I wish I could send you who speak so jocularly of laying waste to the entire Middle East to live among the Palestinians as Palestinians for a year.  You wouldn't think it was such a hoot after that!
>:(
::)


Yeah, we'd almost have the same mind set that the terrorists had when they flew into the towers, lay waste to everything with no feelings of remorse or regret, except that they couldn't kill more of us.

I wish you could as well Max, and make sure you send me right after the politicians don't have any control over the military, so we can do our job right.

I might be 47, but I'd still be willing to pick up a weapon and serve, be it in this country or abroad....

I might be 47, but I'd still be willing to pick up a weapon and serve, be it in this country or abroad....

Well, if they don't either pull out of Iraq or reinstate the draft, you might get your chance to volunteer.  F**k, it might be the first time in our history when the media can do feel-good stories about grandfather and grandson both going down to register together!
:D

Obama has recently been making some rather insane statements about Genocide.  And frankly, it leaves me puzzled.

Now I applaud the Senator on his stance on genocide in areas like Darfur.  I myself have brought up that and other genocides in this very forum.  I supported President Clinton 100% in Somalia, and thought that we should not have left.  To me, there is almost nothing that should not be done to put an end to such a horrible act.

But then Obama goes and says that he thinks that a potential genocide in Iraq is not a sufficient reason to stay there.

What?

This is rather shocking to me, and has grossly erroded the good will I had towards him.  I not only find it disturbing and disgusting, but also a gorss insult to everybody who has suffered through genocide.  To me, it seems that the good Senator is taking advice from Senator Kerry.  And I simply can't understand how anybody could suggest that the US (or any nation) should pull out of an area, even if Genocide happens.

I hope this was just a gaffe, and he corrects himself.  Otherwise, it throws all of his past statements about genocide very questionable.
Reread your post....a potential genocide.....not guaranteed.  I think what he's saying is that we shouldn't stay there simply because the parties may or may not do something atrocious.  In other words, if we base our military actions on what might happen, we'd be in more countries than we could handle and we'd never leave.  There are militant groups that threaten governments all over the world, but we're not in every country where this happens (heck, we're not even in some countries where it IS happening) and if we were, our troops would be stretched so thin that they wouldn't be effective.

Once again, I think this is a case of people trying to infer the worst possible meaning for a statement by a member of an opposing party ::)

^ OR, you could take it one country at a time...but why should the US of A have to do all the work?  :P

^ OR, you could take it one country at a time...but why should the US of A have to do all the work?  :P


I fully agree with you here.  And when it all comes down to it, I blame the UN for most of the atrocities in the world today.

The UN started with wonderful goals.  Among them were to prevent war by intervention before it became nessicary (much like the League Of Nations).  Another was to assist in the event of war, and to mobilize to prevent atrocities in the event that a war happened.

And early on, they did a great job of it.  Korea, Cyprus, Lebanon.  But as time went on, it became more and more bogged down in "politics".  And dictators discovered that if they clouded anything in "Internal Policy", they could literally get away with murder.  They could dress up a few thousand of their own troops, and send them into another country disguised as local "Freedom Fighters".  Africa is full of such things happening, even to the extent that Cuba did it in Angola.  And the UN largely kept silent.

Yugoslavia, Darfur, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Uganda, Afganistan, the last 30 years are full of incidents that the UN has chosen to ignore.  It is not that they could not, they simply decided that they would not do anything.

Personally, I wish that the UN would behave the way they did 60 years ago.  The UN today is impotant and weak, and is more willing to prop up dictators who pay them money and favors then they are of protecting the citizens of the world.  And the recent string of graft scandals have only erroded my faith in the organization even further.

But the UN obviously does not give a damn about genocide.  And somebody needs to.  I know that I care.  I even care about the potential for genocide, because it should never have the chance to happen in the first place.

Careing after the death of 100,000+ people is far to late.

Methunk the UN troops were mostly from the US of A anyway...?

I might be wrong.

Methunk the UN troops were mostly from the US of A anyway...?

I might be wrong.


That is quite often true.  The US and France are probably the countries that respond most often to UN calls for assistance.  You may hear of small congingencies from other nations (UK, Greece, Spain, etc), but US and France tend to make up the lions share of such deployments.

A lot of people do not realize that when the Marine barracks were hit in Beirut in 1983, the barracks for the French contingent were also struck.  We lost 241 Marines and Sailors, France lost 58 Paratroopers.  We pulled out, but France attacked Iranian positions and remained for another 6 years (until the UN declaired an end to the crisis).

The U.S. likes to call the U.N. on the U.N.'s moral failings.  However, American foreign policiy priorities are imperial, not humanitarian.  Talk is cheap.  The U.S. should walk the walk the U.N. won't walk.
::)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women


Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.    :-\\

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women


Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.     :-\\

Horrifying.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_eu/un_congo_women

Dont really see America raising the banners high to help this.     :-\\


More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.

