Clooney, Brownback, Obama and Osama call for Sudan intervention

Uh, ok. So you claim I think unilateral military intervention is the solution to all these foreign policy problems, I point out many instances where I don't - and I have no credibility in saying that? That's silly. I'm on record as saying as much but you just don't believe me? I guess you watched that Colbert speech and are forming your opinions based on your 'gut,' no matter what reality is.

His words speak for themselves. You may hold him in high esteem, that is ok. That doesn't make his opinion any more valid than someone else's. And that's being generous to someone that's abandoned scholarship for blogdom conspiracy theories, and who scholarship was in 18th century history not modern middle eastern affairs.

Right, right. I forgot. You aren't actually saying anything yourself, just presenting food for thought. Sorry I forgot about that.

Well, again you're entitled to your opinion. There is no reasonable indication of this opinion, and more relevant there is no indication that the current push by people like Obama, Clooney, and Brownback are doing so. Hence your response is at best irrelevant.

Hayesstreet: People are calling for intervention in Sudan.
Creepy: Cole says the neocons and zionists are misleading people.
Hayesstreet: Obama, Clooney and Brownback aren't zionists or neocons.
Creepy: I didn't say they were zionists or neocons.
Hayesstreet: Then it doesn't seem relevant.

I'm sorry, I was pretty sure Cole insinuatedthat the current push to intervene in Sudan was from neocons and zionists. But then again maybe you're right. Maybe Cole's rant is completely irrelevant to the original post about Obama, Clooney, and Brownback. I stand corrected, lol.

Again these generalizations are too sweeping, useless, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Deckard was right to point out that the existence of a crisis in another place doesn't invalidate the need for help somewhere else. That coalitions like the one mentioned at the beginning of the thread are calling for intervention in Sudan punches a big hole in your theory. Its not only christian fundamentalists and zionists calling for the intervention, nor is it only an American call to action. But as Cole believes the 'Jews' control the US government, maybe he thinks the 'Jews' control other governments, the UN, and NGOs calling for intervention there as well. I'll admit using rhetoric like 'neocon right wing zionist conspiracy' is fun like 'yankeeimperialistdog' is fun, but that's about the extent of its value.

 

Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. I haven't ever said I was for attacking Iran. I'd prefer constructive engagement with Iran as I do with Cuba, the Central Asian regimes and others. So much for your charges of warmonger-er-ing, lol.

That does bring up and interesting point though. I assume we won't see you referring to the intervention in Iraq as unilateral anymore since you've drawn a distinguishing line between unilateral and what's happening there.

 

Your position is that I'm a militarist and warmonger. If I believe that military intervention is one possible avenue of resolving a crisis, that does not make me a militarist or a warmonger - yet you continue to assert such. Can you invent a scenario in which I might support military intervention, probably. Does that make me a militarist or warmonger - no and its ridiculous to assert such a thing. The very fact that I prefer constructive engagement with Iran precludes you accurately casting me as a warmonger. But way to totally derail the thread and distract us from the article you posted that you don't agree with, lol.

btw - what is togo?

 

Dude, you're laughable. Why don't you give us your definition of militarist and warmonger? I listed plenty of conflicts where military intervention is not my choice. How many places have you named where I favored it? As I said before, since I'm an advocate for contructive engagement with Iran, not military intervention - your rhetorical labelling is just silly. In the end it doesn't bother me that a draft dodging utopian such as yourself resents those who support some interventions but it does bother me that you lash out with inappropriate labels in a weak attempt at argumentation. But that's ok because no one expects you to actually defend your position on Sudan, or rather the position of the libertarian you cited whose philosophy is almost completely unlike your own, lol.

 

I am, thanks. Note: I guess this is another example of you 'just dealing in the facts, not attacking other people.' But then you've got glynch and Juan Cole to hang with, so don't fret.

 

No weasling involved, I just am anticipating you claiming whatever my answer is constitutes warmongering - regardless of what the term means. I don't think I would support unilateral US military strikes or invasion of Iran. Fair enough? If a multilateral body such as the UN decided to take action I would probably consider it.

Lol, nice try amigo. The world isn't divided into just 'peaceniks' and 'warmongers.' However, holding that intervention is one option to consider does not make someone a warmonger.

Peacekeepers? Military intervention (gasp)...you warmonger! In a perfect world the UN would substantially increase its presence in Sudan to stop the current crisis. I would prefer that the EU and countries like China and Russia step up to augment to AU force already there. Then we can just avoid the controversy you feel surrounds US intervention.

I agree that the preferred action would be international peacekeepers. Although I agree with some parts of the neoconservative ideology, its untrue to suggest my own views are identical. It would be akin to saying neither you nor bin laden supported US intervention in Afghanistan, therefore your views are identical to bin laden's.

Well, this edit is actually a good example of where I diverge from the prevalent neoconservatism. If I was in power I would substantially strengthen our involvement in the UN. Thanks for providing a good example. As it stands there will be times when the UN is not suited to act, either from political paralysis (like in Bosnia) or for other reasons - and in those cases I don't rule out unilateral action. Your simplistic solution doesn't address many of those instances (I understand that you don't really comprehend how the UN works). But overall I support the UN and most other multilateral bodies.

Now, I've answered your question. You can return the courtesy:

So tell us exactly which of Raimondo's points you agree with and which you don't.

Tell us whether this is a vast neocon conspiracy or a left wing hollywood do gooder conspiracy.

Tell us how Clooney, Obama, and Brownback trying to get support for Sudan is muslim bashing.

 

Fair enough.

So the UN is an 'anti-Arab' type? You can't mean the neoconservatives - it was, after all, the neoconservatives that favored saving Bosnian Muslims (not Arabs but you've been using Muslim and Arab interchangably) from the Serbs - and there was no oil in Bosnia.

That isn't an explanation of why this is muslim bashing, which was your original assertion at the beginning of the thread.

Thank you for answering the questions though.