Dean says we cant win in Iraq

[southsider2k5]

he is damn right we can't win that war.  It has gotten worse since we went to Iraq.  Where are the WMD's?  Wait there were none.  The last war worth fighting was World War 2.

 

Tell that to all the genocide victims from around the world of the last 60 years...

[Balta1701]

Tell that to all the genocide victims from around the world of the last 60 years...

Tell that to the few million people who die every year because there's not enough money being spent to provide clean drinking water (would take something like $30 billion per year to give everyone in the world clean drinking water. At this point, the money spent on Iraq could have saved enough lives to completely repopulate Iraq, had it all been spent instead on cleaning up people's drinking water.)

[White Sox Josh]

Tell that to all the genocide victims from around the world of the last 60 years...

for the USA. I ain't talking about other countries.

[Balance]

Tell that to all the genocide victims from around the world of the last 60 years...

Like the ones we're ignoring in Darfur?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Like the ones we're ignoring in Darfur?

Yes, like those.

[kapkomet]

Let's face it. We're torturous, evil, self-gratifying, hypocritical, egotisical, arrogant, greedy, self-absorbed, blind, stupid, (did I say torturous), oil drinking, fanatical, capitalistic, dips***s. Does that about sum it up?

[southsider2k5]

Like the ones we're ignoring in Darfur?

 

 

Yes, like those.

 

That's where I was going with that. There are millions upon millions upon millions (etc, etc) victims of genocide that we let die because the wars weren't good enough for us to fight. There are plenty of places in the last 60 years we should have stepped into, but didn't, including going on right now.

[sec159row2]

Like the ones we're ignoring in Darfur?

 

 

 

 

United Nations Anyone?????? A F**King Joke

[sec159row2]

Let's face it.  We're torturous, evil, self-gratifying, hypocritical, egotisical, arrogant, greedy, self-absorbed, blind, stupid, (did I say torturous), oil drinking, fanatical, capitalistic, dips***s.  Does that about sum it up?

 

 

 

I Love The USA!!!!!!!!!!!

[Balta1701]

That's where I was going with that.  There are millions upon millions upon millions (etc, etc) victims of genocide that we let die because the wars weren't good enough for us to fight.  There are plenty of places in the last 60 years we should have stepped into, but didn't, including going on right now.

The question of course is..."How much should we 'step in'"?

 

Should we invade the Sudan and spend $400 billion dollars to rebuild the place because there is a genocide going on there? Or pick any other "Genocide"? Can you name any place where the benefits of "stepping in" would be such as to justify that huge expenditure?

[Balta1701]

By the way, Here's a very interesting piece on Dean's remarks from the New Republic...and how almost every one of his other supposed "Gaffe's" on the Iraq war has turned out to have been almost exactly correct.

[southsider2k5]

The question of course is..."How much should we 'step in'"?

 

Should we invade the Sudan and spend $400 billion dollars to rebuild the place because there is a genocide going on there?  Or pick any other "Genocide"?  Can you name any place where the benefits of "stepping in" would be such as to justify that huge expenditure?

 

I guess I tend to think that human life is priceless, especially when you times that times millions of people, but that is just me. I understand the need to quantify and detail everything for some, but for me millions of people dead simply because of a race, ethnicity, religion etc, is just screaming for someone to help them out. It becomes bigger than dollar signs and lost GDP.

[Balta1701]

I guess I tend to think that human life is priceless, especially when you times that times millions of people, but that is just me.  I understand the need to quantify and detail everything for some, but for me millions of people dead simply because of a race, ethnicity, religion etc, is just screaming for someone to help them out.  It becomes bigger than dollar signs and lost GDP.

I would agree with you on principle, but then there comes in that nasty question...what happens when there are 4-5 "genocides" of equal size happening everywhere on the planet at once, like there is at almost any given time (what was happening in Iraq in 2002 was no different from what is happening in probably a couple dozen other countries around the world.)

 

If you choose to intervene, how do you decide where to intervene? It seems clear to me that you just can't intervene everywhere...there's simply not enough troops available to do it, nor is there enough money.

 

I pointed out one case earlier...if we took all of the money spent on Iraq, you could probably save 30 million or more human lives in the next 10 years just by providing the entire world with clean, disease-free drinking water. That's the equivalent of the entire population of Iraq. If I have to choose between overthrowing Saddam and providing clean drinking water for the rest of mankind, clearly overthrowing Saddam would save a few lives, but it would also cost a huge number of lives, and it would come no where close to saving as many lives as providing clean drinking water would.

 

So how do you decide which place to intervene?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I would agree with you on principle, but then there comes in that nasty question...what happens when there are 4-5 "genocides" of equal size happening everywhere on the planet at once, like there is at almost any given time (what was happening in Iraq in 2002 was no different from what is happening in probably a couple dozen other countries around the world.)

 

If you choose to intervene, how do you decide where to intervene?  It seems clear to me that you just can't intervene everywhere...there's simply not enough troops available to do it, nor is there enough money.

