Death Panels You Say?

Clinton did starve a few hundred thousand before the invasion. A fact lost on the ill-informed "anti-war" left.

And, 5 years into team zero's reign, we still are at war.

What a joke.

 

People may disagree with whether or not the reasons justified but we cannot create our own set of facts as to what they were.

1. The first Gulf War never came to an end and the entire 12 years we were only under a cease fire.

2. Hussein refused to maintain the agreement under the cease fire many, many times.

3. Hussein had plenty of warnings prior to going back in.

4. Hussein himself made the decision to "starve" people not anyone else.

 

On point # 4, he DID have some help with the corrupt oil-for-food U.N. scandal.

 

Yes sir he did

 

It is stupid inyour eyes to save lives. The prime objective is to maintain American world supremacy, right?

 

Nope. My objective is peace. How many trimes do I have to say it ? I do not support the global war on terror. Do you ?

P.S. You never answered my question on sanctions.

 

Very soon after being elected the first time, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, mainly because of what the world members of that voting body perceived he was going to do. Since then, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; special forces have been sent into areas of Africa; a raid into Pakistan was authorized to kill Bin Laden; consideration is being made to send drones and troops into Syria; and more.

Blame may lie with Bush for going into Iraq and Afghanistan; but who receives blame for the fact that we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and involved in military actions in other countries?

 

No, I do not support the "never-ending" war on terror that Bush declared. I think that terrorism requires a different kind of approach. Cyberterrorism is a real threat. Homeland defense as it's cuurently being operated is a joke, just another government bureaucracy. There is rarely a need to invade and occupy another country in this era. Sanctions are undersirabl. I would certainly prefer diplomacy but I would prefer sanctions over war. We think that Viet Nam was a huge loss of American liver but that was only 50,000 versus 1 million Vietnamese. Perhaps 20,000 Americans have died in Iraq bt Iraqui losses are in the hunderds of thousands. We seem to forget that Vietnamese and Iraquis are human beings too.

 

So would you say that Obama has forgotten that Pakistanis are human ? How about the population of Darfur ?

Sanctions starve people. Have you forgotten that Iraqis, North Koreans, Iranians, or Lybians are human ?

And you keep this Bush stuff up like he did it all by himself. Why ? Do facts mean anything to you, or do you just make stuff up hoping I'll go away ?

 

I don't agree with Obama's extension of Bush's policies with respect to the war. Why didn't GW listen to his father who said that it was a terrible mistake to occupy Iraq. That's why GHW Bush pulled out after accomplishing his mission of supporting our allies in Kuwait. The sanctions in Iraq were perhaps justified by that country's refusal to co-operate with the UN demand to allow ongoing investigation into their nuclear activities. But the "evidence" never supported an invasion and an occupation of Iraq. That was simply the Bush administration;'s prime objective. It had nothing to do with 9/11 or with any hard evidence that Iraq had a viable nuclear arms capability.

I think Obama in many ways has mimicked Nixon's role in Viet Nam. He didn't start or escalate the war but he prolonged it. To his credit he did officially end it. It's over. The war in Afghanistan will be over shortly especially now that the people of Afghanistan now consider the U.S. to be an occupying power and not their ally. They have asked us to leave. I hope that happens very soon.

Would you have supported an abrupt pullout from both countries immediately after Obama was elected. I certainly would have because I believed (and still do) that the outcome in both places will be the same no matter how long we stay there, civil war. The real question is whether the doi-nothing/obstruct everything Republicans in Congress would have supporteded a rapid pullout. My belief is absolutely not. They would have called Obama a traitor for doing so. In reality, it is Obama who has captured or killed the majority of the bin-Laden terrorists including Osama himself. Thsat never was a priority for Bush. In fact he said that in 2007 I think.

 

So your position is that a separate Pakistan state should be created, correct? The U.S. did drop the ball in Darfur. The War in Darfur was a guerrilla conflict or civil war centered on the Darfur region of Sudan. It began in February 2003 when the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) groups in Darfur took up arms, accusing the Sudanese government of oppressing non-Arab Sudanese in favor of Sudanese Arabs. It is also known as the Darfur Genocide.

The Sudanese government and the JEM signed a ceasefire agreement in February 2010, with a tentative agreement to pursue further peace. The JEM has the most to gain from the talks and could see semi-autonomy much like South Sudan.[18] However, talks have been disrupted by accusations that the Sudanese army launched raids and air strikes against a village, violating the February agreement. The JEM, the largest rebel group in Darfur, has said they will boycott further negotiations.

