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: jttmab who wrote (185967)	5/1/2006 12:33:57 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Is now the time to go to war against another arab/islamic state? Darfur is awful but iran is a danger and iraq is very real mess that we are in the middle of. Darfur may be hopeless and impossible to have success in, particularly now that bin laden has declared war on western and UN troops in Darfur, Sudan. Now you should come back at me that "I'd rather fight 'em there than here at home. Full Circle.

To: jttmab who wrote (185967)	5/1/2006 9:50:00 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. I see.. so it's all back to "selling" the people of the world that we need to use military force to intervene in the affairs of another country, eh?? Why is it ok to use military peace-keeping forces in Sudan, which is in the midst of a civil war, but NOT OKAY to use military peacekeeping forces in Iraq, ALSO a country in the throughs of a limited civil war, and where various ethnic groups such as the Shi'a and Kurds ARE STILL TARGETED in a deliberate act of what the victims probably believe is genocide?? And btw, exactly what kind of "misinformation" am I guilty of purveying?? Specific examples would be helpful, rather than ad hominem attacks against me. 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. Some success... A "touchy-feely" exercise in temporary peace-keeping that QUICKLY dissipated back to the previous status quo because of our inadequate planning, lack of will, and distraction by other events that undermined the continued presence of UN forces in Somalia. Upon our departure, the country quickly regressed back to its gang warfare between various warlords leading militias of "Khat happy" street thugs. And you apparently don't have any idea of the effect that Khat has on these young men. Be careful how you answer me on this.. I've worked with quite a few people who were there, and actually involved in the events of "Blackhawk Down". So I've received a bit of their perspective on this matter. A response that you'll never be able to comprehend....when it comes to a humanitarian crisis, the world bends the rules. They didn't really "bend the rules" in the case of Iraq, now did they?? Immediately after Desert Storm, the Shi'a hosted an uprising against their oppressor, the Ba'thist government, and upwards of hundreds of thousands of them were slaughtered as a result. I didn't see anyone "bending the rules" to support them in their cause to fight the genocide that had been perpetrated against them for decades. I find very, very few people say anything about the US attach on Afghanistan. Which is why I find it so odd.. Did Afghanistan attack the US on 9/11?? Did the Afghani people attack the US?? NO!!! But what THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT DID was provide safe harbor to Al Qai'da and Bin Laden, THE GROUP THAT DID ATTACK THE US. But when we discover that Abu Mus'ab Al Zarqawi, AN ACKNOWLEDGED MEMBER OF AL QAI'DA is being provided safe harbor and refuge in Iraq, along with the Al Qai'da sub-group, Ansar Al Islam (later Ansar Al Sunnah), people of YOUR ILK couldn't find the intestinal fortitude to apply the same "treatment" to Saddam that we did to the Taliban. And sure.. maybe y'all weren't convinced about the Iraqi/Al Qai'da linkages prior to the invasion, but the DOCEX that is translating and analyzing the Ba'thist paper trail (in particular the IIS) have CLEARLY FOUND SUCH LINKAGES TO HAVE EXISTED. And these linkages go all the way back to the EARLY '90's, not just in the years prior to 9/11. But that doesn't matter.. You're all ready to saddle up your trust white steeds, down your Ivory Stetsons, and go off on a humanitarian mission to Darfur. It doesn't matter that Bin Laden has just ordered his people to go to Sudan for the purpose of waging battle against any UN peace-keeping mission. NO.. y'all think you're just going in to play "world police", keep the peace for a few months, maybe a year, and then everything will be hunky-dory and you can pull out... Well, let me ask you.. What's the exit strategy Jttmab?? And what do you do when NATO forces find themselves thrust into an African counter-insurgency and face accusations of neo-colonialism and "Crusaderism"?? Are you ready to do a body count then? Will Nightline report the names of all the NATO peace-keepers who die in Sudan?? Again.. I'M NOT OPPOSED to going into Sudan. In fact, I'm convinced that it's something the world is going to have to deal with soon, as well as Somalia, because both of these places are sanctuaries and havens for Islamo-Fascist ideologies. I just think you'd better prepare yourselves for some shocking re-considerations of what you're leading the UN into. Take off the "rose-colored glasses" and think VERY DEEPLY about just how far you're going to be willing to escalate the use of military force to achieve your currently undefined political and humanitarian goals. Hawk