Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Money is not the answer. What is needed is for the UN to sanctioned a fighting force. With manpower contributions from it's member nations. The time for talking has long past and in any event nobody is listening.

0 Replies

Not so fast AU. Money in the form of a threatened price on the head of leadership may very well light a fire under some A$$es. We can always send in Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Idea

... to bad he already blew Van Owan's body to Johannesburg.

0 Replies

Bill
I think it is, past the time for threats. It is time for action. The powers that be in that nation understand that threats are just idle words. Action, is the only thing that will move them. Dare I use the words regime change.
I should add that under no circmstances should the US go it alone. We should not be the worlds policeman,enforcer or cannon fodder.

0 Replies

Mostly, fodder. It's gonna be awhile before we can get the stench out.

0 Replies

Just when I thought you cared for no one but US-Americans you come and blindside me this? Shocked

If you read back; you'll see we're on nearly the same page for once... except I think we should try a very heavy-handed decapitation strike first and see if that doesn't shock Omar (or his replacement if we succeed) into compliance. Kinda strange hearing you advocating a stronger response than I.

I think Iraq may have served as an eye opener and that we may just be taken a bit more seriously once we turn the heat up a little.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Mostly, fodder. It's gonna be awhile before we can get the stench out.

What stench are you talking about? Are you referring to the most successful military operation in US history?

We have lost about 1500 soldiers in 2 1/2 years. I would say that is fantastic and a W in the win column. In Vietnam we lost 55,000 soldiers in 10 years. In WWII we lost over 300,000 soldiers in almost 5 years. Which do you consider the better situation for the soldiers?

0 Replies

Baldimo, It's not the war that was easily won; it's the security after the war that was the issue that Rummy ignored. Both Colin Powell and General Shinseki told Rummy that we would need up to 200,000 soldiers on the ground "after the war," but Rummy didn't agree.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Baldimo, It's not the war that was easily won; it's the security after the war that was the issue that Rummy ignored. Both Colin Powell and General Shinseki told Rummy that we would need up to 200,000 soldiers on the ground "after the war," but Rummy didn't agree.

Your still missing the point of the #'s I posted. We would need to be in Iraq for about 50 years to lose as many soldiers as we did in Vietnam. I still call that a successful after war campaign.

Don't be blinded by your partisan politics!

0 Replies

Basic reality is that an American soldier from LA is probably safer in Iraq than at home.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Basic reality is that an American soldier from LA is probably safer in Iraq than at home.

Another reason to send more soldiers. (I do hope, those from other cities than LA don't complain then!)

0 Replies

Why just the Vietnam war? Why not the Korean and WWII? They have numbers too.

0 Replies

Baldimo

Quote:

We have lost about 1500 soldiers in 2 1/2 years. I would say that is fantastic and a W in the win column. In Vietnam we lost 55,000 soldiers in 10 years. In WWII we lost over 300,000 soldiers in almost 5 years. Which do you consider the better situation for the soldiers?

The figures you quote would have been something to, I guess as you have, crow about. Except for the fact that there should have been zero [0] casualties since the invasion was absolutely unjustified and never should have occurred. BTW I wonder if the wives, husbands,mothers,fathers and children of the dead and wounded believe it is a fantastic win.

0 Replies

O Bill

Quote:

Just when I thought you cared for no one but US-Americans you come and blindside me this?

Fight if we must when our cause it is just. IMO opinion the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, unjustified and premature. I am of the opinion that the blood of every person American or Iraqi killed or wounded drips from the hands of Mr. Bush. I can only hope that truth haunts his dreams.

0 Replies

Good point, au. But then, when it's everybody else's sacrifice...

0 Replies

It was much better when Saddam was killing them, right au? We could just ignore it and pretend it wasn't really happening. Just like Rowanda, like the UN is now doing about Sudan.

0 Replies

Circular argument. The US preemptive action on a soveriegn country that did not pose any threat to the US or the American People is criminal on the face of it. To argue that we did it because Saddam was killing his own people was the justification used by this administration, because there are no WMDs or al Quaida connection found. Get real, for cry'n out loud. Go back to Bush's SOTU and Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council. Unfounded lies!

0 Replies

C.I., What? What are you babbling about?

0 Replies

C.I.
Reality does not seem to register with MgC. It comes through his mental strainer as babble. Embarrassed

0 Replies

What reality au? Your bent reality that if we leave everyone alone, we can expect to be left alone?

Doesn't work that way anymore. We tried that and the results were 9-11. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and let terrorism run rampant. We need to stomp them out of existance and that means cutting off their suppliers of money and arms.

I have no idea where half the crap that C.I. says comes from. I can only blame his living on the west coast for that.

0 Replies

We ALL know who is responsible for 9-11, except some people like you who still think Saddam was responsible. Just like if the US struck at China for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on that infamous day.

0 Replies

Why Don't We Care About African Genocide?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know