More from your "religion of peace".

[EvilMonkey]

CNN says a few hundred. Another source says thousands. Another says a thousand. Whatever. Point is, its not millions of Sudanese all agreeing this woman should be stoned in the streets. Its a minority, albeit one that is growing in strength (as I've said many times before). My response, as I think was pretty obvious, was to the repeated and insistent (and dangerous) charge I see here from certain folks that these extremists are the mainstream of Islam. And I simply do not see that as true.

What is an appropriate percentage for us to start worrying then?

[NorthSideSox72]

What is an appropriate percentage for us to start worrying then?

You keep ignoring part of my posts. I think we should WORRY now, its a significant number. What I am also saying is that out of a billion muslims, we shouldn't indict all of them based on the actions of a few percentage points of them.

 

Why is this so hard for people to understand? That the entire religion isn't evil, not even the majority, but a notable and growing minority? Why does it have to be that either I think the religion itself is morally bankrupt, or that I am somehow defending all of them? Reality is between.

 

I'd be curious to see how people react if I point out that EVERY major religion has people, right now, doing awful, inhuman things in the "name" of that religion. What percentage of each? I have no clue, and frankly, neither does anyone else here. I think its safe to say that Muslims have a bigger problem with extremism right now than, say, Buddhism. But even that I can't say for sure - its a guess.

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

I renamed my Cat "Jesus" last night...

 

no word from the angry mobs of Christians, yet.

[longshot7]

can't we just nuke Sudan? Please?

[NorthSideSox72]

can't we just nuke Sudan? Please?

The irony with Sudan is... if we had put the money and effort of the Iraq war into doing something about Darfur, in yet another Islamic state... we could have actually been dramatically improving our standing with not only a billion Muslims but most of the rest of the world. Instead, we spent way more money, are less secure, more hated, and out 5,000 US soldiers and a few hundred thousand civilians.

 

[southsider2k5]

I renamed my Cat "Jesus" last night...

 

no word from the angry mobs of Christians, yet.

 

Bill Cosby did that joke 25 years ago, get with the program!

[southsider2k5]

The irony with Sudan is... if we had put the money and effort of the Iraq war into doing something about Darfur, in yet another Islamic state... we could have actually been dramatically improving our standing with not only a billion Muslims but most of the rest of the world. Instead, we spent way more money, are less secure, more hated, and out 5,000 US soldiers and a few hundred thousand civilians.

 

Well to be fair, the US tried really hard to push the UN to do something much earlier... Countries like France thought it more prudent to argue over the definition of "genocide" instead of actually doing something about the problem.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well to be fair, the US tried really hard to push the UN to do something much earlier... Countries like France thought it more prudent to argue over the definition of "genocide" instead of actually doing something about the problem.

I wasn't so much talking about hindsight with regard to Sudan. I can't say I was out there yelling about Darfur in 2001 or anything. I was pointing out more the fact that the poor decision-making that led to the Iraq War cost us a lot more than just the war itself - it handcuffed us from being able to do other things that could have been really good for us, and for the rest of the world.

 

[southsider2k5]

I wasn't so much talking about hindsight with regard to Sudan. I can't say I was out there yelling about Darfur in 2001 or anything. I was pointing out more the fact that the poor decision-making that led to the Iraq War cost us a lot more than just the war itself - it handcuffed us from being able to do other things that could have been really good for us, and for the rest of the world.

 

We were more handcuffed by memories of Somalia than Iran when it came to dealing with Darfur unfortunately. Its really too bad because of the lessons we could have learned from Rwanda would have been the most useful place to learn from.

[mr_genius]

I wasn't so much talking about hindsight with regard to Sudan. I can't say I was out there yelling about Darfur in 2001 or anything. I was pointing out more the fact that the poor decision-making that led to the Iraq War cost us a lot more than just the war itself - it handcuffed us from being able to do other things that could have been really good for us, and for the rest of the world.

 

 

There is no way we should start invading African countries. Why does it always have to be the US doing all of this? The US militaries purpose is not to 'right every wrong' that goes on in the world. It just amazes me that people still want to do this Iraq kind of stuff all across the world. I really think it's time for us to take more of a 'hands off' approach.

 

 

ps. It just shows the level of abuse our country is at when it comes to using our military. Even the peaceful liberals want to blow stuff up, invade countries, and kill people. The main point of contention? Which country to invade.

 

This post isn't directed towards any one poster in particular, just the overall atmosphere in the country as a whole.

Edited December 5, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

There is no way we should start invading African countries. Why does it always have to be the US doing all of this? The US militaries purpose is not to 'right every wrong' that goes on in the world. It just amazes me that people still want to do this Iraq kind of stuff all across the world. I really think it's time for us to take more of a 'hands off' approach.

ps. It just shows the level of abuse our country is at when it comes to using our military. Even the peaceful liberals want to blow stuff up, invade countries, and kill people. The main point of contention? Which country to invade.

