NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a lot of reasons being offered in popular discourse regarding
America’s unwillingness to become engaged in Darfur. Some people argue the United States is not interested because there is no oil. This is wrong. Sudan does have oil, which it uses to purchase Russian weapons to continue its activities. Some say race is involved, that American society
is blatantly racist. This is sort of true; America does have problems with
racial issues. However, this tendency would be countered acted by our
strong evangelic community, because Darfur and those being oppressed and
the victims of the genocide are Christian.

No, the real reason we don't intervene is avoidance of flak. Seriously,
the following is what would happen. After an announcement by Bush that US
special forces and the 82 Airborne were going into secure Darfur, the
global left would go ballistic. Using dubious history and logic, they will
argue some of the following. First, that the United States is merely
trying to seize Darfur oil, ignoring the massive public outcry for
intervention.

Then, the leftists will use arguments like, America has no right to judge
because they killed their native population. Seriously, this was used to
denounce US intervention to save the Bosnians Kosovar Albanians from
genocide. This is a silly argument. Taken to its logical extremes, no
nation would be able to intervene in any humanitarian crisis because they
all have some bad event in their past.

Then after US forces arrive and engage the Sudanese forces in combat to
protect the people of Darfur the whining will escalate. If any civilians
are caught in the crossfire, the US will be accused of genocide, which
probably will occur just because we engaged the Sudanese forces. Or the US
will be attacked for trying to establish its colonial empire, despite the
fact the United States never had colonies in Africa, and in fact was
responsible for maintaining the independence of Liberia from the
Europeans. But Leftists have no need for facts, they confuse the issue.
Finally, leftists will reimage the Sudanese forces that days prior had been
raping thugs into brave resistance fighters sticking it to whitey.

So, rather than deal with all this, the US says screw it, let the
Europeans deal with it. After all, we get nothing out of deal, other than
grief and flak. But the Europeans can't. If any of you looked at Bosnia,
that is how Darfur would be after European intervention, which people being
massacre will European politicians try to define themselves out of a
problem. Notice how when the US intervene things got done. US air force
pilots engaged the Bosnian Serb air force once, and they were never seen
again. The Europeans tried for years to enforce and no-fly zone, but
nothing happen till the Americans arrived on scene. Once the US decided
the war had drag on for too long, it ended it. First by strengthening the
Croatians to smash the Krajina Serbs and then by allowing the Bosnians to
arm themselves, which allowed them to fight the HVO and the VRS, who they
beat, the later with US air power providing an assist. It took 3 weeks
from start of the air war to end of the Bosnian war. Thanks to America,
which is why they love the US.

Leftists of the world United and save Darfur yourselves.:sniper:

History Guy
http://history-guy.blogspot.com

Editor's Note- I accidently posted this in the wrong section earlier and told to post it here. I apologized for my confusion.

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue as to what leftists think about Darfur.

he's got a pretty good idea of what they think of the US .

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue as to what leftists think about Darfur.

Such a compelling argument, you totally convinced me. I am most impressed with your total lack of evidence.

Utter nonsense. You have absolutely no clue as to what leftists think about Darfur.
Utter nonsense? I think the guy is completely right about how people around the world would view U.S. intervention, though I don't agree with whom he targets.

he's got a pretty good idea of what they think of the US .

Justifiably. The US, like every other major power in the history of the human species, is an imperialist power, and this needs to be taken into account when considering its actions.

Such a compelling argument, you totally convinced me. I am most impressed with your total lack of evidence.

Straw men are straw men. Your entire post is based on one; I need not counter your argument because your premise is fallacious. You really need to learn a few things about the Left:

1. Just because you think they think something doesn't mean you know what you are talking about.
2. It is not monolithic.
3. Significant sections of at least the liberal left have been active in supporting greater aid to the people of Darfur.

And the notion that leftists have much to do with what the US does in its foreign policy is a questionable one.

Edit: And the victims of the genocide, like the perpentrators, are Muslims, not Christians.

Leftists of the world United and save Darfur yourselves.:sniper:


A wonderful example of how not to make a point.

Or the US will be attacked for trying to establish its colonial empire, despite the
fact the United States never had colonies in Africa, and in fact was
responsible for maintaining the independence of Liberia from the
Europeans. But Leftists have no need for facts, they confuse the issue.
Finally, leftists will reimage the Sudanese forces that days prior had been
raping thugs into brave resistance fighters sticking it to whitey.

History Guy
http://history-guy.blogspot.com


um, i thought the us created liberia in the midst of the european empires, displacing large numbers of indigenous people, as a home for ex-slaves who did not wish to remain in the us, thereby creating a lot of ethnic tensions in the area between the recently freed slaves who were given power and the indigenous groups who found themselves subjugated in their own land.

i think everone is aware how fucked up the sudanese state's forces are. it would just end up being another case of "told you so" when sudanese forces go underground and start sniping and bombing us forces til they get out. like iraq, which is the parrallel i assume you were trying to draw. ver few people actually support the fundamentalist ideology of the insurgents in iraq but few leftists would deny that their actions are the natural response to what has happened to this country.

your using someone's blog for your source!?! that's just begging for a flaming.

"Leftist" band Aus Rotten wrote songs in favour of intervention in Kosovo.

"Leftist" me is in favour of preventing genocide. I'd much rather the shrub invaded Sudan then Iraq. At least Operation Sudan Freedom might of reduced the rate of people dying.

