Bye Bye Iraq, Hello Darfur

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Obama plans call for an increase in service members and to transfer more troops to Afghanistan. He believes that the real war is there, not Iraq. What he doesn't say but hints heavily is that we will also use our troops elsewhere? Those hints are leading to Darfur. If he isn't careful, we could end up with a repeat of what happened to the Russians in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and what happened to us in Somalia. It is only a matter of time before our allies bail on us in Afghanistan. And I don't see too many counties rushing to go into Darfur.

Should we really get involved in Darfur militarily?

Obama says

No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm. "


He says UNILATERALLY if necessary. Sounds familiar. Then he says we SHOULD, not will, make every effort to garner support for situations other than self-defense. Not too many countries are in favor of going into Darfur.

source


Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan's oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace.


He says we need to lead the world. Implementing no fly zone equals military.
Request peacekeeping force in video. Says that as President he won't turn blind eye to slaughter (video). Remember the Unites States should lead by example.


source


More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This co-op editorial written by Barack Obama and Sam Brownback.

Remember Obama believes the US has to lead by example, That means that our troops will be part of this multinational force.

source


U.S. effort in Darfur

"Better, but better is not good enough. [A protective force] is not going to happen without special effort on our part."


I wonder where this proactive force will come from? That's right we need to lead by example.

source




posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Makes some sense....at least they are having the bigger threat at this moment and i heard to many stories of the increased Taliban groups being recruited.The military guys stationed there are all saying this.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Regardless of anything

the American people were told "lets kill terrorists in afghanistan" and before we could say "peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers" we were in Iraq, looking around at nothingness, wondering WTF happened.


I say pull EVERYONE out of Iraq. Put them ALL in Afghanistan, finish the job we ORIGINALLY set out to do (capture Bin Laden, not "destroy terrorism")

To destroy terrorism you have to destroy radical thought. you can't do that with a gun. JUST my opinion



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

It is only a matter of time before our allies bail on us in Afghanistan.


I don't know about any other allies but Canada has made the commitment at least for 3 more years.

Btw, what do you see as the difference between Iraq and Darfur?



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


first of all this post is about him hinting at military action in Darfur. But I will respond to what you said anyway. you said


I say pull EVERYONE out of Iraq. Put them ALL in Afghanistan, finish the job we ORIGINALLY set out to do (capture Bin Laden, not "destroy terrorism")


Even if we were to put all the troops in Afghanistan, we still won't capture Bin Laden. He isn't in Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Yeah you got a point.I think we should have never invaded Iraq but we can't change the past so we are there until the job is done.As for changing people through radical thought.You say that to someone who would rather blow themselves up and hundreds of innocent people for their beliefs.I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 



There are currently 55,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, of which 30,000 are American. The bulk of the remaining troops come from Britain, Canada, France, and the Netherlands, which leaves 19 other NATO countries that either have very few troops serving in the region or none at all.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


source

I will say that despite all the smack we talk about Canada, they have always been there for us.

I see Iraq as a problem that we created. A problem that we need to fix. We shouldn't meddle any further or build bases. Right or wrong we are there. We should ensure it is stabilize and then withdraw promptly.


As for Darfur. They do need our attention. Africa has been largely ignored throughout history not just by us, but by a lot of nations. However, I don't feel it warrants involving our military. I prefer diplomatic and economic pressure. Our military has already been through hell long enough. We tried something similar in Somalia and you know what happened there. Here's a link to 5 Truths About Darfur .

source



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321


Even if we were to put all the troops in Afghanistan, we still won't capture Bin Laden. He isn't in Afghanistan.



Oh yeah? And your personal military advisors are telling you this....or....?


Obviously he's not in IRAQ either. So whats the point of being there still? What happened to Afghanistan?

And the reason this is important, is because going into darfur is just as pointless and meaningless as Iraq.

What happened to afghanistan?

Why is the goal now ANOTHER country.

[edit on 7/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 7/20/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Yeah you got a point.I think we should have never invaded Iraq but we can't change the past so we are there until the job is done.As for changing people through radical thought.You say that to someone who would rather blow themselves up and hundreds of innocent people for their beliefs.I don't think so.


What are you talking about?

I said you can't destroy radical thought with a gun...


To destroy terrorism you have to destroy radical thought. you can't do that with a gun. JUST my opinion


so invading ANY country in the name of "the war on TERROR" is asinine. you cannot destroy thought with a gun.

Go back and re-read my words, then - you can comment on what i had to say.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join