 

This post isn't directed towards any one poster in particular, just the overall atmosphere in the country as a whole.

2 days ago weren't people saying that if Sudan did decide to try this person that a military option was the clear solution?

[mr_genius]

2 days ago weren't people saying that if Sudan did decide to try this person that a military option was the clear solution?

 

I'm sure they were.

[NorthSideSox72]

There is no way we should start invading African countries. Why does it always have to be the US doing all of this? The US militaries purpose is not to 'right every wrong' that goes on in the world. It just amazes me that people still want to do this Iraq kind of stuff all across the world. I really think it's time for us to take more of a 'hands off' approach.

ps. It just shows the level of abuse our country is at when it comes to using our military. Even the peaceful liberals want to blow stuff up, invade countries, and kill people. The main point of contention? Which country to invade.

 

This post isn't directed towards any one poster in particular, just the overall atmosphere in the country as a whole.

Stabilization of Sudan with military support would have taken a far smaller force, and gotten much greater international involvement, than the Iraq War. So explain to me how that's worse than Iraq?

 

And obviously the US cannot right every wrong. But I've got to tell you, I think its in its best interests to deal with the really big ones, particularly when there are clear positives that can come from doing so. And I'd call the genocide hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions, pretty darn big.

 

[mr_genius]

Stabilization of Sudan with military support would have taken a far smaller force, and gotten much greater international involvement, than the Iraq War. So explain to me how that's worse than Iraq?

 

 

I never said it was worse. Both were/are bad ideas IMO. Oh, so if it's easy to invade a country that is doing bad stuff we should go for it.. I see.

[mr_genius]

And obviously the US cannot right every wrong. But I've got to tell you, I think its in its best interests to deal with the really big ones, particularly when there are clear positives that can come from doing so. And I'd call the genocide hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions, pretty darn big.

 

 

sounds like the reasons we got for invading Iraq.

[NorthSideSox72]

I never said it was worse. Both were/are bad ideas IMO. Oh, so if it's easy to invade a country that is doing bad stuff we should go for it.. I see.

LOL. Nice try. That was the Iraq argument, not Sudan. I absolutely think there should be a risk-reward type mindset though, and one based on serious, considered, research NOT LIMITED TO military considerations.

 

With Iraq, the risk was exactly what lots of people, including CIA analysts, Pentagon planners, diplomats all over the world, lessons repeated throughout history and Bush's own father for heaven's sake, had been saying forever. Occupying Iraq is a huge mistake, and was bound to cost thousands of American lives, huge numbers of Iraqis, and spend virtually all the politcal global capital the US had. The reward they were going for was something along the lines of: a democratic regime in the Middle East can serve nicely as a base for out attempts to mete out extremist terror (and some other factors, like getting Saddam out of power, having direct access to oil, etc.). Seems pretty imbalanced in favor of NOT doing it, to me.

 

Sudan does have some of the same risks of instability and terror, no doubt. But, you aren't in the Middle East adjacent to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia... you aren't planning to overthrow the government... you don't have a country nearly as loaded with military hardware... you would have much more non-US support to bear the brunt of the effort... simply put, the risk factors are much lower. And the rewards? Stopping a genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, by itself, is pretty damn big to me. But beyond that, you also have the exact opposite of Iraq - you are seen in a Muslim country, in an impoverished area, as actually doing something positive. That means better relationships with all sorts of Muslim countries, and that means a dramatic decrease in anti-American sentiment, which means a lot less terror and violence risk for us. Further, the US makes a real inroads in Africa, where China has been smart enough for a while now to be investing money in as a great future source of natural and human resources.

 

I am not 100% sure Sudan would have been a great idea, but I have no doubt it would have been a better alternative than Iraq in pretty much every way possible, and at a substantially lower cost of money and lives (in my view).

 

[NorthSideSox72]

sounds like the reasons we got for invading Iraq.

None of them. None of those applied to Iraq.

 

[mr_genius]

LOL. Nice try. That was the Iraq argument, not Sudan. I absolutely think there should be a risk-reward type mindset though, and one based on serious, considered, research NOT LIMITED TO military considerations.

 

With Iraq, the risk was exactly what lots of people, including CIA analysts, Pentagon planners, diplomats all over the world, lessons repeated throughout history and Bush's own father for heaven's sake, had been saying forever. Occupying Iraq is a huge mistake, and was bound to cost thousands of American lives, huge numbers of Iraqis, and spend virtually all the politcal global capital the US had. The reward they were going for was something along the lines of: a democratic regime in the Middle East can serve nicely as a base for out attempts to mete out extremist terror (and some other factors, like getting Saddam out of power, having direct access to oil, etc.). Seems pretty imbalanced in favor of NOT doing it, to me.

