The Rawandan genocide was over in a year, the one in Darfur has been going on all of Bush's presidency, he's had 6 1/2 years to do something. I don't think the US should be the policeman of the world. Where's England, France, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Japan, etc. There is a UN. It's not always up to us. When we think it is up to us, we need to apply the Vietnam lessons, is the objective clear, can it be achieved quickly and at low cost, do the benefits outweigh the cost, will we know when the objective has been achieved, and then get out. We didn't intervene in the Cambodian genocide in the 70's, too close to the end of Vietnam. There is no rule that says it's the US job to stop all genocides, nor do I think we should. Stopping the one in Kosovo was good, low cost to us, NATO took over most peace keeping, no long term entanglement. Milosovich was tried by the world court for war crimes for a valid reason.
Make up your mind, what do you want Bush to do? Ignore Darfur, like Clinton did Rwanda or bomb Darfur, like Clinton did Kosovo?
That's a simple question with no simple answer. In Yugoslavia, they had enough to lose and we could take it away from them easily enough, that they stopped killing people quickly, in two weeks without bridges in their big cities, and without electricity. In Sudan, I'm sure they have enough to lose, but can we find it and hit it easily? They may live without elec. 12 or 16 hours a day anyhow. Their army often resembles a guerilla force and would be hard to find from the air. We'd probably have to put boots on the ground. Would we become targets in a civil war, attacked by both sides? Is there a concrete plan that would bring quick victory at low cost to the US? Would we be part of a coalition or going it alone? Can we win a clear low cost victory and then get out (coalition forces may remain as peacekeepers, as in Kosovo). I am not an expert on Sudan, and I can't answer all those questions, but before getting involved, they all have to be answered. We all would like simple problems with simple solutions, but the world is not like that anymore. It's a complicated world, and it requires well thought out actions, that have been planned all the way through from pre-war assessments, military actions, and post war planning to bring stability to the country. The Rawandan genocide ended in a year and the situation seems stable, without international intervention. That would lead me to believe that a quick low cost victory was possible and the US and the rest of the world was wrong to ignore that situation and allow 600,000 people to be slaughtered, most by machete. Do you think I have a problem saying Clinton made a mistake? Not at all, he made a mistake on Rawanda. He has gone to Rawanda and apologized to the Rawandan people for failing to act on their behalf, after he left office. He got Kosovo right, and Rawanda wrong. Bush got Afghanistan right, and Iraq wrong. But our cost for Bush's error in Iraq is by far the highest cost mistake the nation has made since Vietnam. Saddam killed most of his 300,000 people in the 80's while Reagan and Bush I were watching, and Reagan had Rumsfeld in Baghdad shaking hands with Saddam because we liked him for fighting the Iranians, even if he was killing lots of his own people.
Houtiger brought up an interesting thought to my mind in a previous post. I am in no way saying he agrees with me but here is my thought. How can those who supported Clinton and the US going into Serbia not support pretty much the same thing in Iraq? Seems like partisan politics or a double standard to me. Also seems like its a double standard because the Democrats voted for it and get a 100% free pass and Bush gets all the blame. Americans have a short memory. Congress has the job of funding not making policy, rag heads. I am not saying Bush shouldn't be blamed and I'm not taking up for him either. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if he was impeached because of border issues such as border security and not protecting border patrol doing their duties. Interesting story here http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070517/pl_afp/usiraqmilitary_070517223043 Americans live in a microwave society, I want everything now and everything finished now!
The battle in iraq was just. I call it a "battle" because that is exactly what it was meant to be...just one more battle in the "global war on terrorism". It has become something else. Now, don't get me wrong, I do not support or advocate taking our troops out right now. What I do want to see is a changing of strategy. We need to take the freaking gloves off. We need to stop playing by B.S. rules. We need to beat the living crap out of our enemies, drive them elsewhere, and then go there and beat the living crap out of them some more. This "Win the hearts and minds" crap doesn't work. This has turned into nothing more than a political game, being played at the expense of my friends and comrades. Our current strategy in iraq can be summed up very easily....politically correct bull****. To address Bush's new immigrant idea.....More Bull****! No matter how he tries to spin it, it is always going to be amnesty. I'd rather see them continue to "hide in the shadows" than to just hand legality to another 12 million border jumpers. The word for today gents is....Bull****. Everything coming out of washington is B.S. From the left, and so-called right. They're playing grab ass in iraq, handing our country over to a bunch of mexicans, and not doing a damn thing to lower the cost of ****ing gas. I've about had it. Don't tell me what kind of car to drive, build some more freaking refineries for goodness sake. Drill for more freaking oil in the damn gulf....there's more out there than we could ever use. Of course, it's not the lack of oil that 's hurting us is it? We need more refineries..the damn politicians don't want to build them. What kind of sense does this make? "Ha Ha...let's just tell the sheep to buy and drive hybrids"......you can take your stinking hybrid and stick it up your ass. "OK everybody, let's start using bio fuel"....Bull****! The damn bio crap cost more than premium unleaded. Why the hell would I want to buy that? I don't give two ****s about the "environment". I just want cheaper fuel. Outside of NY city and california, nobody cares....we just don't want to pay three freaking dollars for a gallon of gas when we know good and well that there is no reason for it to cost so much. <--------Me
I'm looking hard at the Democratic candidates. After much thought, I have determined that the biggest problem facing America today is the number of able-bodied people who unceasingly make babies and are unable or unwilling to work to support them. The rut never ends so the males are too busy sniffing out "ready" females to earn a living. We must increase the tax dollar outlay in order to allow these people to live comfortably in the lulls between sexual activities.
