Short Victorious War?

1. 67

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   Is the President that desperate to deflect the public from his gaffes and failures?
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091017/ap_ … s_us_sudan
   
   Or is this another example of the President opening a dialogue with genocidal maniacs now?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Flightkeeperposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Why should this surprise you? Obama makes great speeches and became a president and Nobel Peace Prize winner by giving great speeches. Following that train of thought he probably thinks that he can talk people into behaving his way.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not surprised, I just wanted to throw that out there.

         replyreport
2. 60

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 14 years ago

   The worst humanitarian crisis may be in the Indian subcontinent, in 1947, when millions were uprooted or killed on either side of India and Pakistan on religious basis.
   
   The Chinese suppression (casualties not known) of human rights activists in Beijing in 1989 is also a humanitarian crisis.
   
   The dropping of atom bombs in 1945 on Japan is also a humanitarian crisis.

   replyreport
3. 67

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   You missed the Holocaust, the genocide of the Armenians by the Turks during the Great War, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia during the 1990's.  Humanitarian crises happen all the time. 
   
   You'd think our leaders wouldn't be so eager to talk to these scumbags, but I guess Progressives really do believe all their nonsense about opening dialogues with people.  Why not, Neville Chamberlain spoke with Adolf Hitler after all.  Oh wait, that talk didn't stop anything, did it?
   
   We don't need to interfere in Africa.  Europe made that continent a dog's breakfast when they unloaded their colonies.  We've dealt with their messes in Southeast Asia and the Middle East for 50 years now.  Let them clean up their own mess.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      We've "dealt with their messes?" Try "interfered in their affairs." There was no public outcry in Vietnam for the great USA to save them from the jaws of communism. I never heard any pleas from Iran in '53 for the CIA to help overthrow their government, or any Iraqis begging for us to invade their country. There were no domestic protests when we supported Saddam against Iran in the 80s.
      
      The largest reason for the African "mess" is European and American interference. Maybe the problem was their colonization and enslavement of an entire continent, not the fact that they left (even though they continued to exploit their former colonies).
      
      It's not a matter of humanitarian issues, it's a matter of interests. Africa is a depressingly huge humanitarian issue, but it's in nobody's interest to help. How naive to think that we have nothing to do with "their messes."

      replyreport
      1. 56

         C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The truth is ugly sometimes isn't it. Its Sudan. Its Africa. The only real resources we would be interested in are the diamond mines, but alas the Britt's and the Israelies have that covered. So no, we have no interest. Its not our problem. We should stay out of it. Besides like you said, no outcry for Vietnam, no outcry for Iraq. The only difference was one had something we wanted. In the end, the results will be the same. The US should stop interfering in other peoples affairs. Its expensive and to be honest, its the real reason other world nations take a dim view of us.
         Now, scrap the current foriegn policy and immenant domain the oil of the coast of California and Alaska. Home grown solutions will put people back to work and improve our Nations morale.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You don't need eminent domain to get more oil from CA and AL, all you have to do is get rid of the restrictions that keep those areas from being exploited.  The reason you don't see us get out of the foreign policy gambit is because it's so useful for politicians to use these things to deflect criticism of domestic policies.  Why do you think Chavez and Ahmenedijad spend so much time attacking the US?  Or Castro?  The economies of all three of those countries are in shambles so their politicians work on blaming the US for their woes instead of the true authors of the people's misery, the political leadership of that nation.
            
            That is exactly what Obama is trying to do with the situation in the Sudan.  Clinton did the same thing when he changed the mission in Somalia from protecting food shipments to "nation building".  How many Rangers died so the President could have his slight of hand?  Everyone who dies in the Sudan will die for no purpose.  At the very best, they'll wait until we leave, then start butchering each other again.  At best.  At worst, well Arabs have always been hit and run fighters, and we've always had problems fighting guerrilla forces.

            replyreport
            1. 56

               C.J. Wrightposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I know we could simply remove the restrictions. I was just stealing a page from the saul playbook....never waste a crisis. LOL  Seriously, the US needs to get out of Nation Building/influencing.  Our form of government/ecomony stands on its own merit. We don't need to convicnce the world. Focus on ourselves and let the rest of the world take notice. When we go back to basics, things will change. Slowly at first, but soon the wave will grow. Freedom is unstoppable and its not free.  We can't give another country freedom. It must be bought with native blood. Freedom is an extremely fullfilling and demanding mistress.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  If they ever invent a time machine, I'm going back in time to kill Saul Alinsky.  That man has done more than any other in the modern era to fulfill Orwell's vision of the future than any other radical Progressive shill.

                  replyreport
      2. 67

         ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You don't read much history do you?  Africa was divided up into it's present state according to colonial boundaries not tribal ones.  That's why genocides happen there.  Look at Rawanda:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Ge … Background
         
         Give Tutsis power over Hutus and Hutus suffer.  Give Hutus power over Tutsi and Hutus suffer.  Much better to have divided the nation along tribal boundaries, but the Europeans didn't care they just wanted to offload the colonies because those colonies were a drain on the recovery of the mother nation.
         
