1
   

5 Congress Members Arrested at Sudan Protest

 
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 09:57 pm
snood wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
nimh wrote:
And you, Sir, seem to be as unable or unwilling to ever address a single argument I make or fact I bring up (what was that about a UN army?), as you are prone to ascribe remarks to me that I never made in my life (Bush hopping on the Clooney wagon?) and attack me over those, instead.


And you, miss, need to go back and read this thread from the beginning to see who's attacking whom here.


But this all pales in comparison to the attack on our freedoms that President Bush has thwarted, by staying the course and carrying out his strategy for victory in Iraq!


I know! What on earth is there left to argue about, knowing that we are all following the visionary leadership of our President-- maybe you guys haven't gotten the message, but victory is just around the corner!
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 10:12 pm
Hillary Rodham Clinton DID NOT say that victory is just around the corner.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 10:32 pm
Hillary is, unfortunately, just not that visionary.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 May, 2006 10:44 pm
I am sure you are mistaken. If you ask her, she will tell you that she is!
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 03:25 am
BernardR wrote:
Hillary Rodham Clinton DID NOT say that victory is just around the corner.


She certainly did not.

Landsakes, it's George W. Bush who has a clear plan for victory in Iraq!

Joe( It's three pronged)Nation
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 04:57 pm
Nimh,
You said...
Quote:
So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.


Tell me,is this a good reason...
Quote:
We will free people. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need health care will have health care, those youngsters who need education will get education
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 05:43 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Nimh,
You said...
Quote:
So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. [..] when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.


Tell me,is this a good reason...
Quote:
We will free people. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need health care will have health care, those youngsters who need education will get education

If that in itself were good enough reason to start a war / invade a country, there'd be about seven dozen other countries that we'd have a good enough reason to invade as well. There's a lot of dictatorships where people aren't fed or educated out there...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 07:06 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Thousands of people were "dying horrible deaths" in Iraq. Therefore one must assume that you supported US intervention in Iraq.

I'm with those who argue that the US should intervene militarily in the Sudan, just as we should have intervened in Rwanda.

It would be much appreciated if some of you folks would remain consistent in your expressed views. [..]

If humanitarianism compels our intervention in the Sudan that so did it compel our intervention in Iraq.

Well, I applaud your consistency, it's definitely better than the couldnt-care-less burping of the other conservatives here.

As for your point re: those of us who opposed the war in Iraq. Fair enough question, not so easy to answer. I cant speak for the others, but I do keep to a consistent line, myself.

First though, lets get some side issues out of the way. Up until it started, any humanitarian motive for the war was granted a highly marginal role at best by Bush and his administration. It was, no matter how much some now retroactively want to make it otherwise, all about the WMD. (See this past post of mine for details).

This is a blatantly flawed line of argument. What Bush & Co may or may not have advertised as the reason for invading Iraq is immaterial to the question at hand. If the Administration decided to intervene in the Sudan for the stated purpose of increasing the profits of American capitalists, and yet put an end to the current genocide, would you argue against the intervention?

You seem to sneer at those of us who do view the invasion of Iraq as, in part, a humanitarian effort. Is it your position that an action can only be judged in terms of the stated intention of the actor?


Now, we already warned back then that the WMD case was dubious at best and lacked convincing evidence. We turned out to be right about that. We also warned that the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link was dubious at best, and to any extent it existed would be outshadowed by the Al-Qaeda recruitment ground the invasion would provide. We turned out to be right about that too. In the light of those main arguments, any marginal note of the Bush admin about humanitarian motives seemed to lack credibility.

Should we have embraced that marginal motivation anyway? Said that hey, we dont trust Bush for a second, but if he's going to help get Saddam out, then why not use him? That was the logic of some Iraqi exiles (see thread here). Point is, the notion of Iraqi democrats or humanitarian idealists using the US, rather than the other way round, seemed more than a bit naive.

In any case. My own line of principle here. I think of war as an evil. I believe war will almost always break more than it can repair. Wars escalate, and the more people killed and lives destroyed, the more bitterness and hatred gets rooted that will then create new wars, over time (see Yugoslavia).

So war is strictly a last resort. Only in the most extreme of emergencies can war, IMO, be justified. I would not deny countries the right to defend themselves when invaded, or call in allies' help when they are (eg Kuwait). But when it comes to invading a country, only one excuse could possibly count: to stop an ongoing genocide. To save people from a genocide thats happening right now. That's what we thought we were doing in Kosovo.

Now in 1988, when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, I would therefore have supported military action against Iraq. Unfortunately, when Donald Rumsfeld did go to Baghdad shortly after, it was to shake Saddam's hand, in order to ease the way for billions of US $ in support for his regime, courtesy of President Bush Sr.

In 1991, when Saddam was bombing the marsh Arabs in the aftermath of the Gulf War, there would also have been a rationale for military intervention.

In 2003, however, Saddam was as weak as he had ever been. The Kurds, remember, were safely ensconced in their own autonomous area, out of reach of Saddam's soldiers. A no-fly-zone prevented Saddam from bombing anyone.

Of course his regime was still a dictatorship, of course there was still torture. But - however harsh this might sound - not more than in a dozen other countries around the world. Compared to Saddam's emasculated regime, there were other dictatorships worse in the world. Not just North-Korea, ccountries like Turkmenistan as well.

In short, there was a humanitarian argument for invading Iraq that would meet my "ongoing genocide" criterium, but it did not apply anymore in 2003.

Genocide, like racism, has become a political term and tool.

From what I have been able to determine, the number of Sudanese actually killed in the current circumstances is around 50,000. The number of displaced Sudanese is in the millions. Both are horrendous statistics and, as I have already declared, warrant US intervention, but it's difficult to see how they amount to genocide.

Hitler's attempted extermination of all Jews was genocide. He didn't care whether or not they left Germany, he wanted to rid the world of them. The Arab Sudanese will be content if they can drive the Black Sudanese outside the borders of The Sudan. They will not pursue them to the ends of the earth.

Again, the situation in the Sudan requires intervention, but if genocide is truly the only condition which, in your mind, warrants military intervention then I suggest you hold truer to the definition of the word.

You are making at best a naive and at worst a cynical distinction between the travesties in the Sudan and Iraq. Firm numbers on those murdered by the Saddam regime are difficult to come by, but most sources that I've found put it north of 100,000. Are you really trying to tell us that because Saddam may or may not have taken a breather from the slaughter of his people the suffering in Iraq was starkly distinguishable from that in the Sudan?

The massacres in Darfur, on the other hand, are a different question. In no place in the world today is a whole people being slaughtered like in Sudan. This is genocide. And there's the difference.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 May, 2006 11:55 pm
Your analysis was brilliant, Finn D' Abuzz. I await a cogent response( if one is forthcoming) from nimh. If I may, I would add two important additions to your excellent post, Finn.

First, when the issue of WMD's is raised, there are very few who note that the danger of WMD's was forcefully articulated by none other than William Jefferson Clinton on Dec. 18th, 1998 when he issued an order( without Congressional authorization) that missles be launched at Baghdad.

Clinton was crystal clear about WMD's in 1998.

He said:

"Second, if Saddam can crippled(sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Clinton was warning that Saddam could not be allowed to cripple the weapons inspection system or he would rebuild his "arsenal of destruction".

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

That is also unambiguous. The President of the United States is warning that Saddam Hussein will not only develop weapons of mass destruction but that he will use those weapons.



After all of the furor about what some call President Bush's failed adventure into Iraq dies down and the record is examined, it is clear that there should be a comparison made.