Edit: And the victims of the genocide, like the perpentrators, are Muslims, not Christians.
Actually, the vast majority are christian. But really it's more racial oriented than religion, I'll give you that.

your using someone's blog for your source!?! that's just begging for a flaming.

Actually, I didn't source the blog. I just whore it out for attention.

Justifiably. The US, like every other major power in the history of the human species, is an imperialist power, and this needs to be taken into account when considering its actions.

Really...and just who did the " Imperialist" US ..ummm Imperialize ???????

Japan ?

Germany ?...maybe mexico ? or Canada....South korea ??? iraq ?? Vietnam ??

Ummm Granada maybe ?


What country besides the US do we claim as our own ???

lets see what wiki says ....

See also colonialism

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining and dominating over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire. The "Age of Imperialism" usually refers to the New Imperialism period starting from 1860s, when major European states started colonizing the other continents.

Imperialism was initially coined in the mid to late 1800s [1] to identify empire-like behavior; being that empires such as the British Empire existed at that time, the notion was more concrete. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin showed how capitalism necessarily induced imperialism in order to find new markets and resources. This theory of necessary expansion of capitalism outside the boundaries of nation-states was also shared by Rosa Luxemburg and then by liberal philosopher Hannah Arendt [1].

Since then, however, 'imperialism' has been extended by Marxist scholars to be a synonym of capitalistic international trade and banking [2].

Insofar as 'imperialism' in the non-Marxist sense might be used to refer to an intellectual position, it would imply the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, probably combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power (see The White Man's Burden).

Imperialism draws heavy criticism on the grounds that historically it has been frequently employed for economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor, shaping their economies to suit its own interests, and keeping their people in poverty. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest, it is also seen as a violation of freedom and human rights.

In recent years, there has also been a trend to criticize imperialism not at an economic or political level, but at a simply cultural level, particularly the widespread global influence of American culture - see cultural imperialism. Some dispute this extension, however, on the grounds that it is highly subjective (to differentiate between mutual interaction and undue influence) and also applied selectively (hamburgers being imperialist and black tea not).


I like my burgers from the grill.

Actually, the vast majority are christian. But really it's more racial oriented than religion, I'll give you that.

In Darfur? Southern Sudan is a different story, I'm talking about Darfur. Both populations are Muslim. The distinction made, with only partial accuracy, tends to be Arab versus non-Arab.

Although the Darfur conflict has also been framed as a battle between Arabs and black Africans, the vast majority of people in Darfur are black and Muslim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

"Leftist" band Aus Rotten wrote songs in favour of intervention in Kosovo.

That's all well and good. However they are unimportant as sources of thought to leftists as compared to say, Chomsky and Zinn, who opposed Kosovo. Check out Tariq Ali's anthology on the Kosovo campaign and see where most prominent leftists felt on the issue.

Darfur can burn for all I care. Good thing I'm not a leftist.:rolleyes:

Really...and just who did the " Imperialist" US ..ummm Imperialize ???????

Pretty much all of Latin America, most of the Middle East, much of Central and Southeast Asia.... The US has messed with almost all of the countries on the planet, some times more egregiously than other times.

"Leftist" band Aus Rotten wrote songs in favour of intervention in Kosovo.

"Leftist" me is in favour of preventing genocide. I'd much rather the shrub invaded Sudan then Iraq. At least Operation Sudan Freedom might of reduced the rate of people dying.


yep getting rid of Saddam didnt reduce the death rate in iraq.....

Of course, the easiest way to stop the genocide would be to arm the africans and neutralize the air superiority given to the Janjaweed by the idiots in Khartoum. And by neutralize I mean blow the shit out of. Also send a bunch of people over there to teach them basic marksmanship and gun safety. They'd tear the shit out of the Janjaweed that's there.

If America were to engage in Darfur the leftwoulld simply call them imperialist bastards after control.

If America does not engage then America will be labeled heartless imperialist bastards who are only after monetary gain.

As far as international opinion goes it is a lose/lose proposition.

The best that can be hoped for is if America sinks more money into relief effort.

Then America will be labelled imperialist bastards that should certainly have done something earlier.

Pretty much no matter what the US does it will get bad foreign press. Bowing to the whims of any editorial staff whose jobs are held by being politically correct and slamming ANY U.S. policy is folly.

Pretty much all of Latin America, most of the Middle East, much of Central and Southeast Asia.... The US has messed with almost all of the countries on the planet, some times more egregiously than other times.

If thats how you feel than I can just imagine what you must think of the old Soviet Union ..or much of Europe... period...for that matter .

The US would never had to get involved ANYWHERE if it wasnt for good old Europe , Killing each other and enslaving the rest of the world....ask the Chinese how they feel about the opium war..why dont you . Hehehehe your a funny guy .

the bad old US ...go over get your people killed and buried then give the country back to the people who killed you after you rebuild it.

Funny type of imperialism...but what would I know ...ask someone from India what an Imperialist is or someone from Poland...they may help you get a clue .

That's all well and good. However they are unimportant as sources of thought to leftists as compared to say, Chomsky and Zinn, who opposed Kosovo. Check out Tariq Ali's anthology on the Kosovo campaign and see where most prominent leftists felt on the issue.

See, now this would have been an actual argument. If only you had put it in your original post.

