can sit on these camps and guard them forever! Excellent plan, with a clear exit strategy!

Ellron wrote: Thats where your wrong. THEY CANT MIX WITH THE POPULATION. One population is black and the other Arab/muslim. The population is friendly as well since your protecting them. Thirdly the populations are small so intell would be easy to get with translators.
Here's a picture from a news site of muslims from Darfur:

Psst: Muslims can be black, too.

Ellron wrote: Arm and train civilians...umm sounds nothing like a militia..
Besides that your logic doesnt make sense. Since there even less defensless we shouldnt give them help. How does that make sense?
Few more years and the mistake of not intervening will be seen.
I didn't say we shouldn't give them help. What I'm saying is that the leadership for the help needs to come from the international community (including the US), not just the US alone. You are setting us up for failure, as well as taking military resources we just don't have at the moment, unless part of a larger multinational force.[/img]

[Mr. Sunshine]

Revenant wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Be real. What is in it for us? Nothing.
~snip~ :lol:

And that is what's most important, right?
Getting something in return for altruistic behavior ?

We'll get our soldiers sent home in body bags and pour money into that wasteland with no return on the investment. That's what we'll get in return for our altrustic behavior.

Agree. At least when that occurs in Iraq, the trade off is beyond decimation in terrorists being sent to Paradise for their cause. 8:)

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Numb wrote: I'm not to educated on the darfur crisis.
Who is getting massacred?
Why?
Whats Darfur's government doing?
How is this any diffrent from Somalia?

http://www.savedarfur.org/content

http://www.aiddarfur.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

washingtonpost.com > World > Africa > Darfur Conflict

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htm

The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a government-supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. Note that both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. The conflict has been widely described as "ethnic cleansing", and frequently as "genocide". In September 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict's beginning, mostly by starvation; in October, its head gave an estimate of 71,000 deaths by starvation and disease alone between March and October 2004. While a recent British Parliamentary Report estimates that over 300,000 people have already died, the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have died in the 18 months of the conflict .
More than 1.8 million people had been displaced from their homes. 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. The refugees include non-Arab victims of non-Arabs, Arab victims of non-Arabs, and Arab victims of Arabs; however, the large majority are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Janjaweed attacks. The UN, prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, called the Darfur conflict the world's worst current humanitarian crisis.

http://darfur-conflict.iqnaut.net/

http://www.hrw.org/photos/2005/darfur/drawings/index.htm

[Stratrf_Rus]

The fact that cannot be overlooked is there are two distinct groups dividing the wolves from the sheep.

The Muslims are killing Christians. That is it. The Pope has a responsibility to call a Crusade, why he has not is only further evidence that the West has become incompetent in its own defence.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Stratrf_Rus wrote: The fact that cannot be overlooked is there are two distinct groups dividing the wolves from the sheep.

The Muslims are killing Christians. That is it. The Pope has a responsibility to call a Crusade, why he has not is only further evidence that the West has become incompetent in its own defence.

On Tuesday, the first day of his trip to Turkey, Benedict urged religious leaders of all faiths to "utterly refuse" to support any form of violence in the name of faith.
~snip~
The pope planned to travel later Wednesday to Istanbul to meet Bartholomew I, leader of the world's 300 million Orthodox Christians. The two major branches of Christianity represented by Bartholomew and Benedict split in 1054 over differences in opinion on the power of the papacy, and the two spiritual heads will meet in an attempt to breach the divide and reunite the churches.

~@~

He's a Uniter, not a Divider :wink:

[Ellron]

CountryGuy wrote: Ellron wrote: Ya, your right it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with Darfur. You know the subject we are talking about?
Yes, I do know the subject. You do realize YOU are the one who brought up Iraq, right? You don't share your account, do you? Take a look back in the thread - maybe someone hacked your account. :wink:

Otherr people brought it up. What i was talkign about for that section was Darfur

Ellron wrote: You dont have to cover the whole border. Just make an area where the blacks can go to be safe.
Ahh. So any killings that were to occur anywhere else would be fair game, and we can sit on these camps and guard them forever! Excellent plan, with a clear exit strategy!

Train a milita. Thats the exit strategy. Wouldnt take that many people either to stop them either. In Rwanda it was only 25,000 troops who stopped the genocide and they didnt have the best tanks and helicopters.

Ellron wrote: Thats where your wrong. THEY CANT MIX WITH THE POPULATION. One population is black and the other Arab/muslim. The population is friendly as well since your protecting them. Thirdly the populations are small so intell would be easy to get with translators.
Here's a picture from a news site of muslims from Darfur:

Psst: Muslims can be black, too.

Ya....I know... But there killing blacks...So your rebuttal brought you no where.