I have to disagree with you on this point and this point only. Why would an oil company build a refinery in the US? They can go right across the border and build much cheaper without the environmental upgrades needed in the US. They can run it cheaper with no concerns about environmental busts, pay their employees McDonalds wages with no benifits and ship it right back across the border into the US with no penalty. The politicians are to blame (NAFTA) but it's not because they don't want to build refineries in the US, it's because the oil companies that own them can now make much much greater profits refining elsewhere and selling it back in the US and abroad.
There is a world of difference between Serbia and Iraq. In terms of the justification, in Serbia there was a genocide, or ethnic cleansing if you prefer, going on at the time, perpetrated by the Serbs. They were killing and raping thousands of innocent folks, look up "Srebrenica". Slobodan Milosivic was tried at the world court for war crimes over this, but died in custody before the trial ended. There is no doubt that the stated justification for the conflict was true. In Iraq, the justification for the war was false. We said 1) Iraq HAS WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the USA, 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and 4) Iraq was "ground central in the war on terror". Every one of the originally stated reasons for entering the war was false. Iraq had no WMD, they did not pose an imminent threat to the US, they had nothing to do with 9/11, and they had "no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda". This is documented in the 9/11 Commission Report and the Kay and Dulfer reports on WMD inspections of Iraq after the war. Saddam wanted more WMD, but the UN put Hans Blix into Iraq in the fall of 02 and we could have put him in anytime we wanted and left him in like the UNSCOM team from 1991 to 1998. There was no need for this war based on the stated reasons. Bush even planted a political appointee, Douglas Feith, in the DOD and although he was not engaged in intelligence collection, he published reports "as intelligence" that contradicted the CIA, and the administration used the Feith reports. They manufactured their own case for war. This was documented in testimony before congress within the last 2 months by the DOD Inspector General, who termed it "inappropriate", although not illegal. The second major difference between Serbia and Iraq, from a practical standpoint is 1) what will it take to win the conflict and 2) what will the aftermath and consequences of the conflict look like? In Serbia, we thought we could stop the incursion by the Serbs and stop the slaughter with minimal cost, and that NATO allies would provide peacekeeping forces, and further killings could be averted. That turned out to be true. In Iraq, accurately projected we could topple the govt. with minimal effort, and we did in 3 weeks. We failed miserably to assess the consequences of the power vacuum in Iraq after Saddam fell. It was most accurately assessed by Bush I administration in their decision NOT to go into Iraq after the Gulf war, and Dick Cheney as Sec. of Defense spoke of not wanting to create a power vacuum in the region and not wanting to get the US into a potential quagmire. But Bush II was too ignorant and egotistical and believed Iraqi exiles who told him what he wanted to hear, "you'll be greeted like heros". If we knew the cost of filling the power vacuum in Iraq, we should have never chosen to go in. In 1991, we accurately assessed the costs of going into Iraq and wisely stayed out; WE KNEW THE CORRECT ANSWER, it would cost much more than it was worth. In assessing whether to get involved or not, that is the key practical question that MUST be answered, what will I get out of this, and what will it cost. In Serbia, we got to end a genocide at low cost to the US and our NATO allies. In Iraq, who had no WMD, was not an imminent threat to the US, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda, we have gained little at an extremely high cost ($4 Billion per month, about 80 KIA per month, and another 700 wounded per month of which 350 per month cannot return to combat duty and the taxpayers will have a huge medical bill for life). That's the difference. You have to look at the justification for going in, the value of the objective to be achieved, the cost to your country to achieve the objective, and the consequences of changing the situation and figure it all out. Bush II failed to do that accurately in Iraq, but we knew the correct answer in 1991. That is why I have no respect for Bush II. I am an independent and call it like I see it. This does not mean that there are no democrats that I disrespect, one being Dianne Feinstein.
You are off base in your last point. NAFTA would make it much easier for an oil company to refine gas across the border and transport it to the US. The reason they don't build refineries in other countries is beacause by keeping capacity low they keep supply low and artificially raise prices. Of course even the refining capacity argument is loosing water as gasoline surpluses have grown for the past few months.
How was it an "incursion" when Serbia already owned the land? That's like saying we may one day mount an incursion into Texas. Edit: Since TX will one day belong to mexico again, we may just have to. I wonder if NATO will come over here and make us stop. Better map: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/frmryugo.pdf
