Follow us home.

[mike777]

Heard Senator Biden, really the first time I have seen the argument by someone in power say that they, whoever they are, will not follow us home and carbomb us in Detroit if we leave Iraq.

 

Glad to see this debate enter the media finally.

 

So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it.

 

It sure seems we are, today, in a civil war in Aghanistan were we are targets and have made numerous mistakes. Y et I do not see these same politicians say we should leave...or stay there or why.

 

To repeat my point, if we should be in these places, fine, but tell us why there and not Iraq. There may be very good reasons but I do not seem them reported/discussed in the media.

[the hog]

YOU, (the US), shouldn't be anywhere. Who gave you the right to act as the world's global policeman?

In a perfect world, the UN would deal with these issues.

[kenrexford]

I waver back and forth between two theories.

 

Theory One: Everyone I see around me, and I myself, are really silly children in aging bodies pretending to be important. People in Washington are the same, just with more skill at pretending. They have just as little a clue what they actually are doing as I have in trying to figure out what they are doing.

 

Theory Two: I'm a kid in an aging body, as are many others, and being kept fed and warm, to a degree, from powerful forces I do not understand. They have some agenda I do not get, nor will I ever get, and if I ever do, I'll regret it. Maybe all of this is to set up an invasion of Iran from two fronts. Maybe the Knights Templar are calling the shots because the Holy Grail was moved to Iraq in the 80's. Maybe aliens from Alpha Centauri have taken over an area in Northern Iraq and are posing as Kurds, and we are fighting them now.

 

Either way, I'm inclined to grab another beer and watch my recording of the results from American Idol.

[mike777]

YOU, (the US), shouldn't be anywhere. Who gave you the right to act as the world's global policeman?

In a perfect world, the UN would deal with these issues.

I think of this often.........I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do.....

[the hog]

"I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do..... "

 

Huh? They didn't Mike. The free settlers became more politically prominent as the colonial powers scaled down their enterprises.

[mike777]

"I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do..... "

 

Huh? They didn't Mike. The free settlers became more politically prominent as the colonial powers scaled down their enterprises.

ok the free settlers stole the land....I know that lol....same thing...they stole..they were crooks :)

 

I assume they did not buy the land from the natives in free, unforced trade.

 

Even your rebuttal left out any comments on the native owners of Ausi and did not address my main point. The colonial powers owned squat...they stole it all.

 

As I said, but you did not comment on...English stole England.

 

You seem to argue that if you live on a land for x years you and your family own it forever, regardless who you stole it from?

 

Ok but why cannot I steal it from you now?

[the hog]

"Ok but why cannot I steal it from you now?"

 

Basically because I don't have any. Lol.

 

Anyway the actions of the past do not justify current intent. Further your analogy is flawed because the concept of "ownership" is not one present in all societies eg the Aust aborigines did not own the land in their view; they were its custodians.

 

But really I don't see how this argument relates to your initial post in any way or form.

[mike777]

"But really I don't see how this argument relates to your initial post in any way or form."

 

"....Who gave you the right to act...."

 

 

When anyone using the word "right" then you open up a whole can of worms.

 

You used it. :)

 

So what rights do the USA or Iraq or Aust. or England have when it comes to land, war, peace, justice, etc? Just asking :)

 

And what right do you have to define it? Just asking :)

[pbleighton]

"So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it."

 

Question: which Democratic candidate(s) for President has advocated the invasion of Sudan?

 

Answer: none of them have.

 

Mike, sometimes you make stuff up.

 

Peter

[mike777]

See Obama......for one

Rawanda, Darfur, yes. Iraq no.

[pbleighton]

"See Obama......for one

Rawanda, Darfur, yes."

 

When and where has he advocated the U.S. invading Sudan?

 

Links please.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Peter I cannot even convince you Korea is at war and has been in a state of war for 50 years despite your own links. I am not a genius at the internet, if you cannot find proof I doubt I can but it is true. Yes, he advocated for sending USA troops in the middle of the Rawanda Civil war and the current civil war in Darfur.

[jikl]

Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?

 

Sean

[pbleighton]

"Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?"

 

I've got an idea :blink:

 

"Peter I cannot even convince you Korea is at war and has been in a state of war for 50 years despite your own links."

