Bush Defends US Record On Darfur

[dt3]

I'm interested to know why he feels that the way this is dealt with should be any different to how to deal with Iraq anyway?

Maybe because so many people say Iraq was wrong? What makes this cause any better? Because Hollywood is using it as their popular cause this month?

 

[Tim]

It is ridiculous to think we are going to just up and change fronts or to engage in many fronts at once. It isn't going to happen.
Lefties want to talk about America being involved in another Vietnam ... being caught in a civil war (that is what is being complained about in Iraq) ... the same would be said of Durfur. Though it is easy to say that the left would not say that now since we are not there.

Left always talk about where we 'should' be when we aren't and where we 'shouldn't be' when we are. They are never happy, it is always the same old thing. What the left truly want is for us to be isolationalists.

This was going on in Durfur long before we invaded Iraq... the president did not need to tie the US up in Iraq... and we could have helped in Durfur... it would be the "Christian" thing to do

 

[IntruderLS1]

Iraq = NeoCon agenda
Durfur = Humanitarian aid

First you would have to accept #1 as truth, which I (obviously) don't do.

As a neutral observer here with no intention of fighting with you:

How long do you think it would take for us to see images of the people in Darfur marching in protest that American soldiers were there?

How many weeks would it take before somebody made a mistake, and an innocent got hurt?

What would happen in Iraq and Iran with pictures of Americans standing over the bodies of genocided civilians in a Muslim country?

If I were a betting man, I would wager we could probably settle the place down by 85% in a year, but our percentage of positive news to negative news would the inverse. 15% positive.

In one year, I suspect the media could change the minds of the world that we're doing more harm than good again.

Iraq is a perfect example.

 

[IntruderLS1]

This was going on in Durfur long before we invaded Iraq... the president did not need to tie the US up in Iraq... and we could have helped in Durfur... it would be the "Christian" thing to do

Why do you enjoy being so mean to her?

 

[GraceAbounds]

Why do you enjoy being so mean to her?

Because he is an Admin, can deny it, say he didn't mean it that way, and get away with it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Maybe because so many people say Iraq was wrong? What makes this cause any better? Because Hollywood is using it as their popular cause this month?

As Tim pointed out, this was going on before the invasion of Iraq and the US didn't do anything. Since when does Bush suddenly care about whether people think he's wrong or not? He had no problems invading Iraq despite the amount of people who were against the idea before hand.
What's hollywood to got to do with it? Anyway, I've seen them make for films about Iraq than Darfur!

 

[Tim]

First you would have to accept #1 as truth, which I (obviously) don't do.

As a neutral observer here with no intention of fighting with you:

How long do you think it would take for us to see images of the people in Darfur marching in protest that American soldiers were there?

How many weeks would it take before somebody made a mistake, and an innocent got hurt?

What would happen in Iraq and Iran with pictures of Americans standing over the bodies of genocided civilians in a Muslim country?

If I were a betting man, I would wager we could probably settle the place down by 85% in a year, but our percentage of positive news to negative news would the inverse. 15% positive.

In one year, I suspect the media could change the minds of the world that we're doing more harm than good again.

Iraq is a perfect example.

There is a big difference between the two places...
We sold the world on the fact that Iraq was a threat to us (Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud?) so we are there for us.

If we go into Durfur, there is no gain for us as a nation. It will be viewed as a humanitarian mission since we have nothing to gain from stopping the slaughter.

Why do you enjoy being so mean to her?

Because I am an admin and can deny it and say I didn't mean it that way and get away with it.

Because he is an Admin, can deny it, say he didn't mean it that way, and get away with it.

You truly believe that don't you? That's very sad indeed.
I have always stood by my words on this site. I will take any heat for things I have said in the past, the present and in the future. You have never seen me get myself out of trouble because of my title, nor have you ever seen me use it to attack anyone. I have always kept that separate from my debates and posts. And if you haven't seen that by now, then you haven't been paying attention.

But on the same token, I will not tone down my debates because I am an admin. If you feel that you can't keep up, then by all means find another section you will be happy in. But if you are going to post something in here that I disagree with, you will hear from me... and that's what this section is all about.

 

[IntruderLS1]

He had no problems invading Iraq despite the amount of people who were against the idea before hand.

Not here. Polls were something like 85% for, 10% against.

The three biggest national opponents to the war had much to gain from things not changing.

 

[dt3]

If we go into Durfur, there is no gain for us as a nation. It will be viewed as a humanitarian mission since we have nothing to gain from stopping the slaughter.

