Lachean

Do you really want to hijack this thread with another Iraq debate?

It was pre-emptive because Bush wanted to circumvent what he claimed to consider to be an "immanent threat."

It was unnecessary in my opinion, and I base my opinion on:

• The misrepresentation of the threat
• The WMD's
• The Downing Street Memo
• This administrations blatant stonewalling, and deceptive character defamation tactics.
• The rhetoric and false dichotomies "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
• The prevention of investigations, and Alberto's shameless "I don't recall" act.

I'm also speaking on the "War on Terror," not just Iraq.

Yeah, in the 80's. Allowed? You speak as if there is some arbitrary line...

As best I can tell.

We know this now in hindsight. However the bold is untrue, and I don't know who would make such an argument warranting your satire.

So you want me to argue someone else's opinion? Lets deal with facts, not someone else's problem with a different war, stay on topic.

No, excuse me. Where in any of what you quoted did I say that? I said that Israel was an ally.

This is what I said about whether or not we should engage in Darfur:
"Should we invade a sovereign country which is of no threat to us? It depends on the circumstances. Given Darfur's, I would say yes."

A country need not be our ally to need out help.

Lives are a 1 to 1 basis to me, no matter the nationality. American lives are no more or less valuable than any other.

However I do find the whole concern for Iraq becoming a civil war/genocide "if we left" disingenuous considering the fact that there is one going on right now and up until a few weeks ago, Americans showed nothing but utter apathy.

__________________
"The original, and still the best!" - Grifter

Volker

When reading the starting post of this thread it looks to me like that talking about other conflicts, too, is ok here.

Lachean

Talking about other conflicts is one thing.

He however has made repeated attempts to mischaracterize Darfur as a "preemptive war" in order to equate and contradict the Iraq War issues.

He hasn't discussed the issues regarding Darfur, or its consequences, he seems only hell bent on making this a bash the anti-war argument thread.

If he addresses his contradiction, and perhaps says something about his position on Darfur, I would withdraw my presumption.

PeteEU

Putting the facts of the present US military commitments to one side, then I cant see any western nation go into Darfur. Frankly why should they unless the refugees suddenly start to pour into Europe or other western countries like in the Bosnia case.

It aint a small place, and the required amout of troops to control the area would be huge. We are talking about one of the biggest nations on the planet. And where should we send troops.. Darfur only? Or the whole of Sudan? Send troops into a hostile enviorment where a huge majority of the people dont want us? Badddddd idea. The Brits tried that several times and almost every time got thier arses kicked back to Egypt.

Also, is it a genocide? Its all in how you define genocide. Ethnic cleansing, sure, but is that genocide? Where are the death camps? The organised slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people? The fact that people escape the attacks alive, kinda puts a hole in the whole genocide idea, unless the. And if ethinic cleansing is genocide, then we got genocide happening in Iraq too... and a few other places around the world.

Now that does not mean I dont think its horrible what is happening in Darfur, far from it, but I am also realistic.. there are similar if not worse horrors going on in several other nations and we aint doing anything about that. North Koreas death camps? Chinas "issues"? Various brutal dictatorships around the world? There are many problem areas, that have been going on for decades but we have not done anything about that. Pol Pot was allowed to murder over a million people.. it took a communist enemy of the west to get rid of him, and that we condemed them for too (ironicly).

Of course there are the moral issues when it comes to Darfur.. we know that crap is happening and we know who is doing it.. should we do something or not? We also know what happened in South Sudan a decade ago, or what is happening in northern Uganda, or parts of Congo, or what happened in Liberia, Ivory Coast and so on. But it took a long time if at all before we acted militarily on those issues, and it was almost never the US (unless to protect and evacuate citizens/embassies) and it was almost always in a very limited fashion after a peace was imposed. Hell Somalia is still a crap hole, and our intervention back in the 90s was condemed by the right in the US, who would rather see people die of hunger it seems...Where was thier "morals" then?