I've read much of what both Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky had to say about Kosovo. Neither make Milosevic out to be a hero. Both make the simple point that if the US were really interested in humanitarianism it would not have the blatant double standard it has, and that as such, we must see the Kosovo conflict as what it was - an excuse for a superpower to flex its muscle, and not a sincere attempt to help the people of Kosovo.

why does the US have to be the one to fix every goddamn problem in the world? it's bad enough when our leaders go on tyrades like bush did in iraq. we're not the fucking world police. we're up to our eyeballs in debt, we have 12 million illegal immigrants that think they have the right to trash our country, we have a president that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground, we have a ton of old people who are about to brankrupt our social security, and we have fossil fuel crisis we need to begin solving. go ask someone else to babysit sudan.

If thats how you feel than I can just imagine what you must think of the old Soviet Union ..or much of Europe... period...for that matter .

The US would never had to get involved ANYWHERE if it wasnt for good old Europe , Killing each other and enslaving the rest of the world....ask the Chinese how they feel about the opium war..why dont you . Hehehehe your a funny guy .

As I said, the US is not alone in being an imperialist power. Actually paying attention to what I say might help next time.

the bad old US ...go over get your people killed and buried then give the country back to the people who killed you after you rebuild it.

Funny type of imperialism...but what would I know ...ask someone from India what an Imperialist is or someone from Poland...they may help you get a clue .

Yes, we have been very adamant about permitting the people of Latin America to control their own countries.:rolleyes:

yep getting rid of Saddam didnt reduce the death rate in iraq.....

Actually the war in Iraq has greatly increased the rate at which people die in Iraq. With Saddam there wasn't a.. oh what's it called... civil war going on?

Saddam was a monster, that is indisputable. However he wasn't killing hundreds of people daily. That said, yes the US invasion has increased the death rate in Iraq.

Actually the war in Iraq has greatly increased the rate at which people die in Iraq. With Saddam there wasn't a.. oh what's it called... civil war going on?

Saddam was a monster, that is indisputable. However he wasn't killing hundreds of people daily. That said, yes the US invasion has increased the death rate in Iraq.


Civil war ?? What civil war ?? Call me when it starts . and the only one s going around iraq killing a hundred a day are former saddam loyalist or others who are out of power and the radical Muslim extremist who just like killing everyone until they get a turn to be in charge ..and you occasional mad as Iraqi who cant stand having Americans in his country...but he usually shoots at them ...the rest is just different nuts shooting each other when they are not blowing up civilians in line for water or jobs . al queda in Iraq..they like to target Mosques with plenty of women and children in them ...you remember thhem right ? The guys who WANT the CIVIL WAR you are going on about..the rest of the iraqis while they dodge bombs and bullets just dont want to cooperate..they keep voting and forming coalitions to govern and stay together as a nation while a bunch of bubble head idiots insist they must be having a civil war or are about to someday maybe....it must be true because its on TV .

Go read about Dafur ..Kosovo...britain ..the United States..and a million other places that actually did have a civil war . call me when the Iraq one starts..it should be any day now .

No, the real reason we don't intervene is avoidance of flak. I thought it was because Sudan doesn't want (military) western interference, and rather has the African Union dealing with the problem.

I do enjoy the European = Leftist though.

Let us see...

Europe by Government
France = Centre Right
Britain = Centrist (probably more right than left these days)
Germany = Centrist Coalition, but the Right has chosen the Chancellor and has more steam right now.
Spain = Centre-Left
Italy = Centre-Left (used to be pretty far right until a few weeks ago)
Denmark = Right
Poland = Right
Switzerland = Centre Right
Austria = Pretty damn far right

And so on and so forth.

As for Darfur...if the US government really wanted to get directly involved, they wouldn't care about the voices of the "leftist" phantom. As it is, they are quite happy to do the same as everyone else, and let the UN drown the issue in bureaucracy.

Such a compelling argument, you totally convinced me. I am most impressed with your total lack of evidence.

That's funny. You spout a lot of wank about what you think people who don't think like you think, and what you think might happen, and then, when someone pulls you up on it, you accuse them of having a "lack of evidence". I think you need to stick your head back into your orifice.

Algoli, statements such as "Leftists have no need for facts" are ad hominem statements which do nothing but detract from your argument. Please consider that "Leftists" (however one goes about defining that) are no more monolithic than any other arbitrary grouping of people, and likewise no more or less irrational than any other arbitrary grouping of people.

There is no cause so just that one cannot find a fool following it; I'd like to remind everyone that one should not judge any cause by it's lowest common denominator, or by it's lunatic fringe.

Ultimately, you need to refrain from such ad hominem attacks. Posting your opinion on political situations is fine; posting your opinion in such a way as to construe attacks upon other persons is not fine, and may result in more serious action if the situation continues.

Sincerely,

~ Tsar the Mod.

P.S. Kradlumania, that statement about ad hominem attacks applies to everyone, yourself included. You may disagree with the original poster; you may not flame him.

Leftists of the world United and save Darfur yourselves.:sniper:

History Guy
http://history-guy.blogspot.com


Not that one exception to your generalisations would necessarily defeat your argument, I'm a "leftist," in that I'm for egalitarianism balanced with social responsibility for the good of the larger society, but I don't subscribe to your interpretation of the Darfur situation. Nor, I'm sure, do *many, many* more. I would support intervention in Darfur because genocide is abhorrent (a view I sould hope is shared by everyone regardless of political inclination), so long as whatever country undertook such an intervention did it in a thoughful way. I think your problem isn't with "leftists" so much as it is with indiscriminate relativists and people who reactively hate the United States for anything and everything it does. But those do not describe all-- or even most-- of those who would describe themselves as "leftist."