Ellron wrote: Arm and train civilians...umm sounds nothing like a militia..
Besides that your logic doesnt make sense. Since there even less defensless we shouldnt give them help. How does that make sense?
Few more years and the mistake of not intervening will be seen.
I didn't say we shouldn't give them help. What I'm saying is that the leadership for the help needs to come from the international community (including the US), not just the US alone. You are setting us up for failure, as well as taking military resources we just don't have at the moment, unless part of a larger multinational force.[/img]

The US could move troops out of South Korea but for some reason we have to keep gaurd of a country that could gaurd itself.

[Revenant]

Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Ellron wrote: Ya, your right it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with Darfur. You know the subject we are talking about?
Yes, I do know the subject. You do realize YOU are the one who brought up Iraq, right? You don't share your account, do you? Take a look back in the thread - maybe someone hacked your account. :wink:

Otherr people brought it up. What i was talkign about for that section was Darfur

Ellron wrote: You dont have to cover the whole border. Just make an area where the blacks can go to be safe.
Ahh. So any killings that were to occur anywhere else would be fair game, and we can sit on these camps and guard them forever! Excellent plan, with a clear exit strategy!

Train a milita. Thats the exit strategy. Wouldnt take that many people either to stop them either. In Rwanda it was only 25,000 troops who stopped the genocide and they didnt have the best tanks and helicopters.

Ellron wrote: Thats where your wrong. THEY CANT MIX WITH THE POPULATION. One population is black and the other Arab/muslim. The population is friendly as well since your protecting them. Thirdly the populations are small so intell would be easy to get with translators.
Here's a picture from a news site of muslims from Darfur:

Psst: Muslims can be black, too.

Ya....I know... But there killing blacks...So your rebuttal brought you no where.

Ellron wrote: Arm and train civilians...umm sounds nothing like a militia..
Besides that your logic doesnt make sense. Since there even less defensless we shouldnt give them help. How does that make sense?
Few more years and the mistake of not intervening will be seen.
I didn't say we shouldn't give them help. What I'm saying is that the leadership for the help needs to come from the international community (including the US), not just the US alone. You are setting us up for failure, as well as taking military resources we just don't have at the moment, unless part of a larger multinational force.[/img]

The US could move troops out of South Korea but for some reason we have to keep gaurd of a country that could gaurd itself.

Despite technological superiority the South Koreans would have a hell of a time holding back the North Koreans.

[CountryGuy]

Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: Ellron wrote: Ya, your right it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with Darfur. You know the subject we are talking about?
Yes, I do know the subject. You do realize YOU are the one who brought up Iraq, right? You don't share your account, do you? Take a look back in the thread - maybe someone hacked your account. :wink:

Otherr people brought it up. What i was talkign about for that section was Darfur

Ellron wrote: You dont have to cover the whole border. Just make an area where the blacks can go to be safe.
Ahh. So any killings that were to occur anywhere else would be fair game, and we can sit on these camps and guard them forever! Excellent plan, with a clear exit strategy!

Train a milita. Thats the exit strategy. Wouldnt take that many people either to stop them either. In Rwanda it was only 25,000 troops who stopped the genocide and they didnt have the best tanks and helicopters.

Ellron wrote: Thats where your wrong. THEY CANT MIX WITH THE POPULATION. One population is black and the other Arab/muslim. The population is friendly as well since your protecting them. Thirdly the populations are small so intell would be easy to get with translators.
Here's a picture from a news site of muslims from Darfur:

Psst: Muslims can be black, too.

Ya....I know... But there killing blacks...So your rebuttal brought you no where.

Ellron wrote: Arm and train civilians...umm sounds nothing like a militia..
Besides that your logic doesnt make sense. Since there even less defensless we shouldnt give them help. How does that make sense?
Few more years and the mistake of not intervening will be seen.
I didn't say we shouldn't give them help. What I'm saying is that the leadership for the help needs to come from the international community (including the US), not just the US alone. You are setting us up for failure, as well as taking military resources we just don't have at the moment, unless part of a larger multinational force.[/img]

The US could move troops out of South Korea but for some reason we have to keep gaurd of a country that could gaurd itself.

Ellron, I swear you're two different people posting at different times. You're utterly forgetting what you post.

YOU told me to look at my bolded text, stating this was not about Iraq -- Even though the bolded text had NOTHING about Iraq.

YOU are the one who said its easy to identify the civilians from the killers, as the killers are muslim, the civilians black. THEY ARE ALL BLACK (primarily). I was pointing out the flaw in your logic - so the rebuttal did go somewhere (unless you have something to back up your assumtion that the Muslims in Darfur will stick out compared to the rest of the populace).

Training a militia is not some easy or assured solution. And more often than not, it can backfire (al Qaeda / Afghanistan miltias / El Salvadoran guerillas come to mind).

Were you ever in the military, Ellron? I have yet to even hear a single strategy that would make sense, other than to placate your bleeding heart. Our troops didn't volunteer to reduce your feelings of guilt.

