CSMonitor: France may block NATO efforts in Darfur

Man, that is sweeeet.

 

The problem with the English elections is that the main opposition party supported the war too - though the war opponents (Lib Dems) have undoubtedly been bolstered at the polls. But anyway that is a very shallow picture of the British elections - the theme of which this year is apparently apathy, as far as I could tell last month when I spent some time over there.

Anyway, I believe you are claiming that my position is that the US is similarly culpable for not acting unilaterally in the Sudan (i think it was a typo).

That is not my positionl. I am not assessing culpability or casting moral aspersion - I did not say there was a duty to act at all - I merely said that blaming France or liberal basketball BBS posting as "the reason" why we can't do anything is a sham, which it obviously is.

Again, I don't think unilaterality per se is wrong though in general it tends to have higher costs, which tend to outweigh the benefits of any outcome - however if there was a unilateral action that offered higher benefits than costs, then I'm all for it.

 

If that is happening then it is probably exploitative and wrong. (though I must admit it was artful when they embarrassed the US over its stance on the Int'l Crim Court a few months back w/regard to the trial of Sudanese war crimes)

 

What? I challenge you find ONE thread where you've quoted from this report and I've been involved, much less unable to answer, lol.

Uh, there's so much wrong with this that its pretty much irrelevant. First, its old and doesn't incorporate ANY of the changes in Iraq since December 2003! Second, its a general indictment of the War on Terror, not of the intervention in Iraq. You can throw a cite up if you want to back up an argument, but you need to make an argument first. If you have one, then make it and I'll respond.

As predicted you fail miserably at your assigned task. Which conflict have we missed out on, Sam? Please elaborate. Which war are we not currently in that you'd like us to be involved in? You don't have any consensus of ACTUAL impact. If we needed to engage in another major regional conflict, we would be hindered in that operation. Absent another major regional conflict - there is NO impact to that hinderance. In addition, if there had been no intervention in Iraq, you and others argue we would have been more fully engaged in Afghanistan which would have had the same effect on our ability to fight two simultaneous wars. That makes any impact you MIGHT be able to assign to the intervention in Iraq non unique (meaning it would happen anyway regardless of the intervention in Iraq). The 2MRC problem is not new, as its been whitepapered to death since the early 90s and then consensus has always been that the US could indeed engage in multiple MRCs and any force limitations could be dealt with by fighting with a Win-Hold-Win strategy (win one while holding the other then winning the other).

Dick.

 

We probably have more in common that we thought.

 

The first Gulf War was when the whole 2MRC debate started. The Cold War ended, Bush Sr started talking about the 'peace dividend' and downsizing (closing bases, reducing active divisions etc) from their high point in the Reagan Administration. As I mentioned above, the conclusion was that in the worst case we would fight to win one MRC while holding one or more other conflicts and that we would be able to accomplish that. It was a big deal when the Pentagon first came out and said we'd have to go from Win-Win to Win-Hold-Win.

Rather than exchange childish banter with our meglomanical friend I just decide to cut to the chase.

 

In '91 that wasn't a full scale invasion and occupation. Can you understand the difference between short term assignment of troops, and long term occupation?

 

Since the JS Mill comment, I have held no preconceived notions.

What is being lost in this b****fest, though, is that the West should be doing something in Africa.

 

True.

 

poor hayes, flummoxed by the concept of opportunity cost, inter alia (that is a latin phrase, roughly meaning among other things)

you lady's private part.

 

It did, it was a devious can-can

 

What? You've already failed to point out what opportunity was lost, lol. Among other points. But keep your mouth running - someone might be listening.

 

La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la I don't read the papers la-la-la-la

Iran rejects efforts to halt nuclear program

North Korea Capable of Putting Nuclear Warheds on Missiles

etc
etc
etc

la-la-la-la-la

 

And they're just massed at the border, waiting to go in, right? No problems at the rear now that we put some aluminum siding on that humvee bumper....