Reply With Quote
Need + National interest = legitimate cause for military intervention.
Need + international hand-wringing = tragedy.
Need + National interest = legitimate cause for military intervention.
Need + international hand-wringing = tragedy.
But if Bush is "for life"..isn't that a National interest?
Yes, but the President isn't the final authority on such matters. Even with Iraq, he had to build a popular concensus (even if you weren't part of it) before he could intervene militarily.
Face it, there isn't popular support for intervention in Sudan, Rwanda, or any of those other self-destructive pits of inhumanity...and, no, there is no U.S. national interest in the Sudan.
What was the national interest in Iraq? Oil?
I place human life above oil any day.
There were no WMD or imminent danger.
And now that it's changed to "the liberation of the Iraqi" people why can't we call it the liberation of the Sudan or Rwanda people?
Is it because we don't need a military base there?
Global security is dependent on stability in that region.
Well, you're just plain wrong...but, I can see you won't be swayed in your ignorance on that issue so, fine.
Hussein's treatment of the Kurds and Shi'ites has always been a major part of the justification for military intervention and, when combined with the near dozen other legitimate reasons for military action against Iraq, it's a bit more than what's going on in Sudan or Rwanda.
That's part of it. Yeah.
It shouldn't be a part of it.
Well, that's a pollyannish view.
But a view none the less.
Well, actually, there is some oil in Sudan, not as much as in Iraq, but more than there is in ANWAR.
I urge everyone to go see the movie Hotel Rwanda. These people are not animals. Just because they are Africans does not mean that they shouldn't be en led to the same protection from genocide as Jews or Bosnians. We should all be ashamed.
Both Rwanda and Sudan are perfect examples of the U.N.'s failure to act forcefully when really needed, but then again when it comes to Africa, the U.S. has nothing to be proud of either.
Which only bolsters the position that oil isn't the primary motivating factor for U.S. Military intervention in Iraq.
Agreed. However, the political, cultural, and logistical realities of intervening militarily are much different than they were in Bosnia or during WWII.
Starting with Kofi Annan.
Agreed on U.N. ineffectiveness however, the U.S. is not the global policeman and shouldn't be faulted for not intervening in the region. The truth of the matter is that Sub-Saharan Africa is the way it is because of the scarcity of resources. Stopping the killing won't put food on the plates or reduce the likelihood that "war lords" will re-emerge, once we've left, and do it all over again. The problem in that part of the world is too much pro-creation and not enough industrialization.
And I'm sure Europen colonialzation had nothing to do with any of that?
The Western world has a large debt to Africa, and the entire western world refuses to acknowledge anything near that. They simply ignore the attrocities that happen in Africa.
Look, I'm not in support of being the worlds policeman. But it pisses me off to the nth degree when I hear politicians on both sides of the aisle act as though we are and can be when it suits their needs, and only then.
Iraq was about oil. If there had been no oil in Iraq and in the surrounding region we would never have given a rats ass about that corner of the world, so it always comes back to oil Always. You can tie it to terrorism and the security of the United States, but that once again is a result of the perception of the United States in the region, which in turn stems from our actions in the region, which of course were because of threats to the oil supply.
Bush, Clinton and 90 percent of American politicians will trumpet and point out actions around they world they need to stop. We heard it from Clinton about Bosnia after they ignored Rwanda. And now we hear it from Bush about Iraq while they give Sudan token responses.
It's the same with Europe. They are critical of the things we do, yet none of them have the balls to step up to the damn plate when it comes to Sudan, and they were all guilty as well of ignoring Rwanda.
I wonder why I have a cynical view of the world's so called leaders?
I have no idea, please elaborate.
And what debt would that be?
It's less painful to ignore the futile. But, speaking of ignorance, how many African countries are actively pursuing a peace in any of those areas?
I would change the end of your last sentence to read, "...suits the national and/or security interests of the United States of America, and only then." and be in perfect agreement with it...except the being pissed off to the nth degree part. I think it is the Executive and Legislative Branches' cons utional duty to act in our country's interests.
Partly...but, by no means entirely and not for the rhetorical reasons usually stated -- to enrich the oil companies. The U.S. economy and, consequently, the global economy, are largely dependent on petroleum-based trade. It's an unfortunate fact of life and will remain so until a more broad-based alternative is devised or until something takes its place (tech is trying).
That's true. And, there'd be no sheikdoms, no above-standard of living for most in the middle east, etc... The fact remains that Arabia would be much like sub-Saharan Africa and it's tribal genocides had it not been for oil. The oil-dependent world gave life to that region of the globe. Has it been perfect? No. But, who's fault is that? One could blame the poor expansionist policies of the West or; one could blame the back-assward theology of Islamic fundamentalists in a progressively industrialized world. Pick a side -- there is support for both.
Yep. That doesn't make our presence or actions there any less legitimate. Keep in mind the U.S. has allies in the region and so, not everyone agrees -- in fact, not even a majority of Muslims in the region agree -- that the U.S. and thus, the West, should abandon the Middle East. Far from it, most want us there, they want our culture, or technology, or standard of living. It can be placed on the backs of a very few powerful rulers in the region, who keep their heels firmly on the backs of their respective populations, that the region hasn't joined the 21st century with the rest of the industrialized and "enlightened" world.