 

Sudan does have some of the same risks of instability and terror, no doubt. But, you aren't in the Middle East adjacent to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia... you aren't planning to overthrow the government... you don't have a country nearly as loaded with military hardware... you would have much more non-US support to bear the brunt of the effort... simply put, the risk factors are much lower. And the rewards? Stopping a genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, by itself, is pretty damn big to me. But beyond that, you also have the exact opposite of Iraq - you are seen in a Muslim country, in an impoverished area, as actually doing something positive. That means better relationships with all sorts of Muslim countries, and that means a dramatic decrease in anti-American sentiment, which means a lot less terror and violence risk for us. Further, the US makes a real inroads in Africa, where China has been smart enough for a while now to be investing money in as a great future source of natural and human resources.

 

I am not 100% sure Sudan would have been a great idea, but I have no doubt it would have been a better alternative than Iraq in pretty much every way possible, and at a substantially lower cost of money and lives (in my view).

 

your argument is still 'if it easy to invade, do it'. The easy being low risk. There was supposed to be high reward for Iraq as well. Sorry, I don't think it is our militaries purpose to be invading countries that haven't done anything directly to us. US should not be world police

Edited December 6, 2007 by mr_genius

[mr_genius]

None of them. None of those applied to Iraq.

 

yes they do. the arguments for Iraq were

 

1) Saddam is dangerous, should be taken out before he gets worse

 

2) will be easier to deal with now than later

 

3) free the Iraqi's from oppression

 

4) Saddam is a mass murderer.

 

sounds a lot like the invade Sudan arguments.

[NorthSideSox72]

yes they do. the arguments for Iraq were

 

1) Saddam is dangerous, should be taken out before he gets worse

 

2) will be easier to deal with now than later

 

3) free the Iraqi's from oppression

 

4) Saddam is a mass murderer.

 

sounds a lot like the invade Sudan arguments.

Not even remotely comparable.

 

I didn't even make an argument like #2.

 

And 1, 3 and 4 are all about scale. Saddam's regime did nothing even remotely on the scale of the Darfur situation. Not in the same ballpark.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

your argument is still 'if it easy to invade, do it'. The easy being low risk. There was supposed to be high reward for Iraq as well. Sorry, I don't think it is our militaries purpose to be invading countries that haven't done anything directly to us. US should not be world police

I never said, nor ever would say, that it would be easy. That is you who keeps trying to put words in my outh.

 

And I have said since before the war that the "rewards" were minimal, and more than offset by the negative consequences, let alone the risk.

 

[mr_genius]

Not even remotely comparable.

 

I didn't even make an argument like #2.

 

And 1, 3 and 4 are all about scale. Saddam's regime did nothing even remotely on the scale of the Darfur situation. Not in the same ballpark.

 

so 1,3 and 4 are the same but just about scale... but the reasoning is totally different? that makes absolutely no sense. you are still coming back to your 'if it's easy to do it's ok' argument.

[mr_genius]

I never said, nor ever would say, that it would be easy. That is you who keeps trying to put words in my outh.

 

And I have said since before the war that the "rewards" were minimal, and more than offset by the negative consequences, let alone the risk.

 

 

You said "low risk", which in a military operation means less casualties and cost. aka, easier than a big blood expensive war.

 

it would be really great if we could go, i don't know, 10 years without starting a war. I know thats setting the bar pretty low, but gotta start somewhere.

Edited December 6, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

so 1,3 and 4 are the same but just about scale... but the reasoning is totally different? that makes absolutely no sense. you are still coming back to your 'if it's easy to do it's ok' argument.

I feel like I'm talking with Steve Forbes when he was running for President. Except instead of hearing "FLAT TAX! FLAT TAX!", all you say is "ITS EASY! ITS EASY!". Where are you getting that?

 

And who said the reasoning is different? Saddam's regime at its worst pales in comparison to the loss of life happening in Darfur. How is that not clear?

 

[mr_genius]

I feel like I'm talking with Steve Forbes when he was running for President. Except instead of hearing "FLAT TAX! FLAT TAX!", all you say is "ITS EASY! ITS EASY!". Where are you getting that?

 

And who said the reasoning is different? Saddam's regime at its worst pales in comparison to the loss of life happening in Darfur. How is that not clear?

 

 

you are the one saying the it is "completely different", then you come back with "well i never said the reasoning was different". as far as the "easy" comment, you are the one saying it's ok to do with little risk. i'm saying it's NOT OK TO DO EVEN WITH LITTLE RISK. make sense?

 

/done with thread

Edited December 6, 2007 by mr_genius