RochesterFalcon Wrote:

Quote:AND there is genocide going on.

Show me.

Most people define genocide as a systematic attempt to exterminate a group of people based on their heritage or some other identifiable fact about them. The most obvious example is Nazi Germany's systematic extermination of 6 million Jews.

Yes, Iraq has ruthlessly continued to kill political opponents, even as the war has started. Is this genocide, however? I think that's highly debatable. I really do.

Quote:how is this a diplomatic boondoggle, but Kosovo isn't?

People weren't marching all over the world in opposition to action in Kosovo. Action there had much more international support.

1) So gassing thousands of Kurds isn't genocide?

2) Kosovo and Yugoslavia was about removing a leader intent on the destruction of an ethnic group. We had just as much support over there as in Iraq. People wanted us out but didn't have any "No Oil for Blood" arguements.

T-Monay: Bingo. We're on the same page....

-JD

Let me simplify Rochester's answer.

Any time a Democrat needs to use military force, it is justified and for the good of all mankind.

Any time a Republican does the same, he is a war-mongering, thoughtless bully who will trample women and children to get his way.

Rochester... why don't we let the public run the world now?

Whichever country has more protesters will get the biggest say in world affairs. Is this your logic?

When it comes to international support, what matters is the people in power. Their decisions should be based on THEIR people, our decisions SHOULD NOT be based on their people.

JD Heel Wrote:<a href='http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=saddam+genocide+kurds' target='_blank'>Here's</a> a Google search for "saddam," "genocide," and "kurds."

-JD

YOU, SIR, ARE THE MAN!!

That deserves 10 bow downs...

Big Pimpin Deac Wrote:Let me simplify Rochester's answer.

Any time a Democrat needs to use military force, it is justified and for the good of all mankind.

Any time a Republican does the same, he is a war-mongering, thoughtless bully who will trample women and children to get his way.

Exactly.

:rolleyes: As I've said, I was against Clinton's decision to fire missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan.

RochesterFalcon Wrote::rolleyes: As I've said, I was against Clinton's decision to fire missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan.

But Kosovo was much better than GW's war.

Quote:1) So gassing thousands of Kurds isn't genocide?

It likely was. Note my use of the past tense. It was 15 years ago. Saddam clearly hasn't been in a position to such a thing in ten years. He can't even stop free elections in Kurdistan. How is he going to gas the Kurds?

It's worth noting that when Saddam did gas the Kurds the U.S. government continued to support him as an ally. In fact, it has been said that the very day the U.N. announced it had evidence that thousands of Kurds had been gassed by the Iraq government, Dick Cheney was meeting with Iraqi officials discussing oil.

Any claim that this war is about preventing genocide is obviously hypocritical and secondary to the real issue. If it was germane, America would have invaded during the mid-1980s.

Quote:2) Kosovo and Yugoslavia was about removing a leader intent on the destruction of an ethnic group. We had just as much support over there as in Iraq.

This just isn't true. It isn't. Canada sent troops. Germany sent troops. Turkey sent troops.. How in the world is support for the Second Gulf War comparable to the level of support in 1998?

Look, you fellas are trying to cast me as wholly partisan and the mold just doesn't fit. Read this next paragraph slowly, please:

The first Gulf War was entirely justified. I have no beef at all with it. None. It is the foreign policy gold standard by which all other foreign interventions should be measured. And it was conducted by a Republican.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 5 2003, 09:54 AM-->

Back and forth we go...like a bad tennis match.

I am gonna go listen to Queensryche, "Operation Mindcrime" now, for a dose of realtiy.