...Vietnamese slaughter after our surrender of Saigon.
In an interview with Rick and Donna Martinez on North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston on News-Talk 680 WPTF, former senator and noted surrenderist George McGovern was interviewed about his new book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.
During the course of the interview, and after McGovern described his desire to see the United States pull completely out of Iraq within six months, Rick Martinez brought up the genocides of Shia and Kurds with weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, and then asked McGovern what we should do if the complete pullout led to a similar wave of genocidal killings.
I'm paraphrasing here, but McGovern's response was something along the lines of "it's not our problem," unless we get some sort of an international mandate to go back in to correct it.
As we are all well aware, the Rwandan Genocide saw between 800,000-1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered over about 100 days in 1994. We are still waiting for McGovern's "international" action in Darfur, a slow-motion genocide that has been on-going since 2003, and which has cost 400,000 lives thus far, with no end in sight. McGovern knows any international action to an Iraqi genocide would be slow or more likely, non-existent.
What McGovern is saying is that he does not care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—most likely Sunnis—are slaughtered in Iraq as the result of the immediate U.S. pullout he calls for.
So much for multi-culturalism.
No, we're waiting for Bush's action in Darfur. If you want to equate Bush's inaction there to Clinton's in Rwanda, go right ahead -- but don't act like this country doesn't tolerate genocide no matter who is in charge.We are still waiting for McGovern's "international" action in Darfur, a slow-motion genocide that has been on-going since 2003, and which has cost 400,000 lives thus far, with no end in sight.
The USA didn't break Darfur,
the USA didn't break Rwanda,
but the Repugs unnecessarily invaded and broke Iraq and the Repugs have direct, exclusive repsonsibility :
1) for unbreaking Iraq (impossble now, dubya will never pay the real $$cost or conscript the boots) or
2) disengaging with minimal further death and destruction (horribly complex to avoid)
Maybe the Rwandans wanted us to invade,
maybe the Darfurs wanted us to invade,
but the Repugs invaded Iraq, unasked,
and a now a majority of Iraqis think the USA's continued presence is prolonging the violence and and blocking a "final solution", how bad that might be.
The USA couldn't have won in VN, and the majority of the USA finally wanted the US out, not only McGovern and other people derided as peace-niks and hippies and conscript victims.
If you would bother reading some of my stolen material, this is addressed.No, we're waiting for Bush's action in Darfur. If you want to equate Bush's inaction there to Clinton's in Rwanda, go right ahead -- but don't act like this country doesn't tolerate genocide no matter who is in charge.
Where?
The talk radio station's home page or amazon.com?
To paraphrase Chump "Harriet Miers" Dumper, from an earlier post, "I'm not going to read the blog for you."
Go read it yourself.
You and what army are going to invade Sudan?
I'm not going to read it if you don't link it, dumbass.
Your plagiarism and lying has caught up to you.
Not only was it linked, I included the relevant paragraph and -- gasp! -- gave proper attribution to the author.
I'm not going to read it if you don't link it, dumbass.
Your plagiarism and lying has caught up to you.
The talk radio station's home page or amazon.com?
Neither.
Those are the only links here.
Who said it was in this thread, Einstein?
I thought McGovern lost to Nixon. And I thought Bush started the Iraq war. How do you manage not to blame the people in charge for their failures?
Yoni showing the dents in his armour.
It was McGovern Democrats that convinced the country we had lost the Tet Offensive and that Vietnam was a lost cause, condemning millions to death.
And, Iraq is not yet a failure.
You see it's easier to blame the democrats and the media for all of the crap that has happened since Iraq.. Bush's 'victory' strategy has been exposed as campaign slogan... and not a military strategy.. Funny how Yoni seems to skip over the war part and is now blaming the democrats for the soon to be slaughter..of course blaming the actual people who created the mess would be detrimental to his biased view.
We haven't pulled out yet. But, if we do, it will be because a Democratic Congress cut of funding and forced this President to withdraw prematurely.
Or because Bushie changed his mind in order to try and salvage his legacy. If he does, you will consider it brilliant.
Pullling out will ruin his legacy.
If he does, it will be because we've achieved our objectives there.
Why don't you lay out our objectives now, so we can later compare them to reality?
Please, define victory in Iraq.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
