0
   

We must?? invade Darfur

 
 
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 01:37 pm
At least,according to the editors of the lefts favorite mag "The New Republic".

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070827&s=editorial082707a

Here are some interesting excerpts...

Quote:
Speed, then, is essential. Yet speed--as Darfuris, Bosnians, Rwandans, and Kosovars can all attest--is not exactly a strong suit of the United Nations. That is where America comes in. For there to be any chance of peace in Darfur, the United States and its allies must do what the United Nations, by its very nature, cannot: use every manner of coercion--including the credible threat of military force--to push Khartoum toward admitting peacekeepers immediately and accepting a quick and reasonable resolution to negotiations with rebels.

Is this a long shot? Absolutely. But, save for an outright nato invasion of Darfur--an option we favor, but for which there is simply no political will at the moment--an accelerated U.N. deployment backed by American threats may be the best course available. At the very least, we must try to make it work, and soon. Because the day is fast approaching when the Africans of Darfur will be out of crucial periods and critical moments forever


So,we now have a left leaning magazine,one that totally opposed our invasion of Iraq,advocating for an immediate US led invasion of Darfur.

That sure sounds hypocritical and double standard like to me.

Will the next dem President do what the TNR wants?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 566 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 01:42 pm
Ehem, where was it again that the article says "we must invade Darfur"?
0 Replies
 
massmutual
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 01:50 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ehem, where was it again that the article says "we must invade Darfur"?


that's where it says so, NATO ids us and Canada and most Europeans

reading problems? non-NATO country?

I don't want to invade "darfurians" dunno who or what they arew !!


Quote:
save for an outright nato invasion of Darfur--an option we favor
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 02:01 pm
massmutual wrote:
reading problems? non-NATO country?


No. To both.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 02:09 pm
TNR and Mysteryman are both correct. Our ability to help carries with it some responsibility to do so... and not doing so is hypocritical. Everyone who's proud of Rwanda; raise your hand.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 02:36 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
TNR and Mysteryman are both correct. Our ability to help carries with it some responsibility to do so... and not doing so is hypocritical. Everyone who's proud of Rwanda; raise your hand.


So,if Bush ahd used "humanitarian reasons" as his primary reason for invading Iraq, you would have supported it?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 02:44 pm
mysteryman wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
TNR and Mysteryman are both correct. Our ability to help carries with it some responsibility to do so... and not doing so is hypocritical. Everyone who's proud of Rwanda; raise your hand.


So,if Bush ahd used "humanitarian reasons" as his primary reason for invading Iraq, you would have supported it?
I did and do and further would support an continuation of the policy in a wealth of other locations... though strategically I prefer threats followed by decapitation strikes, followed by a grace period to allow our injured foe to unite behind a leader that isn't a murderous A-Hole.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Aug, 2007 03:17 pm
An invasion is - in my opinion - an extreme point on one end of a scale.

On the other is turning back refugees from there, like Israel does it.
0 Replies
 
massmutual
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:33 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
massmutual wrote:
reading problems? non-NATO country?


No. To both.


no kiddin ??? who sayz, you couldn't even locate where it said what you yoursrelf qyestioned !!!

ENOUGH With all those who w3ould subvvert the US to their own agendas !!!
0 Replies
 
massmutual
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 11:36 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
TNR and Mysteryman are both correct. Our ability to help carries with it some responsibility to do so... and not doing so is hypocritical. Everyone who's proud of Rwanda; raise your hand.


I'm raisin no hand but who cxan change Africa's plight, see how many billions we've shipped over the years...see how little result except for more evermore african mouthes to feed !!

no more, I care not darfurians somalians rwandas whatevers,m I do not care, my own people are suffering in the u s of a
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 12:12 pm
You mean, English is your first language?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We must?? invade Darfur
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 08:46:01