 

Which demonstrated that the Korean civil war is generally considered to have ended in 1953, despite the lack of a technical peace document.

 

"I am not a genius at the internet,"

 

Yeah, typing in Google.com requires 160+ IQ ;)

 

"if you cannot find proof I doubt I can but it is true. Yes, he advocated for sending USA troops in the middle of the Rawanda Civil war and the current civil war in Darfur."

 

Here's the first thing I found whjen I googled Obama Darfur:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122600547.html

 

This is a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed by Obama and Senator Sam Brownback (a conservative Republican), denouncing the genocide in Darfur, and then laying out a four point plan:

 

"First, the administration must help transform the African Union protection force into a sizable, effective multinational force.

 

In the near term, Washington must pressure Khartoum to allow more advisers from Western nations to embed within the African Union's mission so they support intelligence, logistics and communications. It must work with other nations to provide military assets to African Union forces, such as attack helicopters and armored personnel carriers, so they can respond immediately to attacks. And it must urge the African Union to be more aggressive in protecting civilians. More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force. The African Union has begun discussions with the United Nations about folding itself into a follow-on U.N. mission, but because of the West's reluctance to offend African sensibilities, all parties seem resigned to muddling along. It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it.

 

Second, the administration must keep up the pressure on the rebels to unite their negotiating positions, and it must enlist Sudan's allies to increase the pressure on Khartoum to share power and resources.

 

Third, the United States and other nations must place additional pressure on key nations -- Chad, Eritrea and Libya -- to stop playing a destructive role in the conflict.

 

Fourth, the administration needs to place its weight behind the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on the leading perpetrators of the genocide."

 

No invasion of Sudan here, just diplomacy and beefing up the existing peacekeeping forces.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?

 

Sean

A lot, wow who? I am surprised. Do they hate anything else or just the USA?

I hate liver and olives but that is just me.

 

I guess I should hate Stalin or Hitler or Mao but I never really knew them that well. Ghengis Khan sounds like a bad guy but again I never met the fellow.

 

For those that love to hate I understand the KKK is really growing in the county next door to me I just do not look that good in white robes so....also I understand they have some thingy against papists or jews so ...hmmm I may not be able to join.

 

Anyway back to the post of will they follow us home if we leave, lose or do not fight "them", whoever they are? Glad to see Biden put it out there.

[the hog]

Mike, seriously, have you been drinking? Are you so naive that you really mean the nonsense you just posted?

[Winstonm]

There are certainly two perspectives in this debate - I spent 4 hours on the phone last night debating this and other issues with my brother, who happens to be a Major in the U.S. army.

 

Here is what I understand his thoughts to be: right or wrong, now that we are in Iraq we cannot afford to lose else Iran will then be able to control Iraq. The whole purpose of Iran's support of insurgency is not to topple the present Iraqi government but to drive the U.S., via public opinion, from Iraq. With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries. Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

 

In response, I wondered out loud if there wasn't a parallel between the asian domino theory and present thinking - that if one country gives way to "radical Islam" then so will the next, etc. I also questioned what business was it of the U.S. if this did happen, as Vientnam and Cambodia have not threatened the U.S. since we vacated that area.

 

I only bring this up to point out that no one really knows what will happen - so to virtuously claim that allowing Iraq to fall will bring terrorism home to the U.S. is as disinginuous as saying the opposite - truth is, it is an unknown.

 

It seems the underlying issue is whether or not that attack of 9-11 was by a multi-state sponsored, multi-national force bent on the utter destruction of the U.S. and therefore an act of war or whether it was a suicide attack by a small and somewhat scattered group of terrorists who have no ability to do serious and permanent harm to the U.S.

 

If you believe the former, then it is reasonable to make comparisons to the cold war and imagine a 100 year war; if you view it as the latter, the U.S. action looks like imperialism.

 

The talk with my brother did enlighten me to one fact - those whose belief is this is a war base their assessment on a single overriding basis, and that is the religion of Islam. The botttom line is they are paranoid - rightly or wrongly - that Islam cannot tolerate non-Islaminic views and will never rest until the world is under Islamic law - the Law of God - the only true law there is.

 

My only response to this is that though this may be true, it is the thinking of the poor and ignorant, another example of the opiate of the masses, and although a threat the only sure way of disarming the threat is to turn poor, ignorant people into educated, middle-class people - and you don't do that with bombs.