The exact same big-oil conspiracy theories would still be there.
afrol News - Sudan now Africa's third largest oil producer

 

[Peter Parka]

Not here. Polls were something like 85% for, 10% against.

The three biggest national opponents to the war had much to gain from things not changing.

I'm talking world scale here. The UN (which the USA is a member of) disagreed but even that didn't make a blind bit of difference. Even if the UK, Australia and other countries allied with the US in the Iraq war had condemned it and refused to take part, do you seriously thing that would have changed Bush's mind about invading?

 

[GraceAbounds]

You have never seen me get myself out of trouble because of my title, nor have you ever seen me use it to attack anyone.

But if you are going to post something in here that I disagree with, you will hear from me... and that's what this section is all about.

First off Tim, you don't get in trouble in the first place because of your title. Who are we suppose to 'report' you to? Yourself? Or V who doesn't even follow the threads much in this section, can't say I blame her. Or should we report them to a mod who doesn't want to go against you even though they would also agree that you are sarcastic, snide, and take jabs at folks?

I'm not the only person that sees it Tim.

You can disagree and still be kind, but you aren't. And you also are deaf much of the time to things that are said to you because of your own preconceived thoughts. Try paying attention yourself. I have been.

 

[Tim]

First off Tim, you don't get in trouble in the first place because of your title. Who are we suppose to 'report' you to? Yourself? Or V who doesn't even follow the threads much in this section, can't say I blame her. Or should we report them to a mod who doesn't want to go against you even though they would also agree that you are sarcastic, snide, and take jabs at folks?

I'm not the only person that sees it Tim.

You can disagree and still be kind, but you aren't. And you also are deaf much of the time to things that are said to you because of your own preconceived thoughts. Try paying attention yourself. I have been.

You are more than welcome to report ANY post, even mine.

To give you a little background... when a post is reported, it is seen by ALL mods, supermods and admin. It is then discussed by all of us, even when it is about one of us, and we take whatever action the MAJORITY of the staff agrees with. It is a very democratic solution to possible problems on the site.
Maybe you didn't feel that it's a fair system since you don't know how reported posts are looked at behind the scenes.

But when someone reports so many posts, some of which we scratch our heads wondering why, is it hard to see that they will eventually lose their intended impact?

The report button should be used to bring a post to the attention of the staff, not to make a personal point.

When you are out at a restaurants and you overhear a customer say that his buddy is idiotic... you don't run to the owner and complain. Well you should follow the same basic rules here. If they are having a problem, let them deal with it as they see fit.

 

[All Else Failed]

It is ridiculous to think we are going to just up and change fronts or to engage in many fronts at once. It isn't going to happen.
Lefties want to talk about America being involved in another Vietnam ... being caught in a civil war (that is what is being complained about in Iraq) ... the same would be said of Durfur. Though it is easy to say that the left would not say that now since we are not there.

Left always talk about where we 'should' be when we aren't and where we 'shouldn't be' when we are. They are never happy, it is always the same old thing. What the left truly want is for us to be isolationalists.

No see there's an actual problem in darfur, unlike Iraq before we invaded.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Heck.....Maybe I am crazy, but if the current administration insists on fighting this war in Iraq, wouldn't you think it would at least weigh in our favor with the world to jump in and help in Darfur?

Then, maybe GW could really hammer the "Compassionate Conservative" ticket he ran on 8 years ago.

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm not going to single the USA out for critisism over Darfur, what has the United Kingdom done about it? Or the UN? It's just that Bush spoke about it here and it comes across as very hypocritical to me, the same as if Gordon Brown or the UN were to voice their excuses about this too.

 

[gLing]

Why do people get upset about sadistic dictators taken out because they happen to be sitting on oil yet champion the idea of invading other nations that do not have oil?

 

[gLing]

No see there's an actual problem in darfur, unlike Iraq before we invaded.

You're right. There was just genocide, political murders, the boss's kids would rape and murder etc. No problem there.

 

[Peter Parka]

Why do people get upset about sadistic dictators taken out because they happen to be sitting on oil yet champion the idea of invading other nations that do not have oil?

Because I'm humanitarian enough to not agree with invading and killing for oil.:wtf:

 

[gLing]

Because I'm humanitarian enough to not agree with invading and killing for oil.:wtf:

So because that nation has oil then those people do not deserve help? Ok I get you.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Why do people get upset about sadistic dictators taken out because they happen to be sitting on oil yet champion the idea of invading other nations that do not have oil?

I don't think anyone "likes" the idea of either, but this is a question of where we can do the most good.

Do oil companies really need more power?

We are simply putting financial interest above human needs. We should be both purveyors and defenders of humanity.