Genocide isn't enough of a reason to stay

[imported_Shivetya]

Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now?where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife?which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.



Sorry, you lose.

I guess that was Bill's justification for Africa? Genocide is probably the best reason to stay.

To leave knowing we can have that result is unsupportable.

 

[Harvey]

The Iraqis are already killing each other, and nothing we can do is going to change that. If you believe so much in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES or the "surge," show us by signing up to put your own body on the line in Iraq before you advocate squandering the lives of other Americans.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrt genocide, Shivetya offers this-

To leave knowing we can have that result is unsupportable.

Just as staying knowing we can have that result is equally unsupportable.

The whole line of reasoning is a non sequiter based on conjecture, designed to deceive and to obfuscate.

What ever happened to all of the rightwing raving about how we're not the world's policeman so very popular during the Clinton years?

Yeh, "9/11 changed everything!" How lame. The Iraqis had nothing to do with it.

The sad truth is that American policy has promoted sectarian schism in Iraq ever since the end of the first gulf war, and now arms all the factions against each other, even left ams depots unguarded and tossed open the borders so that foreign gulf state radicals could have better access...

The possibility of genocide is no accident, it now exists as a means to justify our continued presence, further intensifying the possibility.... It's a self fulfilling prophesy, courtesy of the Neocon faction of the Repub party...

 

[ProfJohn]

Is this the same Obama who called for a UN or NATO led force in Darfur?

WaPo article by Obama and Brownback

More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force. The African Union has begun discussions with the United Nations about folding itself into a follow-on U.N. mission, but because of the West's reluctance to offend African sensibilities, all parties seem resigned to muddling along. It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it.

More directly from Obama

"Next, the United States should support the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militia, protect civilians and facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. Thus far, the African Union has offered 3,000 troops and the United Kingdom has indicated that they would offer some troops. However, international pressure is required for the Sudan regime to accept an international peacekeeping force. The U.S. must ensure humanitarian intervention with or without Sudanese government permission. And, we should urge European governments who are not willing to send troops to Iraq to take on this mission.

Why is the genocide in Darfur worth sending a force into, but the one in Iraq is not?
Could this just be politics?

I am sure that once we pull out and thousands of Sunnis are killed the American left will demand that we get involved again.

 

[ProfJohn]

Jhhnn?. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq TODAY?

Has Al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror?

Would leaving Iraq allow Al Qaeda to declare victory?

What is going on in Iraq today is about the future, not about Saddam and WMD and 9-11.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The US should stay as long as there is a need, that will be a decade or two or maybe even three, the death number usually thin down as decades go buy.

No use putting UN soldiers at risk when it's the US that made a fundamental mess of everything they ever tried to do in the region.

 

[Hacp]

We should be sending troops to darfur also.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Jhhnn?. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq TODAY?

Has Al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror?

Would leaving Iraq allow Al Qaeda to declare victory?

What is going on in Iraq today is about the future, not about Saddam and WMD and 9-11.

1. a fraction of them are there, most of them are in Pakistan
2. probably not but you should still stay, you shit on the floor you fix your mess.
3. it probably won't matter much since the US forces don't interfere in domestic battles but only in battles where they are involved right now.

You know absolutely nothing about Iraq at this point and few do.

The insurgency is left unchecked as long as there are no attacks at a few key sites or against american soldiers, the random attacks aren't even investigate anymore, we all know who commits them.

Now go get your duct tape becausue the US is getting ready for some more fear.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Jhhnn?. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq TODAY?

Has Al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror?

Would leaving Iraq allow Al Qaeda to declare victory?

What is going on in Iraq today is about the future, not about Saddam and WMD and 9-11.

Yes, of course alQ is in Iraq today, at the invitation of the Bush Admin. It's the old saw about fighting them over there rather than over here- as if we had some right to push this shitstorm off onto the Iraqis...

Yes, they've declared it the central front in the WoT, again by invitation from the Bushistas...

