Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (185958)	5/1/2006 10:07:48 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

The same folks who are vehemently against the iraq war led a rally to stop genocide in Darfur and asked the US to intervene. What happens if we do intervene and Al Quada carries out its threat to fight the peacekeepers and after three years there is a brutal civil war going on using the terror tactics now being used in iraq and there are 1000 american deaths. Since you're responding to Hawk's rather humorous post. George Clooney is not asking for a US military intervention in Darfur. He acknowledges that US military is rather busy at the moment. He's asking for a NATO intervention and he's asking the US for dimplomatic support to get other NATO countries involved. As the US position in Sudan is genocide, that doesn't seem to big a request. I think that there are 180,000 deaths in Darfur already but didnt saddam also kill several hundered thousand plus those who died in the wars he started?????? Now why is one ok and the other is not? That's easy. I've seen the answer to that one many times. The difference is that Darfur is a genocide that is occuring while we speak. In the case of Saddam that was old news. The US supported Iraq through most of the 90's while Saddam was killing off people. Then Bush Jr. comes along a decade after the fact and claims a moral principle. Since Reagan isn't around any longer, then Bush Sr. should be tried along with Saddam as a co-conspirator after the fact. It works for me. [I would toss in the PM of the UK as well.] OK but what if the world doesnt choose to intervene with troops--what then? Another easy one. If the world does not choose to intervene, then it will go down in history as another Rwanda. The world puts these sort of things into the dustbin of history, to be repeated at some time in the future in some other place. jttmab