Hillary Clinton: No troops for Dafur? Why?

[Kingstree]

just logistical support and air lift? What's wrong? Is it because Dafur is not located in the Middle East? No economic or political interest? Are we too bogged down in Iraq since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize this disaster? No oil stocks to capitalize on? Current military doctrine states that our military forces should be able to react to different conflicts all around the world (that's why the military is smaller) but I guess since the politicians who voted to send the bulk of our forces to Iraq instead of Afghanistan did not have Dafur as a national economic or political interest.

If we had done the correct thing and gone to Afghanistan only, would be have been able to make enormous progress in the war on terror, fight the Taliban, find, capture Osama Bin Laden, got full support of NATO and the UN in this effort which would free up our troops to support Dafur. Because of the enormous fuck up, we can't support the world community with military personnel for years to come due to severe equipment damage, soldier psychological problems, soldiers, marines, navy and air force personnel leaving the military when the STOP Loss rule is lifted (and yes, military personnel will retire and separate in droves!) recruiting goals not met, personnel levels will reduce drastically and we as a country will not be ready to contribute anywhere or support anyone else. Hell, we can't even support natural disasters in this nation now. Hillary Clinton stated it best: I won't sent troops to Dafur. I guess did not think about this when she voted to support George Bush. This country doesn't need another Bush mentality in the White House. We need someone who thinks ahead, uses common sense, political diplomacy and doesn't talk tough and reacts with the military as out first option. Hillary sounds like Bushthink to me.

[jmp]

1. Are you volunteering? (nm)

...

[msongs]

2. gee maybe its for none of the reasons you espouse (you are volunteering, yes!) nt

[AtomicKitten]

3. she said because we have overextended ourselves in Iraq

context is everything

[Kingstree]

13. Really, why is that?

[AtomicKitten]

21. She's punctuating the point that Junior has decimated the military

and that we don't have the troops to send to Darfur.

[Kingstree]

22. Well, she gave Junior an assist

with her vote to authorize this war. She needs to take some responsibility!

[AtomicKitten]

25. she will not apologize because apologizing is a sign of weakness

and HRC must muster balls 'o steel to play with the boys.

And between you and me, I find the "apologies" complete and utter bullshit and tap-dancing for those who demand that pointless exercise. Apologies sure as hell won't restore life to the hundreds of thousands that have been killed in this illegal, immoral war.

[Kingstree]

27. I beg to differ,

admitting mistakes and owning them is a true quality of leadership. It's the one's that won't admit they are wrong (I.e. Bush and Chaney) the reason we are in this mess. If a leader, no matter who you are, cannot admit a mistake or delay an excuse, it does not bode well for this nation. If you admit mistakes, you can correct them and gain the support and trust of the american people. It takes courage to do that, not hiding behind the Presidency and executive privilege. We have had 7.5 years of this "muster balls 'o steel playing with the big boys and where has it gotten us? 3600+ killed, 26,000+ seriously wounded, 100,000+ Iraqi dead and wounded, countless cases of soldier's post traumatic stress disorders (yet to be addressed fully),an increasing Taliban insurgency and hatred toward the U.S., a country that is in total shambles and you want this to continue with a Prez who is stubborn, wants to play tough and sticks to nonsense convictions?. This is the exact attitude and reasoning that we as americans don't need. You and your "cowboy" attitude gets americans KILLED! Now I understand why idiots get elected every 4 years. People like you help them.

[AtomicKitten]

30. You want a dog and pony show.

Which is what these lame, opportunistic apologies are, really. It reminds me, in fact, vividly of a scene in A Fish Called Wanda in which the dim-witted character played by Kevin Kline (who won Best Supporting Actor for the role) was dangling John Cleese upside down from a window demanding an apology:

Archie: "All right, all right, I apologize."
Otto: "You're really sorry."
Archie: "I'm really really sorry, I apologize unreservedly."
Otto: "You take it back."
Archie: "I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future."
Otto: "OK."

As to this beauty:

You and your "cowboy" attitude gets americans KILLED! Now I understand why idiots get elected every 4 years. People like you help them.

