It's true. I strongly disagree with scoobsport's oil claim but agree with the fact we have no interest in Africa. It's a drought barren wasteland full of hate. You can’t even grow crops in some areas. Last time we went to Africa they dragged our men through the streets. Now they are pleading for us to come back to Somalia.

I don't see anything wrong with it though. I think it's very unfortunate for them but why does it have to be our responsibility when we have no interests? France could probably do something about it too. They have a capable military. Hell, they are practically within throwing distance to the region. Why aren't they going?

And it doesn't matter if scoob thinks oil was in interest. I know damn well he'll attack this post if I don’t state the following: I think we went for a stronghold in the region. Whatever. The bottom line is that we did have an interest regardless of what it is. Doesn't matter as far as this thread is concerned IMHO. We don't have one in Sudan and shouldn’t go in alone because of it. That’s all there is to it.

And if we did go alone we’d be voluntarily putting ourselves under the world microscope at our own expense. Why even bother?

 

I'll still attack it, don't worry...

So, according to what you said, we invaded Iraq in our own interests? What happened to OIF? I thought it was for their benefit?

I guess I see why we went at it alone- nobody to divide the spoils with.

And if you still believe that the 'stronghold' we were going after and the interests we have there aren't at least somewhat connected to the rich oil supplies in the region, I guess go ahead- there will be no changing your mind at this point, regardless how blind or misguided that thought is. I'm not saying that was the only reason, but you insist it had absolutely nothing to do with it- and I still think that's way off.

 

exactly! You seem to get the idea- you just cant see reality, I guess.

We may not be 'alone' technically, but in 'alone,' I mean assuming the majority of the human and financial costs.

 

let's bring it back into today's foreign policy discourse. we huff and puff about terrorism, yet allow terrorist acts to go on in areas that dont affect US interests, all the while turning a blind eye.

I think that this makes us lose our credibility when we stand on our soap box and decry the axis of evil. It's empty political rhetoric that is wearing very very thin

 

We rid the Iraqis of ruthless dictator and help provide a free democracy that opens the doors to unlimited possilibies. Capitalism, free trade, meaningful education etc. No interests for the Iraqis there!

But you blatantly disregard the interest in going. And we are not alone. We have a dozen foreign countries fighting with us. Perhaps those countries interests are different from ours.

I think you have a major problem with our interests because you think our interest was in oil. If you look at the economic standpoint of that it wasn’t even remotely feasible. Go ahead and look at all the numbers that date back to the 80's, how tariffs work, how refining works, how exporting works and how we had our thumb on Saddam the entire time. I have done it. If it was about the oil then it’s one of the most reckless business mistakes in the history of mankind.

Can we please stay on the topic of Sudan. Seriously. I'm sure you think my wanting to stay on topic is another way of dodging the truth. Hardly. I just find meaningful conversation with you to be extremely difficult. It's like you have the tolerance and attention span of a largemouth bass.

Put it this way. You dwell on Iraq in your next post and I will devote a new thread for it.

 

Good point. I think it's based on manpower mostly. If we had an Army like China then we could feasibly go after every terrorist regardless of interest or lack thereof.

I think that because we are so limited with a voluntary force we need to pick our battles that involve an interest first. At least until we've followed through with it. Wouldn't want to start building 10 model airplanes only to run out of glue or paint. I mean it's not uncommon for all military personnel to of had 1 tour in Afghanistan and 2 in Iraq at a minimum. All since 2002 for 6+ months.

Then if we were to draw numbers from the selective service it would be like drawing a double-edged sword. If half the selective service pool thinks our actions are full of **** now based on how you fell in the post above, then how happy are they going to be when we go full circle?

If we were to do this we could possibly go after the axis of evil at full force. But if that were to happen do you honestly think the students at SFSU would go to Sudan without kicking and screaming. No way. Not a chance.

 

You can't hear what I'm trying to say because I can can tell you still think I'm aligned with the far left on every single issue.

Where do I 'blatantly disregard the interest in going'??? How does anything in your first paragraph refute any point I was trying to make?

I know we had interests besides oil-I've said that. I wasn't even trying to say it was a major interest. But you still remain stubborn and refuse to admit that oil was one of the many interests we had there. We were afraid that we would lose control of Saddam, right? That would include losing some control of the oil, which you say depended on our control of Saddam. I hope you understand, now- there's really no need to start a new thread, unless it's for your own benefit.

I wouldn't have to dwell on things if you weren't so stubborn about admitting I may have made a point, and so dead-set on picking it apart and equating me to the far left.

And I don't believe I brought up Iraq in the first place... so don't blame me for getting off topic. I seem to be exhibiting quite the bit of patience and attention span by putting up with your thick-headedness and doing everything I can to explain myself. It's your choice whether to read this as you would a michael moore article (looking for holes and making no effort to understand his point), or like you would listen to someone you might respect. I try to give you a chance- and I've noticed you have actually taken a step back off of your hard-line, I'm never wrong attitude lately- just not toward myself. That will take more time, I understand, but I can rest assured my efforts here aren't going to waste

 

This is really no surprise to me, given the lack of respect you give any of my views. As long as you think I'm 'uber-liberal' in your book, you'll never give me a chance.

How am I intolerant and lacking attention span? Or are those just empty, meaningless insults meant to, once again, paint me as an irrational extremist?

Anyway, I would say a bass puts up with quite a bit, no? You need to put some more time and effort into your weak-*** insults- After all, your arguments seem to depend on them.

Just because I try to explain a point from one side doesn't automatically mean I totally agree with that side and that side only. It seems many of you have a hard time understanding the left, and will go as far as to discredit anything proposed by a 'liberal'- so I've kind of taken it upon myself to help explain that side. It takes patience, but it also takes respect from those listening. Many times, I'm not asking for you to agree, maybe just to see or acknolegde the point of view [as in the army recruiter protest thread].

 

So, you understand it when he says it?

...I'll never get any credit from you...

 

You're right. No chance. Like I said before, Bush has successfully alienated the entire left and lost any chance of recruiting a huge majority of young people.

I guarantee you they wouldn't be as against our military efforts, if our commercial interests didn't dictate where we imposed our 'goodwill.'

 

believe me... this is a rarity!

anyways, i think that we are all driving at the main point. it is an injustice that we dont do more in Sudan. We dont need China's military size to at least coordinate efforts / back NATO in Sudan. Willpower is needed more than manpower

 

All I did was switch those two sentences around in your post. Can you see my point now? Bush didn't alienate the left. The left alienated Bush from the florida "miscount" of 2000 and beyond. The association of being this stereotypical Republican damned him by default. After all, it was much more acceptable to label one as a cheater from the start rather than accepting defeat.

Texan + Businessman + Republican = tinfoil target beyond any liberals imagination since day one.

That said, it never mattered if there commercial interests then or now. I guarantee if Bush and Congress implemented a draft then there would have been hell to pay. And it's not just the extreme liberals that are against anything involving a loaded magazine. I'm talking about those that have a hard time taking out the trash when told to do so.

 

I never liked the UN much but think you're on the right track now. Scoobsport keeps attacking the current administration and it's getting old. I'm just tired of scoobsports rhetoric that seems to stress how this is soley the USA's fault. I think NATO/UN is the only answer in this seeing how there's obviously no interests for anyone. We (not just the USA) should do something about it because what's happening is wrong.

So what else is there to talk about regarding a solution?

 

Just so you know, "brass" has absolutely ZERO say in determining where our troops are deployed to or where they fight. The job is "to fight and win where they command". Straight out of FM 22-100. It's up to congress (44 democrats, 55 republicans, 1 independent) to decide where we go.

 

I agree that we should be in Sudan because crimes against humanity cannot and have not been tolerated by us since we became a nation so this going unattended is a crime in itself. I do not agree however with your views of the suspected reasons we went to Iraq. You say it is because we had a personal interest in Iraq due to oil and it being a ME hub. I would agree with the hub part but the oil clause is just about as played out as Nelly song. It's like when ever someone against the war can't immediately come up with a rebuttal they say "It was for the OIL!!!". That's ironic when gas prices are through the roof. I would agree with us going into Iraq to occupy a hub in the middle of the ME terror network but the oil case is loosing is pull with me. Until I see proof of us taking large qualities of oil from Iraq for FREE than I will not be convinced. As far as who is fighting in Iraq it's really a matter of NATO loyalty (or lack of) and political alliance. The people that are there with us now are there in hopes of creating a longterm relationship with America that will aid them down the road. The British and Australians that are there are committed to the War on Terror and I think, feel obligated to aid the Americans.