 

So it is no surprise to me that no Democrat is stating openly that terror won't come home with our troops - as no one can know for sure - but to state that this will surely happen, as some Rebupblican and independents say, is simply trying to spread paranoid fear via a perceived world view that has no possible method of being proven. To the honest seeker, a simple "I don't know" can be an adequate answer.

[mike777]

Mike, seriously, have you been drinking? Are you so naive that you really mean the nonsense you just posted?

What nonsense...sigh I guess you guys do not really read this posts oh well.

[mike777]

There are certainly two perspectives in this debate - I spent 4 hours on the phone last night debating this and other issues with my brother, who happens to be a Major in the U.S. army.

 

Here is what I understand his thoughts to be:  right or wrong, now that we are in Iraq we cannot afford to lose else Iran will then be able to control Iraq.  The whole purpose of Iran's support of insurgency is not to topple the present Iraqi government but to drive the U.S., via public opinion, from Iraq.  With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries.   Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

 

In response, I wondered out loud if there wasn't a parallel between the asian domino theory and present thinking - that if one country gives way to "radical Islam" then so will the next, etc.  I also questioned what business was it of the U.S. if this did happen, as Vientnam and Cambodia have not threatened the U.S. since we vacated that area.

 

I only bring this up to point out that no one really knows what will happen - so to virtuously claim that allowing Iraq to fall will bring terrorism home to the U.S. is as disinginuous as saying the opposite - truth is, it is an unknown.

 

It seems the underlying issue is whether or not that attack of 9-11 was by a multi-state sponsored, multi-national force bent on the utter destruction of the U.S. and therefore an act of war or whether it was a suicide attack by a small and somewhat scattered group of terrorists who have no ability to do serious and permanent harm to the U.S.

 

If you believe the former, then it is reasonable to make comparisons to the cold war and imagine a 100 year war; if you view it as the latter, the U.S. action looks like imperialism.

 

The talk with my brother did enlighten me to one fact - those whose belief is this is a war base their assessment on a single overriding basis, and that is the religion of Islam.   The botttom line is they are paranoid - rightly or wrongly - that Islam cannot tolerate non-Islaminic views and will never rest until the world is under Islamic law - the Law of God - the only true law there is.

 

My only response to this is that though this may be true, it is the thinking of the poor and ignorant, another example of the opiate of the masses, and although a threat the only sure way of disarming the threat is to turn poor, ignorant people into educated, middle-class people - and you don't do that with bombs. 

 

So it is no surprise to me that no Democrat is stating openly that terror won't come home with our troops - as no one can know for sure - but to state that this will surely happen, as some Rebupblican and independents say,  is simply trying to spread paranoid fear via a perceived world view that has no possible method of being proven.  To the honest seeker, a simple "I don't know" can be an adequate answer.

what debate....to repeat what concerns me is one issue and one issue only.

 

 

Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?

 

I have made this point over and over again. sigh :)

 

If so then we agree.

[pbleighton]

"Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?"

 

If your first statement is absolute, yes. However, you're creating a straw man.

 

If, as many (including myself) would say, it is in general a very bad idea to be in another country's civil war, but there are occasional exceptions, no it is not nonsense, it is common sense.

 

Another way of putting it is that there is a very heavy burden of proof on those who would advocate getting involved (or starting) another country's civil war. A very heavy burden, but it is not impossible to meet.

 

For example, let's say that instead of Saddam and Bin Laden being enemies, they were very close allies, and Al Qaeda was based in Iraq, and got most of its funding and members from Iraq. Saddam was aware of and helped with 9/11. The Sunni population mostly backed Al Qaeda enthusiastically. In other words, a substantially greater involvement than the Taliban had. The Sunni/Shia/Kurd hostilities were the same as they are now, but the Sunnis were the large majority, and would obviously win any civil war. Furhter, when we (justifiably) invaded, civil war broke out.

 

Under those circumstances, we would have to stay.

 

Capice? :)

 

Peter

[mike777]

Of course Peter , you state the obvious, but the media does not report this debate.

 

I only wish there was a heavy, heavy obligation...but where in Iraq in 2002 and in Afganistan in 2007? I did not see it. :)

[Winstonm]

Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?