I wouldn't touch that brainfart with a 10 ft poll. Suffice to say, bellicosity of that caliber on an anonymous message board no less is reminiscent of the other side of the aisle.

You, sir, know not of which you speak.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. I agree AtomicKitten

I am so tired of people wanting Hillary to apologize. You said what I have been feeling wonderfully.

[Kingstree]

42. This is not the place to give attitude

over politics. Citizens need to pay attention to who and what they are supporting. We have had too many years of lies, deception, dishonesty and untruthfulness in this country and all it gets us is more of the same. All I am saying is that if you don't think that a candidate's honesty and integrity is important and being able to show some decency, we are bound to make the same mistake over and over. We have had this problem since Vietnam and it steadily continues. I want my Prez to be be forthright, honest, make this country safe and do the job you've been elected to do: successfully run this government. Don't you want the same? All I am saying is pay attention and demand from your candidate exactly what you would demand for yourself and others. Closed minds and ignorance got us into this Iraq mess and let's not do it again. America can't afford a lifetime of fear. We have had way too many failures and too many deaths. This is not a dog or pony show, this election is serious business.

[bling bling]

32. Who the fuck do you think you are?

If you have nothing better to add to the discussion than that, go take a hike.

You have a lot of nerve coming in here for 2 months and then saying something as offensive and insulting as:

"You and your "cowboy" attitude gets americans KILLED! Now I understand why idiots get elected every 4 years. People like you help them."

Buzz off.

[Kingstree]

44. You know what,

1000+ posts does not make you and expert, anybody can comment, but having an opinion and something to say goes a lot further than the statement I am replying to. I am just an american citizen just like you but with me, I listen and value other people''s statements and opinions and I don't get caught up in discussions using malice (Keep your attitude in check). Buzzing off is not an option here, I can handle these discussions without trying to degrade someone. Remember, just value each person's prospective and maybe your next post will have some value without trying to diminish others. Oh, by the way, congratulations on your 1000+ posts (whenever you accomplished that goal), I guess that makes you a well versed veteran on DU.

[jmp]

4. Everyone says "We can't let this happen!" ...

But volunteers ready to pick up an assault weapon and defend those poor people are few and far between. This is right up there with all the "hawks" who insist that Iraq is a matter of our national security ... but it's not important enough for them to sign up.

[BeyondGeography]

5. The best part of that answer was the dirty look she gave Anderson Cooper at the end

when he finally got her to say no U.S. troops for now. It took her forever to answer a yes/no question; it's amazing how often politicians fall into that trap.

[KingFlorez]

6. At this point, it would be a very bad idea to commit troops

The military is already overextended and as much as the crisis in the Darfur needs to be solved, the United States just isn't in the position to solve it militarily.

[Kingstree]

12. I wonder why that is.......

[emilyg]

31. I agree.

[Alamom]

34. Clinton's actual reply to the question..........

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

After Sen.Gravel said,
The problem goes a little bit deeper than that. It's because we haven't owned up to our responsibilities to a sense of global governance. And so now, you've got a situation with the United States of America, as Joe says, wants to go in, but the African nations don't want us there. What's the message? They're afraid of us. They're flat afraid of us.





COOPER: Senator Clinton, would you agree with Senator Biden? American troops should got to Darfur?

CLINTON: I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking.

That means accelerating the United Nations peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved.

And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn't endanger humanitarian relief.

COOPER: How about American troops on the ground?

CLINTON: I think NATO has to be there with the no-fly zone, and I think that only the United States can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.

COOPER: Just in the spirit of trying to get the answer, does that mean no American ground troops?

CLINTON: American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the United Nations peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops.

We've got to figure out what we're doing in Iraq, where our troops are stretched thin, and Afghanistan, where we're losing the fight to al Qaeda and bin Laden.

(APPLAUSE)

[Ethelk2044]

35. She should have given a better answer to the question

[zulchzulu]

7. The best solution would NOT to send fighting troops into Darfur...

Obama has come up with a better plan and one I agree with:

First, the administration must help transform the African Union protection force into a sizable, effective multinational force.

