T Nation

WHO'S to Blame For Darfur?

Who?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/18/darfur.china.ap/index.html

"As one of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-holding permanent members, China has blocked efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Sudanese consent, angering those who want more done to quell four years of fighting in the vast western part of the African nation.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and sells its government weapons and military aircraft, and those ties are becoming a liability as Beijing tries to portray itself as a responsible power while welcoming the world to the 2008 Olympics, a source of national pride."

Figure out a way to blame America for this one, libs!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/18/darfur.china.ap/index.html

"As one of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-holding permanent members, China has blocked efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Sudanese consent, angering those who want more done to quell four years of fighting in the vast western part of the African nation.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and sells its government weapons and military aircraft, and those ties are becoming a liability as Beijing tries to portray itself as a responsible power while welcoming the world to the 2008 Olympics, a source of national pride."

Figure out a way to blame America for this one, libs!

[/quote]

Ok, there is absolutely no way we can go to Darfur. Interventionism is bad. And, we’ll get kicked out by the ‘legitimate resistance’ that will swarm in to resist the occupiers. These combatants will be lawful civilian combatants bearing no uniform or military marking. They will fight from amongst a civilian populace, forcing the occupiers to fight them in those surroundings.

Unarmed civilians will die and the UN will be blamed. They will also employ the tried and true bombing techniques responsible for chasing the US out of Iraq (matter of time now).

The occupying forces will become the monsters. And, the civilian populations back home will see their resolve shattered. Time-lines for the withdraw from the Darfur quagmire will be introduced. Talk of cutting off funding for the coalition forces will be considered as a means to force them home and out of another Vietnam.

Furthermore, it’s absolutely not a security threat to the US. Think they’ll just have to figure this one out on their own.

China doesn’t give two shits.

For a second I thought you were gonna blame it on the World Health Organization. Pheww…

I thought he was going to say it was Bill Clinton’s fault.

Most everything else is…

[quote]lixy wrote:
For a second I thought you were gonna blame it on the World Health Organization. Pheww…[/quote]

Yes, me too. I was a little bit disappointed.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/18/darfur.china.ap/index.html

"As one of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-holding permanent members, China has blocked efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Sudanese consent, angering those who want more done to quell four years of fighting in the vast western part of the African nation.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and sells its government weapons and military aircraft, and those ties are becoming a liability as Beijing tries to portray itself as a responsible power while welcoming the world to the 2008 Olympics, a source of national pride."

Figure out a way to blame America for this one, libs!

[/quote]

If Bush hadn’t stretched out the US military in Iraq, he would still have the means to go in, get the job done and get out. And he would have the green light from the UN and the support of his allies.

How am I doing?

Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I thought he was going to say it was Bill Clinton’s fault.

Most everything else is…[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

I want you to look up joe biden castigating Bush for intervention in Iraq. Imperialist, blood for oil, you know the drill from your pals on moveon.org.

Then look up his recent quotes where he says he’d pull out of Iraq and then invade Darfur.

It’s to the point, bradley, where your party is so pathetic, pointing it out isn’t even worth it.

JeffR

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/18/darfur.china.ap/index.html

"As one of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-holding permanent members, China has blocked efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Sudanese consent, angering those who want more done to quell four years of fighting in the vast western part of the African nation.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and sells its government weapons and military aircraft, and those ties are becoming a liability as Beijing tries to portray itself as a responsible power while welcoming the world to the 2008 Olympics, a source of national pride."

Figure out a way to blame America for this one, libs!

[/quote]

If we’re willing to go back about 90 years, we might be able to assign some “secondary blame” to America (although the perspective is not necessarily liberal):

Thanks to America getting involved in World War I (on the opposite side from Austria-Hungary, which initially declared war because of assassins coming into its territory from Serbia), the Entente Powers were able to win a decisive victory and impose the Versailles Treaty (with particularly harsh terms for Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany).

The Versailles Treaty was a contributing factor in the rise of Adolph Hitler, whose aggression against neighboring countries eventually led to World War II. The aftermath of World War II provided the Communists with the opportunity to expand their rule beyond the USSR, and contributed to the victory of the Communists over the Nationalists in China. The Communist government of China assists the government of Sudan and prevents UN peacekeepers from being sent to Darfur.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I want you to look up joe biden castigating Bush for intervention in Iraq. Imperialist, blood for oil, you know the drill from your pals on moveon.org.

Then look up his recent quotes where he says he’d pull out of Iraq and then invade Darfur.

It’s to the point, bradley, where your party is so pathetic, pointing it out isn’t even worth it.

JeffR
[/quote]

[i]In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could “radically change the situation on the ground now.”

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”[/i]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

You’re right Jeffy. With all our troops over in Iraq right now, I doubt we can find 2,500 guys that we can spare. Stupid Biden.

We don’t even have enough National Guardsmen at home in America to help out with natural disasters… So where the hell are we gonna find 2,500 spare troops?

Biden wishes he knew as much about foriegn affairs as George Bush does!

PS: You read MoveOn.org? I doubt it. Too many big words.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?[/quote]

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?

[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I want you to look up joe biden castigating Bush for intervention in Iraq. Imperialist, blood for oil, you know the drill from your pals on moveon.org.

Then look up his recent quotes where he says he’d pull out of Iraq and then invade Darfur.

It’s to the point, bradley, where your party is so pathetic, pointing it out isn’t even worth it.

JeffR

[i]In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could “radically change the situation on the ground now.”

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”[/i]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059937/

You’re right Jeffy. With all our troops over in Iraq right now, I doubt we can find 2,500 guys that we can spare. Stupid Biden.

We don’t even have enough National Guardsmen at home in America to help out with natural disasters… So where the hell are we gonna find 2,500 spare troops?

Biden wishes he knew as much about foriegn affairs as George Bush does!

PS: You read MoveOn.org? I doubt it. Too many big words.[/quote]

Hello, bradley.

I was wondering if you thought your response was effective?

If you think it was an effective rebuke, please explain.

For instance, you didn’t address the hypocrisy of biden. Namely, he castigates Bush for Iraq, yet, now he wants ground troops in Darfur. He decries preemption in Iraq, yet, it’s ok for Darfur? biden is against intervening in “civil wars” unless it’s darfur.

Here’s biden in the democratic debate:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Dem_primary_SC_Joe_Biden.htm

But, it’s ok to use preemption in Darfur?

Or, you do realize that there is a civil war in Darfur. If we injected ground troops, we’d be right in the middle of a civil war.

Importance?

Here’s your boy biden again on March 24th, 2007:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/biden-declares-bushs-iraq-policy-god.html

Someone is guilty of trying to score political points at the expense of being hypocritical.

If it’s Bush, it’s bad. If it’s me, it’s good.

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Oh, bradley, I laughed out loud at the idea that moveon.org is “big words.”

I’ve been meaning to thank you for posting. By comparison, you enhance the standing of everyone on the Right.

Thanks.

JeffR

[quote]The muffin man wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?

[/quote]

Hey, muffin man.

Good to see that you have nothing to add. Your consistency if comforting.

I know several families who have service members serving in combat zones who have I support the troops bumper stickers.

Further, I believe asthma and many other ailments keep people from serving.

Given these facts, your comments are pointless.

JeffR

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?[/quote]

Good to know we can count on the troll to not answer the question.

Anyone with a functioning brain stem want to consider the question?

[quote]NealRaymond2 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Who?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/05/18/darfur.china.ap/index.html

"As one of the U.N. Security Council’s five veto-holding permanent members, China has blocked efforts to send U.N. peacekeepers to Darfur without Sudanese consent, angering those who want more done to quell four years of fighting in the vast western part of the African nation.

China buys two-thirds of Sudan’s oil exports and sells its government weapons and military aircraft, and those ties are becoming a liability as Beijing tries to portray itself as a responsible power while welcoming the world to the 2008 Olympics, a source of national pride."

Figure out a way to blame America for this one, libs!

If we’re willing to go back about 90 years, we might be able to assign some “secondary blame” to America (although the perspective is not necessarily liberal):

Thanks to America getting involved in World War I (on the opposite side from Austria-Hungary, which initially declared war because of assassins coming into its territory from Serbia), the Entente Powers were able to win a decisive victory and impose the Versailles Treaty (with particularly harsh terms for Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany).

The Versailles Treaty was a contributing factor in the rise of Adolph Hitler, whose aggression against neighboring countries eventually led to World War II. The aftermath of World War II provided the Communists with the opportunity to expand their rule beyond the USSR, and contributed to the victory of the Communists over the Nationalists in China. The Communist government of China assists the government of Sudan and prevents UN peacekeepers from being sent to Darfur.[/quote]

Well played Sir, it is HH`s thread, but I think you win.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?

Good to know we can count on the troll to not answer the question.

Anyone with a functioning brain stem want to consider the question?[/quote]

I think there is a lot that could be done short of all out war.

You could use your airforce to make sure at least the refuge camps are save and collect the money for it from the EU.

Drop food on said camps and make sure that US of A is clearly visible on every sack of grain.

It costs next to nothing and the US needs a little international PR campaign.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?

[/quote]

Are they 20% fat, as in your profile Wreckless? Put down the potato chips and croissants and actually hit the gym. Maybe then you can join your fellow Belgians in their relief effort in Darfur; it’ll only take 2500 troops or so. Oh wait…are there Belgian troops in Darfur?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?[/quote]

Is the army in Darfur? If it was than yes. But it’s not, so no.

People who support the Iraq war but don’t enlist are what are called chicken hawks :slight_smile:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?

That depends? Do they have a “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

Do they have asthma?

Are they 20% fat, as in your profile Wreckless? Put down the potato chips and croissants and actually hit the gym. Maybe then you can join your fellow Belgians in their relief effort in Darfur; it’ll only take 2500 troops or so. Oh wait…are there Belgian troops in Darfur?

[/quote]

You love the ad hominem don’tcha HH?