And I have yet to hear from you what reason the US would have to act unilaterally, outside of a neutral body like the UN (which was created for exactly such a crisis).

[Moracca]

No way. Don't go into Sudan. Its no more winable than Iraq. All that would happen would be that the Janjaweed would start to do suicide bombings and kill more black Sundanese and because we were there we would be blamed for it all. Not to mention the fact that we've already been declared a loser by some in Sudan just because we haven't sent in our military. After the 50th ceremonial soldier died and an Apache was shot down the leftists and the media would declare a "quagmire". No thanks.

[Ellron]

Quote: [quote="CountryGuy"]

Ellron, I swear you're two different people posting at different times. You're utterly forgetting what you post.

YOU told me to look at my bolded text, stating this was not about Iraq -- Even though the bolded text had NOTHING about Iraq.

You brought up Iraq first in the talk between us.

"What's keeping this from turning into the same guerilla-style warfare we see in Iraq?"

Take a look again.....But it doesnt really matter since Iraq can be used as an example of gurilla warfare but then i showed the differences.





Quote:
YOU are the one who said its easy to identify the civilians from the killers, as the killers are muslim, the civilians black. THEY ARE ALL BLACK (primarily). I was pointing out the flaw in your logic - so the rebuttal did go somewhere (unless you have something to back up your assumtion that the Muslims in Darfur will stick out compared to the rest of the populace).

The blacks are really black and the Janjaweed have a range of color but i guess they could fit in if they changed there dress. Jangaweed usually have a head scarf. Besides that they would also need to infilitrate a community that is friendly to us.
Quote:
Training a militia is not some easy or assured solution. And more often than not, it can backfire (al Qaeda / Afghanistan miltias / El Salvadoran guerillas come to mind).

Al' Qaeda and Afghanistan militas are pretty much the same thing in relation to the US.. Heres some good ones. Greece during the cold war, our revolution with the French training us, and the Chinese during WW2. All these helped us out.

Quote:
Were you ever in the military, Ellron? I have yet to even hear a single strategy that would make sense, other than to placate your bleeding heart. Our troops didn't volunteer to reduce your feelings of guilt.
:lol: .. In no way do i feel guilty... Americas military is suited for this terrain, situation, and friendly populace. Apparently im the only one to see it and the mistake of not doing s**t will be seen in a few years.


Quote: And I have yet to hear from you what reason the US would have to act unilaterally, outside of a neutral body like the UN (which was created for exactly such a crisis).

O plz... The UN cant do anything with China in the way plus they dont have the man power.

[Mr. Sunshine]

The bottom line is Al Qaeda is relocating into Africa again after the pressure they have received. Better there than in the Persian Gulf; less resources at risk and as a lawless wasteland better rules of engagement can be applied. All in the plan. BTW, there is no such thing as innocent people, only defenseless ones. The defenseless ones in the WTC will be avenged by their country. Perhaps that should be the global standard. Defend your own. :lol:

[Angelicus]

Ellron wrote: CountryGuy wrote: OK... I'm soulless for expecting US troops to be more than the worldwide police force. :roll:

Let me present another place where a "few thousand troops and some helicopters" got us into trouble: Somalia. I really don't care for a repeat of that debacle. You are incorrect on the needs for such a mission. Do you have any links from reputable sources stating that is all such a mission would require?

This needs to be a mission of all nations, and standing police forces are best suited for the UN. You may not care about it, but at the same time the US is NOT the UN, either.

I never said the US could / should not be part of that force, assisting with troops and/or supplies. But unilaterally entering this country would not help our position with other countries, would excaserbate the opinion of those who think we're trying to be imperialistic, and would further stretch our already taxed military.

Im not saying to invade the country.

Im saying send troops over to the area like the neighboring country Chad where the bands are going over the border to kill people over there.

Chad would probably be very happy to take in some of our troops.

But our country does s**t and just sits there, doesnt even talk about it. Sad.

Yes we do infact talk about whats going on in Darfur.

1) Our Congress has passed resolutions condemning and calling whats going on in Darfur a genocide.

Infact, our government has done so, while the vaunted U.N. and Amnesty International still refuses to do so.

Infact it appears that the United States Government was one of, if not the very first government, too condemn whats going on there as a genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_the_Darfur_conflict#Declarations_of_Genocide

2) As for doing nothing:

"In 2005, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) introduced the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which calls on the United States to take a more active role in stopping the alleged genocide, encourages NATO participation, and endorses a Chapter VII mandate for a UN mission in Darfur. The bill was passed by the House and Senate and as of August 2006 is in conference committee."

This bill also authorizes sanctions.

These kinds of Acts etc.....being passed by the Congress are the first steps our Government always takes before getting us involved somewhere.

Oh and by the way, anyone notice that the Representative and Senator proposing this law were big bad meany hatemongering Republicans?

:lol: