My only comment on Afghanistan is that the Taliban are pouring in in their thousands, mainly from Pakistan and the mountain areas. The reprisals after 9/11 were not enough and the Taliban have been underestimated. They are determined to take back Afghanistan and they may well do so. The only solution is to purge them and there are not enough troops to do so. The war with the Taliban could go on for years.

You mention "remarkable patience' as far as the USA policy in Darfur is concerned. I read that as doing very little apart from food aid, a lot of which is seized by bandits in a country that is lawless with a government which, if not publicly, supports the Janjaweed in ethnic cleansing.

Darfur has been abandoned and we cannot blame the UN for that. 

Robert Gates not Bill. Sometimes one does get confused with the two names.

It's simple, we had reason to go into Iraq, we had reason to go into Afghanistan.  We have no reason to interfere in Darfur.  It's hypocritial for the left to whine that we aren't involved in Darfur, when they claim we had no reason to go into Iraq.

Darfur is a internal problem.  We have no ceasefire with either side of the problem there, so there isn't one to enforce.  Darfur isn't financing terrorist attacks against us.

It's telling that the left complains that the US isn't interfering in Darfur, yet to do so would actually be doing what the left accuses us of doing in Iraq.

 

The fact the Europe is losing it's will to fight Islamist Extremists merely proves what Isamist Extremist leaders say about the West.  To the extremists, the war has been going on for decades, and they are still up for the fight.  Cowardice and laziness are making the West want to give up after only half a decade.

If Europe hates freedom so much that they aren't willing to fight to maintain it, perhaps the U.S. should pull out of NATO completely and leave Europe to the end they deserve.

thank you, it was simply nagging at me



Since the U.N. isn't a thing that exist by itself, and merely the what it's nation-members do with it, I would say we should blame the nation-states in it. Bush isn't responsible for those atrocities, and I find the conservatives in the U.S. who blame the UN of any wrong in the world to be as stupid as the people who blame Bush for every wrong in the world.

But 2 kind of people in the west should be blamed for those:

1) The coward way the governements refuse to acknowledge any form of genocide in Darfur. Since acknowledging a genocide makes a country, by international law, obliged to intervene. No governements want that, so they simply sit by and say : Oh dear, that's awful

2) The short-sighted lefty social groups that makes pressure on oil companies to stop doing business in Sudan because of the Darfur. Those companies mostly have been forced to sell those interest. To whom do you think they sold these interest? China, who simply doesn't care. So.. it means that we lost most economic leverage against Darfur that we could have used, and China got a bargain for oil.

That is almost true, our leaders knew we would have to get involved but the people who wanted peace at any price wanted us to stay out of the war because it was in Europe and they had not attacked us. Remember that Japan was the only nation to attack the United States during the entire war. Germany sent spies but they were caught within days of arrival and they never had a chance to attack us. The peace lovers argued that we should only fight Japan and leave Europe to the Europeans. Even after Hitler declared war on us to try to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union he did very little to attack us. We on the other hand as soon as Hitler declared war on us then started flooding Europe and the Soviet Union with troops and supplies. Yes, we bailed out the Soviet Union as well as all of Europe while fighting another war with Japan.

America is the only nation in history to successfully fight two completely different wars at the same time. We did not have to do this and our peace loving citizens wanted us to deal with Japan only because we should not fight and die for Europe, I like the idea but all it would do is make us weak in the long run so we stopped the enemy by fighting on his land not ours.

It is the same strategy we are using today in Iraq an Afghanistan and the peace lovers are giving the same argument that we should not have invaded Iraq and only waged war in Afghanistan.

It is also the reason we are not getting involved in Darfur, although it is a tragedy it has nothing to do with us and does not affect our interest abroad.

It's not that simple, you had reason but at the same time your president declared war on terror not Afghanistan or Iraq singled out. I hope that you consider this information carefully.


Terror in the world that may effect YOU isn't?


Does it always boil down to your own countrymen? When do we have an evolved sense of love for one another and where does this attitude end?


The Left, The Right... the unsavory middle. If life were oh so simple as Right And Wrong... I mean there's this division in politics Right or Left... both grinding the axe between what is right and wrong. We're all human we all make mistakes, but there are two choices in every matter and all we should do is try to do the right thing and do no harm.

When I speak of "us" I do not mean to imply I'm American because I'm not. I think "us" really stems down to people of all nationalities, being "American" is hardly the justice to the word "us". Just think of what goes through your mind when I inform you that I am Canadian, do you sense the stereo types surfacing? Or do you draw the line logically between what I say?