 

I pointed out one case earlier...if we took all of the money spent on Iraq, you could probably save 30 million or more human lives in the next 10 years just by providing the entire world with clean, disease-free drinking water.  That's the equivalent of the entire population of Iraq.  If I have to choose between overthrowing Saddam and providing clean drinking water for the rest of mankind, clearly overthrowing Saddam would save a few lives, but it would also cost a huge number of lives, and it would come no where close to saving as many lives as providing clean drinking water would.

 

So how do you decide which place to intervene?

 

 

Isin't that a role of the UN? Helping stop things like that? That is when they're not taking bribes from dictators like Hussein and trading sexual favors for food and supplies in impoverished contries.

[FlaSoxxJim]

So how do you decide which place to intervene?

The first step is to forget all the places without oil, silly.

[southsider2k5]

I would agree with you on principle, but then there comes in that nasty question...what happens when there are 4-5 "genocides" of equal size happening everywhere on the planet at once, like there is at almost any given time (what was happening in Iraq in 2002 was no different from what is happening in probably a couple dozen other countries around the world.)

 

If you choose to intervene, how do you decide where to intervene?  It seems clear to me that you just can't intervene everywhere...there's simply not enough troops available to do it, nor is there enough money.

 

I pointed out one case earlier...if we took all of the money spent on Iraq, you could probably save 30 million or more human lives in the next 10 years just by providing the entire world with clean, disease-free drinking water.  That's the equivalent of the entire population of Iraq.  If I have to choose between overthrowing Saddam and providing clean drinking water for the rest of mankind, clearly overthrowing Saddam would save a few lives, but it would also cost a huge number of lives, and it would come no where close to saving as many lives as providing clean drinking water would.

 

So how do you decide which place to intervene?

 

Supposedly that is what we pay the UN tons of money in dues for, but they were too worried about the wording of a resolution being "too harsh". I doubt that is much consolation to the dead people in the Sudan though.

[Balta1701]

Supposedly that is what we pay the UN tons of money in dues for, but they were too worried about the wording of a resolution being "too harsh".  I doubt that is much consolation to the dead people in the Sudan though.

Dude, who exactly do you think is slowing the U.N. Down on any action against Sudan? The most recent attempt to hold any sort of hearings on new activity over there was blocked in part by, you guessed it, Ambassador Bolton. Yes, the U.N. has been inactive, but some of that inactivity finds its root not just in the U.N., but in this country as well.

 

Furthermore, there are bills that have been sitting before Congress untouched for months which would place sanctions on the Sudanese government if it continues its actions in Darfur...those bills have done nothing. Meanwhile, our government is actually softening some of its criticisms at the same time. And the reason Congress isn't acting? The White House told them not to.

[knightni]

There is no "win".

 

There's only finish and then leave.

[southsider2k5]

Dude, who exactly do you think is slowing the U.N. Down on any action against Sudan?  The most recent attempt to hold any sort of hearings on new activity over there was blocked in part by, you guessed it, Ambassador Bolton.  Yes, the U.N. has been inactive, but some of that inactivity finds its root not just in the U.N., but in this country as well.

 

Furthermore, there are bills that have been sitting before Congress untouched for months which would place sanctions on the Sudanese government if it continues its actions in Darfur...those bills have done nothing.  Meanwhile, our government is actually softening some of its criticisms at the same time.  And the reason Congress isn't acting?  The White House told them not to.

 

Perhaps you are projecting onto me as someone who subscribes blindly to one line of political thought, but I never said the US was innocent here, or should be standing on the sidelines in this. I think Bush is wrong for letting the Sudanese be slaughtered in 2005, just like I think Clinton was wrong for letting Rwandans be slaughtered in 1994. Genocide is bigger than Democrat or Republician to me.

 

IIRC, there was more than one country that was holding up the original UN resolutions back when the US was pusing for them. I'd have to go back and look, but it seems like at least China, and maybe a European Country or two was also involved.

[Balta1701]

Perhaps you are projecting onto me as someone who subscribes blindly to one line of political thought, but I never said the US was innocent here, or should be standing on the sidelines in this.  I think Bush is wrong for letting the Sudanese be slaughtered in 2005, just like I think Clinton was wrong for letting Rwandans be slaughtered in 1994.  Genocide is bigger than Democrat or Republician to me.

 

IIRC, there was more than one country that was holding up the original UN resolutions back when the US was pusing for them.  I'd have to go back and look, but it seems like at least China, and maybe a European Country or two was also involved.

Of course there were other countries (China, Russia, and Algeria), siding with us to block that last set of resolutions. But you know as well as I do that if the U.S. decides it is going to block a resolution, it gives other countries cover to block it as well, just as before the Iraq war China and Russia didn't want to say they'd veto the final resolution, but when France said they would use their Veto China and Russia supported them.