Declare victory if we leave? Only very briefly. Iraqis tolerate them only because they oppose us, the enemy of my enemy being my friend, and all that... Once the enemy is gone, the need for the allies disappears too... they'll be lucky to escape back to KSA and other sponsor states with their lives.

What is going on in Iraq today is about trying to suck on the treasury as long as possible while attempting to save face, avoid the disaster made inevitable by the unjustified invasion in the first place and the failed policies that followed it. Basically, the Admin is attempting to justify staying for whatever reason they can sell, not because they actually have any... or would reveal them if they do...

Our presence and policy serves only to incite violence, not to quell it... And quite clearly, there are elements within the Admin who seek to use that violence as justification for military action against Iraq's neighbors... another part of that self fulfilling prophecy...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Jhhnn?. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq TODAY?

Has Al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror?

Would leaving Iraq allow Al Qaeda to declare victory?

What is going on in Iraq today is about the future, not about Saddam and WMD and 9-11.

Yes, of course alQ is in Iraq today, at the invitation of the Bush Admin. It's the old saw about fighting them over there rather than over here- as if we had some right to push this shitstorm off onto the Iraqis...

Yes, they've declared it the central front in the WoT, again by invitation from the Bushistas...

Declare victory if we leave? Only very briefly. Iraqis tolerate them only because they oppose us, the enemy of my enemy being my friend, and all that... Once the enemy is gone, the need for the allies disappears too... they'll be lucky to escape back to KSA and other sponsor states with their lives.

What is going on in Iraq today is about trying to suck on the treasury as long as possible while attempting to save face, avoid the disaster made inevitable by the unjustified invasion in the first place and the failed policies that followed it. Basically, the Admin is attempting to justify staying for whatever reason they can sell, not because they actually have any... or would reveal them if they do...

Our presence and policy serves only to incite violence, not to quell it... And quite clearly, there are elements within the Admin who seek to use that violence as justification for military action against Iraq's neighbors... another part of that self fulfilling prophecy...

The US can leave when it's peaceful, until then, you get to stay in the fucking mess you created, tell me one good reason why the international community should fix your fucking mess and i'll agree that is the right thing to do.

It needs to be fixed and as soon as the US starts playing chicken shit morons who don't have the guts to fix the mess they created someone else has to step in and prevent a genocide.

Nope, you stay and fix the mess you made and even if it takes three decades.

Besides, you and the other countries that got loans that never need to be repaid are the ones profiteering from the war, you don't seriously think anyone else is going to step in and fix your mess for you, do you?

 

[slash196]

As usual, you missed the point of the remarks. He was saying that to claim avoidance of genocide as a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq, in light of our non-interference in other, actual genocides, is politically-motivated hypocrisy, and he's 100 percent right.

Ah, the power of context.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: slash196
As usual, you missed the point of the remarks. He was saying that to claim avoidance of genocide as a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq, in light of our non-interference in other, actual genocides, is politically-motivated hypocrisy, and he's 100 percent right.

Ah, the power of context.

There was an imminent genocide when you invaded? No? there would be one if yyou left? Yeah.

You stay until you fix what you fucking broke, end of story.

 

[CanOWorms]

The Europeans would not allow actions to stop the genocides that they started.

 

[Jhhnn]

I certainly haven't advocated anybody else stepping in, JoS.

As for the rest of it, perhaps you'd advocate rapists sticking around until they can "fix" their victims...

The proposition is equally absurd as the proposition that we can somehow "fix" Iraq. Only the Iraqis can accomplish that, and our ongoing presence merely makes that less likely... Indeed, it seems to me that's what the Bushistas have successfully set out to prevent entirely, at least so far...

Failure to recognize that is failure to properly identify the nature of the problem, rendering corrective action impossible- precisely what the Neocons want.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: slash196
As usual, you missed the point of the remarks. He was saying that to claim avoidance of genocide as a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq, in light of our non-interference in other, actual genocides, is politically-motivated hypocrisy, and he's 100 percent right.