Point is there is debate on a moral level, and then there is a realistic look at what we can do with a certain situtation. And if we use the latter, going into Darfur under the present conditions is a badddd idea from almost every angle.

__________________
PeteEU

Volker

Maybe a war which would prevent a genocide is not a preemptive war by definition, but it looks related to me.

These are questions, I would not call it bashing.

You are negotiating now

Volker

Estimations go from 3,000 to 12,000 troops for a Chad borderline mission.

I'm not saying I would be in favor of such a mission, I just talk about it.

PeteEU

Lol.. what they gonna do put up a fence? Seriously do the people who made these estimations even know the freaking geography of the area?

Volker

At least I hope so

Frenchies are in Chad since they came there, I guess, like a hundred years ago.

Stinger

[quote=Lachean;570183]Do you really want to hijack this thread with another Iraq debate?[/quote

No it's a debate about war.

Nope, never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat.


what does Gonzales have to do with going to war? As far as the others points all dismissed in the investigative reports.


I'm also speaking on the "War on Terror," not just Iraq.



YOUR side created the arbtirary line saying that Dafur is justified by the number of killings, so how many are allowed?


Originally Posted by Stinger
Then it's a civil war?


OK the calls for retreating from Iraq are because it is a civil war, so why would we go to Dafur which you admit is a civil war?

Originally Posted by Stinger
No it's based in the positions state about Iraq, it was not a threat, it had no WMD, it was contained, there were no terrorist.

No those are just the assertions of the anti-Iraq crowd. So let's apply them to Dafur.


So you want me to argue someone else's opinion? Lets deal with facts, not someone else's problem with a different war, stay on topic.


This is what you said

"Given Darfur's, I would say yes. I would also say yes if a this non-nuclear Iran attacked Israel (our ally) and not us, we would be justified in interfering as well."

Saying that we would protect Israel therefore we should protect Dafur, so again when did Dafur enter into a miliatry alliance with the US which is precisely why we would protect them.

In your comparison to Israel that IS the key factor, we have a formal military alliance with them. We have no such thing with Dafur.

So how many is Dafur worth, how many American lives are you willing to sacrifice for Dafur?

I have no doubt that a genocide would occour if we left Iraq now, do you? And if you believe the rate of casualties in Iraq is a genocide what do you call it under Saddam's rule?

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Lachean

Oh, so I guess his WMD claims were just all in my head.

Its no wonder you would think I was talking about the war when speaking of Gonzales when you blatantly missed me saying this:

"I'm also speaking on the "War on Terror," not just Iraq."

Bull****!

What investigative report confirmed WMD's in Iraq? Or confirmed Saddam posing an immanent threat, or debunked the DSM?

What report confirmed Bush's false dichotomy that proves that I am in fact with the terrorists because I am not with his foreign policy?

What report could possible change the fact that this administration has stonewalled all and every kind of investigation?

You're full of **** on this one.

What? First of all what is my side and when did I/we do this?

Utter strawman Stinger.

Again, straw man. The civil war in Iraq is not my rationale for "retreating from Iraq"

Because it is a civil war.

Why? They aren't my arguments, nor are the compelling when related to Darfur. Its a totally different issue. If you want to debate me then debate my arguments.

I don't know why you're hung up on having me debate your straw men.

Are you kidding me? I said the circumstances in Darfur are the reason we should protect them, and then I explained other circumstances in which we could engage a sovereign nation that is of no threat to us, LIKE if someone attacked an ally.

My reasons for Isreal do not apply to Darfur.

Comparison to Israel? What are you talking about? It was ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

I never suggested that we did have such a military alliance, nor is that required for such a war.

Are you deaf? I explained that no lives are more worthwhile than others. If the mission is necessary, we will do it. I won't give you an arbitrary body count limit.

In the 80's it may have been comparable, I don't know the #'s. But pre-Iraq war Saddam was not comparable.