Again, there are complex geo-political issues that differeniate the cir stances. The security of Western European allies in the Bosnia case and our own security (as well as that of the global economy) in the case of the middle east -- however prudent (or imprudent) you believe it was to become so dependent on foreign oil way back when.
As for me, as a Texan, I'd love to see Texas crude go back on the charts...cut the ties to Middle East oil. To with them. But, that's a selfish position that would lead to more problems than it would solve.
Europe hasn't changed. They've always been good at lip service and never very good as accomplishment.
Maybe you don't understand the complexities of being a world leader in today's global society.
i don't believe we have a debt to any african nation. african tribes are the ones who sold us the slaves they got from other tribes.
Not really, Imperiliasm ring a bell? U.S's big guns against a couple of spears = easy target and easy land to obtain. A little while after US stopped slave trade then Great Britain and other countries ceased to be a part of the slave trade.
Well, I personally feel that the US has a stake, or should have a stake, in Liberia. Other than that Africa is pretty much in the hands of Europe (especially France) and the UN. If you want to know why I was happy that we went into Iraq without the UN, the mess that is large portions of Africa should give you some pretty big hints. There's no way the US is getting popular support for going into the Sudan, the UN is just a joke when it comes to things like this and I don't really see Europe doing much. I'm sorry to say I don't see any immediate solutions to the Sudan crisis that are likely to happen. While I wouldn't be opposed to the US sending in a MEU with some Army units to back them up, and parking them between the Arab areas and the refugee camps to see if that convinces the Janjaweed to lay low, the international community and the Democratic party would eat the Bush Administration alive.
Last edited by Gerryatrics; 04-13-2005 at 06:03 AM.
Maybe, but It also equally bolsters the opinion that the reason the Sudan is in crisis is because it has oil reserves.Which only bolsters the position that oil isn't the primary motivating factor for U.S. Military intervention in Iraq.
Kofi Annan can't force members of the Security Council to act unilaterally, especially when some of the countries in that Security Council may have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. That said, Annan should have battled UN pacification more vigilantly when it comes to Sudan and Rwanda.Starting with Kofi Annan.
the europeans are the reason africa is all ed up.. they colonized 99% of that country... Mainly, Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Portugal...
The debt of colonization and slavery.And what debt would that be?
That you could 1) consider a democide futile shows you aren't to bright, and 2) that you can find a way to ignore it means you aren't a very good human being.It's less painful to ignore the futile. But, speaking of ignorance, how many African countries are actively pursuing a peace in any of those areas?
If this is in any way referencing Iraq, then you really need to get out of your cave more often. Politicans ignored Rawanda, Cambodia, and the Congo until it was to late to do a damn thing, what makes you think there isn't a reason that the second a middle eastern country would, through public sentiment, become a possible target under less severe cir stances?I would change the end of your last sentence to read, "...suits the national and/or security interests of the United States of America, and only then." and be in perfect agreement with it...except the being pissed off to the nth degree part. I think it is the Executive and Legislative Branches' cons utional duty to act in our country's interests.
Ok, so these people live in the desert, they probably aren't that socially developed, and we critize their culture/religion and attempt to dump ours on them (like you) and you wonder why they blow up?That's true. And, there'd be no sheikdoms, no above-standard of living for most in the middle east, etc... The fact remains that Arabia would be much like sub-Saharan Africa and it's tribal genocides had it not been for oil. The oil-dependent world gave life to that region of the globe. Has it been perfect? No. But, who's fault is that? One could blame the poor expansionist policies of the West or; one could blame the back-assward theology of Islamic fundamentalists in a progressively industrialized world. Pick a side -- there is support for both.
as many people over as you can get away with?Maybe you don't understand the complexities of being a world leader in today's global society
Do some reading, history shows us that tribes that didn't attempt to find other tribes to subjugate for the slave trade were wiped out, the African concept of slavery was also far more like what we call indentured servitude, there was no lineage to being a slave and you could eventually work your way back to freedom.i don't believe we have a debt to any african nation. african tribes are the ones who sold us the slaves they got from other tribes.
That makes a lot of sense, considering peacekeeping missions are extreamly popular with the American public, 79% Dems & 77% Reps, I'm sure the world community would absoultley hate us for doing something about Sudan. (extreme sarcasm)the international community and the Democratic party would eat the Bush Administration alive.
i have... maybe you should read about who colonized most of the african nation... who sold us the slaves to begin with. most of the colonizers didn't go into the jungles and bring out slaves... rival tribes captured each other and sold them to us...
and if you believe their version of "slavery" allowed you to eventually buy your way out... haha... what-the- -ever!
I know the new Star Wars is coming out, but you guys are going overboard... what is Sudan, a moon of Tatooine?
C'mon guys, the US and UN need to spend their time helping REAL countries, not just ones under threat of the Death Star...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
