Should we be involved?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Many on here and other places are saying we should not be in Iraq because it has become a civil war.
They claim that we shouldnt be involved in another countries civil war.

BUT,I must agree with what Joe Lieberman said today on the floor of the Senate.
He said that many of the same people that want us out of the Iraq civil war are pushing for us to get involved in Darfur.
Now,since that is also a civil war,why should we get involved?

Is it because of the humanitarian crisis?
That happens in every civil war?
Is it because the AU is involved?
That isnt a good enough reason.

So,what makes the civil war in Darfur any different then Iraq in your eyes?
Also,why did we get involved in the civil war in Bosnia in the 1990's?
What made that different?

If you vote,please try to explain your vote and your reasoning.,

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,841 • Replies: 77

No top replies

The difference is:

In Iraq we caused the civil war

In Sudan it's been going on for decades.

We should only get involved in pre-existing civil wars - if the population, through media agitation - makes it a vote winner...

0 Replies

Quote:

They claim that we shouldnt be involved in another countries civil war.

I don't know of anyone who is saying this as a general statement.

I say that we should not be part of Iraq's civil war for reasons that are specific to the conflict. (Of course I will let others speak for themselves).

There are many reasons we shouldn't be involved in Iraq's civil war specifically.

The first is that many sides (including the two most powerful)-- from the Shiite cleric Al-Sadr to the Sunni insurgents, want us out.

The second is that it is now highly unlikely that the US will never be accepted by any broad part of the Iraqi population as impartial. The ability to be trusted as impartial is a very important feature for anyone who wants to help the Iraqi's build a stable society. This is now simply a role that the US is not in the position to fulfill.

The only thing the US can do is impose its military will on the sides. This is not a way toward a stable Iraq for Iraqi's (unless we want to stay indefinately).

Darfur is a completely different situation.

First of all, to get my support we would need to have a clearly defined mission with an endpoint. This is the way to get sucess (and something we have been unable to do in Iraq). The fact that there is a well defined conflict with easily identifiable oppressors and victims makes success possible in Darfur in a way that is isn't in Iraq.

Second of all, any action in Darfur could have true international support, both diplomatically and militarily. This is also something we don't have in Iraq.

But stop putting words in people's mouths. These are vastly different situations.

0 Replies

None of the above. They pose no direct threat to the security of this nation.

0 Replies

Before going into Iraq, Bush should have realized that we are not omnipotent. Had he a slight knowledge of history, he would have realized that we were stepping into another Vietnam.

The Sudan is an almost impossible situation. The killing is taking place over untold hundreds of square miles of desolation. Policing this seems to be impossible.

0 Replies

nato. the united nations (should they ever actually do anything again).

the u.s. being a member of both should contribute in that way. realistically, when our country goes solo on this stuff, we never get anything in return but a kick in the ass.

0 Replies

'Should we be involved?" Like "we" haven't been involved in African genocide right along.

0 Replies

For me, only for humanitarian reasons, but for those like mysterymeat only when white folk are getting murdered or when cheap oil is involved.

btw: It ought to be "country's" as in the posessive, not the plural "countries."

0 Replies

Captain Irrelevant wrote:

The difference is:
In Iraq we caused the civil war.......

I disagree. The person who caused the civil war has been executed. None of it had to happen if Saddam had stepped down from power as directed. Saddam caused it all as far as I am concerned.

As far as whether the USA should be involved? My answer is yes. The President and his advisors believed Saddam had WDS. Saddam continuously broke UN resolutions making it appear that he had WMD.
Enough was enough and finally someone took action, not just the USA (other countries joined in).

btw I didn't vote because my answer is: it depends on what the circumstances are.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

The President and his advisors believed Saddam had WDS.

but that's the problem here. believing is not knowing. and if you're going to start a war, ya better well know what's goin' down.

as far as resolution violations go, there are many others. israel being one. many over nuclear weapons.

this is 2007. there's no realistic way to deny nuclear anything to nations that can achieve it. unless we are happy to see oceana perpetually at war with eurasia and eastasia.

gonna have to find a better way.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

The President and his advisors believed Saddam had WDS.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

but that's the problem here. believing is not knowing. and if you're going to start a war, ya better well know what's goin' down.......

TTH wrote:

Saddam caused it all as far as I am concerned.

I said Saddam caused it.

0 Replies

TTH wrote:

TTH wrote:
The President and his advisors believed Saddam had WDS.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:

but that's the problem here. believing is not knowing. and if you're going to start a war, ya better well know what's goin' down.......

TTH wrote:
Saddam caused it all as far as I am concerned.

I said Saddam caused it.

as far as you are concerned. s.h. was a total ass. he's dead. that's good. but iraq is a complete mess and sapping our military and money.

and yet, we still don't have the man responsible for 9/11, afghanistan is growing more dope than pre-invasion and the taliban is gaining support.

so tell me, exactly how has the united states benefited by the bush/cheney preoccupation with iraq?

0 Replies

I think we should start as many Civil Wars as we can. The more people are fighting each other, the less they'll fight us, and the more we can take advantage of them. That's just the way business works time and again: divide and conquer, cripple, weaken, and dominate any resources that you can.

Any expansion of influence we have in other countries will be an expansion of our national interests and security.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

For me, only for humanitarian reasons, but for those like mysterymeat only when white folk are getting murdered or when cheap oil is involved.

btw: It ought to be "country's" as in the posessive, not the plural "countries."

Are you really this racist?
Or are you pretending to be an idiot?

How do you get to your conclusion based on the question?
I will repeat the question,in simple terms for you.

Should the US be involved in ANY other countries civil war?
It doesnt matter where that country is,or what color the citizens of that country are.

Only you leapt to that conclusion,based on your own racist ideas.

I only mentioned a few countries,but I can find more for you if thats what you want.

Since the left doesnt want us in Iraq,during a "civil war",but they want us in Darfur during that "civil war",whats the difference?
What makes Darfur so special that we need to be there?
And if we need to be there, why dont we need to be in Sri Lanka?
They are also involved in a civil war?

Exactly what are your criteria for the US being involved in someone elses civil war?

And we know the left has gotten us involved in other countries civil war,just think back to Bosnia?
What made that civil war so important that we had to get involved?

0 Replies

I work for the VA. I don't support any war at the moment. Its unreal what these soldiers are coming home with... the lucky ones don't come back.

0 Replies

i hope some of you saw geoge tenent being interviewed on CBS -
60 minutes tonight .
i was not very impressed with his appearance .
imo too many assumptions that were not fact-based were made to justify the invasion of iraq .
and tenent didn't seem to have the guts to tell president the truth when he had the opportunity to do so . his excuse was that he told condie rice and that it was up to her to inform the president - a pretty lame excuse imo .
hbg

0 Replies

The US correctly engaged Saddam Hussein in Iraq for the following reasons:
1. The best intelligence of the day including British, French and German indicated that there were WMDs and/or precursors in Iraq.
2. Saddam Husein threw out the UN inspectors on different occasions frustrating the efforts of the UN members to resolve those programs
3. Iraq thumbed it's nose at the 17 resolutions passed by the UN.
4. Iraq (under Saddam Hussein) demonstrated it's will and intention of destabilizing the region by invading a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait. In doing so threatened Saudi Arabia, a main supplier of US oil imports.
5. The US had just experienced an unprecedented attack on our citizens perpetrated by members of a group under the protection of various mid east nations, and a US military presence was believed to be a deterrent to future attacks (which proved to be correct)
6. Foreign policy is a complex issue and must be viewed in its totality. Influence spheres supported at times by military action are absolutely necessary to protect a country's economic position. In this case failure to maintain a large military presence in this oil rich region, replete with hostile governments, could have resulted in a reduction of oil imports. Our country must have sufficient oil from foreign sources. Without it life in the US as we know it will end. Our presence in Iraq places our armed forces between Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. An excellent location to defend our interest in the region.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Good post and welcome to A2K fjf

One thing that we should probably never forget is that millions of Jews had been shot, tortured to death, mutilated on medical tables, gassed, and incinerated before the USA got into WWII. Germany's neighbors had also been squashed under a totalitarian thumb and were stripped of their autonomy and human rights.

When we finally did accept the inevitability of war, it was not to rescue the remaining Jews or liberate Germany's neighbors, but it was in retaliation to an unprovoked and savage attack perpetuated by an Imperial Japan and to defend against a hostile Germany that automatically became our sworn enemy once we declared war on Japan. Fortunately for us, we had a strong and committed American public who did not accept defeat or withdrawal as an option once we were committed to prevail.

We (and the allied nations we joined) did prevail and eliminated both Germany and Japan and their satellite allies as any threat to the United States. That was the objective and intended result to be accomplished at a cost of many tens of millions of lives and hundreds of millions of wounded counting all that suffered on all sides.

The unintended but happy consequences? Millions of Jews were saved and freed from a fate worse than mere death. Millions more in various nations were given back their freedoms and ability for self determination. Germany and Japan and all their allies are now sovereign nations that are peaceful with their neighbors and friendly and important trading partners of the United States. Even the horrors of the Iron Curtain were relatively short lived and are now gone.

Was it all worth it?

You bet it was.

Would it have made a difference if our initial motive had been to rescue the Jews and liberate Germany's neighbors and to make friends with Germans, Japanese et al and the unintended result was to eliminate Japan and Germany as threats to the USA?

This is not quite accurate, the war against the Third Reich started in '39 and initially the US wanted nothing to do with what they called the European War, Britain and her Empire stood alone against the Germans till the end of '41 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Adolf Hitler declared war on the US, it was only then that American was dragged, reluctantly, into the fight.

_________________

0 Replies

Should we be involved?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know