 |
 |
 February 28, 2006
HEART OF DARKNESS....The genocide in Darfur has spilled over into Chad:
I don't think that any force smaller than about 40,000 troops would be able to contain the violence in Darfur. Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? —Kevin Drum 1:56 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (159)Comments
Honestly, if you only have so many troops. Would countries with mass graves and oil rank above countries with just mass graves in terms of intervention? Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINKWhere are 40,000 troops going to come from? Such troops usually end up coming from some unenlightened country that spends a lot more on its military than those enlightened nations that have higher priorities than paying for their own defense needs. If the U.S. ends up going into Darfur, how long before there's a darfurbodycount.org web site? Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINKHey, Kevin, did you punch that spam out manually, or have you got some software to do that? Posted by: tbrosz on February 28, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINKIndia, Turkey. Both have large, well-armed, modern forces. I see our usual right-wing nutcases don't understand the concept of legitimate reasons for intervention. Try reading the UN compact. Posted by: mcdruid on February 28, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINKSorry, I'm the right wing nutcase and my position on intervention is 'cool'. But finish the one from 10 years ago called Iraq first. But Indian or Turkish troops would be cool. But last I checked they listened to whiney American lefty opposition even less than Cheney does. Pretty glib there about human lives. It's not about "finishing" things; it's about doing what's right, right now. Where were you during the seige of Sarajevo? Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 3:47 AM | PERMALINKI know where you can find about 138,000 troops that are needed much more in Darfur than where they are now... Posted by: jesse on February 28, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINKabout 138,000 troops that are needed much more in Darfur than where they are now... Posted by: jesse on February 28, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK And if they weren't in Iraq, the Democrats would have opposed their deployment. Iraq was ten years of starvation & mass graves due to sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers. If the American Left can't give a shit for that, why would anyone believe they would have intervened in other circumstances... I'm generally suspicious of arguments about someone's hypothetical position in a different situation.
Wimpy lefties will not risk their lives or those of their soldiers to save some poor farmer in a clay hut, if it is going to mean that their sons and daughters might get drafted. Stalwart righties will gear up, lock and load and get into action to fight for the same farmers freedom and democracy. All it takes is that the farmer has valuable ressources to give up. It sucks being a poor farmer in a clay hut. What else is new? Posted by: OmniDane on February 28, 2006 at 5:05 AM | PERMALINK深圳 桂林 兰州 贵阳 南昌 打折特价机票随查,最新折扣均3-5折. 深圳香港始发国际机票,温哥华华盛顿 芝加哥 纽约 旧金山 洛杉矶 澳门 国际机票 上海国际机票,美国联合航空公司,上海到美国的淡季往返国际机票特价销售 机票预订时，如果有价格变动，请直接拨打旁边的电话，我们保证本站的价格低于所有其它地方的价格 昆明机票，昆明机票查询，昆明机票打折，昆明特价机票，昆明机票价格 Posted by: U.S.A on February 28, 2006 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINKThanks for the Asian spam. Kevin, can't you block these moron's IP address? As to the Darfur disaster, I'm sure the American Nero, George W. Bush, will do nothing while Africa burns.... Two reasons: He has written so many bad checks, the till is empty. And, as Kanye West put it, "he doesn't care about black people..." Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 28, 2006 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINKFirst, have Switzerland freeze all bank accounts from that area to pay peacekeeping costs. When the leaders see their nest eggs threatened, perhaps their hearts will soften. Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on February 28, 2006 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINKI'm actually curious why the press isn't holding Europe's feet to the fire. France? Germany, for God's sake? The UN? The troops won't come from the US. GWB would only get lukewarm support from his base and he knows Democrats and the MSM would torch him the second one thing went wrong. Absent a direct threat to the USA he cannot put more troops in harms way. This is a disaster. There is no one else capable of acting. The UN is useless and the EU has neither the will nor the means. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINKabsent a direct threat to the USA he cannot put more troops in harms way. You guys are fucking jokes. Seriously, you can't say that with straight face. Posted by: ChrisS on February 28, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINKAbsolutely amazing.What does the A in McA stand for Asshole.Do you have any moral fiber at all .Do you stand for anything. Posted by: gandalf on February 28, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK>Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? Dunno, but I know there's enough money to send Bill O'Reilly over. Posted by: bartkid on February 28, 2006 at 9:15 AM | PERMALINKWow, there are the usual strawmen again. Seems to me the last Democratic president stepped in and stopped a genocide; where were you boys? Oh yeah, whining about us sending troops overseas. Meanwhile, the current Republican president started up a war where there wasn't one going on before. Why do conservatives love death? Such troops usually end up coming from some unenlightened country that spends a lot more on its military than those enlightened nations that have higher priorities than paying for their own defense needs. Who's paying for their own defense needs, tbrosz? Bush insists on paying for defense, the so-calledwar on terror andhis excellent adventure in Iraq with a tax cut, and you wholeheartedly support him in that effort. Of course, it's easy to see why someone like tbrosz supports Bush's military ambitions: Other than the well-deserved derisionhe receives on these threads, he doesn't have to pay for it. Real impressive, tbrosz. No wonder you just can't trust Republicans with national security. Posted by: Gregory on February 28, 2006 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINKOnce again we see that Bush ignores real ongoing genocide in favor of phantom WMDs, no active genocide, no security threat to the US or the Middle East, and no foreign policy benefit whatsoever. Bush is the conservative idea of a foreign policy god. Sad. Pathetic. Morally bankrupt. That is the state of conservative foreign policy yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The conservative transformation of America to a mini-version of the Cold War Soviet Union is well on its way to fruition. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINKEveryone is fiddling while the area is taken over by a manifest evil. Hmm, it calls out for irony. What if Osama were hiding out there? Then the international neglect would get its true reward. Posted by: Bob M on February 28, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINKKevin and Stefan, weren't you just telling me how strong and effective the French military has been in Africa, specifically Algiers? I would think the French could muster up 40,000 troops and take care of this single handedly, no? Think about what message that would send to the world that the French alone took care of one of the worst human tragedies in history. I would think they would welcome the opportunity. In fact you also pointed out how the US military was training with the french and learning quite a bit, so I say we leave it to the pros. The French. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINKMcA: Iraq was ten years of starvation & mass graves due to sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers. If the American Left can't give a shit for that, why would anyone believe they would have intervened in other circumstances... First of all, we gave a shit. It was just a question of what we could do. As you can see, invasion hasn't made their lives significantly better. Now let's talk about that run-on blur of "sanctions/oil-for-food/Saddam/funding of Palestinian suicide bombers." First of all, no evidence has been presented that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers. So much for that one. Now the other three: We needed to do something about Saddam, so we instituted sanctions and no-fly zones. Were you against them? Yeh, right. At any rate, the sanctions were effective in reducing Saddam's ability to wage war: the money and materiel for maintaining military readiness dried up, and the sanctions may have also made it considerably harder for him to resuscitate his WMD programs. These were good things, right? The problem was that they also created considerable hardship for the people of Iraq. Hence oil-for-food. There was a fair amount of corruption associated with the program, sure, but hell, there was a fair amount of corruption in the CPA, and we ran that all by ourselves. And it reduced the scope of the humanitarian problem. So which of these things should we Big Bad Libruls not have done? Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK"started up a war where there wasn't one before" S Ra. S Ra, you might want to remind the Shiites and the Kurds how peaceful Iraq was before we went in. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK"Where are the troops going to come from?" How about Germany and France? Sheesh! What about Japan? Are we the only ones who have to give a shit what happens in the world's trouble spots? Our military is over stretched, we can't do a mission in Darfur alone. Posted by: Patrick Lane on February 28, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK"The sanctions were effective........the money dried up" RT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaha Thank you RT, good belly laugh in the morning. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINKEven if you had the 40,000 troops, how would you deploy them and keep them supplied? Libya won't let them in, and neither will Sudan. NATO has no interest: it isn't their backyard like the Balkans, and no member state has been attacked. Besides, several member states have restless Islamic populaces who would rebel if their armies took up arms against another Islamist government. Whoever you think the enemy is now in Darfur, their ranks would swell with jihadists from across the Middle East and North Africa. Meanwhile, China is energetically buying oil from Sudan and selling it weapons. You have this daydream that the difficulties in Iraq have arisen because of Bushco incompetence; you imagine that a military operation can be conducted with no mistakes whatsoever, and that the enemy can never find and exploit weaknesses. A real military mission to Darfur would have its own mistakes labelled as "incompetence", and a resourceful, determined, and ruthless enemy, just as in Iraq. If Greece and Spain are any indications, peace in the Balkans will require 20 or more years to achieve. NATO probably needs to maintain a presence there in order to facilitate the transition to peace. The US has its hands full in Iraq and Afghnistan, where NATO also needs to maintain its presence in order to achieve the desired outcome. Unless China and Russia demand action in Darfur and provide the troops, I do not see how anything can be accomplished. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINKThis is not meant as sarcasm. I would honestly like to know. When you say "I don't see how less than 40,000 troops" can do the job, what military expertise are you basing that on? Posted by: Layne on February 28, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINKI don't think that any force smaller than about 40,000 troops would be able to contain the violence in Darfur. Seems awful small. Anyways, what the hell does contain mean? Face it: Khartoum == fuckheads. They should die. A lot. Where are 40,000 troops going to come from? Send guns. If we had started sending guns a year or two ago instead of whining about the UN and no-fly zones the Fur would have a decent rebel army now. With shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missles, even! ash Debating with McA or rdw or Jay is like debating with circus clowns on acid. That is all. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINKSeriously, you can't say that with straight face. It's so obviously true. The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. GWB knows the people who support action in Africa will never support him. It also gives him the opportunity to further embarrass the EU and UN and push them toward reform. Western Europe has flourished under the US security umbrella for 60 years. They need to adjust to a new world. They must now defend themselves and if they wish to have any international influence show some indication they can and will project some minimum level of power when warranted. This is the perfect opportunity for them to step forward. If they find the mission worthy but are unable to act they can decide what to do about that. Either they spend more on defense or they give up pretensions of influence. They will not have an opportunity to back stab us again. This is our turn to watch an judge their performance. They are so quick to judge us. Remember, their economy is just as large as ours and they are smarter. They should be just as capable. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINKIf the U.S. ends up going into Darfur, how long before there's a darfurbodycount.org web site? Well, there *should* be such a web site when the Americans start killing people in the thousands. Posted by: zxcv on February 28, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINKYou have this daydream that the difficulties in Iraq have arisen because of Bushco incompetence; It looks like a daydream to you because you don't blame Bushco for a) not planning for an occupation, b) not listening to experts who cautioned about the difficulties of occupation, including the vulnerability of the infrastructure to sabotage, c) not listening to experts about sectarian tensions in Iraq, d) putting young, inexperienced, ideologically blinkered know-nothings in charge of administering the reconstruction, e) squandering US taxpayers money on corrupt reconstruction contracts and f) ETC. Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK"anti-war libs have made war impossible" Recall Cut and Run Ronny from Beirut? Oh, he did become the Generalissimo of Granada - lots of CIBs and Gold Combat Jump awards passed out. Good ole Cut and Run Ronny - send in troops, do not protect them, have them slaughtered, and as the Confederate Officer told Scarlett, "No Maam, we're not evacuating, we're withdrawing." Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKThe anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. You're right. The Iraq war was impossible and so did not occur. What a relief. Oooops... Debating with hallucinating circus clowns again. #*&%$# Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINKNeither the Democratic party nore the Republican party has been consitent: the Democratic party opposed Gulf War I (which had UN backing) then split on Gulf War II (which is a continuation of Gulf War I, since Iraq was in defiance of the cease-fire conditions); the Republican party opposed the war in the Balkans (which had NATO backing but did not have UN backing.) I would like to suggest that rehashing the ironies of these inconsistencies does not constitute formulating an actionable policy toward Darfur. Any active intervention in Darfur has to solve some problems: 1. China actively buys oil from Sudan and sells weaponry; 2. Darfur is hundreds of miles