Chilly Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Save Darfur Yeah, after all, only some places (Iraq) deserve our help, and others don't (Darfur). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 The current DoD estimate. Actually, I'm not even quoting it...their projections are worse than what I posted. I low-balled the estimate. One word: Rwanda. Here's three more for you: "genocide-like activities". The Democratic platform on genocide is: pretend it doesn't exist. If you can't, make sure it's someone else's problem. And here's another good word that's a perfect example of this: Darfur. No one cared, until a Republican was in the White House and the Democrats could play the "somebody else's problem" card. Not that the Republican track record is much better...but it is, through the simple realization that millions will die in a genocidal pogrom in Iraq if we arbitrarily pull up stakes. The Democrats, true to their Clintonian roots, simply don't give a sh--. Yeah, the Republicans created one in Iraq. You weren't here to note that I never supported this stupid, unwarranted act of naked aggression against a foreign nation anyway. But how in the hell is the answer to simply unass the area and leave it a complete and utter mess? Again...typical Democratic foreign policy response: make it somebody else's problem. Who cares that we'll kill forty times more Iraqis by such an irresponsible act than we already have by our previous irresponsible acts. The Iraqis biggest misfortune was being invaded by a completely irrational country. Of course, by definition, no rational country would have invaded them to begin with... Take your partisan blinders off for two seconds, will you? Claiming the Replicans "care" more about slaughters overseas is beyond simplistic and stupid. What has Bush done over Sudan? Didlly squat! The only reason Bush and his mindless legions care about Iraq is because it is an embarassment to them. They don't want to "lose" the "war" there. That's it. Bush is still talking about "winning," whatever that means. His only concern now is to dump this on the next President. Kosvo was a real attempt to stop a bloodbath and it was largely opposed by the GOP. Inspite of that it worked with few casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Yeah, after all, only some places (Iraq) deserve our help, and others don't (Darfur). And conversely the crowd that cries "no blood for oil" are the same ones crying "save darfur" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Take your partisan blinders off for two seconds, will you? Claiming the Replicans "care" more about slaughters overseas is beyond simplistic and stupid. What has Bush done over Sudan? Didlly squat! The only reason Bush and his mindless legions care about Iraq is because it is an embarassment to them. They don't want to "lose" the "war" there. That's it. Bush is still talking about "winning," whatever that means. His only concern now is to dump this on the next President. Kosvo was a real attempt to stop a bloodbath and it was largely opposed by the GOP. Inspite of that it worked with few casualties. And of course it took six YEARS for the Clinton administration to even formulate a policy for the Balkans beyond "It's Europe's problem, not ours". You'd have been better off pointing out that the US contingent to Kosovo was a small part of a coalition, which is the one thing the Clinton administration did right in the whole mess, and the one thing the Bush administration should have done in Iraq (the laughable "Coalition of the Willing" notwithstanding). And that itself is above and beyond the fact that, whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 And conversely the crowd that cries "no blood for oil" are the same ones crying "save darfur" lol yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world. You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 And conversely the crowd that cries "no blood for oil" are the same ones crying "save darfur" So, the people against wars of naked aggression are the same ones who want help in stopping a genocide that is preventable. Ya, that makes sense. What's your problem there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 And of course it took six YEARS for the Clinton administration to even formulate a policy for the Balkans beyond "It's Europe's problem, not ours". You'd have been better off pointing out that the US contingent to Kosovo was a small part of a coalition, which is the one thing the Clinton administration did right in the whole mess, and the one thing the Bush administration should have done in Iraq (the laughable "Coalition of the Willing" notwithstanding). And that itself is above and beyond the fact that, whereas we didn't create the mess in the Balkans, we sure as hell have in Iraq...so sure, let's go ahead and exacerbate it by doing the absolute worst possible thing that will ensure that a maximum number of Iraqis die in both the short- and long-term. What do you people think that's going to do for American foreign policy? For perceptions of American leadership and motives in the world? Do you really think the entire Middle East and Islamic world is going to say "Oh, thank you for leaving Iraq a singular mess and killing millions of Iraqis..." That'll really improve relations with the Islamic world. The Iraqis want us to leave. The American people want us to leave. Its real easy "saving" the world by declaring we need to send the troops back to that