         So yeah, we're dealing with the mess Europe left behind. 
         
         No public outcry in Vietnam?  There was SEATO:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_ … ganization of which the US and South Vietnam were members along with the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand and others.
         
         Iran was the result of attempts by the Soviet Union to install a puppet regime there.  Russia has had a long history of wanting that area:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Russia_relations
         
         The sad part about all of those interventions during the Cold War is that they were unnecessary.  Communism could have encompassed the entire globe but the United States and it still would have collapsed under its own weight.  Heck had World Communism been achieved, it still would have collapsed under its own weight. 
         
         As for Iraq, perhaps you would have allowed the status quo to continue with the embargo and the corrupt oil for food program to go on that Saddam was using not for food, but attempting to rebuild his Republican Guard?  Rather than fictional WMD's that reasoning would have been accepted, I think.  We didn't finish the job in 1991, when we should have and Iraqis will suffer for generations because of it.  If we start something, we have to finish it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, I majored in history. Maybe that's why you don't see me citing wikipedia. SEATO makes no difference to the fact that the people of Vietnam did not want America to interfere in their civil war. We just replaced the French as colonial invaders and they fought us as such.
            
            I know how Africa was divided. Your point is that it was divided incorrectly, which is right, but my point is that the problem was colonialism and continuing interference, which encompasses far more than just the way they left. It also shifts the blame, which you are trying to evade.
            
            The Iran overthrow was not about the Soviets, it was about nationalization of Iranian oil. We overthrew a popular, charismatic leader and reinstalled the shah so that we could keep out hands on Iranian oil. We also supported Saddam against Iran in the 80s and American companies sold him chemicals used in making chemical weapons used against the Iranians -- ehm, WMDs, made in the USA.
            
            You have completely missed the point about all of the Cold War interventions, because you take for granted that the domino theory was correct, when in fact it was not. Russia had its own desires and problems, as did China, as did Cuba, as did Vietnam, etc. There was no global communist conspiracy; the Vietnamese were fighting for their freedom, not for communism.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               You seem to have missed the part where I stated that Cold War interventionism was unnecessary.  It would seem that history departments leave something to be desired when they educate kids today.
               
               No global Communist conspiracy? 
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F_V2fQCKe4
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYwQhKr … re=related
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCQ-WJXP9qA
               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(1953%E2%80%931962)
               
               Why not use Wikipedia as a source.  They clearly post reverences at the end and the articles are reviewed for context.  I imagine you don't appreciate the free flow of information that Wikipedia represents.  Or could it be that most people don't share your point of view and you resent that fact?
               
               How can you fix colonialism?  Those events happened long before we were born.  We can fix Africa today by not supporting those artificial political constructs and supporting political constructs that allow the different tribes to live under their own people.  Sure they might fight wars from time to time, but we'll see the end to genocidal killing fields like Rawanda and the Sudan.  Typical history major, you can't get over the  past to see how we can make things better in the future.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  This is my last post on this because its becoming useless. You said Cold War interventionism was useless because worldwide communism would have "collapsed under its own weight." This means that the communists in Russia, China, Vietnam, and all other states were in sync. You back this up by a couple youtube videos and a wikipedia article. The problem is we now know this not to be true. Search George Kennan on your beloved wikipedia. Oh, and I don't use wikipedia as a source because it's NOT always CORRECT. That's a problem for us "typical" history majors. It has nothing to do with free flow of information.
                  
                  I'm not saying we can fix colonialism, it's over. But you are saying it is right to abandon the problems left behind/directly created by colonialism and other outside influences, which I strongly disagree with. Your great plan for the future is to let the entire continent of Africa suffer, yet I am the one not planning?

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Of course Wikipedia isn't always correct, that's why you check the sources at the bottom of the page.  As a supposed scholar, I'd expect you to know that.  It's just a convenient way for you to dismiss things you don't agree with.  That's not exactly the definition of intellectual honesty, is it?
                     
                     How do you get Communism collapsing under it's own weight and equate it with Communism being in sync?  One word.  Yugoslavia.  You cannot deny that the Soviets were instrumental in placing puppet regimes in Eastern European nations and attempted to do the same around the world.  Greece, for example.  South Korea for another.
                     
                     Also it may have escaped you but the US isn't responsible for Africa, Europe is.  They might want to step up to the plate to clean their own mess up, not expect us to like they have for most of the 20th century.

                     replyreport