 

I have made this point over and over again. sigh

 

If so then we agree.

 

O.K., I got sidetracked. :P

 

Let me attempt to answer your question. I agree. The way you phrased it is utter nonsense - as soon as there are exceptions you rule out ANY and must then admit that SOME must be the operable wording.

 

It is somewhat of a semantic debate but I agree with it. Some might say it akin to a statement such as, "There are no days off except sick days with a doctor's note." The proper framing semantically would be, "The only days off allowed are sick days with doctor's notes." This implies you are expected to work all other days but there can be exceptions to this rule.

 

Ergo, the proper wording of your example should be one of these: either, 1) We should never be involved in a civil war or 2) The only civil wars we should engage in have these characteristics.....

 

It seems you are wanting an answer to more than semantics, but the way you framed the question is about the semantics. :) Is there more to your question?

[Winstonm]

Of course Peter , you state the obvious, but the media does not report this debate.

 

Is this the fault of the media or of ourselves? If the media took the time and trouble, would we watch? If the choices were ABC and a 30-minute in-depth look into America's history of involvement with foreign civil wars and Fox's 30-second sound bite leader of "Brittney Spears arrives at Grammy's sans panties" which channel would get the ratings? And then, of course, they stick the Brittney story at the end, making you watch the other 29 minutes waiting to find out just how far they went in their reporting and she in her.....acceptance speech.

[pbleighton]

" only wish there was a heavy, heavy obligation...but where in Iraq in 2002 and in Afganistan in 2007? I did not see it."

 

The obligation existed, but it was ignored.

 

Most of the mainstream media seemed to think that their job was to pimp for the war.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it.

 

It sure seems we are, today, in a civil war in Aghanistan were we are targets and have made numerous mistakes. Y et I do not see these same politicians say we should leave...or stay there or why.

 

To repeat my point, if we should be in these places, fine, but tell us why there and not Iraq. There may be very good reasons but I do not seem them reported/discussed in the media.

Here's my dramatically oversimplified answer to a very complex problem.

 

Conceptually, I am not opposed to an interventionist foreign policy. I believe that there are some cases where military intervention in another country is justified. However, I also believe that the opportunities where it is desirable to do so are few and far between. In general, when I consider these types of issues, I try apply a three part test.

 

1.Feasibility

2.Efficiency

3.Morality

 

Feasibility is shorthand for a long, complex process of balanced the end result against existing capabilities. Simply put: Precisely what are we trying to achieve? Do we have the necessary infrastructure in place to achieve these ends? Feasibility requires accurately framing the question at hand.

 

Efficiency is usually the most difficult hurdle to get over. When I talk about “efficiency”, my primary concern is whether or not there is a more cost effective mechanism to accomplish the same ends. Personally, I believe that military intervention is almost always inefficient. Moreover, those few occasions that do require military intervention almost always represent a failure to invest appropriately in prophylactic measures earlier in the process. While I am an interventionist, I strongly believe that foreign aid is the most cost effective way to accomplish our goals. (Isaac Asimov famously said “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”. I think that there is enormous truth to this statement. Its a fairly good reflection of my beliefs)

 

It might seem strange to place “Morality” last on this list. However, I don't believe that its possible to make an informed decision about whether or not its “right” to do something without already having an answer to the “Feasibility” and “Efficiency” questions.

 

With this in mid, lets consider your original question: Is it logically consistent to oppose the War in Iraq but favor military intervention to address the humanitarian crisis in Sudan? My personal belief is that largely scale military intervention in Sudan fails to base the “feasibility” hurdle

 

1.I don't believe that the Bush administration is competent to manage this complex a project .

2.The US military is horrendously over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe that we have the force structure required to successfully stabilize Sudan.

3.I don't think that US citizens have the political will necessary to support a new campaign.

4.US politicians don't like to admit it, but the government in Sudan is one of our allies in the great war against terror.

 

Based on this, I think that talk about direct US military intervention in Sudan boils down to posturing.

 

With this said and done, I haven't seen many people arguing in favor of the US “invading” Sudan. Those individuals who are suggesting intervention seem to be doing so within the context of an international force which addresses some of the efficiency issues and is very different from the simplistic picture that I've drawn.