I do enjoy the European = Leftist though.

Let us see...

Europe by Government
France = Centre Right
Britain = Centrist (probably more right than left these days)
Germany = Centrist Coalition, but the Right has chosen the Chancellor and has more steam right now.
Spain = Centre-Left
Italy = Centre-Left (used to be pretty far right until a few weeks ago)
Denmark = Right
Poland = Right
Switzerland = Centre Right
Austria = Pretty damn far right

You have to consider that the Democrats in Europe would be a right party, and the Republicans probably even far right. I have come to believe that most US-Americans have never even seen a leftist :rolleyes:

You have to consider that the Democrats in Europe would be a right party, and the Republicans probably even far right. Democrats in Europe, would probably fall apart in several parties, some of which left, some centrist, some right. And Rebublican would be centrist, right and far right. That's what you get with a two-party system, it has to be a viable goverment coalition on its own. It's just factions doomed to be together.

Civil war ?? What civil war ?? Call me when it starts .
*Calls Ultraextreme Sanity*

Hello? Hello? Hi, yeah. That whole civil war thing started a few months ago- you must have been asleep....


and the only one s going around iraq killing a hundred a day are former saddam loyalist or others who are out of power
Proof?

and the radical Muslim extremist who just like killing everyone until they get a turn to be in charge ..and you occasional mad as Iraqi who cant stand having Americans in his country...but he usually shoots at them ...the rest is just different nuts shooting each other when they are not blowing up civilians in line for water or jobs
blah blah blah. Sift through that and I see "Iraqis killing Iraqis"

al queda in Iraq..they like to target Mosques with plenty of women and children in them ...you remember thhem right ? The guys who WANT the CIVIL WAR you are going on about..the rest of the iraqis while they dodge bombs and bullets just dont want to cooperate.
Em.. ok. I'll try and find your point for you *grabs magnifying glass*


.they keep voting and forming coalitions to govern and stay together as a nation
And doing a stonking great ol' job too. How many Prime Ministers have there been now?
And voting a democracy does not make.

while a bunch of bubble head idiots insist they must be having a civil war or are about to someday maybe....it must be true because its on TV .

No child. The statistics speak for themselves. When the daily death count of US/Coalition soldiers began to drop and the daily death count of civilians began to rise sharply, now in the hundred or so a day, that would definitely be considered a civil war.
What is your definition of one?


Go read about Dafur ..Kosovo...britain ..the United States..and a million other places that actually did have a civil war . call me when the Iraq one starts..it should be any day now .

Darfur is merely genocide. Kosovo did not have a civil war- it was a province fighting for independence from Yugoslavia.

Britain and the United States?! Good god. You know that the methods of civil war have evolved since the 17th and 19th centuries right? No more pitched battles or large scale engagements.

Go back to school.

This is an invalid assessment considering everyone on the left is complaining about Darfur...

Civil war ?? What civil war ?? Call me when it starts . and the only one s going around iraq killing a hundred a day are former saddam loyalist or others who are out of power and the radical Muslim extremist who just like killing everyone until they get a turn to be in charge ..and you occasional mad as Iraqi who cant stand having Americans in his country...but he usually shoots at them ...the rest is just different nuts shooting each other when they are not blowing up civilians in line for water or jobs . al queda in Iraq..they like to target Mosques with plenty of women and children in them ...you remember thhem right ? The guys who WANT the CIVIL WAR you are going on about..the rest of the iraqis while they dodge bombs and bullets just dont want to cooperate..they keep voting and forming coalitions to govern and stay together as a nation while a bunch of bubble head idiots insist they must be having a civil war or are about to someday maybe....it must be true because its on TV .

Go read about Dafur ..Kosovo...britain ..the United States..and a million other places that actually did have a civil war . call me when the Iraq one starts..it should be any day now .

Mmm. I love talking points.

What would you prefer to call the situation in Iraq? An insignificant gang war? A neighbourhood spat? Perhaps a cat-fight?

...different nuts shooting each other when they are not blowing up civilians in line for water or jobs .

That sounds like a pretty good description of civil war in the middle east. The majority of people in any war situation aren't fighting, they're civilians who still need to make a living.

*Calls Ultraextreme Sanity*

Hello? Hello? Hi, yeah. That whole civil war thing started a few months ago- you must have been asleep....


Proof?


blah blah blah. Sift through that and I see "Iraqis killing Iraqis"


Em.. ok. I'll try and find your point for you *grabs magnifying glass*


And doing a stonking great ol' job too. How many Prime Ministers have there been now?
And voting a democracy does not make.



No child. The statistics speak for themselves. When the daily death count of US/Coalition soldiers began to drop and the daily death count of civilians began to rise sharply, now in the hundred or so a day, that would definitely be considered a civil war.
What is your definition of one?



Darfur is merely genocide. Kosovo did not have a civil war- it was a province fighting for independence from Yugoslavia.

Britain and the United States?! Good god. You know that the methods of civil war have evolved since the 17th and 19th centuries right? No more pitched battles or large scale engagements.

Go back to school.


I see ...a person who see's a civil war that does not exist is telling me to go back to school ?