The pre-emptive strike ordered by President Clinton on Iraq should be compared with the session of Congress in which the House and the Senate--the representatives of the people who act as proxy for the people--on Oct. 10th and 11th OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The key words in the paragraph are "full authority" and "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"


Of course, citizens may show their displeasure at the war in Iraq and the fact that it is now in its fourth year. If they wish to do so, AND THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS, they must lobby thier Senators and Representatives. After all, it is they who gave the President the Authority.



Again, a marvelous job, Finn!!!
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 May, 2006 10:36 am
chickless, hahaha.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 May, 2006 09:45 pm
BernardR wrote:
Your analysis was brilliant, Finn D' Abuzz. I await a cogent response( if one is forthcoming) from nimh. If I may, I would add two important additions to your excellent post, Finn.

First, when the issue of WMD's is raised, there are very few who note that the danger of WMD's was forcefully articulated by none other than William Jefferson Clinton on Dec. 18th, 1998 when he issued an order( without Congressional authorization) that missles be launched at Baghdad.

Clinton was crystal clear about WMD's in 1998.

He said:

"Second, if Saddam can crippled(sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Clinton was warning that Saddam could not be allowed to cripple the weapons inspection system or he would rebuild his "arsenal of destruction".

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

That is also unambiguous. The President of the United States is warning that Saddam Hussein will not only develop weapons of mass destruction but that he will use those weapons.



After all of the furor about what some call President Bush's failed adventure into Iraq dies down and the record is examined, it is clear that there should be a comparison made.

The pre-emptive strike ordered by President Clinton on Iraq should be compared with the session of Congress in which the House and the Senate--the representatives of the people who act as proxy for the people--on Oct. 10th and 11th OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The key words in the paragraph are "full authority" and "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"


Of course, citizens may show their displeasure at the war in Iraq and the fact that it is now in its fourth year. If they wish to do so, AND THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS, they must lobby thier Senators and Representatives. After all, it is they who gave the President the Authority.



Again, a marvelous job, Finn!!!


Thank you Bernard.

You are, of course, correct that those who find fault with GWB's assertion of Iraqi WMD are, at best, hypocrites if they give WJC a pass on the same subject.

However, my point is that the tangled issues of WMD are meaningless if we are to trigger military intervention by levels of human suffering.

What does it matter if Bush actually lied about Mads?

If one supported the invasion of Iraq solely because one believed that it actually threatened the US, then, I suppose, the question of whether or not Mads existed in Iraq matters. However, those (like Nim) who argue for intervention in the Sudan make no claim that such intervention is defensive (and never would - the notion of defense to Nim & Co is anathema).

Innocent Sudanese are being killed because of the desires of Sudanese Power. Nim calls this genocide and finds it intolerable. Innocent Iraqis were being killed (in even greater numbers) due to the desire of Saddam's Power. Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Nimh may and will argue in great length as to why Iraq is substantially different from Sudan. Is it really so unreasonable for us to ask him to explain (without sloganeering) why this might be so?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 May, 2006 09:46 pm
BernardR wrote:
Your analysis was brilliant, Finn D' Abuzz. I await a cogent response( if one is forthcoming) from nimh. If I may, I would add two important additions to your excellent post, Finn.

First, when the issue of WMD's is raised, there are very few who note that the danger of WMD's was forcefully articulated by none other than William Jefferson Clinton on Dec. 18th, 1998 when he issued an order( without Congressional authorization) that missles be launched at Baghdad.

Clinton was crystal clear about WMD's in 1998.

He said:

"Second, if Saddam can crippled(sic) the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States--has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday, make no mistake--he will use it again as he has in the past"

There is no ambiguity in that statement. Clinton was warning that Saddam could not be allowed to cripple the weapons inspection system or he would rebuild his "arsenal of destruction".

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them and he will use them"

That is also unambiguous. The President of the United States is warning that Saddam Hussein will not only develop weapons of mass destruction but that he will use those weapons.



After all of the furor about what some call President Bush's failed adventure into Iraq dies down and the record is examined, it is clear that there should be a comparison made.

The pre-emptive strike ordered by President Clinton on Iraq should be compared with the session of Congress in which the House and the Senate--the representatives of the people who act as proxy for the people--on Oct. 10th and 11th OVERWHELMINGLY voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

The key words in the paragraph are "full authority" and "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"


Of course, citizens may show their displeasure at the war in Iraq and the fact that it is now in its fourth year. If they wish to do so, AND THEY ARE NOT INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POLITICS, they must lobby thier Senators and Representatives. After all, it is they who gave the President the Authority.



Again, a marvelous job, Finn!!!


Thank you Bernard.

You are, of course, correct that those who find fault with GWB's assertion of Iraqi WMD are, at best, hypocrites if they give WJC a pass on the same subject.

However, my point is that the tangled issues of WMD are meaningless if we are to trigger military intervention by levels of human suffering.

What does it matter if Bush actually lied about WMDs?

If one supported the invasion of Iraq solely because one believed that it actually threatened the US, then, I suppose, the question of whether or not Mads existed in Iraq matters. However, those (like Nim) who argue for intervention in the Sudan make no claim that such intervention is defensive (and never would - the notion of defense to Nim & Co is anathema).

Innocent Sudanese are being killed because of the desires of Sudanese Power. Nim calls this genocide and finds it intolerable. Innocent Iraqis were being killed (in even greater numbers) due to the desire of Saddam's Power. Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Nimh may and will argue in great length as to why Iraq is substantially different from Sudan. Is it really so unreasonable for us to ask him to explain (without sloganeering) why this might be so?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 07:41 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Because the mass murder in question took place over ten years earlier, yes - and the prime group it targeted, the Kurds, by 2003 actually had a safe, self-governed, Western-protected territory of their own.

Details, details..

Genocidal mass murder, to me, is a valid justification for military intervention, yes. But not with a timelag of 15 years - especially not if the victims in question by then live in their own safe territory.

Was there still oppression in Saddam's Iraq in 2003? Of course there was. But no longer the gassing and bombing of minorities that should have triggered intervention, ten and fifteen years earlier. No longer mass murder on the scale we have now been seeing in Sudan. No greater repression, in fact, than you find in Burma, Turkmenistan, Lybia, North-Korea, Syria, arguably Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan. And unless you think you can pull off invading seven or eight of those countries, then that alone can simply not be a reason to go to war.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 May, 2006 11:56 pm
nimh wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Somehow Nimh is able to argue a distinction between the two...because there was a lull in the rate of murder.

Because the mass murder in question took place over ten years earlier, yes - and the prime group it targeted, the Kurds, by 2003 actually had a safe, self-governed, Western-protected territory of their own.

Details, details..

Genocidal mass murder, to me, is a valid justification for military intervention, yes. But not with a timelag of 15 years - especially not if the victims in question by then live in their own safe territory.

Was there still oppression in Saddam's Iraq in 2003? Of course there was. But no longer the gassing and bombing of minorities that should have triggered intervention, ten and fifteen years earlier. No longer mass murder on the scale we have now been seeing in Sudan. No greater repression, in fact, than you find in Burma, Turkmenistan, Lybia, North-Korea, Syria, arguably Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan. And unless you think you can pull off invading seven or eight of those countries, then that alone can simply not be a reason to go to war.


Your smarmy comment "details, details," needs blow back in your face.

You, apparently, find there is a meaningful distinction between a regime that murders 50,000 citizens in the span of two or three years and one that murders 100,000 citizens in the (arguable) span of ten years.

Somehow these "details" mean something to you. Pray tell us how so.

There is only one reason to argue for intervention in The Sudan and against intervention in Iraq, and that is partisan politics.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 12:05 am
Only 50,000? Well, perhaps nimh thinks there is some kind of a geographical calculus, Finn. You know, the higher you go up in Europe, the more a life is worth!!!

