SkyDekker 1,465 #1 August 25, 2004 If Iraq wasn't about oil or WMD, but Iraq was about Saddam Hussain being an asshole and all the poor people tortured in Iraq.... If that was truly the case, then why isn't anybody doing anything about Sudan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 August 25, 2004 Weren't you the one bitching in another thread about our military being stretched too thin, and not being able tot handle any more fronts right now?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #3 August 25, 2004 I seriously doubt that, specially since it isn't my military. Doesn't answer the question though....try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #4 August 25, 2004 QuoteIf that was truly the case, then why isn't anybody doing anything about Sudan? Sounds like you're calling for the US military to intervene/invade in dozens of countries to right injustices. Is that really your position?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #5 August 25, 2004 QuoteIf Iraq wasn't about oil or WMD Who said it was not about WMD's? Last I checked several people thought he had them. Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. QuoteIf that was truly the case, then why isn't anybody doing anything about Sudan? No threat of WMD's? They don't give money to terroists?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #6 August 25, 2004 No, I think his position is that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy among the statements that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Saddam was such a bad guy. We needed a better reason to invade Iraq. A reason (or set thereof) that could be seen to clearly apply to Iraq and not to Rwanda, Nigeria, Korea, or other countries we chose not to invade. Capriciousness in war is not a good thing. Well, to me at least. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #7 August 25, 2004 If we accept "righting injustices" as an adequate justification for launching a military operation (I'm not so sure, but let's just assume), we'd still need to prioritize the operations (because not even the virtually all powerful US Department of Defense has unlimited resources). So, if the reasoning behind invading Iraq was to right social injustices, then the corresponding reason for not invading Sudan would be "we haven't gotten there yet," or "we don't have enough resources right now." If social justice is a valid cause for war, that leads us to repeated and continuous invasions of nations with different social situations than ours, which we might perceive as "unjust". I believe that's a pretty serious case of cultural imperialism, and I, personally, don't agree.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 August 25, 2004 Quotedifferent social situations than ours Is that the new definition of genocide? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveNFlorida 0 #9 August 25, 2004 QuoteIf social justice is a valid cause for war, that leads us to repeated and continuous invasions of nations with different social situations than ours, which we might perceive as "unjust". I believe that's a pretty serious case of cultural imperialism, and I, personally, don't agree. I think that's the point. He's saying that many claim, since we didn't find WMDs, that the reason for invasion was for "Iraqi freedom". If that were the case, then the question would become, "Why Iraq?". The way I read the post was that it didn't make sense to change our reasons for invasion because we didn't find WMDs. Isn't the war now called "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM" or some bullshit like that? Angela. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #10 August 25, 2004 Skydekker Foreign Policy Tool Box I see you have the same one as the DNC. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #11 August 25, 2004 QuoteQuotedifferent social situations than ours Is that the new definition of genocide? No, it's the new definition of women not being allowed to vote, children being forced to work at the age of 7, and a whole slew of other social situations that I, personally, perceive as injustices. I'm not comfortable saying that they are sufficient grounds to launch an invasion, though.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 August 25, 2004 And what does that have to do with Sudan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #13 August 25, 2004 QuoteAnd what does that have to do with Sudan? I don't believe that social injustice (of whatever magnitude) in the Sudan (or anywhere else) is sufficient justification for military intervention.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #14 August 25, 2004 Quotesocial injustice (of whatever magnitude) Like I said, is that the new definition of genocide? Because that is what is taking place in Sudan. And again, if it's not justified in Sudan, why was it justified in Iraq? "U.S. President George Bush has demanded Sudan's government end mass fighting with rebels, calling the nation's civil war "one of the worst humanitarian tragedies of our time." Colin Powell stood at the epicentre of Africa's worst humanitarian disaster yesterday and said it was "moving towards a genocidal conclusion". The US secretary of state's words marked by far the strongest statement yet from the West over the Darfur crisis in western Sudan. Tens of thousands have been killed and a million left homeless by Arab janjaweed militias. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #15 August 25, 2004 QuoteAnd again, if it's not justified in Sudan, why was it justified in Iraq? I haven't really heard too many people arguing that righting social injustice was the sole reason for invading Iraq. I'd disagree with invading Iraq to right social wrongs, as well. The US had many reasons for invading Iraq, some good, some not so good, some good but incorrect. Is there a similiar case for invading Sudan? I don't think so, but if you want to lay out the argument, have at it.