As I have said before as I will reiterate again, there is right... the desire to do good and do no harm and there is wrong the desire to do harm and not care about the choices being made whilst shrugging the shoulders passing along excuses for making poor choices when in fact it should be "I made them, I hope for forgiveness however the only thing in my interest is to continue forward making the right choices instead" and do it despite opinion or malice directed towards you. All this is all good and said, but all I can do is pray that we all have the strength to go forth with positive and forthcoming qualities.

Please don't tell me you are 100% behind that outlandish statement made by... who was it? Bush? "You are either for us or you are against us". How exactly can you speak with such pretense Ted?

Do you sincerely believe the people in the "Hell holes" you speak of are not people at all but insects to be ignored? I don't think I'm deluded but obviously people who want to be helped will help themselves or try to with a little encouragement/temporary assistance. I think a lot more can be done than simply admitting defeat before any attempt is made at helping the world to become a better place.

Making a difference doesn't mean you have to have hundreds of thousands of troops on the soil and not to criticize the Afghanistan/Iraq situation either.

A lot can be done, if 'we' as in people of all nations, Americans,Africans,Asians,Canadians even.... whatever whoever wherever... put our minds to it. "We" < remember this word is not exclusive to one nation] can make a difference. I sincerely hope that there can be a difference made however. A challenge to be had, a challenge I know not even I can solve in so many words myself. (To admit situations are more complicated than my words of spite against bad xenophobic attitudes)

I am a Canadian (actually, I would prefer to be called a Quebecois) myself, and I have to reflect a little what you just said.

But if you really want our rich-countries to go into Darfur, all right. What do we do? Do we shoot at the rebels? We shoot at the governement? We go protect the civilian population, which is spread in a whole country, or try to protect the displaced peoples? Don't forget that if we act in a non-aggressive way, our militaries will simply be target. If you think we have a lot of coffins coming out of Afghanistan, let me tell you we would have WAY more coming out of Darfur if we step in to act as bodyguards.

I don't think us going in there will actually help matters, and it will be a big waste of money, of our soldier's troop.

People criticized that we haven'T interceded during the Rwanda's genocide, but again, what we do? We step in, and start shooting the Hutu population to prevent them killing the Tutis? We send soldiers in to personnaly defend every Tuti available in their home, spreading our (small) forces, making them vulnerable to retaliation?

It's easy to say "we have to do stop them". Quite another thing to go in there and start messing with other people's trouble. Not that it's not a worthy goal, but that we simply cannot really stop these. Would you step in, alone, to stop 4 peoples fighting against each others?

USA is not single-handely conducting the War, and Canada is over-extending it's military to lend a hand there! Canada has the highest loss/soldier ratio in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2 years!

Web:

I said "national interest", not "benefit". Anytime our leaders decide whether or not to put our resources into anything, the number one question should be about our national interests. If we destroy ourselves trying to help someone else, we help neither..

As for the "someone is trying to kill me" analogy, I'll go with how I was trained. In EMS we are trained that our responsibility when it comes to safety is, Ourselves, our partner, other Emergency workers the patient, by standers... in that order. It sounds selfish, but if my partner and I get killed or wounded trying to help the patient, what good did we do anyone?

Our leaders have to have the same priorities... The U.S. should come first, then our allies, then the nation we are trying to help, then other nations (and yes, every national leader should have the same priorities, with their nation first).

As far as the war on Islamist Extremist Terrorism (I know that's not the wording of the rhetoric, but it is the actions behind the rhetoric), if the people of Darfur are being terrorized by Islamist Extremist Terrorists, then that would count on the "National Interest" side of the decision.

Since the US pays 25% of the cost (yes among ALL nations) of UN peace keeping forces. I'd say the US is contributing to the situation in Darfur. You who cry about causalities want to see some blood there too? Please spare me.

It didn't take long for the 3 Trillion dollar cost of the Iraq war to come out (which is false). The Pentagon released today it has spent 500 Billion (can't remember exact amount). It also said it will spend 1.5 Trillion provided the troops are there until 2017. Over the same period (2001 until 2017) the US GNP is expected to be 300 Trillion dollars, The cost is comparable to the first gulf war to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Since the end of that war there has been 60,000 US troops in the region supporting the containment of Saddam, more than a third of the number of troops there now.

The left throws out figures to scare people into surrender. As any sane person can see it takes lending money to morons that can't pay their mortgage to bring a nation down, not a war.