Let's Get a War On

[Stinky The Clown]

I happened to catch a bit of our esteemed UN ambassador, Yosem ..... er .... John Bolton in his presser earlier today,

US Ambassador to the United Nations

flogging the War in Iran© drum. There was an eerie juxtaposition of news as he was speaking. While he was flogging the war drum, we had a number of Members of the House arrested as protestors at the Sudanese embassy.

Some wars are necessary. Some wars are, maybe, sorta, kinda necessary. And some wars are .... well .... to satisfy some cowboy's hard on.

Which of these two wars could you get behind?

[jukes]

1. i ain't sayin' nothin'

agent mike.....

[Mandate My Ass]

2. Formerly I would have responded "I could support a war if..."

Now with Booshie's BS imminent threat, pre-emptive strike claims blowing up in Iraq's face, the oppressive occupation, incompetent post-invasion planning, war profiteering, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum, I can't get behind a war no matter what. Whatever rationale is offered, there's no way this administration has any credibility left and the country needs to regain some cred in the world. Terrorism has been around for centuries, few have called for, or accomplished, such wholesale slaughter in the name of self defence.

[IA_Seth]

3. Darfur

I am not saying we go in guns-a-blazin, but how can we sit by idly and watch thousands wiped out because of their background and nothing else.

I am ashamed that we feel some people's deaths are worth more than others.

Oh, and where is Israel? You would think with all the money we provide, all the technology at their disposal, and their inherent outrage toward genocide they would at least be supporting action.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. My point, exactly

:thumbsup:

[Jai4WKC08]

5. Sudan is an Islamic country

Direct Israeli involvement would guarantee the entire Muslim world would back Sudan, no matter how many people they had a hand in murdering.

But I'm not sure I would characterize military intervention in Darfur as "war." I don't think it would come to that, altho there would probably be some small-unit fighting involved. But Darfur is not Kosovo, and Sudan is not Milosevic' Yugoslavia. They allow the janjaweed to do the killing, but would probably back off from any support in the face of UN, NATO and/or US military forces. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they haven't confronted the African Union forces directly, have they?

Oh, one other point... I would support action in Darfur in theory, but would have grave second thoughts with the current administration running it.

[incapsulated]

6. That's the rub

I wouldn't trust this gang to wash my windows. It's a moot point though, since they won't do anything, anyway.

[IA_Seth]

7. I agree with your assessment....

I agree, I do not think large-scale tanks/air-strike combat would be necessary, but then again I am not a military planner and admittedly no little of the janjaweed's capabilities. To me they seem to be mostly nomadic and lightly-armed which would make old-school war unfeasible.

But we must do something. Special forces as offense, regular troops to protect threatened populations, combined with a little International Outrage may do the trick.

Why/How can we let such inequities persist in Africa? If the same damn thing was happening in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East we'd be all over it.

[IA_Seth]

8. Bumpity Bump Bump. n/t