More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?


You mean the same UN that were dismissed as useless and dated when they refused to play along with the Bush admistrations plans to invade liberate Iraq?

Who needs the help of the UN when you have the "Coalition of the Willing"? Hows that going by the way?

More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.
i keep hearing this from the right. what exactly is it the UN is supposed to do, since it lacks any kind of viable autonomous military? unless the nations constituting the UN step up and play ball what exactly is the UN supposed to do besides pass resolutions and use harsh language? last i checked the UN was a deliberative international body, not a peacekeeping organization or an organization for enforcing foreign policy. basically, if bush and the republicans don't care -- and trust me, they don't -- then there's nothing the UN can really do. but it's handy for bush to ignore things he doesn't care about because he can foist responsibility for his failings, and the failings of conservative ideology more generally, on the UN, and hopefully the people listening wont realize how woefully fallacious this argument is.

i keep hearing this from the right. what exactly is it the UN is supposed to do, since it lacks any kind of viable autonomous military? unless the nations constituting the UN step up and play ball what exactly is the UN supposed to do besides pass resolutions and use harsh language?


This is a catch-22.  Because unless the UN passes a resolution, there is no way to send in any kind of International Force.  Once a resolution is passed, then the use of force becomes authorized.

And on that front, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 was finally passed!  It authorizes a 26,000 member UN force to step in and stop the bloodshed in the region.  And if you ask me, it took far to long to pass.

However, once again on what Gilbert Gottfried would call the "What The F@%K" statement, has come out and said that if he was President, he would invade Pakistan in order to remove Al-Queda, no matter what the Government of Pakistan thought of the idea.

Now here is somebody who complains about the current President invading Afganistan and Iraq, yet he proposes to do the same thing to a nation that is at least somewhat supportive of our actions in the region.  That would be like invading Spain during WWII.

This is a catch-22.  Because unless the UN passes a resolution, there is no way to send in any kind of International Force.  Once a resolution is passed, then the use of force becomes authorized.

And on that front, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 was finally passed!  It authorizes a 26,000 member UN force to step in and stop the bloodshed in the region.  And if you ask me, it took far to long to pass.

However, once again on what Gilbert Gottfried would call the "What The F@%K" statement, has come out and said that if he was President, he would invade Pakistan in order to remove Al-Queda, no matter what the Government of Pakistan thought of the idea.

Now here is somebody who complains about the current President invading Afganistan and Iraq, yet he proposes to do the same thing to a nation that is at least somewhat supportive of our actions in the region.  That would be like invading Spain during WWII.
well, that gets a little tricky. if the UN passes a resolution that a member of the security council doesn't want passed, they veto it. of course, the numerous UN resolutions protesting israel's many human rights violations in palestine are a case in point -- time and again the UN has passed resolutions condemning israeli conduct in the region, and of course, the US just vetoes them. on the other hand, if military action is sought then the power seeking the action unleashes a flurry of diplomatic pressure on the UN and presto -- a resolution! or, if there is some ambiguity as to whether a particular set of UN resolutions actually DOES authorize the use of force, international, unilateral, or otherwise, then as long as you have the airwaves you can say, well, if you read it sideways it DOES authorize the use of force. like iraq, yeah? the whole pretext was that iraq was violating all sorts of UN resolutions and rejecting the UN and lying to the international community, when it turns out that the iraqi government, though certainly craven and disgusting, just happened in this instance to be doing nothing of the sort. but the administration wanted war, so war is what they got, and they manipulated the UN as best they could to legitimize it. that they pulled out the UN inspectors and then made believe the iraqis did it, matters little -- nor does the fact that this whole charade was to reveal WMDs to the UN inspectors, weapons that were supposedly being hidden from them but turned out not to exist. it was all a pretext, orchestrated by the administration to give the war the illusion of legitimacy.

unfortunately, years of undermining the institution of the UN, particularly on the part of the rather more war-hungry elements in our current government, have left the institution with little real international power. if a country decides they want to do something, and they're part of the security council, they just do it. one of the most unfortunate aspects of this is that the UN is a large part of what several hundred americans died for in world war II. the right has pretty much walked all over their sacrifice, if you ask me.

the gilbert godfried sentence seems to be missing a subject, i'm not sure what it means.

it's rather doubtful that anything real will happen in africa. as you say, without US contributions to any peacekeeping force, it won't be significant enough to make a difference -- and the administration will never do so (and of course, even if he DID, it's not like there's a military left to do it with; they're all fighting in iraq and afghanistan).