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 August 25, 2004 Quoterighting social injustice was the sole reason for invading Iraq. Are you kidding? You haven't heard anyone saying that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown because he was murdering his own people? QuoteIs there a similiar case for invading Sudan? I don't think so, but if you want to lay out the argument, have at it. No, my point is there was no case to invade Iraq, but when we state that we're confronted with "WMD", which he haven't found, when we say that we're confronted with "links to Al Queda" which haven't been found, when we say that we're confronted with "he murdered his own people". That is the crux of this thread. If you're going to argue, as many have, I don't know how you missed it, that SH being a bad man was reason enough to invace, then how do you not justify invading Sudan? If you don't think that SH murdering his people (or social wrongs as you call it) was a reason for the invasion, fine. But you're one of the few not making that claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #17 August 25, 2004 QuoteQuoterighting social injustice was the sole reason for invading Iraq. Are you kidding? You haven't heard anyone saying that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown because he was murdering his own people? Emphasis on my use of the word "sole". QuoteIf you don't think that SH murdering his people (or social wrongs as you call it) was a reason for the invasion, fine. But you're one of the few not making that claim. Emphasis on you use of the word "a". Sole reason is not the same as one of many reasons.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #18 August 25, 2004 QuoteIf you're going to argue, as many have, I don't know how you missed it, that SH being a bad man was reason enough to invace, then how do you not justify invading Sudan? So, are you trying to argue _for_ an invasion of Sudan? If I was arguing that the social injustices perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime were sufficient to warrant invasion (I'm not), then I'd respond to your search for justification of not invading Sudan by saying that the US military is stretched too thin to take on another invasion and occupation in Sudan.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #19 August 25, 2004 Quote That is the crux of this thread. If you're going to argue, as many have, I don't know how you missed it, that SH being a bad man was reason enough to invace, then how do you not justify invading Sudan? I see you and Skydekker have identical foreign policy tool boxes. How sweet. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 August 25, 2004 No, you are right, there were other factors in deciding to invade Iraq. They just weren't what the administration has stated publicly. They are what his cabinet, speaking as the New American Century have been stating since 1993. Specifically setting up strategic bases in the heart of the middle east in order to use military intervention throught the region to protect our interests, namely oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #21 August 25, 2004 >I haven't really heard too many people arguing that righting social >injustice was the sole reason for invading Iraq. Agreed, but pretty much all the other reasons have been shown to be false. He had no massive WMD stockpiles, he was not building nuclear weapons, he did not have mobile biological labs, he did not put 400,000 people in mass graves, he was not lying to UN inspectors, he could not attack us on 45 minutes notice. The one thing everyone can agree on is that he was a very bad guy, and thus that's the one reason that many people are clinging to in the face of mounting evidence that the war was waged on a series of mistakes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #22 August 25, 2004 QuoteAgreed, but pretty much all the other reasons have been shown to be false. Yes, but knowing they weren't correct now and knowing they weren't correct then are two different things. I've made decisions based on bad information before, and I'm sure so have most people. At this point, all we can do is move forward from where we are. Edit: Also, I have to agree with Kev. There are plenty of good reasons advanced by various folks that weren't given as "official" reasons. Truthfully, they make more sense to me than many of the official reasons. I'm not sure they are sufficient alone, but when you add up those policy maneuvers with what we thought we knew about WMD and terrorist connections, and throw in the social injustices of the Hussein regime? I dunno, the case for war looks fairly good from there. Knowing what I know now, would I have wanted the US to go to war? Probably not. In fact, since I didn't think the war was well advised from the get-go, I can say almost certainly not. But did I have all the information that the government possessed when the decision was made? Of course not. And what would I have decided had I possessed that information (correct or not) and believed it to be good? I can't say. I really can't.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #23 August 25, 2004 Because there is no oil in the Suadn. Duh.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #24 August 25, 2004 QuoteBecause there is no oil in the Suadn. Duh. Hmmm. You might want to read this. QuoteWith the completion of a major oil export pipeline in July 1999, Sudanese crude oil production and exports have risen rapidly over the past few years. Sudan's estimated oil reserves have doubled since 2001, with crude production reaching an estimated 345,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) in June 2004. Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz said in May 2004 that he expected crude production to reach 500,000 bbl/d in 2005. On this page the DOE lists Sudan as one of the world's 10 major non-OPEC oil exporters.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #25 August 26, 2004 QuoteI see you have the same one as the DNC. Since you are the smart one on these forums, please do give your explanation. The latest justification for Iraq was/is that SH was a really bad man and neaded to go. Sudan is in the middle of a genocide. Vinny, why don't you tell us what the correct course of action is to stop this genocide? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
