Obama - First Black President

[noblemountain]

curious as to what some of you guys think should happen in the congo right now. the UN is heavily involved, but we're not...atm...i've personally been to this part of the world several times in and out of my army uniform and am a little curious to see what people think of what's going on there. i was very moved by things i saw in africa and noticed when i got home most people didn't care/know anything about it. i know most of you think we shouldn't be in the middle east, but what about supplying aid here like we did in somalia back in the early 90's?

[Kiro]

I'm tired of helping Africa. :<

[Maxxthepenguin]

Don't know about the Congo atm. To me, as long as it can be cleanly done and as long as the crimes are of a huge magnitude, I'm ok with it. But I juts don't know.

[Demosthenes11]

Iraq could have been done cleanly (should have if we were to go in at all) and the crimes were of a big enough magnitude. So are you saying we should have gone to Iraq?

[Maxxthepenguin]

Iraq could have been done cleanly (should have if we were to go in at all) and the crimes were of a big enough magnitude. So are you saying we should have gone to Iraq?

If Iraq fit those guidelines, yes. If the crimes were a big enough magnitude and it could have been done cleanly, I would say go in.

I, however, don't think it fit the guidelines.

[noblemountain]

If Iraq fit those guidelines, yes. If the crimes were a big enough magnitude and it could have been done cleanly, I would say go in.

I, however, don't think it fit the guidelines.

Eddie Izzard said it best, "killing your own people is fine, as long as you leave the other people the hell alone."

Stalin killed 20 million of his own people...not much said

Idi Amin killed over 500 thousand of his own people...

the Khmer Rouge took out 1.7 million cambodians

600k~ in Rwanda in the early 90's

Mao in china has had a part in between 27 million and 75 million deaths through starvation policies

500k in Ethiopia from the marxist regime

400k in Darfur

500k~ for Slobadon Milosivic

Saddam Hussein's toll is put between 500k (world humanitarian groups and UN) and a little over a million (Iraqi leaders).

not taking sides on the argument honestly 'cause it's not the debate i wanted to spark...just throwing out figures. when you look at just the numbers, it's all sickening. the thing is, when does it become bad enough that we (the rest of the world) need to step in and handle another countries business because they can't help themselves?

[Plow]

curious as to what some of you guys think should happen in the congo right now. the UN is heavily involved, but we're not...atm...i've personally been to this part of the world several times in and out of my army uniform and am a little curious to see what people think of what's going on there. i was very moved by things i saw in africa and noticed when i got home most people didn't care/know anything about it. i know most of you think we shouldn't be in the middle east, but what about supplying aid here like we did in somalia back in the early 90's?

Man I took African Politics from Kisangani Emizet.


The problem here is that the shit is suuuuuuch a mess, we'd be looking at involving ourselves in an almost Vietnam-like conflict, we need to help where we can with the refugees, but for the most part we've got to let Amnesty do their thing and leave the major decision making up to the U.N.

[Demosthenes11]

If Iraq fit those guidelines, yes. If the crimes were a big enough magnitude and it could have been done cleanly, I would say go in.

I, however, don't think it fit the guidelines.

which doesn't it fit?

Brutal dictator with rampant crimes by his own government such as murder and rape, and attempted genocide upon the Kurds including gassing his own people with serum gas. At any rate, the crimes are at least on par with the Congo.

That only leaves the other option: it can't be done cleanly.
Judging by all of our intelligence, virtually everyone thought it would be fairly easy. Almost all of our politicians were convinced we would not be there for more than a few months and that once Saddam was caught and captured, the rest would crumble as well. I'm sure if W and the admin looked at Iraq before and knew it would take 8+ years, they would not have done it.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Man I took African Politics from Kisangani Emizet.


The problem here is that the shit is suuuuuuch a mess, we'd be looking at involving ourselves in an almost Vietnam-like conflict, we need to help where we can with the refugees, but for the most part we've got to let Amnesty do their thing and leave the major decision making up to the U.N.

My view is quite similar. None of this shit can be done unilaterally. We either need to get the full support of other countries, likely through the UN, or we just can't do it. The only crime that I think justifies unilateralism is being attacked ourselves.

[Maxxthepenguin]

That only leaves the other option: it can't be done cleanly.
Judging by all of our intelligence, virtually everyone thought it would be fairly easy. Almost all of our politicians were convinced we would not be there for more than a few months and that once Saddam was caught and captured, the rest would crumble as well. I'm sure if W and the admin looked at Iraq before and knew it would take 8+ years, they would not have done it.