Ah, the power of context.

There was an imminent genocide when you invaded? No? there would be one if yyou left? Yeah.

You stay until you fix what you fucking broke, end of story.

Be ready to send your kids over, and theirs, and theirs.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: slash196
As usual, you missed the point of the remarks. He was saying that to claim avoidance of genocide as a rationale for keeping troops in Iraq, in light of our non-interference in other, actual genocides, is politically-motivated hypocrisy, and he's 100 percent right.

Ah, the power of context.

There was an imminent genocide when you invaded? No? there would be one if yyou left? Yeah.

You stay until you fix what you fucking broke, end of story.

Nah, we accomplished our objective and destroyed all their WMD's. Mission Accomplished, time to gring the troops home.

 

[Strk]

I can't really think of many cases where it has been the reason for military action, only a nice bonus. I'd say maybe one of the wars between India and Pakistan -- with India intervening in Bangladesh.

 

[bamacre]

I think the main reason why people support us leaving Iraq as soon as possible is because those keeping them there are making the wrong decisions in regards to strategy.

Damnit, if you are going to do it, please, do it right. Or don't stay. Its that simple. The current administration has listened to the wrong people, time and time again, and our soldiers, and the taxpayers, are paying for it.

From what I have read, the only strategy that has actually worked in Iraq was downplayed by the Bush administration, because that strategy called for many more troops in Iraq. I know it sounds hypocritical to say, but either bring them all home, or send in enough to get the job done correctly. Doing a half-ass job is not an answer, and its the only thing this administration has done, and its the only thing it seems willing to do. That is not good for our soldiers, not good for Iraqi's, and not good for America.

 

[Alistar7]

Genocide was stopped by removing Saddam, it had been in progress for decades.

The US can leave when it's peaceful, until then, you get to stay in the fucking mess you created, tell me one good reason why the international community should fix your fucking mess and i'll agree that is the right thing to do.

Because you ignorant bastards let him continue committing atrocities under the protection of the UN security council and corrupted sanctions. You didn't give a shit about the 10-15k Iraqis dying EVERY MONTH as long as the money kept flowing into your pockets. You don't even care abou them now, unlike your pre war stated concerns.

The international community helped create this problem, contributed far more than the US. Your governments lied to you about why they supported sanctions and how it was "morally unjust" to the Iraqi people to allow Saddam to be toppled and you actually bought that bullshit lol.


Yes, of course alQ is in Iraq today, at the invitation of the Bush Admin.

My bad I thought Powell informed the morally bankrupt international community a certain AQ operative was already in Iraq setting up networks. You remember the beheading master or do you choose to forget he was already there? Saddam was a terrorist as well.

Personally can't stand Bush think he has done a horrible job at almost everything, especially devising a realistic plan of action for rebuilding Iraq. He did however do the right thing in removing Saddam, while the rest of the world was more than happy to let him continue his reign of terror and brutal oppression.

You sheep are so blinded by your personal opinions of Bush and your politcal leanings that you cannot even separate fact from fiction anymore. Worse yet, you revise history and completely ignore the facts that clearly prove your positions are illogical.

 

[StageLeft]

Let's be honest. We, as a society, don't give much of a damn about genocide. There's no overwhelmnig movement to get into Sudan and start really wholloping some ass. There wasn't much of a fever for Rawanda. There are always plenty of nations that could do with our (the West's) help and we never give it our all. Send a few troops with UN hats who have almost no operational power (such as only defend themselves and aren't allowed to otherwise engage in combat). Frankly, if there is no economical or strategic benefit to us, we just don't step in. Why didn't we go into Afghanistan before 9/11? I remember reading before then about how much the Taliban sucked, but we didn't care. We didn't care about Sierra Leone a few years back. We just don't care, so stop pretending we do. It's easy to plead for somebody else to do something, but what are YOU doing? Are you writing amnesty international? Making a website decrying this stuff? Sending money to help? Walking in front of embassies with signposts? You're not doing jack besides whining about it on AT.