Just the one strike in which he gassed and killed Kurdish men, women and children would be enough to send the troops of any country which protects the innocent.

Apparently, Finn, nimh forgets the conditions laid down by the coalition after the end of Desert Storm. Perhaps, Finn, nimh does not know about the diversion of funds which took food out of the mouths of Iraqi people under the bogus food for Oil program.

But, Finn, I am sure that nimh will come around if he only re-read the words of the great statesman, William Jefferson Clinton, who sent missles, without Congressional approval, mind you, to bomb Baghdad.

And what was part of Clinton's speech in which he rationalize those actions?

Perhaps exactly what nimh would accept--

quote- William Jefferson Clinton- Dec. 18, 1998


"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world"

THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD----------

Is that enough for nihm, Finn?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:09 am
Starting again with the least important bit because it's the shortest:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
There is only one reason to argue for intervention in The Sudan and against intervention in Iraq, and that is partisan politics.

Absolute bullshit. My party, best I know, actually opposes Western military intervention in Sudan. I disagree with them. Whereas there are conservatives who are clamoring for more militant intervention. This is not a partisan issue, however much it seems that angle is the only thing about it that interests you.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You, apparently, find there is a meaningful distinction between a regime that murders 50,000 citizens in the span of two or three years and one that murders 100,000 citizens in the (arguable) span of ten years.

Side-note 1*: Compare: "100,000 civilian deaths under Saddam in the arguable span of ten years"; 35,000-40,000 civilian deaths in the three years since the invasion. You do the math.

Side-note 2*: "Arguable". You seem to bandy this number around loosely. In your previous post, you still wrote that "numbers on those murdered by the Saddam regime are difficult to come by, but most sources that I've found put it north of 100,000". That would be, then, "north of 100,000" in 35 years, since that is how long Saddam had been in power. Now it's the same 100,000 years in "an arguable span of ten years". Which is it?

This is relevant because, of course, he had actually become incapable of that scope of mass murder in the last ten years. The Kurdish autonomous territory and the no-fly zones had both already been in place for over ten years by the time of the invasion.

I'll help you out. In the thirty-five years of Saddam's rule, it's been far more than 100,000. US officials in 2003 reported 300,000 bodies in mass graves. However, they also said that "The mass graves mostly included the remains of ethnic Kurds and Shia Muslims killed for opposing the regime between 1983 and 1991."

This is what the humanitarian argument for the Iraq war, as argued by Bush supporters, has mostly come down to: we need to invade to stop the mass murder that took place 12 to 20 years ago.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:12 am
Bravo, nimh. Well-supported, and logical. Still wasted, I'm afraid, on the horse-blinder-sporting crowd.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:23 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Your smarmy comment "details, details," needs blow back in your face.

What? The "details, details" comment was, of course, sarcastic - the thing that I pointed out you were deftly ignoring was no "detail" at all.

You're still ignoring it, in fact.

The "detail" I was referring to was not tens of thousands dying by Saddam's hand; it was the fact that the prime victims of those deaths, by the time of the invasion, were already safe from that mass murder.

By 2003, the Kurds had their own autonomous territory, safeguarded by us. Their fate can not possibly be an argument for an intervention-to-stop-the-mass-murder, because their mass murder was not taking place anymore.

The southern Shi'a were indeed still in the grip of Saddam's dictatorship, but the means by which Saddam had been trying to murder them by the tens of thousands had been taken away from him with the no-fly zones.

As I said before, Saddam had indeed been one of the very worst dictators, was still a cruel dictator, but the thing is that by 2003 he was as weak as he had ever been - and so, therefore, was the argument for humanitarian invasion.

What remained, after the safeguarding of the Kurds and the no-fly zones, was a dictatorship as bad but not worse than that of Syria, Lybia, Turkmenistan or Burma. And I am realistic enough to note that we can't afford to start a war against every such totalitarian dictatorship in the world. If we don't want to be fighting a dozen wars at a time, then that in itself is sadly not enough.

What is enough, is the mass murdering of tens of thousands of civilians taking place right now, not fifteen years ago - a mass murder that we can actually still stop by intervening now.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Somehow these "details" mean something to you. Pray tell us how so.

I'm kind of restating the same thing over and over again, but judging on your repeated "pray tell us how so" and "Is it really so unreasonable for us to ask him to explain why this might be so?" after every time I do exactly that, it doesn't seem to be getting through. So as my last try, let me try a metaphor.

There's a bad man, walking down the street, he's pulled a gun and shooting people. Do you stop him by any means necessary, even if it means shooting him yourself? Yes.

There's a bad man, walking down the street, it looks like he treats his folks badly, and you know that he's shot people in the past. Is that reason enough for you to pull your gun and shoot him? No. You may want to call the cops and the child protection inspectors, but you're not going to pull your gun and start shooting "pre-emptively".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:24 am
Thanks, Snood. And yeah, I'm giving up now ;-)
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 May, 2006 01:10 am
nimh wrote:
Starting again with the least important bit because it's the shortest:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
There is only one reason to argue for intervention in The Sudan and against intervention in Iraq, and that is partisan politics.

Absolute bullshit. My party, best I know, actually opposes Western military intervention in Sudan. I disagree with them. Whereas there are conservatives who are clamoring for more militant intervention. This is not a partisan issue, however much it seems that angle is the only thing about it that interests you.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
You, apparently, find there is a meaningful distinction between a regime that murders 50,000 citizens in the span of two or three years and one that murders 100,000 citizens in the (arguable) span of ten years.

Side-note 1*: Compare: "100,000 civilian deaths under Saddam in the arguable span of ten years"; 35,000-40,000 civilian deaths in the three years since the invasion. You do the math.

Side-note 2*: "Arguable". You seem to bandy this number around loosely. In your previous post, you still wrote that "numbers on those murdered by the Saddam regime are difficult to come by, but most sources that I've found put it north of 100,000". That would be, then, "north of 100,000" in 35 years, since that is how long Saddam had been in power. Now it's the same 100,000 years in "an arguable span of ten years". Which is it?

This is relevant because, of course, he had actually become incapable of that scope of mass murder in the last ten years. The Kurdish autonomous territory and the no-fly zones had both already been in place for over ten years by the time of the invasion.

I'll help you out. In the thirty-five years of Saddam's rule, it's been far more than 100,000. US officials in 2003 reported 300,000 bodies in mass graves. However, they also said that "The mass graves mostly included the remains of ethnic Kurds and Shia Muslims killed for opposing the regime between 1983 and 1991."

This is what the humanitarian argument for the Iraq war, as argued by Bush supporters, has mostly come down to: we need to invade to stop the mass murder that took place 12 to 20 years ago.


Are you actually incapable of recognizing the inanity of your comments?

50,000 dead over three years is undeniably more important that 100,000 dead over 35 years.

Only an ideologue would argue a distinction between the horrors of Iraq and the horrors of the Sudan.

I know you are a self-styled humanitarian nimh and yet you pursue an argument in which the deaths of humans are merely statistics, tied to time frames.

Liberals are all for intervening in the Sudan, but not Iraq.

Your explanation of why this is a valid distinction is tortured beyond belief.

Either you want to stop power-mad schmucks from killing innocents or you do not.

If you are able to frame an ideological reason for intervening in one crisis but not another, then you are a despicable breed of intellectual.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Africa is a dying continent - Discussion by Pharon
Congo: The World Capital of Killing - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Notes from Africa - Discussion by dagmaraka
Tunisia From October 5 to 18, 2007 - Discussion by cicerone imposter
I hope this works out for Darfur... - Discussion by ossobuco
Let's see how well you know Africa - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
Anyone know a lot about Sierra Leone? - Discussion by dlowan
Sudanese find peace? - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 11:55:22