inland with no good roads leading there; 3. NATO and the US have military deployed elsewhere; 4. any intervention in opposition to the Islamist government of Sudan will attract the opposition of jihadists from across the Islamic world; 5. large segments of the populations of France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, and Spain would oppose a NATO intervention against an Islamist government (I know, not all those nations are members of NATO, but the jihadists would seek to punish the nations that trade with NATO nations); 6. Unlike the Balkans, Afghanistan (harboring al Qaeda) and possibly Iraq, there is no security interest for the US or NATO in Darfur. I know there is a debate about whether Iraq was a security interest for the US, but there is no such debate about Darfur. Some of the people who write here have a lot of pride in their capacity for sorrow, but there is no more likelihood of a successful military mission in Darfur than there is of a successful military mission in Congo, Tibet, or N. Korea. So gnash your teeth and weep, but support the US in Iraq where success is still possible; and support NATO in the Balkans and in Afghanistan where success is still possible. And be wary of Pakiston, which is in the grips of a civil war and ready to fall into pieces. Posted by: republicrat on February 28, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINKGood ole Cut and Run Ronny Lebanon was not his finest hour yet he's still a top 10 President. We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the very good. Unfortunately, as a political matter this smear doesn't help the 'let's send in the troops' crowd at all. Conservatives looking to block even the suggestion of intervention will use Lebanon and Somalia as their support. I happen to think it's a worthy cause but would never support it. It's time to force the UN and EU to meet their responsibilities. It's also time for the Democrats to take the lead. I believe they can make it happen. Their obvious plan is to sit back and then attack GWB either way. They'll stand for nothing. He has no choice. We sit this one out. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKAnd if they weren't in Iraq, the Democrats would have opposed their deployment. In Darfur? Perhaps some would have, but it was, as I recall, a rather popular recent Democrat that sent troops into the former Yugoslavia for humanitarian reasons, to largely Republican opposition. In fact, it was that deployment which led to the widespread Republican condemnation of humanitarian intervention and nation building that were hastily abandoned when the WMD pretext for the invasion of Iraq fell apart and a new, retroactive excuse was needed. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINKOne of you French lefties need to tell us why the French, who are so effective in Africa according to Stafan and Kevin, can not handle this situation. Just a few days ago it was detailed how the French military was even training our troops and was so effective in keeping the peace in Algiers, remember? I know ADD is a bitch but try and think back. The minority faction of the minority party are like little chihuahua's behind the fence barking tough and what's on the other side, yet break down the fence and they scurry home. If we ever did go into Darfur, wouldn't that then be another "illegal occupation"? Afterall, we were not asked to go in right? Hypocrites. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINKYet another example of Bush's astounding capacity for foreign policy incompetence . . . Iran 'to keep enrichment program' rdw: The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. The pro-war conservatives have made war routine even when there is no threat at all - prime example: Iraq. GWB knows the people who support action in Africa will never support him. And that is all Bush is about: himself. If it doesn't benefit him politically or personally, then it isn't worth bothering about. Bush would stand by and watch six million Jews gassed and cremated with no visible change of expression, as long as it couldn't be tied to him or affect his political standing or personal fortune. I'm glad you agree that Bush is all about himself. It appears that you are finally seeing the light. They will not have an opportunity to back stab us again. You, of course, have this backwards. It was Bush who stabbed everybody else in the back by lying to them about WMDs and the danger that Iraq presented to the world. It was Bush who defamed the UN, the UN inspectors, the French, and the Germans. It was Bush who left our soldiers out in the cold by denying them body armor, vehicle armor, training, and unambiguous standards of conduct, by trying to take away their hazard pay in order to preserve his tax cuts for the wealthy, and by inviting attacks against them with his "bring them on" cowboy message from the safety of his Secret Service bodyguard. Shame on you, rdw, for hating our soldiers and allies so much. They are so quick to judge us. But not as quick as you to falsely judge them. . . . they are smarter. They are certainly far more honest. As to smarter, they called it right on Iraq and Bush didn't. Enough said. It's so obviously true. Virtually nothing you say is true, much less obvious as anything other than partisan fawning over Bush.
The anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. What do "anti-war libs" have to do with Clinton and Somalia? I remember an incompetent SoD (Les Aspin) and following widespread criticism, largely from the right, making maintaining that mission politically impossible. And I remember missions in Bosnia and Yugoslavia later which contradict your thesis and which were, again, opposed by the right. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK"The sanctions were effective........the money dried up" RT. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahhaha Thank you RT, good belly laugh in the morning. Don't have a cite handy, Jay, but this stuff has been documented and reported on. Glad it amuses you, though; we can all use a few smiles in the morning. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKcm, I will remind you that we killed a whole lot of Serbs during that "humanitarian" mission. Nevertheless, I supported Clinton for that, it was good call. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINKrdw: . . . yet he's still a top 10 President. Why are you still lying about this? Top 10 in the NRO list is not a top 10 of any merit. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKYou're right. The Iraq war was impossible and so did not occur. They were not powerful enough to block Iraq but the political price has been so extensive there will not be another intervention. Especially if they're the only one supporting it. The anti-war crowd can't do anything by itself. They'll need someone like Hillary to support this and she knows she can't trust them any more than GWB can trust them. The irony here is incredible. The only person in D.C. who would consider intervening in Africa is GWB. The very people supporting action are the people he can least trust to support him through it. It's not going to happen and the people in Africa know it. They have nothing to fear. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINKIt's also time for the Democrats to take the lead. I believe they can make it happen. The GOP which controls the executive and the legislature has used narrow majorities to block every other single Democratic initiative in the last 5 years, and thinks "bipartisanship" is some kind of cross between appeasement and sodomy. But, yeah, sure, the Democrats can make it happen! Because, you know, we in the GOP don't feel like it; we're goin' quail hunting this weekend. But you guys go get 'em! You're doin' a heckuva job. Posted by: brooksfoe on February 28, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKThe anti-war libs have made war impossible unless there's a direct threat. Recall Clinton and Somalia. Adding to what cmdicely said: Who got us into Somalia? George Herbert Walker Bush, that's who. Our troops had been supposed to be out of there by the time Clinton took office, and Clinton's team was pretty pissed that Bush I left them this problem. Which, by the way, had a lot to do with their decision to let Bush Jr. decide how to respond to the Cole, rather than stick him with a mini-war not of his choosing. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKJay: The minority faction of the minority party are like little chihuahua's behind the fence barking tough and what's on the other side, yet break down the fence and they scurry home. If we ever did go into Darfur, wouldn't that then be another "illegal occupation"? Afterall, we were not asked to go in right? Hypocrites. The majority party elected to president a chihuahua who scampered away from serving his country. As for "illegal occupation", international law allows for military action to stop genocide. There is ongoing genocide in this case, just as their was in the Balkans when Clinton was in office. There was no ongoing genocide in Iraq when Bush invaded. Thus Democrats aren't hypocrites. But you are a liar. rdw: Lebanon was not [Reagan's] finest hour yet he's still a top 10 President. Your beloved Saint Ronnie was directly and personally responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by US supported terrorists and death-squads in Central America in the 1980s. He is one of the most heinous and vicious war criminals in history. Not to mention that if the world had not been so incredibly fortunate that Gorbachev was leading the Soviet Union during the time of Reagan's horrific regime, Reagan would probably have incinerated the earth in a nuclear war. Jay: Nevertheless, I supported Clinton for that, it was good call. And we suspect you are lying about this as well. Certainly the party you support did not support Clinton. You've said nothing that suggests you offered any support, either in private or in public. Since you are an inveterate liar and defamer, your self-serving claims lack credibility. Neither the Democratic party nore the Republican party has been consitent: the Democratic party opposed Gulf War I (which had UN backing) then split on Gulf War II (which is a continuation of Gulf War I, since Iraq was in defiance of the cease-fire conditions); the Republican party opposed the war in the Balkans (which had NATO backing but did not have UN backing.) This is largely inaccurate. First, the Democratic Party split on both Gulf Wars. The more recent Iraq war is only very loosely a continuation of the first (though its worth noting that the US/UK defiance of the cease fire resolutions was early and more overt, involving, as it did, continuous direct use of force from very soon after the cease fire was imposed by the UN.) Further, the Republicans, opposed or at least split on interventions in Bosnia (a mission that was originally a UN mission that was later transferred to NATO) and against Serbia over Kosovo (under NATO auspices without UN backing, after actual cross-border attacks on Albania), so its a mistake to lump it together as "the Balkans" where there was NATO but not UN backing. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINKYes, it's disturbing and such is the result of inaction on all sides. (It's also last week's news, but that's another story) This is also relatively similar to what happened in the DRC after the Rwanda genocide, so no one should really claim ignorance OR SHOCK. Posted by: Randy Paul on February 28, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINKadvocate breaks out the L word, how hypocrtically liberal of you with your nose frimly planted in Howard Deans ass, he loves you for it, your a good little chihuahua. Mass graves found in Iraq would tend one to believe that maybe things weren't all rosy in Iraq as some would have us believe, in fact mass graves tend to indicate genocide, no? After the Gulf war, Saddam signed a condition based cease-fire agreement wherein if any of those resolutions were violated, the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards his regime. EVERY RESOLUTION WAS VIOLATED. I know there are a lot of big words there advocate and if you need help, let me know. Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINKno evidence has been presented that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers. So much for that one. Posted by: RT on February 28, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK I think the payments to suicide bombers is fact. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm I think the point you are missing is that Kevin is implying in his piece, Dems would not have gone into Iraq but would have done something on Sudan. That's pretty false (given Clinton had plenty chances and didn't do more than airstrikes). The Left has a great track record of wailing and whining at wrong then opposing any possible action. Protesting invasions (Iraq/Afghanistan), sanctions (Iraq), airstrikes (Sudan under Clinton, Bosnia under Clinton). Admittedly the Right joined them when Clinton was in charge, If you want to commit genocide, the Right is more of a threat since the Nixon era onward.
advocate, you're much like a chihuahua, very annoying! I voted for Clinton, twice. Unlike you, I don't get on my knees for any party. BTW, how is your daddy Howard Dean? Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINKOr claim that oil makes one intervention more "valuable" than another. Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKWhat do "anti-war libs" have to do with Clinton and Somalia? I remember an incompetent SoD (Les Aspin) and following widespread criticism, largely from the right, making maintaining that mission politically impossible. And I remember missions in Bosnia and Yugoslavia later which contradict your thesis and which were, again, opposed by the right. I personally supported all of these operations and would always support USA intervention to prevent genocide. The problem in Somalia with Les Aspin was that he denied a request for more heavily armoured helicopters for political reasons. He did not want to be seen as raising our commitment (mission creep). He made a dumb political decision that reduced the safety of the troops. The lesson of Vietnam espoused by Powell and others is troops have a well defined mission and are fully equipped. Somalia did not meet that standard. Bosnia and kosovo were opposed on the same grounds. The right was split between not doing anything and doing more than Clinton was willing. They wanted ground troops for a quick decisive operation so we could get in and get out. It was a poorly managed operation which Milosovitch used to accelerate the genocide until our targeting got more aggressive and applied real pain. Clinton was extremely tentative. That part of the right was opposed expecting we'd be there forever and do nothing. They're not far off. The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive. Even humanitarian programs they support. We are currently in an evnironment where no politician, right or left, will support action in Africa. The irony is Bush and these anti-war 'humantarians' are on the same side. I suspect Hillary is as well. Neihter can act. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINKAfter the Gulf war, Saddam signed a condition based cease-fire agreement wherein if any of those resolutions were violated, the allies reserved the right to continue hostilities towards his regime. EVERY RESOLUTION WAS VIOLATED. Incorrect. After the Gulf War, the UN Security Council imposed a mandatory cease fire that only it had the legal power to lift on all parties; this consisted of one resolution, whose terms were violated by both sides almost from the get-go including, notably, the US/UK (and initially France)-imposed "no fly zones" which had no authority and violated the requirement to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. Your beloved Saint Ronnie was directly and personally responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocent people by US supported terrorists and death-squads in Central America in the 1980s. Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 28, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK Horror! Horror! Too bad at the time he was fighting a movement that had subjugated half of Europe and had been responsible for deaths in the hundreds of thousands whenever they got power. Ever remember the Soviets invaded Afghanistan among other things? I'm sure he supported nasty people but so did most socialists. A typical American lefty was critical for propaganda that justified the killing fields of Vietnam and Cambodia. Thanks for picking a candidate who testified before the Senate that North Vietnamese would not persecute South Vietnamese who supported the Yanks. There's a few million boat people who can tell you about their dead relatives. Posted by: McA on February 28, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKBut, yeah, sure, the Democrats can make it happen! The Democratic leadership has to get out in front of this issue and take a strong position in support. Nothing happens otherwise. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINKThe problem in Somalia with Les Aspin was that he denied a request for more heavily armoured helicopters for political reasons.IIRC, the request for heavy armor on the ground, but you are correct. He made a dumb political decision that reduced the safety of the troops. Right, but anti-war liberals had nothing to do with it. (Aspin's entirely incorrect belief of how various political opponents might respond, however, did.) Bosnia and kosovo were opposed on the same grounds. The right was split between not doing anything and doing more than Clinton was willing. They wanted ground troops for a quick decisive operation so we could get in and get out. It was a poorly managed operation which Milosovitch used to accelerate the genocide until our targeting got more aggressive and applied real pain. Clinton was extremely tentative. That part of the right was opposed expecting we'd be there forever and do nothing. They're not far off. Well, sure, we're still there. But "doing nothing"? The missions have been largely successful in both cases, and, unlike Iraq, haven't featured streams of Americans coming home in body bags. So, I'd say, they're pretty damn far off. But, again, the opposition was from the Right, not the "anti-war libs" who made intervention impossible. The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive. No, reality makes military intervention expensive. Some people like facing that up front, rather than down the road. Posted by: cmdicely on February 28, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK"The anti-war libs make all action politically very expensive." Oh, and my oh my little Geprgie Bush has certainly paid a big price for this mess, politically, hasn't he? I mean, the consequences have just been enormous for him -- something he'll probably realize in ten or twenty years, when they find him drunk in a ditch somewhere. At least he'll still have Jesus to comfort him. Posted by: Kenji on February 28, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINKTop 10 in the NRO list is not a top 10 of any merit. The NRO has never done a ranking I''ve seen. The amazing thing isn't just that he's top 10 but that he's top 10 so quickly. Normally contemporary losers can't get over their own hatreds so a recent President can't get a fair deal. Harry S Truman was killed by his contempories. It's only now that he's top 10 (7th I think). We had the opposite effect with JFK. He was actually top 5 at one point. How pathetic is that? Reagan is clearly top 10. He defeated socialism without firing a shot, restored the American economy and more than both he restored American pride. Jimmy could win 15 nobel prizes. To Americans he'll always be the hapless dolt forever associated with 444. Here's a test. Talk to anyone under the age of 40 and tell them he's the guy who reduced tax rates from 70% to 28%. They'll say, "I know". The under 40 crowd is not a fan of socialism. Quite the opposite. They know what Reagan saved them from. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINKrdw: The only person in D.C. who would consider intervening in Africa is GWB. Clearly a bald-faced lie. Despite claiming, after the fact of course, that there was ongoing genocide in Iraq (a lie, of course) which justified invading, Bush refused to invade for three years during which this alleged genocide was supposed to be occurring. He refused to intervene in Chechnya where genocide was being perpetrated by the Russians. He refuses to intervene in North Korea where mass murder is allegedly rampant, if only through deliberate neglect. Indeed, Bush refuses to intervene anywhere where there is a real problem occurring, preferring to create problems out of thin are to justify intevening where there is no need. Posted by: Advocate for God on February 28, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINKI personally supported all of these operations and would always support USA intervention to prevent genocide. Except when you support US intervention to committ genocide, as in Vietnam. Nevertheless, since your thought process is as scrambled as eggs, I don't expect coherence to issue from your mighty pen... Posted by: obscure on February 28, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINKHas France sent troops? Germany? What about Kofi Anan and his peace-keepers? Can't Kofi build a coalition??? Posted by: Paddy Whack on February 28, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINKWell said Paddy Whack! Where is that coalition? Posted by: Jay on February 28, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINKJay: Mass graves found in Iraq would tend one to believe that maybe things weren't all rosy in Iraq as some would have us believe, in fact mass graves tend to indicate genocide, no? Past genocide you lying assh*le. Not ongoing. No one has denied the past genocide, much or most of which occurred when conservatives were supporting Saddam both financially and politically; some of which occurred even after Saddam gassed the Kurds. Thanks for once again proving yourself the liar and dissembler that you are. I voted for Clinton, twice. Sorry, but don't buy it. Conservatives are very, very consistent in rewriting their own history to make themselves look more credible. As far as I'm concerned, you alleged votes for Clinton are just more of your mendacious conservative propaganda. Unlike you, I don't get on my knees for any party. Just for individual politicians, like Bush, eh? rdw: Reagan is clearly top 10. Then provide the link. Your personal ranking is even less credible than NRO's would be. rdw: . . . and tell them [Reagan's] the guy who reduced tax rates from 70% to 28%. No, since I don't like to lie to the younger generation like you do. Does your daughter appreciate that her father lies to her? Delusion is necessary to elevate Reagan to the pedestal where you've place him.
The troops and equipment can come from NATO, or mostly from NATO. The money to pay for them can come from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. What can happen is not always what will happen, but if it does western Sudan and easter Chad will get the effective, heavily armed peacekeeping force they need -- and if it does not happen the way will at least be open to create a rift between Arab Islamists and the non-Arab Muslim populations of west and central Africa. Posted by: Zathras on February 28, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINKrdw: We had the opposite effect with JFK. He was actually top 5 at one point. How pathetic is that? In three recent popular opinion polls, Kennedy ranked 3rd, 5th, and 2nd. Oops! rdw caught in a lie again! Easily. How pathetic is that! Right, but anti-war liberals had nothing to do with it I never suggested the anti-war crowd went after Aspin. I do remember that as coming from the right. I take your word on the armour and stand corrected. The missions have been largely successful in both cases. The mission was successful in stopping the active genocide and it took a lot longer than it should have. There hasn't been a shred of progress since this time and the region is a mess. There is no suggestion there will ever be progess and this is nothing more than a very expensive stalemate that has the disadvantage of allowing the use of these troops and aid dollars elsewhere. BTW: I supported it. We should always act to stop genocides. No, reality makes military intervention expensive. Military interventions are always exensive. Truman got crushed in the polls and look at LBJ. It should be hard. I merely point out the irony of anti-war libs now in the position of advocating intervention in Africa. They are being hoisted on their own petard. Worse than the true-blue anti-war crowd are the opportunists who just wanted to make GWB unelectable. They really bungled it. He's President. He's on their side. He can't even thing about it. I think the USA can play an enormously productive role in Africa in a short period of time. It'll never happen. It's lucky they have people like Bill Gates. Posted by: rdw on February 28, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK rdw: He defeated socialism without firing a shot . . . If that is true, why do you still claim that the USA is burdened with socialistic problems? If that is true, then why do you still claim that Clinton, who got elected after Reagan left office, was a socialist? If that is true, why do you claim that socialism has Europe by the throat? It seems that "socialism" (which I doubt you know what that term actually means any more than you understand what the term "predict" actually means) is alive and well according to your own posts. Oops! rdw caught in another lie, this one proven by his own words! It's beginning to be a pattern with your rdw! | |