I guess if you keep telling yourself something exist it does. Iraq , despite all the crap that is going on is slowly and surely working its way towards a viable Democracy in their own way and style .
When a REAL civil war.. ( you know the type where factions with leaders form and claim to have a purpose ..like being a seperate state or just being the guys in charge ..or just killing everyone who is not them ) starts in Iraq
I think you will be aware of it .

I think its too late for you to go to school . Things evolved ....thats rich ..but the definition of a civil war did not nor did the actions needed in your brain to determine that organised party's or militia have formed to remove the present government and are supported by a large majority of the PEOPLE.

I do not see that revenge killings and deliberate attempts to foment hatred between the factions and reliogions constitute a civil war .

So lesse now Iraq ....... Population: 26,074,906


How many of these 26 million went and voted... 68 % ? or so ....
The most optimistic estimates of the total amount of looney toons -nut jobs- freedom fighters-militant islamic lesbian penguins and al queda types is about what say ....20,000 ...in the whole friggin country . Even if ten times that number support them ...who is the leadership and what do they hope to accomplish with their "CIVIL " war ....wher's the army / militia / anti - government rebel forces ? Under a bed ? hidden under stealth capes ?

US combat troops along with other coalition forces number LESS than 150,000

So tell me how 150,000 combat types stay alive in a country of TWENTY SIX MILLION thats having a CIVIL war ?:p For that matter without the support of a bunch of the people in that country ..or at least apathy..how do they survive period...

150,000 combat troops would have a hard time in Somalia . TODAY ...

BTW Somalia = Population: 8,591,629 You remember warloars and other types ..with militia all claiming to be the legitimate government ?

Contrast Iraq with elections and POLITICAL infighting that resulted with the compromise of a new minister and a COalition government being formed ....


And note also how long in the past it has taken for a DEMOCRACY along with its institutions and ideals to take hold in OTHER countries..like say Germany..( they voted for Hitler hehehehe ..so they had to practice for a while longer )
Japan...RUSSIA ....the Ukarain ..most of Estern Europe...Japan...and much of Asia. You may actually gain something called perspective...
Iraq is actually remarkable for what it has accomplished in so little time ..with SO LITTLE bloodshed compared to past " changes " so radical in government .

Thats the funny thing about history .



I dont care WHAT school YOU get taught in Iraq is not in a state of CIVIL WAR .

snip

*blinks*

...

...

Wow. I would love to respond to that, but I honestly have no idea what that was about. (I really don't)

If you could refine that into some sort of coherent piece, then yes I'll respond, but... wow....

*looks around for help*

There are a lot of reasons being offered in popular discourse regarding America’s unwillingness to become engaged in Darfur.

< mega snip >

Leftists of the world United and save Darfur yourselves.
Really good exposition. As you have apparently already concluded, the evil America can obviously be "up to no good," regardless of what we do.

Really good exposition. As you have apparently already concluded, the evil America can obviously be "up to no good," regardless of what we do.

I disagree. Humanitarian intervention has never done the US the disfavour you think it does (not that I can think of anyway)

Kosovo for instance?

If something was done about Darfur, you'd be surprised about the warm reception from around the world for the being the 'good guys' again. :)

I disagree. Humanitarian intervention has never done the US the disfavour you think it does (not that I can think of anyway)

Kosovo for instance?

If something was done about Darfur, you'd be surprised about the warm reception from around the world for the being the 'good guys' again. :)
Riiiight. :rolleyes:

The ideal would be for America to do the right things, not because we gave a shit what anyone thought, but because we wanted to do the right things.

Riiiight. :rolleyes:

The ideal would be for America to do the right things, not because we gave a shit what anyone thought, but because we wanted to do the right things.

Fine then Mr. Cranky Pants :p

And I wasn't suggesting such Machiavellian reasons to intervene in Darfur- it was only a by product of such action. ;)

Really good exposition. As you have apparently already concluded, the evil America can obviously be "up to no good," regardless of what we do.


Well, post-1945 you do have a dubious track record.

Fine then Mr. Cranky Pants :p

And I wasn't suggesting such Machiavellian reasons to intervene in Darfur- it was only a by product of such action. ;)
LOL! Well, I've been called worse! :D

Well, post-1945 you do have a dubious track record.
Let's not go there. :rolleyes:

America felt ... uh ... extremely challenged by the spread of Soviet-style communism, which resulted in our doing lots of highly questionable things. Our "style" since the fall of the USSR as been a mixed bag, with some rather stupid things not reflective of our stated ideals, and some rather good things which do reflect our stated ideals. No one could ever accuse us of consistency. :p

Let's not go there. :rolleyes:

America felt ... uh ... extremely challenged by the spread of Soviet-style communism, which resulted in our doing lots of highly questionable things. Our "style" since the fall of the USSR as been a mixed bag, with some rather stupid things not reflective of our stated ideals, and some rather good things which do reflect our stated ideals. No one could ever accuse us of consistency. :p


I didn't say 'bad', just 'dubious'. Consequently, the general attitude towards US foreign policy is typically suspicious at best.

When it's especially poorly articulated and dangerously incompetent, the general view starts to plummet.

I see ...a person who see's a civil war that does not exist is telling me to go back to school ?

You point is utter crap. What is going on in Iraq is a civil war. The American and English civil wars were a completely different type of war.

Both the American and English civil wars involved most of the population in a two-sided struggle.

In Iraq, there are many, many sides and most of the population tries to stay out of the crossfire. It's basically Iraqis fighting Iraqis with the US, UK and Spain mopping up whoever's left.

It's divide and conquer, if you ask me.

