Texxx, I asked you a question which you conveniently didn't answer. I am trying to understand why you would bother to ask for supporting data on a common sense issue. The question (again): Would you support military action, if we had the resource capacity, in Africa?
Despite the hurtful words you provided me on an unsolicited basis, I will repond to your question. Please refrain from the insults in the future, though. Let's keep the D&D civil please. What's happening in Africa right now is truly tragic. As a compassionate individual, my heart goes out to those who are suffering there. If force could solve the problem there, I absolutely would be in favor of its use as a last resort.
I did not call you any names. You must have me confused with somebody else. But I'm sorry that I jumped in on this thread "unsolicited." I didn't know I needed an invitation to respond to an Internet BBS thread. Many have argued that our invasion of Iraq diverted our attention in Afghanistan. We have yet to find Bin Laden. The region now supplies major percentages of the world's opium and American officials are concerned that they are dangerously close to falling into a narcatic state much like Columbia (cocaine) in the 80's. Had we continued to focus on Afghanistan, we certainly would have had more resources to address these problems. So now I'm hearing that you are in favor of initiating another military campaign on another continent despite that we have not ended conflict in either Afghanistan or Iraq? You said, yes, "as a last resort." Pardon my skeptisicm but the standard of starting a war "as a last resort" has been contraversial, to say the least. So if an Iraq war supporter uses that phrase, it doesn't hold much weight with me. I'm assuming you support this war? Therefore, the question of # of troops, is virtually irrelevant, in this debate. A country as a whole should only engage in one war at a time. So the fact remains, America has limited capacity to engage in another military conflict at this point in time.
argued incorrectly, it must be added. and no once suggesting starting a war. in fact, i'm suggesting sending in EU,AU, whateverU troops as a buffer, supported by US air cover. think Bosnia. shouldn't be a need for heavy equipment and so little need for america logistical support. this is doable, it just requires the political will. i was surprised at the lack of interest here from the left, but sam has eloquently explained in the venezuelan thread that thuggery and murder just aren't of interest to him and his.
Whatever. Anyone who believes that Iraq did not divert our attention from our needs in Afghanistan including capturing Bin Laden simply is not looking at reality. And the political capital, which this administration wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq. You have a monstrously bad case of selective perception.
prove me wrong. where's the outcry over darfur on the left? has dean addressed it since becoming DNC chair? where's nancy reid and harry pelosi? kerry? n'existe pas...
I don't really care, those aren't people who represent my point of view. Darfur is a horrible situation, to be sure, but honestly what can we do? It's not like Condoleeza Rice is going to sway a lot of people in the EU, John Bolton doesn't have any credibility at the UN, and Africa is outside of NATO's theatre. We certainly SHOULD be the leader of the world and we should definitely lead the world to action in this instance, but GWB decided that Iraq was more important. It is truly sad that the people in Darfur are going to suffer because our President spent all of his political capital on a totally unnecessary war, but that is the situation we now find ourselves in.
basso, the eloquence was all yours. Your very own insults hung you in that other thread and showed, pretty conclusively, that you put politics over principles when it comes to criticizing electoral practices. Embarrassing, I guess, which is why you had to start taking shots at me in this one. Anyway, I suppose you are accusing me of wish/thought crime again for not sufficiently expressing horror about Darfurian Genocide? OK, I don't recall ever trying to marginalize the tragedy, and I think if you search I've probably posted before that we should do something. But anyway, if I haven't or if I have and you didn't see it, I hereby express shock and horror, and call for intervention from the international community, even those disgusting Europeans. Let me know what the proper condemantory terms are and I will repost them. Let me know how many times I need to re-post that before you deem it sufficient. You know, as long as we are brainstorming and indicting congressional leaders, I've got a plan that could spur them into action - why don't we take a bunch of Darfurians who are in Persistent Vegetative States and then threaten to withdraw their ANH tubes? I figure that's the way to capture the real power brokers, you know, your Frists, your Hasterts, your DeLays - they might even call a midnight session of congress or something. I've had it with those feckless (as compared to feckful sorts like yourself and W) democratic b****es and their inactivity on this issue.
Well well, lookie here. All this took was to google "Howard Dean Darfur". I guess that is too much to do when you are a busy little bee demonstrating your moral superiority on a basketball message board. Does he get absolved basso? Is this a sufficient show in your book? Or is he still a wish-criminal? And since this is in August, is it too long ago to count? Edit: two down .
I'm glad that leaders on the left, plus Howard Dean(who is more moderate than left leaning) have spoken out strongly on the Darfur issue. That is the kind of thing that could make me join and actively participate in the Democratic party again.
thank basso for shaming me/them for inventing a time machine and retroactively doing it, lest I face another one of his vicious tongue lashings. Edit: another walk down memory lane, basso aligns himself with Moveon.org on Darfur genocide, circa June 2004 http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77738&highlight=janjaweed
I find it entertaining that you are arguing with me whether it is arguable that the Iraq war diverted attention. Actually BigTexxx said he was in favor of using force...(as a last resort) aka starting a war. [Please note I was previously directing my comments to him...not you...which is fine...just providing context] Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner. This country has expended it's politial will to fight for causes overseas...for now. As much as I would like to assist those people, I don't think America has the swagger to impart anything on this conflict. And that right there is the shame in starting the Iraqi war in the first place. I hate it but that is the reality. "him and his", huh? That sounds about right. As long as black people are killing themselves, America won't intervene. If those were white people (as you said Basso, think Bosnia), then we'd probably be all over it.
given that we essentially bankroll the egyptian army shouldn't we force them to help out? now im not sure about the sentiments of the sudanese about this but since they are there, fairly modern and well equipped, and the fact that we pay them why can't we pressure them?
I was wondering why you cared so much about Darfur. I forgot that you're black. Nice job throwing out the race card, buddy. Really uncalled for, especially without any kind of justification supporting your outlandish statements.
Does that include Tommy Franks? http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/o...=dfe849b12233309f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland -- War of Words By TOMMY FRANKS President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history. On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality. First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp. Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels. Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts. As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains. Afghanistan has held the first free elections in its history. Iraq is led by a free government made up of its own citizens. By the end of this year, NATO and American forces will have trained 125,000 Iraqis to enforce the law, fight insurgents and secure the borders. This is in addition to the great humanitarian progress already achieved in Iraq. Many hurdles remain, of course. But the gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work. Today we are asking our servicemen and women to do more, in more places, than we have in decades. They deserve honest, consistent, no-spin leadership that respects them, their families and their sacrifices. The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.
if you'll reference the beginning of the thread, you'll see i've not failed to criticize republicans on this issue. the responsibility on the right rests w/ Bush, although i certainly wish congress would do something. pelosi-reid-dean are the de facto dem leaders now, they should be out in front on this issue. i note your google finds, but it's old news. Powell called Dafur "genocide" 6 months ago. what's happened since, except that more people have died? my calling out the dems here is simply because i'm puzzled. here's a zero risk opportunity to score points against W, and they've proved as feckless as he has. i don't get it. i can only suppose that they only care about killing brown people when repubicans start a pre-emptive war. otherwise, they hide their lights under a bush-el...
Why were we in Kosovo but not Dafur? Sorry if you don't like to hear about race related issues...but please provide me another explaination and I'd be glad to consider it. I'm not saying this is the ONLY reason but I think you'll have a hard time convincing most reasonable people that race doesn't play a role. The ONLY reason we are in Afganastan is because they attacked us. The ONLY reason we are in Iraq is for national interests (ahem...oil)