In the near term, Washington must pressure Khartoum to allow more advisers from Western nations to embed within the African Union's mission so they support intelligence, logistics and communications. It must work with other nations to provide military assets to African Union forces, such as attack helicopters and armored personnel carriers, so they can respond immediately to attacks. And it must urge the African Union to be more aggressive in protecting civilians. More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force. The African Union has begun discussions with the United Nations about folding itself into a follow-on U.N. mission, but because of the West's reluctance to offend African sensibilities, all parties seem resigned to muddling along. It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it.

Second, the administration must keep up the pressure on the rebels to unite their negotiating positions, and it must enlist Sudan's allies to increase the pressure on Khartoum to share power and resources.

Third, the United States and other nations must place additional pressure on key nations -- Chad, Eritrea and Libya -- to stop playing a destructive role in the conflict.

Fourth, the administration needs to place its weight behind the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on the leading perpetrators of the genocide.

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/051227-policy_adrift_on_darfur/index.html

[Ethelk2044]

14. She lost of African American votes with that Answer

[Forkboy]

40. Evidence for that,or just a hunch?

[aquart]

8. What, precisely, would our army do in Darfur?

And how long do you think it should stay?

Every time a nation decides to murder its own citizens, it's our job to police them? Do we nuke them? Drop in paratroopers? Bombs? AND DO WHAT???? For how long?

Hillary doesn't believe we should invade Sudan, ANOTHER Muslim nation which has not attacked us? I AGREE.

Only a fool with a brain as delusional as George Bush's would send our troops there. WHAT'S THE MISSION? Distribute food? Tents? Dig wells? MURDER MORE PEOPLE? Armies KILL. Darfur needs more killing?

Did you know that there are LOTS of nations in Africa and NOT ONE OF THEM has seen fit to intervene in the Darfur genocide? But WE should go? Because the only solution to murder is murder?

You're right. You should not vote for Hillary Clinton.

But thank you for convincing me that she is not a militaristic idiot.

[earthlover]

9. Help to stop the slaughter and genocide!

In Iraq, the slaughter didn't start until we invaded. In Darfur, there is potential to save lives. There is a difference. Military force need not be the only option in Darfur, but it is rather ironic Hillary was not so skeptical or reluctant when it came to sending troops to punish Saddam for what Osama did.

[napi21]

18. Just where do you think you're going to fine the spare troops to do that?

I guess you're answer is pull the troops out of Iraq only to send them to Darfur? Get real! These people have been worked to near death physically & mentally! WE are NOT the great solvers of all the world problems!

[earthlover]

33. No, I said it is only one option

However, there is a difference between using force to prevent the spread of genocide and what we are doing in Iraq. And an irony that because we are in Iraq our hands are tied in other parts of the world. I am not saying we should invade Darfur. However, we should be doing more to stop the slaughter than we presently are. Non-military options should of course be pursued (something the Bushies are not experienced at).

[MiserableFailure]

10. i agree with aquart

the problem in sudan will not be helped by the us invading. our image in the world is not good right now and even if it was it's bad from a logistical standpoint.

simply put, most of the african continent is in shambles and there's nothing that anyone can really do about it, regardless of what they tell you. sure the stuff sounds nice but that place will continue to suck long into the future.

[Kingstree]

11. She's more like Bush than you think.

Don't make the same mistake as the Republicans for the next 4 years.

[napi21]

15. You need to explain that one! n/t

[jmp]

16. What's to explain?

He backs a different candidate.

[napi21]

20. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just dense tonight. Who's HE?

You made the comment that SHE is more like Bush than you think. What are you talking about?

[Kingstree]

24. Re-read the original thread posted

or do I need to simplify it for you.

[napi21]

28. You have your opinion on why she and others voted to give Shrub

the AUTHORITY to use military force in Iraq, and I have mine. That said, TODAY, she's right. We simply don't have the forces to help in Darfur.

[catgirl]

38. But she voted for the war and has not owned up to it.

So it's okay to ignore Darfur where women are raped and citizens
are murdered? We've done enough damage in Iraq. How about we
do some good for a change.