i still remember the farce of the admin sending an aircraft carrier to tool around offshore in response to the crisis in sudan a couple years ago -- it sorta just sat there for a while and then, as far as i know, left. i believe a great mind once claimed that "bush doesn't care about black people"? but they do seem to care about their black gold... :-\\

and you know what? pakistan actually IS pretty scary, they're starting to experience serious unrest, their government is shot through with muslim extremists and they've got nukes. (when you say, "pakistan is somewhat supportive of our actions" in iraq -- well, first of all i submit our best allies, outside of britain, have NOT been supportive of our actions in iraq, because these acts were incredibly stupid and ill-thought-out and allies like germany and france saw this, and tried to stop it... and second, when we refer to "pakistan supports us" as though they were a cohesive entity we lose sight of the fact that a lot of different factions are fighting for control there, and the country is a miltary dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily make sense to refer to it as a single entity like that) but anyway, our time would probably be much better spent in pakistan than in iraq if the administration hadn't already expended the US military there and if the iraq invasion hadn't been part of a plan that preceded 9/11; it was pretty clear the admin was gonna invade iraq come hell or high water. but if the idea is to keep washington, d.c., new york, london or tel aviv from becoming a smoking crater, pakistan is really the much more pressing problem. at least that's the way it looks to me.

^ why do i do this? anyone would have to be crazy to read all that. sorry. :D

Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 

Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 
thanks, crazyman! :)

More importantly, what is the UN doing about it?

The same thing they do about any atrocity in Africa:  absolutely nothing.  Because the countries involved normally whine and cry and deny everything, and the "Diplomats" normally either ignore it, or try to blame it all on something or somebody else.
Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?

Guess im crazy, I read all of it. 
I did too.....maybe I should go back to my last moniker ;)

Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?




Don't worry, somebody on here will explain to us how genocide and atrocities in Africa are far more serious than in other lands...

Yeah, what do they have we can't live without anyway??

the gilbert godfried sentence seems to be missing a subject, i'm not sure what it means.

it's rather doubtful that anything real will happen in africa. as you say, without US contributions to any peacekeeping force, it won't be significant enough to make a difference -- and the administration will never do so (and of course, even if he DID, it's not like there's a military left to do it with; they're all fighting in iraq and afghanistan).


If you have ever seen one of GG's stand-up routines (or one of his stints on the "I Love The @@'s" on VH1), you would understand it.  He normally takes something in the news, and ends a commentary with "What the f#%k!".  I saw him years ago when Jack Kevorkian was on trial for murder, and he commented on what would happen if he was given the death penalty.  "WTF!  What is his appeal going to be, that he be allowed to inject the drugs himself?"

And in reality, the UN at one time did a lot without US involvement.  One of the most successfull UN peacekeeping missions was in Cyprus, and the US had nothing to do with that mission.  And after we pulled out of Lebanon in 1984, France was the major player in the eventual cease fire and pull out.

In fact, even implying that the UN is worthless without US involvement shows how worthless they are.


and you know what? pakistan actually IS pretty scary, they're starting to experience serious unrest, their government is shot through with muslim extremists and they've got nukes. (when you say, "pakistan is somewhat supportive of our actions" in iraq --

In reality, Pakistan is not really happy with our involvement in Iraq.  However, they are very supportive of our actions in Afganistan.


the whole pretext was that iraq was violating all sorts of UN resolutions and rejecting the UN and lying to the international community, when it turns out that the iraqi government, though certainly craven and disgusting, just happened in this instance to be doing nothing of the sort. but the administration wanted war, so war is what they got, and they manipulated the UN as best they could to legitimize it. that they pulled out the UN inspectors and then made believe the iraqis did it, matters little -- nor does the fact that this whole charade was to reveal WMDs to the UN inspectors, weapons that were supposedly being hidden from them but turned out not to exist. it was all a pretext, orchestrated by the administration to give the war the illusion of legitimacy.


In fact, there have been WMDs discovered since the invasion.  Over 5 tons in fact have been discovered.  They range from common pestacides packed in mortar shells to badly diluted VX in artillary shells.  And they have also discovered large stockpiles of radioactive waste, in which documentation was discovered that they were being saved for potential use in making a "Dirty Bomb".

The simple fact that the huge numbers that were expected were not found does not mean that none were found at all.  And he has shown in the past that he would not hesitate to use it.

In fact, I still believe that most of the cases of "Gulf War Syndrome" are in reality casualties from chemical weapons.  And this has been strongly reinforced by the simple fact that this syndrome has not raised it's head in anywhere near the numbers in this latest conflict.  Many more people have been stationed in the region for longer periods of time then they were in 1990, but the rates of illness are sharply lower.

And if you look at it, the "Gulf War Syndrome" sufferers actually suffer from the same effects as those attacked with either Nerve agents or Mustard Gas (something that Saddam has used in the past against the Kurds).