On 5 May 2006, the government of Sudan signed an accord with the faction of the SLA led by Minni Minnawi. However, the agreement was rejected by two other, smaller groups, the Justice and Equality Movement and a rival faction of the SLA.The accord was orchestrated by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, Salim Ahmed Salim (working on behalf of the African Union), AU representatives, and other foreign officials operating in Abuja, Nigeria. It called for the disarmament of the Janjaweed militia, and for the rebel forces to disband and be incorporated into the army.

So this genocide began during the Bush administration but a peace accord was signed with the help of his Dep. Sec. of State. But July and August 2006 saw renewed fighting, with international aid organizations considering leaving due to attacks against their personnel. Kofi Annan called for the deployment of 18,000 international peacekeepers in Darfur to replace the African Union force of 7,000 (AMIS).

Fighting continued through mid 2009 when General Martin Agwai, head of the joint African Union-United Nations mission in Darfur, said the war was over in the region, although low-level disputes remain. There is still "Banditry, localised issues, people trying to resolve issues over water and land at a local level. But real war as such, I think we are over that," he said.

In December 2010, representatives of the Liberation and Justice Movement, an umbrella organisation of ten rebel groups formed in February 2010, started a fresh round of talks with the Sudanese Government in Doha, Qatar. A new rebel group, the Sudanese Alliance Resistance Forces in Darfur, was also formed, and the Justice and Equality Movement planned further talks. The talks ended on 19 December without a new peace agreement but basic principles were agreed upon; these included a regional authority and a referendum on autonomy for Darfur. The possibility of a Darfuri Vice-President was also discussed.

In June, a new Darfur Peace Agreement (2011) was proposed by the Joint Mediators at the Doha Peace Forum. This agreement was to supersede the Abuja Agreement of 2005 and when signed, would halt preparations for a Darfur status referendum.[144] The proposed document included provisions for a Darfuri Vice-President and an administrative structure that includes both three states and a strategic regional authority, the Darfur Regional Authority, to oversee Darfur as a whole.[145] The agreement was signed by the Government of Sudan and the Liberation and Justice Movement on 14 July 2011.[146]
As of September 2012, little progress had happened since, and the situation was slowly worsening.[147] the situation has worsened and is violent again.[148] Refugee camps are increasing in population

My take is that in Darfur we have a civil war that has been ongoing for a long time before 2003. The U.S. never did get actively involved in stopping the genocide, either administration. We could have more actively supported the U.N. peace-keeping forces but many in the U.S. don't support the legitimacy of the U.N. Guess who.

Gérard Prunier, a scholar specializing in African conflicts, argued that the world's most powerful countries have largely limited themselves in expressing concerns and demand for the United Nations to take action in solving the genocide in Darfur. The UN, lacking both the funding and military support of the wealthy countries, has left the African Union to deploy a token force (AMIS) without a mandate to protect civilians. In the lack of foreign political will to address the political and economic structures that underlie the conflict, the international community has defined the Darfur conflict in humanitarian assistance terms and debated the label of "genocide."

Your claim is that the Obama administration is responsible for not stepping in to stop this bloodshed. I would say that both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed in this regard.

 

Even though war is war some how the pet war for liberals is darfar.

 

War is waR? The Baptist position is that some wars are justified and some are not. I see you suppoprt them all. That's an "interesting" position for a "man of God."

 

You have seen nothing of the kind. But I am getting used to your emotional responses. I will leave you to your misery.

 

I guess you just cannot read, or comprehend anything that's said by someone you peg as an enemy. You completely missed my point. My guess is you just are not worth talking to.

 

Say something meaningful. You're simply ndemonstrating your stupidity by dodging my argument.

 

Which of these American wars of aggression did you NOT suppoprt? Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq?

 

LOL. I'll wear that "stupidity" hat proudly as soon as you tell me what "ndemonstrating" means.

And you have no argument, BTW. I doubt you even know what I said.

 

The fact is that American foreign policy is crafted over many administrations and acquires an inertia that makes it difficult to change course. It's like a cruise ship trying to quickly turn around. Promises are made to other nations, deals made, aid given, intelligence shared, etc. When candidates become Presidents they get this inside info and they can see they can't single-handedly reverse 50 years of U.S. policy. That's why Obama's promise to withdraw the troops from Iraq in 18 months (or whatever it was he promised in 2008 campaign) was never going to happen. That's why you have the same actions being taken by successive administrations across party lines.

 

If you would ever say anything rational I would remember it. Now what was it you said?