I guess if you keep telling yourself something exist it does. Iraq , despite all the crap that is going on is slowly and surely working its way towards a viable Democracy in their own way and style .

Haha whatever, mate. A democratic republic in a country like Iraq, with vastly different ethnicities, religions, and even sects of religions will never happen. One side will always claim to be under-represented. Look at the situation now. There's no real government there. Nothing can get done.

When a REAL civil war.. ( you know the type where factions with leaders form and claim to have a purpose ..like being a seperate state or just being the guys in charge ..or just killing everyone who is not them ) starts in Iraq I think you will be aware of it .

Turn on the news, please.

I think its too late for you to go to school . Things evolved ....thats rich ..but the definition of a civil war did not nor did the actions needed in your brain to determine that organised party's or militia have formed to remove the present government and are supported by a large majority of the PEOPLE.

I do not see that revenge killings and deliberate attempts to foment hatred between the factions and reliogions constitute a civil war .

Pretty much every Iraqi is in one faction, sect or another, or are viewed as such by the various fighters there. So it sounds like most people are involved, if you ask me.

And the nature of war has changed since even Vietnam. Things never stay the same. You couldn't just hope to make a helicopter landing in Iraq, do a Search and Destroy type mission, and then extract again.

Urban fighting is a challenge for any force, and the nature of something like urban combat changes wherever in the world you are. And it's the kind of fighting that the Iraqi and Coalition forces are having to do every day.

So lesse now Iraq ....... Population: 26,074,906


How many of these 26 million went and voted... 68 % ? or so ....
The most optimistic estimates of the total amount of looney toons -nut jobs- freedom fighters-militant islamic lesbian penguins and al queda types is about what say ....20,000 ...in the whole friggin country . Even if ten times that number support them ...who is the leadership and what do they hope to accomplish with their "CIVIL " war ....wher's the army / militia / anti - government rebel forces ? Under a bed ? hidden under stealth capes ?

They're in the streets, with bombs strapped to their chests. Or they're in the housing blocks, with AK47s and RPGs, shooting at the Iraqi and Coalition forces. They exist, definitely, but are recorded as "insurgents" or whatever.

US combat troops along with other coalition forces number LESS than 150,000

So tell me how 150,000 combat types stay alive in a country of TWENTY SIX MILLION thats having a CIVIL war ?:p For that matter without the support of a bunch of the people in that country ..or at least apathy..how do they survive period...

Because most people are trying to avoid the fighting, because they know that the coalition troops will have no qualms about shooting them down or putting them in torture camps/jails/whatever you want to call them and don't really want that to happen.

150,000 combat troops would have a hard time in Somalia . TODAY ...

BTW Somalia = Population: 8,591,629 You remember warloars and other types ..with militia all claiming to be the legitimate government ?

Possibly they'd be prepared to fight a common enemy, unlike in Iraq, where the various sects are always at war with each other unless they're being horribly repressed. See the relatively peaceful time in which Saddam was in charge.

Contrast Iraq with elections and POLITICAL infighting that resulted with the compromise of a new minister and a COalition government being formed ....


And note also how long in the past it has taken for a DEMOCRACY along with its institutions and ideals to take hold in OTHER countries..

Indeed, it's not like the Duma system in Russia was implemented successfully pretty sharpish or anything.

like say Germany..( they voted for Hitler hehehehe ..so they had to practice for a while longer )

*sighs* There were actually understandable reasons that Hitler was elected. You might think it hilarious now, but if your economy is ruined pretty much in an instant, and your country is in ruins and someone says that they can make it better and have ways of doing it then you'd probably elect them.

Yes, he was incredibly horrible, but his policies weren't too bad to begin with (similar to the New Deals, actually), and I don't think that most people expected Weimar Germany to be turned into a dictatorship quite so quickly.

Japan...RUSSIA ....the Ukarain ..most of Estern Europe...Japan...and much of Asia. You may actually gain something called perspective...
Iraq is actually remarkable for what it has accomplished in so little time ..with SO LITTLE bloodshed compared to past " changes " so radical in government.

Russia didn't have any bloodshed after the changes. The same goes for just about everywhere else on that list (including both Japans). I don't recall there being millions of deaths when democracy was brought into force in Russia. And that was an astonishingly radical change.

Unlike in Iraq, where every time I turn on the news it's "23 more people have died in Iraq and many more are left wounded after a suicide bomber exploded their car in a market".

Thats the funny thing about history .

Indeed. The 'hilarity' that is human suffering.

I dont care WHAT school YOU get taught in Iraq is not in a state of CIVIL WAR .

Watch the news. When you see that various sects have blown up cars outside the other sects' mosques or whatever, and they're all doing it to each other, then you might realise that a civil war is going on there.

Really...and just who did the " Imperialist" US ..ummm Imperialize ???????

Japan ?

Germany ?...maybe mexico ? or Canada....South korea ??? iraq ?? Vietnam ??

Ummm Granada maybe ?


What country besides the US do we claim as our own ???



Firstly, sourcing Wikipedia is stupud

Secondly, read this book and then say the US isnt a Empire

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141017007/qid=1146584825/sr=8-4/ref=pd_ka_4/026-9583350-8700410

There are a lot of reasons being offered in popular discourse regarding
America’s unwillingness to become engaged in Darfur. Some people argue the United States is not interested because there is no oil. This is wrong. Sudan does have oil, which it uses to purchase Russian weapons to continue its activities.