I'm glad Cooper made her answer the question. She needs the prodding
since she's mastered the art of not answering questions.

[maximusveritas]

17. I agree with her

The military is not the answer in Darfur. Just like in Iraq, you can't just send in the troops into a complex situation without a clear mission, goals, and a plan for withdrawal. I wouldn't rule it out, but there would need to be a pretty good plan before I'd support anything like that.

[CK_John]

19. IMO,We waited too long to get involved, China signed oil agreements with Sudan recently and

now it would be major international situation not just a humanitarian effort.

[tocqueville]

23. The US doesn't need to get involved militarily in Darfur

I watched the youtube debate on CNN (yep, you can do that in France on DSL) and found most of the answers about Darfur quite inaccurate except maybe Obama's.

Europe has taken a committment and will be there in october (it's three months from now) and not in sixth months as someone pretended.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/23/chad.force.reut/index.html?section=cnn_latest

"The European Union took the first step on Monday toward sending forces to Chad and the Central African Republican to help the United Nations protect refugees trapped in the violent region bordering Darfur.

.....

Asked when EU forces could be sent, an EU official said: "at the end of October at the earliest."

Military staff will start working on a possible year-long 1,500 to 3,000-strong force, but the end result could be different, diplomats said.

U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno urged the EU last week to deploy highly mobile troops supported by helicopters, to help protect a zone in Chad 560 miles (900 kilometers) long by 125-250 miles (200-400 kilometers) wide and a small part of the Central African Republic."

Brown and Sarkozy met a week ago and came out with a similar statement. The bulk of the force will be Anglo-French with substantial participation from other European countries.

What the US can do is participate with logistics like heavy lift and of course humanitarian help.

In a way it was very disappointing and arrogant to hear most Democrat candidates present the Darfur question as if only and solely the US could "solve" the problem with troops and a a no-fly zone. Other countries can do the same , the Sudan Air Force is no match for Rafales, Mirages and Eurofighters. The UN troops can secure convoys and camps and the NGOs do their job. It worked in Kosovo, Ivory Coast and other places. It will work in Darfur.

No US troops are needed. They would be of better use in Afghanistan.

[Alamom]

36. Clinton said, No boots on the ground from US. Focus on UN, provide logistical support

CLINTON: I agree completely that what we need to do is start acting instead of talking.

That means accelerating the United Nations peacekeeping forces along with the African Union. It means moving more quickly on divestment and sanctions on the Sudanese government, including trying to use the diplomacy to get China involved.

And, finally, it does mean a no-fly zone. We can do it in a way that doesn't endanger humanitarian relief.


COOPER: How about American troops on the ground?


CLINTON: I think NATO has to be there with the no-fly zone, and I think that only the United States can provide the logistical support and the air lift to make a no-fly zone and the actual delivery of humanitarian aid work.



COOPER: Just in the spirit of trying to get the answer, does that mean no American ground troops?

CLINTON: American ground troops I don't think belong in Darfur at this time. I think we need to focus on the United Nations peacekeeping troops and the African Union troops.

[Captain_Nemo]

26. She is telling the country that we don't have the capacity to help Darfur because we are in Iraq.

[BringBigDogBack]

29. They're all busy fighting the last war she voted to authorize.

n/m

[wyldwolf]

39. Is she'd said the opposite, your OP would read - Hillary Clinton: Troops for Dafur? WHY? War monger

[Forkboy]

41. What troops do we have anymore?

Joe Blow and his Bastard Squad are about all we got left....and they're not going to miss the UFC for Darfur.

[rodeodance]

43. basically she said our military is very overstretched and Nato and African

military should handle it.

[applegrove]

45. I think her point was that the USA doesn't have enough troops left over from

all the crap that is going on in Iraq.

[SaveElmer]

46. I understand her reasoning...and it is credible...but

I disagree with her here...I think Biden is correct in that we could send troops in there to stop the worst of the genocide...but ultimately it cannot be a U.S. dominated force in there for the long haul...

On the rest of it she is dead on...