The problems:
A) Unilateralism. The rest of the world apparently knew something we didn't, only sending token forces as a show of support without actually dumping much into the war.
B) Trust. I, myself, didn't trust the Bush admin's rationale. Since we're talking about my views, my perception matters.
C) Obviousness. Tearing down a strong central government and trying to reconstruct it from scratch in a volatile part of the world where many people just generally hate us (largely because of occupations, lol) just seems like a bad idea.

[Demosthenes11]

The problems:
A) Unilateralism. The rest of the world apparently knew something we didn't, only sending token forces as a show of support without actually dumping much into the war.
B) Trust. I, myself, didn't trust the Bush admin's rationale. Since we're talking about my views, my perception matters.
C) Obviousness. Tearing down a strong central government and trying to reconstruct it from scratch in a volatile part of the world where many people just generally hate us (largely because of occupations, lol) just seems like a bad idea.

a) Britain HI. The lack of support was due to a lack of support for the US in general (normal UN garbage) not the idea of the war.
b) This was before 99.9% of the shit the Bush admin pulled. You don't trust the Bush admin because of what followed Iraq, not what was before. And again, they have nothing to gain but hatred from the american people if the war drags on. They would have never gone in if they knew it would take this long.
c) I think they figured it would be about as easy as Afghanistan was, maybe requiring just a little more force.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Obama has already said he would investigate people in the Bush admin. Curious to see how he is going to do that and bring us all together.

Funny how conservatives never bring anything to the table but blame and accusation.

You call out someone for having "ties to a terrorist," but try to turn a blind eye to providing justice for war crimes.

Putting criminals where they belong has nothing to do with unity, that's called duty. An investigation has nothing to do with working in a bipartisan way to bring about policy.

[Maxxthepenguin]

a) Britain HI. The lack of support was due to a lack of support for the US in general (normal UN garbage) not the idea of the war.
b) This was before 99.9% of the shit the Bush admin pulled. You don't trust the Bush admin because of what followed Iraq, not what was before. And again, they have nothing to gain but hatred from the american people if the war drags on. They would have never gone in if they knew it would take this long.
c) I think they figured it would be about as easy as Afghanistan was, maybe requiring just a little more force.

A) So Britain totally would have but didn't, anyways. Actions louder than words, etc. The UN has supported such actions before.
B) Didn't stop my intuition. It was a general mistrust of some of the evidence. It smelled fishy, I don't remember exactly why.
C) Cue Cheney quagmire quote. Truth is, we had very different goals in Afghanistan and we had much better reason to strike there.

[Plow]

You know that video guartz keeps trying to interject into every political conversation?


It's actually quite interesting and very related to what's being discussed right now.

YouTube - Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

[Demosthenes11]

A) So Britain totally would have but didn't, anyways. Actions louder than words, etc. The UN has supported such actions before.
B) Didn't stop my intuition. It was a general mistrust of some of the evidence. It smelled fishy, I don't remember exactly why.
C) Cue Cheney quagmire quote. Truth is, we had very different goals in Afghanistan and we had much better reason to strike there.

Britain did originally support us going in there and put a shit-ton on troops in there with us. I don't care what the UN ever thinks because they are likely the biggest joke this planet has seen. Self-interest with a guise of world interest is laughable.

Does your intuition generally disagree with people that know way more about something than you and have spent years gathering the information (CIA)? Do you tell architects you disagree with their plans to build a bridge? Your "intuition" was no more than dumb luck in this case.

There wasn't too much of a difference in goals really. Capture a person (Osama and Saddam) and install a new government, then leave when it's all clear. Just because 1 wasn't a leader of the country doesn't mean the outcome should have been far different. Reason to strike is also pretty irrelevant.

[noblemountain]

You know that video guartz keeps trying to interject into every political conversation?


It's actually quite interesting and very related to what's being discussed right now.

YouTube - Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

that video is pretty awesome.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Britain did originally support us going in there and put a shit-ton on troops in there with us. I don't care what the UN ever thinks because they are likely the biggest joke this planet has seen. Self-interest with a guise of world interest is laughable.

Does your intuition generally disagree with people that know way more about something than you and have spent years gathering the information (CIA)? Do you tell architects you disagree with their plans to build a bridge? Your "intuition" was no more than dumb luck in this case.