Everything you say after this point is bullshit that I won't even address until you learn to stop thinking in absurd naratives.

On the oil issue I will only point out that it isn't about getting oil, or even controlling oil, although controling oil is nice. It's about preventing the reliable acquisition of oil by other countries through anyone but us.

Iraq was stable, so we went in there to destabalize it, so that China and India couldn't deal with Hussein without us. Rumsfeld said as much. "The sanctions were coming off. Imagine if Hussein had control of all that oil and water. My goodness!" That's why Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" once the government of Iraq was overthrown. Once that happened, there was noone to sell oil to other countries.

We aren't getting involved in Sudan because Sudan is already destabalized. Which means that without us going in there at all, the mission is already accomplished, as far as the Bushies are concerned. They may be able to sell, but it isn't reliable.

First off I'm in favour of UN intervention in Darfur, even US if it's peacekeeping. And I'm a leftist.

First off I'm in favour of UN intervention in Darfur, even US if it's peacekeeping. And I'm a leftist.

Aye, same here. And I've been called an extreme leftist.

Aye, same here. And I've been called an extreme leftist.
Look at my Political compass!

Really...and just who did the " Imperialist" US ..ummm Imperialize ???????

Japan ?

Germany ?...maybe mexico ? or Canada....South korea ??? iraq ?? Vietnam ??

Ummm Granada maybe ?


What country besides the US do we claim as our own ???

Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands.

Also, look up the word State in a dictionary.

State - A body politic, especially one constituting a nation

The US origionally thought of itself as 13 different states in an alliance. With the civil war it became official. The states are not allied. They're ruled. But even before that we had expanded our territory, sometimes through force.

There is also the matter of your flawed concept of "other countries."
In the 20th century we forcibly conquered Hawaii. Now they're a part of the US, but we conquered them, and they weren't happy about it.

Even if the US only controlled the 50 US states, it's still an empire in which 50 states are ruled by one city. The various empires throughout the world have given their subject people's various degrees of autonomy. Ghana let their subject nations do whatever they wanted, as long as they paid their taxes. China had strict rules for the people of China, but still collected tribute from their neighboring nations who had complete autonomy. Just making other countries do what they don't want to do constitutes imperialism. Like when we get Yemen to change their UN votes by threatening to cut off foreign aid.

There are a lot of reasons being offered in popular discourse regarding
America’s unwillingness to become engaged in Darfur. Some people argue the United States is not interested because there is no oil. This is wrong. Sudan does have oil, which it uses to purchase Russian weapons to continue its activities. Some say race is involved, that American society
is blatantly racist. This is sort of true; America does have problems with
racial issues. However, this tendency would be countered acted by our
strong evangelic community, because Darfur and those being oppressed and
the victims of the genocide are Christian.

No, the real reason we don't intervene is avoidance of flak. Seriously,
the following is what would happen. After an announcement by Bush that US
special forces and the 82 Airborne were going into secure Darfur, the
global left would go ballistic. Using dubious history and logic, they will
argue some of the following. First, that the United States is merely
trying to seize Darfur oil, ignoring the massive public outcry for
intervention.

Then, the leftists will use arguments like, America has no right to judge
because they killed their native population. Seriously, this was used to
denounce US intervention to save the Bosnians Kosovar Albanians from
genocide. This is a silly argument. Taken to its logical extremes, no
nation would be able to intervene in any humanitarian crisis because they
all have some bad event in their past.

Then after US forces arrive and engage the Sudanese forces in combat to
protect the people of Darfur the whining will escalate. If any civilians
are caught in the crossfire, the US will be accused of genocide, which
probably will occur just because we engaged the Sudanese forces. Or the US
will be attacked for trying to establish its colonial empire, despite the
fact the United States never had colonies in Africa, and in fact was
responsible for maintaining the independence of Liberia from the
Europeans. But Leftists have no need for facts, they confuse the issue.
Finally, leftists will reimage the Sudanese forces that days prior had been
raping thugs into brave resistance fighters sticking it to whitey.

So, rather than deal with all this, the US says screw it, let the
Europeans deal with it. After all, we get nothing out of deal, other than
grief and flak. But the Europeans can't. If any of you looked at Bosnia,
that is how Darfur would be after European intervention, which people being
massacre will European politicians try to define themselves out of a
problem. Notice how when the US intervene things got done. US air force
pilots engaged the Bosnian Serb air force once, and they were never seen
again. The Europeans tried for years to enforce and no-fly zone, but
nothing happen till the Americans arrived on scene. Once the US decided
the war had drag on for too long, it ended it. First by strengthening the
Croatians to smash the Krajina Serbs and then by allowing the Bosnians to
arm themselves, which allowed them to fight the HVO and the VRS, who they
beat, the later with US air power providing an assist. It took 3 weeks
from start of the air war to end of the Bosnian war. Thanks to America,
which is why they love the US.

Leftists of the world United and save Darfur yourselves.:sniper:

History Guy
http://history-guy.blogspot.com

Editor's Note- I accidently posted this in the wrong section earlier and told to post it here. I apologized for my confusion.

Well-said and scarily accurate. The Left in general and the European Left in particular will seize and/or manufacture ANY opportunity to assail the US for ANY reason. Why? Because they HATE the US, they think the US is evil (they, of course, are "good"), and so by definition anyone opposed to the US must ALSO be "good".