sh-- hole for their fourth and fifth deployments while the rest of us sit around and argue, but that's not really reasonable. Maybe if Bush would reach out to his base and ask them to join in in the hundreds of thousands to go over there and serve, it might be worth it, but he won't. Send recruiters to College Republicans, Conservative Evangelical Churches, Anti-Gay and Anti-Abortion organizations and see who is in. The Dems have reasonable set a 17 month goal for this disaster to end. That's well over a year. Another year of our troops deployed while every else sits around picking their asses. If the Iraqis are not will ing to form an army, a police force and a security appartus, then its not our problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now. Where do you people get this logic from? We're responsible for making a mess of Iraq, our foreign perception is horrible...so if we just up and leave Iraq to total and murderous anarchy it'll be both an improvement for Iraq and our international perception? Yeah, I can just see the international community now..."Well, we hated the fact that you invaded Iraq, but now that you're taking absolutely no responsibility for your actions...good job! " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The Iraqis want us to leave. The American people want us to leave. Its real easy "saving" the world by declaring we need to send the troops back to that sh-- hole for their fourth and fifth deployments while the rest of us sit around and argue, but that's not really reasonable. Maybe if Bush would reach out to his base and ask them to join in in the hundreds of thousands to go over there and serve, it might be worth it, but he won't. Send recruiters to College Republicans, Conservative Evangelical Churches, Anti-Gay and Anti-Abortion organizations and see who is in. The Dems have reasonable set a 17 month goal for this disaster to end. That's well over a year. Another year of our troops deployed while every else sits around picking their asses. If the Iraqis are not will ing to form an army, a police force and a security appartus, then its not our problem. No, the Dems have set a 17-month goal for the occupation to end. The disaster will not only continue, but get even worse. The Democrats aren't ending anything, they're just washing the country's hands of the immediate problem and insuring that it'll have to be dealt with by someone else's administration a decade down the line. How in the hell do you think ending the occupation ends the war? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The most significant thing this bill will do is send a message to the people we're fighting that "look, we have a new general and we're in the early stages of a new plan with the surge but just hang in there another year and a half and we're leaving. Don't take us seriously." This is one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by the Neocon crowd. There is no new plan. There is no plan for short, or even long-term success. Bush's surge isn't a new plan and it hasn't worked the last several times it's been tried. It's more of the same crap--more of the same rhetoric and lies being spewed by this administration to cover up for the fact that they have no idea how to solve the mess they've gotten this country and the military into. If their only answer to any and all questions is "Give us more time, give us more money, give us more troops, asking why gives comfort to the enemy" then one can only come to the conclusion that they have no idea what to do. Do you think that 17 months from now, after having given them more money, resources and time, that there will be anything of significance to point to and call "success" using even the most minimal of levels? The answer is a resounding "no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Unitl someone in power figures out how to get the U.S. out without giving the Al Queda supporters free reign, I don't see how the U.S. can leave. I would be very interested in hearing (reading) how you would get us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future. (Seriously.) I think the phased withdrawl plan is the best scenario for leaving. Despite what Cheney and the GOP will have you believe, the Dem plan is giving Bush more money in this bill than he asked for. The US military isn't pulling up stakes on a friday and the country won't be empty by Sunday afternoon. There would be specific benchmarks, measurable goals, however you want to term them, for the Iraqis to achieve. It is their country afterall, is it not (at least that's what Bush/Cheney are telling them)? If the goals aren't met and the Iraqis show the same lack of urgency they've shown in getting their crap together after the past four years, then the US troops mediating (caught in, really) the Iraqi Civil War start to come home even sooner. And even after all that, there will still be a US presence advising them wrt training and setting up their own forces. As for "get[ting] us out of this situation without creating additional problems in the future", that's an incredibly unrealistic goal to think that a considerably longer (and larger) US military presence in Iraq will be a long-term benefit to that region at all. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the region is any more stable with the US bogged down over there than if the US was using diplomacy and the help of any number of the more benign countries over there. All of those countries have a vested interest in achieving some level of Mid East stability. The region is not going to descend into chaos simply because the US occupation of Iraq ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 How in the hell do you think ending the occupation ends the war? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? Which war would that be? The US-Iraq war was over within a few months, and Saddam has been tried and executed. The US isn't fighting a war in Iraq. The US is bogged down while being caught in the Iraqi's civil war. Ending the US occupation of Iraq just ends the US military involvement in the Iraq Civil War. It does not end US involvement in an advisory role in helping whatever legitimate Iraqi central govenment that emerges. It also doesn't end the US diplomatic involvement in the entire region. In fact, removing the US military from being the de facto target for any and all wrath and blame for the region could only help wrt image and diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 This is one of the biggest lies being perpetrated by the Neocon crowd. There is no new plan. There is no plan for short, or even long-term success. Bush's surge isn't a new plan and it hasn't worked the last several times it's been tried. It's more of the same crap--more of the same rhetoric and lies being spewed by this administration to cover up for the fact that they have no idea how to solve the mess they've gotten this country and the military into.There is a new plan. It is not Bush's plan. It was formulated by General Petraeus and he's over there implementing it now as the top commander. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate for the job after explaining his plan in Senate hearings. And the bottom line, as Tom points out, is that whether we leave today, in a month, or in 17 months, if we don't leave before the region is stabilized things will be about ten times worse in the long run. Leaving for the sake of leaving is not a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The problem there is, it was Republicans who freeked out over it. Right wing radio was going nuts over that deal. The Dems did egg it on a bit, but only to divide the GOP. Still not good, but still mostly a Republican thing I didn't know that Schumer & Menendez were GOP. Learn something new every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 No, the Dems have set a 17-month goal for the occupation to end. The disaster will not only continue, but get even worse. The Democrats aren't ending anything, they're just washing the country's hands of the immediate problem and insuring that it'll have to be dealt with by someone else's administration a decade down the line. How in the hell do you think ending the occupation ends the war? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? After 17 months some units will be getting ready for their 5th tour of duty in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to make war on one another, if they won't stand up and defend their own government, then its not our problem. We gave it a good try, I guess. 17 months should be enough added time for them to at least get an army together, if they can't do it after 6 years, they never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Which war would that be? The US-Iraq war was over within a few months... In other words..."Mission Accomplished"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 There is a new plan. It is not Bush's plan. It was formulated by General Petraeus and he's over there implementing it now as the top commander. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate for the job after explaining his plan in Senate hearings. And the bottom line, as Tom points out, is that whether we leave today, in a month, or in 17 months, if we don't leave before the region is stabilized things will be about ten times worse in the long run. Leaving for the sake of leaving is not a solution. Never mind that whatever neocons are left in the administration, they don't have much of a voice these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Where do you people get this logic from? We're responsible for making a mess of Iraq, our foreign perception is horrible...so if we just up and leave Iraq to total and murderous anarchy it'll be both an improvement for Iraq and our international perception? Yeah, I can just see the international community now..."Well, we hated the fact that you invaded Iraq, but now that you're taking absolutely no responsibility for your actions...good job! " If we left Iraq things might actually improve there. With so many Iraqis killing other Iraqis for associating with Americans it is a factor in the violence. Not saying the violence would end, but it might lesson. Those Iraqis fighting us might turn to solving their own problems. It is no doubt a fact that our presence there is a divisive influence. All I'm saying is that us leaving does not automatically have to be a disaster for Iraqis, might be a good thing, which would explain why most Iraqis want us out of there. Staying there just means more of the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 The region is not going to descend into chaos simply because the US occupation of Iraq ends. Things would most likely improve if we left. Reformers would agin have a voice and not be labled and pro-Bush scum and traitors. The disasterous invasion has helped the dictators in that region a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts