[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]
So you pretended you asked a serious qustion? Why not pretend I gave you a serious answer?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?
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 :)[/quote]
I am glad that plenty of pro-Iraq people are staying home. Otherwise we’d have a huge military full of people that want to be in Iraq…not in Iraq.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?
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 
I am glad that plenty of pro-Iraq people are staying home. Otherwise we’d have a huge military full of people that want to be in Iraq…not in Iraq.
mike[/quote]
If I’m not mistaken we already have that.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?
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 :)[/quote]
Yes - your answer is what I am highlighting: a double standard.
When boots are on the ground in Darfur at some point, I expect to see a torrent of “chicken hawk” squealing against the George Clooneys of the world. After all, liberals wouldn’t want to be seen as hypocritical, right?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?
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
Yes - your answer is what I am highlighting: a double standard.
When boots are on the ground in Darfur at some point, I expect to see a torrent of “chicken hawk” squealing against the George Clooneys of the world. After all, liberals wouldn’t want to be seen as hypocritical, right?
[/quote]
George Clooney will cite that he’d be the first one there to fight the good fight in Darfur, but his work on Ocean’s 14 will require that he miss the action.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Would people who support intervention in Darfur but don’t enlist in the army be chicken hawks?[/quote]
Yes.
Why do people think military intervention is necessary in Sudan? Economic wars are far more effective than military wars. The only problem is that we would need support from the surrounding countries of Sudan to enforce trade restrictions and also allow refugees safe passage for political asylum.
We could then arm and train Sudanese refugees to fight their own war. Independence and liberty mean more when people are forced to earn it for themselves.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Why do people think military intervention is necessary in Sudan? Economic wars are far more effective than military wars. The only problem is that we would need support from the surrounding countries of Sudan to enforce trade restrictions and also allow refugees safe passage for political asylum.
We could then arm and train Sudanese refugees to fight their own war. Independence and liberty mean more when people are forced to earn it for themselves.[/quote]
China is the main culprit. They are buying the oil and supplying the weapons.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
China is the main culprit. They are buying the oil and supplying the weapons.
[/quote]
Hence, we need “help” enforcing trade restrictions–no oil out, no weapons in.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
China is the main culprit. They are buying the oil and supplying the weapons.
Hence, we need “help” enforcing trade restrictions–no oil out, no weapons in.
[/quote]
How? I am sure you do not want a blockade situation or military confrontation with China.
Some are calling for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
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?
You love the ad hominem don’tcha HH?[/quote]
Hey, if he attacks me because of my asthma, I’ll attack him for being a fat ass.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How? I am sure you do not want a blockade situation or military confrontation with China.
Some are calling for a boycott of the 2008 Olympics.
[/quote]
Confrontation is necessary whether in the form of a blockade or boycott. I am for any means except military intervention–except by UN Naval and Air-Force contingencies to block trade.
I am against the US asserting its interests onto other countries–as a consequence I am also against other countries doing the same, especially when they lack any regard for human life.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am against the US asserting its interests onto other countries–as a consequence I am also against other countries doing the same, especially when they lack any regard for human life.[/quote]
Wow, I’m shocked, finally a fair statement.
So, What do you think about US imposing sanctions against Sudan? For it, against it?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, What do you think about US imposing sanctions against Sudan? For it, against it?[/quote]
China’s trading with Sudan is hurting the Sudanese people. Its not a fair trade to begin with. Oil for weapons? How do the people of this country fare from that deal? It needs to stop.
I would go even further and completely stop trade with China and Sudan altogether–no matter the consequences to US relations/economics. We’ll just have to find another trading partner. Who knows, maybe some jobs would come back to the US.
In an economic war everyone (US corporations who profit from unfair trade) gets to suffer and sacrifice for their country–not just the selected few who make it through USMC and US Army boot-camp.