 

[Alistar7]

I care about it and think we should use our forces to help end genocide wherever/whenever it occurs. We have a moral obligation to do so IMO. Nothing short of that will end it, certainly not writing a letter to AI or making a website lol.

Most Americans feel pretty strongly about individual rights and liberties for everyone, it is our belief those are inalienable rights. I agree that without political or economic incentive our government is not likely to take action, but that is not a reflection on what we as a society believe.

Willing to bet a clear majority of Americans feel they are overtaxed and would like to see our government reduce that burden. That does not mean it will happen.......

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I care about it and think we should use our forces to help end genocide wherever/whenever it occurs. Nothing short of that will end it IMO, certainly not writing a letter to AI or making a website lol.

Genocide is no worse than homocide. Why don't we get back into Somalia? I bet it would actually be easier to get on its feet than Iraq. Its half-assed government has the support of one of the region's strongest militaries next door, its people sure don't like the anarchy in control of most of the nation and since there is no economica or strategic benefit, maybe many other countries could be drummed up to support the effort.

 

[Phokus]

Topic Title: Genocide isn't enough of a reason to stay
Topic Summary: What a wonderful thing to say

That's about the first topic title you've ever posted that is 100% correct, shivetya.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Alistar7
I care about it and think we should use our forces to help end genocide wherever/whenever it occurs. Nothing short of that will end it IMO, certainly not writing a letter to AI or making a website lol.

Genocide is no worse than homocide. Why don't we get back into Somalia? I bet it would actually be easier to get on its feet than Iraq. Its half-assed government has the support of one of the region's strongest militaries next door, its people sure don't like the anarchy in control of most of the nation and since there is no economica or strategic benefit, maybe many other countries could be drummed up to support the effort.

There is a huge difference between the two, I cannot believe you would actually make that statement. Homicide is generally an act by an individual, usually not condoned by the ruling authority in a civilized society. Genocide is a systematic and widespread action generally undertaken or condoned BY the ruling authority. Homicide generally leaves an avenue for justice to be administered on the perpetrator whereas genocide does not.

We never left Somalia, maybe officially, but never completely. We very well might go back in under official guise, but sadly only because it is becoming once again a safe haven for the bad guys.

The majority of people in Iraq didn't like the rule they lived under for decades either, even though it was not anarchy. I would suggest their situation was worse with an organized government that had the ability to control their ability to take action.

What is most disturbing is that "civilized" governments will turn a blind eye towards genocide when it is in their financial interests. Their lack of desire to act without the prospect of gain is troubling, but that is still far worse.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
There is a huge difference between the two, I cannot believe you would actually make that statement. Homicide is generally an act by an individual, usually not condoned by the ruling authority in a civilized society. Genocide is a systematic and widespread action generally undertaken or condoned BY the ruling authority. Homicide generally leaves an avenue for justice to be administered on the perpetrator whereas genocide does not.

Oh, who really cares. The end result for the person dead is that they died. I doubt many of them care whether they died in a gas chamber for being a jew or some rebels came along and hacked their family up after raping their wife, just as a gay being beaten to death because of his sexuality is no more of a tragedy than a non-gay being beaten to death because he had $30 on him and somebody needed the money.

What is most disturbing is that "civilized" governments will turn a blind eye towards genocide when it is in their financial interests. Their lack of desire to act without the prospect of gain is troubling, but that is still far worse.

It is bad, but I don't think their people really care. Most of us are oblivious to how lucky we really are to live where we do, quite well insulated from how others a continent away live. If there was a much interest domestically in Darfur as there is in Iraq, the US would have a presence there and be making a difference. I remember well when Milosevic was taken down and the people rose up. That was a good point in history and they can happen. The US and allies did well to pummel him in 1999.