 

But even though the genocide is clearly not as bad as the one in Rwanda in temrs of scale, I think it's different now in that the U.S. is almost actively encouraging the regime in the Sudan. Did you, for example, know that we just Re-established diplomatic ties with their government, ties which were pulled in protest of their work in Darfur?

 

There is also 1 key point which is being missed...it's been estimated that if the international community wanted to stop what was happening in Darfur, it would take something like 15,000 troops, if the Sudanese government didn't resist. If they did resist, it would take more. Would you care to guess why so many nations in the western world don't have the troops available to pull that off?

[NorthSideSox72]

God this argument gets so annoying. Because it seems like any comment about wondering about victory in a war seems to be a reflection on the job the military does.

 

Maybe the solution isn't military. Maybe its more complicated than what our armed forces does or doesn't do.

 

 

That's the part that most of America doesn't seem willing to face yet. We move to strenghten security at home, and we go after terrorists in Afghanistan, and we fight a (morally reprehensible) war in Iraq... meanwhile the same hatred that created groups like Al Qaida doesn't go away at all - it gets much, much stronger in appeal among a large swath of the world.

 

This all leads to a fact that very few in the U.S. seems to want to face, and a solution that is so daunting in time and money and politcal capital that no politician will touch it.

 

Fact: The hatred is, to some extent, founded. And we were a big part of creating it.

Solution: Accept it, and work a social and political policy (not military) with contries in the Middle East that attempts to build a positive relationship not founded on bullying and greed.

 

I wonder if that will ever happen.

 

I await the floggings.

[southsider2k5]

Of course there were other countries (China, Russia, and Algeria), siding with us to block that last set of resolutions.  But you know as well as I do that if the U.S. decides it is going to block a resolution, it gives other countries cover to block it as well, just as before the Iraq war China and Russia didn't want to say they'd veto the final resolution, but when France said they would use their Veto China and Russia supported them.

 

But even though the genocide is clearly not as bad as the one in Rwanda in temrs of scale, I think it's different now in that the U.S. is almost actively encouraging the regime in the Sudan.  Did you, for example, know that we just Re-established diplomatic ties with their government, ties which were pulled in protest of their work in Darfur?

 

There is also 1 key point which is being missed...it's been estimated that if the international community wanted to stop what was happening in Darfur, it would take something like 15,000 troops, if the Sudanese government didn't resist.  If they did resist, it would take more.  Would you care to guess why so many nations in the western world don't have the troops available to pull that off?

 

There is a long winded reply here, but as in your last few replies, anything always goes back to Bush and the evils of the Republician cabal so there isn't much point in even going down this way, as the signs down this road are really clear. I don't feel like wasting my time today.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't get it. Discussing current political events involving the US without having it come back to involve the Bush administration would seem, well, rather pointless?

[kapkomet]

I don't get it. Discussing current political events involving the US without having it come back to involve the Bush administration would seem, well, rather pointless?

Are you kidding me? Are you that blind? Bush is a screw up in a lot of ways, but to blame him for everything - which has been my point now for months on this forum - is very shallow on your part.

 

Thanks for proving my point - unless I have TOTALLY misunderstood your point, which I may have.

[southsider2k5]

I don't get it. Discussing current political events involving the US without having it come back to involve the Bush administration would seem, well, rather pointless?

 

Because everytime it does it is ALL of their fault. People are dying in Sudan, not because of the UN, the Democrats, China, France, Russia ir anyone else... Its just George Bush, and it makes for a boring conversation. One person does not allow genocide, the entire f***ing planet does. And if someone wants to hide behind something or someone else when it happens, they are just as responsible for letting it happen.

 

Every point was brought up was countered with something about how the Republicians did it, even after stating that I knew the Republicians were wrong here... What kind of coversation is that? To me THAT is pointless. Its a big world out there, and more than just one person is to blame for things, despite what some people think. And it isn't just that conversation that has gone like that, it seems to be every conversation that goes like that, and it is incredibly boring.

 

All I wanted to do was to say that I believe genocide is worth saving people from. Funny I didn't think that would be so controversial, but it seems to be that money, politics, and who is at fault are all more important that millions of dead people... or so I am being told. I can't wait to see everyones reaction to the new Bush doctrine requiring the ritual sacrifice of puppies to Haliburton to increase their profits 0.00000001% in 2058.

 

The debates here used to contain substance. There used to be a willingness to think with your head and inject some deep consideration to the subject matter at hand. Lately it seems like everyone has got a damned autoreply on that just gives the same canned crap for an answer no matter what question is posed. Somedays it feels like I am stuck on a Customer Service phone menu that never really has a person on the other end, just the same two options, neither of which ever gets you a real person with a real answer. The belief that in every single issue, my side has to be right, and your side has to be wrong has absolutely poisoned every reasonable conversation on this board anymore. It f***ing sucks that the best conversations on here consist of what your favorite strange lyrics of a song are because every thread that has any substance has to deteriorate into a contest of what your side did to mutilate baby pandas who had the cure for cancer in their paws. This thread is a perfect microcosum of why SLaPs best days are gone, or so it seems.