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: Hawkmoon who wrote (185961)	5/1/2006 11:28:55 AM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

The Janweed is the taliban on horseback. First they killed christian blacks and now the "inferior" islamic blacks are the next to go. So much for moslem brotherhood. The left is for wars that are easly won but disassociate from those that are difficult. They must think that darfur will be a cakewalk and dont take osama seriously about what will happen if we violate the territory of Sudan.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (185961)	5/1/2006 11:29:45 AM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Did Cloony say there were wmds in Darfur?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (185961)	5/1/2006 12:25:50 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

But it's nice to see the shoe being put on the other foot.... Let's see Clooney and his gang try and sell his proposal to the American people. It's a very easy sell. As long as people like you don't butt in with misinformation. Who in the US is going to object to, e.g., Canada, sending troops to the Sudan? Canada has supported more peacekeeping operations than any other major country. Do Americans care? I think not. Is this just about initially going in temporarily, as we did in Somalia, to feed the people and protect them from the gangs? Or will this become, as it did Somalia, a course that leads to becoming involved in affecting the political structure by targeting intransigent leaders? I read an article while living in England about Somalia. It was very interesting. The short story is that most of the world considered the US effort in Somalia to be a significant success. Europeans governments were at first puzzled as to why the US wanted to be involved. The question being "What's in it for the US?" Then they figured out that it was being done solely because it was the right thing to do. How novel. Btw, I understand that my tone is a bit "partisan". I'm shocked. And what's your legal authority for intervening? A response that you'll never be able to comprehend....when it comes to a humanitarian crisis, the world bends the rules. Bosnia, Somalia, they'll bend the rules. They would have bent the rules in Rwanda if someone would have taken the lead. I'm just finding it ironic that military force being used to free 40 million people from the brutality of the Taliban and Saddam's regime is somehow being criticized as less worthy than a similiar intervention in Darfur. I find very, very few people say anything about the US attach on Afghanistan. I'm sure you could dig up a couple of people, I can't think of any European government as an example. Again, the difference between Iraq and Darfur is the timing of the humanitarian crisis. jttmab