Nothing.....after all, what does Africa have that we cannot live without?



Don't worry, somebody on here will explain to us how genocide and atrocities in Africa are far more serious than in other lands...

Yeah, what do they have we can't live without anyway??


All genocide is wrong.  I do not give a damn who it is, or where it happens.

And what do they have that we can't live without?  How about the basic human dignity for doing the right thing?  Because if we are unable to stand up and say "This is wrong!", then we are no better then those that stood along railroad tracks in Germany and Poland, and cheered as the Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Gays, and Jews were shipped to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Inaction in this instance is just as damning as support in my belief.

And if given a chance, I would gladly join such a mission.  And for me, that is not simply a "abstract statement", since it really is a possability that I would have a chance to join such an endevor.

If you have ever seen one of GG's stand-up routines (or one of his stints on the "I Love The @@'s" on VH1), you would understand it.  He normally takes something in the news, and ends a commentary with "What the f#%k!".  I saw him years ago when Jack Kevorkian was on trial for murder, and he commented on what would happen if he was given the death penalty.  "WTF!  What is his appeal going to be, that he be allowed to inject the drugs himself?"
iºll take the rest of this on later, iºm totally in the mood to argue :P but i gotta catch a plane. but i just had to point out -- this is pretty funny.

i forget where i saw it, but somewhere GG was doing a comedy routine about sept 11 on, like, sept 14, and everyone was freaking out, but he made them go along with it. too soon, indeed. hell, i remember now -- it was that movie about the endless dirty joke. you know the one i mean, canºt think of the name right now.

^ The Aristocrats.  If you can't laugh at yourself, who's gonna do it for ya?

All genocide is wrong.  I do not give a damn who it is, or where it happens.

And what do they have that we can't live without?  How about the basic human dignity for doing the right thing?  Because if we are unable to stand up and say "This is wrong!", then we are no better then those that stood along railroad tracks in Germany and Poland, and cheered as the Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Gays, and Jews were shipped to Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Inaction in this instance is just as damning as support in my belief.

And if given a chance, I would gladly join such a mission.  And for me, that is not simply a "abstract statement", since it really is a possability that I would have a chance to join such an endevor.

Sorry, you missed my sarcasm (guess I should've pointed it out)....I was trying to imply that our government will do nothing about the genocide that occurs daily in Africa because they do not have oil anything that we rely on daily.

Sorry, you missed my sarcasm (guess I should've pointed it out)....I was trying to imply that our government will do nothing about the genocide that occurs daily in Africa because they do not have oil anything that we rely on daily.
well, they do actually have a fair amount of oil in nigeria. also lots of diamonds and other raw materials.

well, they do actually have a fair amount of oil in nigeria. also lots of diamonds and other raw materials.
True, but there's no bad blood between Nigeria and Daddy Bush and it was too far from Afghanistan to make a link between it and Al Qaeda look feasible ::)

In fact, even implying that the UN is worthless without US involvement shows how worthless they are.well, one of the things that throws off this is the fact that the administration has been openly hostile to the UN ever since they got into power. however useless the UN might or might not be, they're bound to be uselesser if the republicans actively work to obstruct and subvert them (i rather think because the UN, if left undealt-with, might pose an obstacle to the republicans' unilateral exercise of international power...). i mean, if there has ever been an act of more open contempt for the UN than the bolton nomination i don't know what it would be.

In In reality, Pakistan is not really happy with our involvement in Iraq.  However, they are very supportive of our actions in Afganistan.

In fact, there have been WMDs discovered since the invasion.  Over 5 tons in fact have been discovered.  They range from common pestacides packed in mortar shells to badly diluted VX in artillary shells.  And they have also discovered large stockpiles of radioactive waste, in which documentation was discovered that they were being saved for potential use in making a "Dirty Bomb".well, dirty bomb example aside -- and i'm suspicious of this; so the iraqis accumulated radioactive material and then left documentation explaining exactly what they would be used for right next to it? that seems quite convenient -- but the rest of these don't sound like WMDs at all. perhaps the VX was at one time, but i believe they've found all sorts of old, empty, diluted containers of this and that all over iraq, but if they're not capable of actually killing lots of people, i'm afraid i have to call they're not "weapons of mass destruction," which would rather, i think, entail the ability to destroy en masse as part of the definition.

but anyway, since they claimed before they went in that they "know where the WMDs are", i don't think the stuff you're referring to is what they had in mind. they were quite clever and cagey before the invasion to say that iraq was reconstituting its weapons program, leaving the impression that they'd be firing ICBMs at Israel and the US if we didn't act. the fact that all they found were expired canisters and notes about what WOULD happen if they were to ever reconstitute their weapons program -- i dont think that's making the point you want to make. rather the opposite -- it's hard to read the above and conclude that iraq was any kind of real threat at all.