Is this a threat or am I missing something?

[Epicurus]

slavery...again a tough one... but I would say yes.

Would you consider child trafficking slavery? The child is unwillingly being traded for money. Should we intervene to protect countries which don't confront the problem actively. It goes on in Eastern European countries with authorities turning a blind eye.

 

[Cypress]

Would you consider child trafficking slavery? The child is unwillingly being traded for money. Should we intervene to protect countries which don't confront the problem actively. It goes on in Eastern European countries with authorities turning a blind eye.

I'm not comfortable with blanket statements that "we" need to go into Sudan. This shouldn't be a unilateral thing. We shouldn't be sending the over-stretched and exhausted US Army in anywhere unilaterally at this point.

This has to be an international effort. And we used to have the skilled diplomacy, to create international coalitions for stuff like this: Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo. Unfortunately, those that voted for Bush twice, and supported the Iraq War, have chosen to throw away our moral authoirty, our diplomatic skill, and our ability to form coalitions. The UN is trying to do something about Sudan, with peacekeepers. But, that had nothing to do with Bush's diplomatic skills.

 

[Blackflag]

In part, yes. I absolutely believe we should be in force in the Sudan right now and should have been there years ago. If limited, we should go into the Sudan long before Zimbabwe. Mugabe is a thug, no question, but the crisis is in the Sudan.

Do you support a draft?

 

[Blackflag]

That worked REAL well in Iraq.

Why not go iut and make an even dumber worst blunder in American history?

Nuke them, we don't need american troops to die there. Iraq was a mistake then and now. Iran isn't. Neither is Nkorea. They are real threats.

 

[Epicurus]

I'm not comfortable with blanket statements that "we" need to go into Sudan. This shouldn't be a unilateral thing. We shouldn't be sending the over-stretched and exhausted US Army in anywhere unilaterally at this point.

This has to be an international effort. And we used to have the skilled diplomacy, to create international coalitions for stuff like this: Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo. Unfortunately, those that voted for Bush twice, and supported the Iraq War, have chosen to throw away our moral authoirty, our diplomatic skill, and our ability to form coalitions. The UN is trying to do something about Sudan, with peacekeepers. But, that had nothing to do with Bush's diplomatic skills.

I agree. I'm just trying to understand where Super is coming from and where he draws the lines.

 

[Cancel7]

Nuke them, we don't need american troops to die there. Iraq was a mistake then and now. Iran isn't. Neither is Nkorea. They are real threats.

First of all, Americans are going to die if you bomb Iran. There will be a fucking slaughter in IRaq as immediate retaliation.

Secondly, preemtively nuking any country is so far beyond immoral that it becomes evil. There are children there you know. Shame on you.

Thirdly, please show how Iran is any threat to the most important people in the world whose lives hold more value than anyone else on earth, the Americans?

and lastly, you might be under the impression that you can just nuke a country, but you better educate yourself fast about Hezbollah and what they are going to do to your personal ass in retalitation, and I can't say they'll be wrong, even if they get me while they're at it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Do you support a draft?

No. I think we should continue to maintain a volunteer military.

 

[Cancel7]

I'm not comfortable with blanket statements that "we" need to go into Sudan. This shouldn't be a unilateral thing. We shouldn't be sending the over-stretched and exhausted US Army in anywhere unilaterally at this point.

This has to be an international effort. And we used to have the skilled diplomacy, to create international coalitions for stuff like this: Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo. Unfortunately, those that voted for Bush twice, and supported the Iraq War, have chosen to throw away our moral authoirty, our diplomatic skill, and our ability to form coalitions. The UN is trying to do something about Sudan, with peacekeepers. But, that had nothing to do with Bush's diplomatic skills.

I am in between you and him. Yes, it needs to be international, and under the UN, with their peacekeeping forces, but, the US should take a leadership role on it, because when they don't, nothing happens, in case no one has noticed China not rushing into Darfur, or France not yelling out "Let us go into Rhwanda if the Americans won't, we'll fix it".

 

[Epicurus]

I think that we should err on the side of non-intervention. Iraq is just one of a myriad of examples of good intentions gone completely awry.

The only conceivable reason I could see to intervene is a genocide as in the case of the Sudan, but even then we should not do it unilaterally until all other means have been exhausted.

 

[Blackflag]

No. I think we should continue to maintain a volunteer military.

How do you suggest we do that if you want us in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and where else?

 

[Epicurus]

How do you suggest we do that if you want us in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and where else?

Haiti, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Somalia, Burma, Thailand, Mauritania, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and North Korea all meet his qualifications also.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am in between you and him. Yes, it needs to be international, and under the UN, with their peacekeeping forces, but, the US should take a leadership role on it, because when they don't, nothing happens, in case no one has noticed China not rushing into Darfur, or France not yelling out "Let us go into Rhwanda if the Americans won't, we'll fix it".

Actually, you and I agree. I without question think it should be a UN force... as I have said in the past. I agree as well that it should be led by the US for the very reason you state. I would add to your position in that the peacekeeping force must be authorized to use force to protect the Sudanese. They were not given that ability in Rwanda and we all know how well that turned out. Hopefully we do not make that mistake again.

With Ki-moon in charge now, we are finally seeing some positive action from the UN. Both parties should continue to support his effort and make sure that it succeeds.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How do you suggest we do that if you want us in Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and where else?

1) I have never proposed going into Iran

2) We have the troops to support Ki-moon in Sudan. That is the only place i would go into at this time due to the genocide.

 

[Cypress]

I am in between you and him. Yes, it needs to be international, and under the UN, with their peacekeeping forces, but, the US should take a leadership role on it, because when they don't, nothing happens, in case no one has noticed China not rushing into Darfur, or France not yelling out "Let us go into Rhwanda if the Americans won't, we'll fix it".

No, that's what I'm saying. The US should play a leadership role. But guess what? We can't because Bush got voted in twice, and because of the Iraq war. Which, combined with Bush's innate incompetence, means we don't have the authority or diplomatic skills to do what we did in the 1990s.

 

[Blackflag]

1) I have never proposed going into Iran

2) We have the troops to support Ki-moon in Sudan. That is the only place i would go into at this time due to the genocide.

So you supported invading Iraq for some reason but you don't see Iran as a real threat? That seems like weird logic though.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think that we should err on the side of non-intervention. Iraq is just one of a myriad of examples of good intentions gone completely awry.

The only conceivable reason I could see to intervene is a genocide as in the case of the Sudan, but even then we should not do it unilaterally until all other means have been exhausted.

I agree that going into Sudan should not be unilateral. It should be through the UN. The idiot Cypress is just trying to start shit by acting as if I meant go it alone.

 

[Cancel7]

So Cypress, Superfreak, and moi, all agree here?

Mimosas all around!

 

[Cancel7]

I agree that going into Sudan should not be unilateral. It should be through the UN. The idiot Cypress is just trying to start shit by acting as if I meant go it alone.

Aw geez...cancel the mimosas.

I guess it's important that you two fight even when you agree?

 

[Epicurus]

I agree that going into Sudan should not be unilateral. It should be through the UN. The idiot Cypress is just trying to start shit by acting as if I meant go it alone.

Haha he is a master shitstarter.

His little snipes on capitalism are what get me. Always tucks them in the last sentence of an otherwise reasonable post, forcing me to disagree.

Eg.

Him: "Bush has been a disaster! Iraq is a quagmire! Spending is rampant! The government should regulate the economy to curb the inherent inequality of capitalism!"

Me: YEAHHHH I AGRE- wait what?

 

[Cypress]

I agree that going into Sudan should not be unilateral. It should be through the UN. The idiot Cypress is just trying to start shit by acting as if I meant go it alone.

I'm saying you voted twice for a guy, and supported a war in Iraq, that makes it virtually impossible for the U.S. to take a leadership role here. In fact, I don't even think Bush really cares that much about being a leader on Sudan. So, your best intentions aside, I think the president and policies you voted for, make it virtually impossible to achieve what you support in theory.