Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 12/09/2008 View Mon 12/08/2008 View Sun 12/07/2008 View Sat 12/06/2008 View Fri 12/05/2008 View Thu 12/04/2008 View Wed 12/03/2008
1
2008-12-09 Home Front: Politix
Bigger US role battling genocide?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2008-12-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ]  Top

#1 The ONLY way to stop a dictator bent on genocide is via brave men with guns. Either that, or outright killing the SOB via other means.

Nothing else is effective with those sorts -- and their followers.

You have to kill them.
Posted by OldSpook 2008-12-09 02:41||   2008-12-09 02:41|| Front Page Top

#2 That may sound like another well-meaning Washington study destined to gather dust.
Only if we're lucky ...


This is the essentially the white paper for Obama's AFRICOM jump-start and entry into the savior of the world status. The 400 meter target will a natural extension of the effort as he moves to restore 'hope' lost through past genocides and abuses of a domestic nature.
Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-09 06:26||   2008-12-09 06:26|| Front Page Top

#3 Favoring "dramatic action," she went to Capitol Hill last year to press for either a naval blockade of Sudan or even a US bombing campaign.

That would put us dead into a military confrontation with mainland China.

So I got a a better idea:

Let's build a coalition. Uncle Sam will commit troops and materiel to Sudan in the same amounts the rest if the world put into Iraq.

Deal?

I wish someone would do that for us.
Posted by badanov 2008-12-09 06:45|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2008-12-09 06:45|| Front Page Top

#4 As long as Berkeleyists flock to enlist in the USGPC (United States Genocide Prevention Corps).

I sse a few problems with that.

First That the guys who do the proposing aren't those who will do the dying.

Second: That like we have seen in Irak and even Afghanistan, the beautiful people, the MSM, the whore states (those who would pact with the Devil himself if they could extract a profit: eg teh Euros) not to mention the often very long propaganda arm from the bad guys and outright rivals (eg Russia) will undermine nation's will to fight until, like in Vietnam they handle a victory to the genociders.

Third: That you must know a lot more than what Americans usually know about history and politics of the region in order to know if you are helpng good guys or would be genociders who happen to be losing. Yugoslavia was a prime example of America being manipulated by the euros and the MSM.

Fourth: That this costs money. That America would be running through the world while Euro firms mp the floor with tax-burdened American firms

That does not mean that America should be indifferent, specailly when it is in its interest: Darfur, (but that shoyuld have begun in Afghanistan) could be an opportunity to drive a wedege between Muslims and non-Muslim inhabitants of teh Third World, between Blacks and Arabs thus making fight against Al Quaida and Islam much easier. But the effort must be accompanied with a propaganda effort who has been sorely missing in Afghanistan, but responsability of this failure lies not merely in teh Bush administration but to America's enemies internal and external.
Posted by JFM">JFM  2008-12-09 07:25||   2008-12-09 07:25|| Front Page Top

#5 Panel urges creation of genocide alert system....

Cabinet level position(s)? Neighborhood snitches? Blackwater para-military rescue force?

More HERE.
Posted by Besoeker 2008-12-09 07:37||   2008-12-09 07:37|| Front Page Top

#6 Typical liberal passive-aggressive garbage: all agenda, all the time.

We already have a fully capable system of doing threat assessments called the Department of Defense, but the only thing liberals can think of is how to do an end run around them with the obvious and specific intention of degrading or eliminating a key function of national defense.

This is an element that will fit perfectly into Obama's new defense budget.

This is disarmament by other means and it will only intensify the more into Hussein's administration we go. And Barak ain't even in the White House yet.
Posted by badanov 2008-12-09 08:08|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org]  2008-12-09 08:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Susan Rice, Mr. Obama's pick to be the US ambassador to the United Nations, had experience with the Rwanda genocide of the 1990s during her years as a chief Africa diplomat under the Clinton administration.


Yes, she opposed U.S. involvement in stopping the massacres.
Posted by DoDo 2008-12-09 10:55||   2008-12-09 10:55|| Front Page Top

#8 If it gets us off the hook for trying and then getting all the blame, then let the UN bungle it for us.
Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-12-09 12:21||   2008-12-09 12:21|| Front Page Top

#9 First, we'll cut defense spending and then we'll fritter away increasingly scarce military resources on missions whose parameters are determined by bodies who are often hostile if downright inimical to our interests.

And I bet people who protest this will even have their patriotism questioned.

Sounds like another step in the ongoing Clinton Restoration.
Posted by charger 2008-12-09 12:49||   2008-12-09 12:49|| Front Page Top

23:52 JosephMendiola
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:28 49 Pan
23:23 JosephMendiola
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:03 JosephMendiola
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:45 IVSergio
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:42 Jolutch Mussolini7800
22:40 ed
22:22 Glenmore
21:48 Frank G
21:47 GolfBravoUSMC
21:42 Glenmore
21:39 Jolutch Mussolini7800
21:36 Spot
21:27 Jolutch Mussolini7800
21:19 Nimble Spemble
21:16 sinse
21:15 Shease McGurque9306









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com