Well, this American has long since lost all patience and tolerance for the European Left in particular and the Left in general. I am now of the view that the US made a historic error in wasting 40 years of effort and trillions of dollars defending a decadent and effete culture that doesn't even have the balls (literally and figuratively) to maintain its own population level, that has abandoned its own heritage, and that is now in the process of committing overt cultural suicide by aiding and abetting the invasion of its own home by Islamic savagery. We should have let the USSR overrun all of Western Europe.

The US will act in its own national interest. If the Left, in Europe or elsewhere, doesn't like it, they can try doing something about it. Better yet, they can all go to hell. :mp5:

Haha whatever, mate. A democratic republic in a country like the United States, with vastly different ethnicities, religions, and even sects of religions will never happen. One side will always claim to be under-represented. Look at the situation now. There's no real government there. Nothing can get done.

Fixed.:D

Well-said and scarily accurate. The Left in general and the European Left in particular will seize and/or manufacture ANY opportunity to assail the US for ANY reason. Why? Because they HATE the US, they think the US is evil (they, of course, are "good"), and so by definition anyone opposed to the US must ALSO be "good".


Typically simplistic and therefore ignorant view of Europe from the US right.



Well, this American has long since lost all patience and tolerance for the European Left in particular and the Left in general. I am now of the view that the US made a historic error in wasting 40 years of effort and trillions of dollars defending a decadent and effete culture that doesn't even have the balls (literally and figuratively) to maintain its own population level, that has abandoned its own heritage, and that is now in the process of committing overt cultural suicide by aiding and abetting the invasion of its own home by Islamic savagery. We should have let the USSR overrun all of Western Europe.


You know, you could make your homophobia and islamophobia at little less obvious.




The US will act in its own national interest. If the Left, in Europe or elsewhere, doesn't like it, they can try doing something about it. Better yet, they can all go to hell. :mp5:

Europe doesn't have to do anything, it can just sit back and let the US fuck everything up all by itself, including its own nation.

You know, you could make your homophobia and islamohobia at little less obvious.

1) There is no condition called "homophobia." It's simply a term of abuse by THE LEFT to be hurled at anyone who opposes sexually deviant lifestyle choices. In any event, I have neither the desire nor the intent to make my opposition to such deviant lifestyle choices "less obvious."

2) Likewise, there is no condition called "Islamophobia." While this term is also a term of abuse by THE LEFT to be hurled at anyone who opposes the evil political ideology (masquerading as a religion) that is Islam, it does serve a valuable function, namely, exposing those who use it as ignorant fools in denial about the true nature of the enemy. Again, I have neither the desire nor the intent to make my opposition to Islamofascist savagery "less obvious." To the contrary, I proclaim it for all to see and hear. Wake up before YOU are reduced to literal (as opposed to your present figurative) dhimmitude.

1) There is no condition called "homophobia."

2) Likewise, there is no condition called "Islamophobia."

They are not conditions, they are terms used to describe irrational attitudes. These you certainly appear to have based on your posts:

I have neither the desire nor the intent to make my opposition to such deviant lifestyle choices "less obvious."
The evil political ideology (masquerading as a religion) that is Islam

1) There is no condition called "homophobia." It's simply a term of abuse by THE LEFT to be hurled at anyone who opposes sexually deviant lifestyle choices. In any event, I have neither the desire nor the intent to make my opposition to such deviant lifestyle choices "less obvious."

2) Likewise, there is no condition called "Islamophobia." While this term is also a term of abuse by THE LEFT to be hurled at anyone who opposes the evil political ideology (masquerading as a religion) that is Islam, it does serve a valuable function, namely, exposing those who use it as ignorant fools in denial about the true nature of the enemy. Again, I have neither the desire nor the intent to make my opposition to Islamofascist savagery "less obvious." To the contrary, I proclaim it for all to see and hear. Wake up before YOU are reduced to literal (as opposed to your present figurative) dhimmitude.


Who the hell are 'THE LEFT'. A band, perchance?

There is nothing wrong with being homosexual. Only bigots believe otherwise. Islam is not an evil religion. True, it can be said it was founded on perhaps more of a violent base than other religions, but this does not make it inherently evil. The acts of a few extremists do not make a religion evil - just as the acts of Falwell & Co do not make Christianity evil. Also, since when has a religion become a political ideology?

Who the hell are 'THE LEFT'. A band, perchance?


Didn't you get the memo? Its far easier to make a blanket statement and label people into a fictious sweeping generalisation, then actually deal with the question.

I don't agree with the right/left characterizations.

But I agree with the main point. Darfur is essentially there for the taking. Other people want to grouse to the US that nothing is getting done, but no one is stepping up to the plate on this one themselves. They despise the US as the leader of the free world, but they still regard it as the leader of the free world. They grouse when it does nothing, and would grouse if it did something, and things went wrong. That is what you do to leaders. If they really wanted to regard the US as "just another country," they would go ahead and fix Darfur, with or without the US.

I want people to try to convince me why I should want my government to continue to fulfill this role. Frankly, I see America as a nation ready to look inward, and stop worrying so much about what goes on beyond it's borders. Let's commit ourselves to capitalism, and to making ourselves rich, and people can either be on board for that with the US, or not. I don't care if another nation is socialist, or authoritarian, or populist, or theocratic. It's simply none of my business. I don't even care if we take on some people from other countries who have decided that all of the above are crap to live under. Enough of all the muscle-flexing, let's just see which one works better. Let the people of the world decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives and their countries.