There wasn't too much of a difference in goals really. Capture a person (Osama and Saddam) and install a new government, then leave when it's all clear. Just because 1 wasn't a leader of the country doesn't mean the outcome should have been far different. Reason to strike is also pretty irrelevant.

Considering the track record of Bush's entire administration you could see this coming from a mile away.

Everyone knew Rumsfeld had a bone to pick with the Pentagon and was very outspoken against the Joint Chiefs and all of the brass in the Pentagon. He went right in there and ignored every bit of military advice given to him and gave conservative thinktanks staffed by people with zero military experience authority over intelligence officials and military strategists. This is why Iraq was such a failure.

Combine that with the lead up to the war, and other countries saying the evidence for WMD wasn't enough to pre-emptively invade.

And the two objectives were extremely different. Afghanistan was only to capture Bin Laden, but we met resistance from the Taliban who happened to be the ruling regime. When this occurred various warlords and drug dealers joined the US in driving out the Taliban.

Iraq, as advertised, was about securing WMD and putting Saddam on trial at the UN for trying to obtain them and for having them. Because Iraq's military fought back it became a regime change and the rest is history.

Two like situations occurred, two different objectives started each war.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Britain did originally support us going in there and put a shit-ton on troops in there with us. I don't care what the UN ever thinks because they are likely the biggest joke this planet has seen. Self-interest with a guise of world interest is laughable.

Does your intuition generally disagree with people that know way more about something than you and have spent years gathering the information (CIA)? Do you tell architects you disagree with their plans to build a bridge? Your "intuition" was no more than dumb luck in this case.

There wasn't too much of a difference in goals really. Capture a person (Osama and Saddam) and install a new government, then leave when it's all clear. Just because 1 wasn't a leader of the country doesn't mean the outcome should have been far different. Reason to strike is also pretty irrelevant.

UN is the biggest joke the world has ever seen? Hell, even compare it to the League of Nations. Anyways, I don't want to get into the UN stuff. It doesn't always do what we want, but that's the point. Also, we DID get some UN support for Afghanistan.

Intuition is intuition. There's not much I can say about it.

The reason to start a war is irrelevant? What? That's the entire basis of the war and defines your goals. Our goal in Afghanistan, as I understand it, was to eliminate the Taliban due to them having been our enemies in word and action.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

UN is the biggest joke the world has ever seen? Hell, even compare it to the League of Nations. Anyways, I don't want to get into the UN stuff. It doesn't always do what we want, but that's the point. Also, we DID get some UN support for Afghanistan.

Intuition is intuition. There's not much I can say about it.

The reason to start a war is irrelevant? What? That's the entire basis of the war and defines your goals. Our goal in Afghanistan, as I understand it, was to eliminate the Taliban due to them having been our enemies in word and action.

Nah, we asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden and they waffled for a bit and finally when we announced we located an area in the mountains of Afghanistan he was in they told us to fuck off, so we invaded.

The Taliban was basically installed by us, once the Muhajadeen fought off Russia all those weapons went into the hands of the Taliban and various warlords.

[Beckwin]

Leave it to Demo11 to bash the UN in the same breath he defends the Bush Admin. I can't believe we're retreading this, but anyways:

1. UN weapons inspectors were requesting further negotiations and hadn't found anything of significance. Hans Blix was rather outspoken about the need to continue to try diplomacy and pursue further inspections.

2. Corroboration for US claims was sparse to non-existent. Now, after the fact, we've been made aware of the dissent from military and intelligence experts, and that that information/opinion was not presented to the public, even though it did exist. The report presented to our members of congress and government officials was all the shaky stuff stacked towards going to war.

3. International support was minimal. Britain was basically the only legit ally; the rest of military contributions were tokens from US-friendly countries or even smaller tokens from countries dependent on US handouts (that might be overgeneralizing a couple cases, but is largely true. a couple brigades from ex-bloc countries- sup Georgia- isn't something you brag about for international support. General support from other major players was extremely sparse, most notably in the cases of France and Germany- two very friendly Western democracies.

4. The overwhelming conventional wisdom is that an Iraq occupation would be a nightmare. Simply defeating the regular army of Saddam was never up for debate as being relatively easy, but even Bush Sr. knew that an occupation would be costly in many ways. There's a series of other quotes relating to this, but of course Cheney's is potent for /facepalm quality.