Redstate

Most powerful military in the world or not, we can only be in so many places at a time...

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

The UN aside, what does it mean for us to intervene? The crisis that is Africa is both structural and economic. Threats to stability are internally generated (with the possible exception of al-Qaeda). We've seen recently how difficult it can be to police a civil war.

I'm not arguing against intervention. Leaving something to the UN is just a way of saying 'Not my problem'. That's a comfortable position to many, but one without moral foundation.

Intervention without a plan for success is just as bad and perhaps even worse. I don't see that plan.

A fair question, which I am going to dodge because the whole 'implementation' question is not for me or you or any blogger to decide. All the planning, logistics, etc are outside the scope of what I was saying.

There are two questions : 'should we?' and 'can we?'

I am merely saying YES to the first question. If it proves untenable or unworkable, then maybe we can't do it.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

But this situation is in our national interest just how?

I'm sure we can find a way, between limited boots on the ground and some air power to stop the slaughter. Who's going to enforce the stop? Who's going to deliver the food? Etc, etc, etc. It should not be us.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Any national interest connection is tenuous, Mike, and I wasn't going with the national interest angle anyway. But I say that between the endlines of the isolationism game -- one end being xenophobia, the other being frivolously meddlesome in the national affairs of other self-sustaining sovereign nations -- the prospect of intervening in Darfur does NOT fall at the 'frivolously meddlesome end.

I'm not a 'go to Darfur' crusader, and I don't want to spend all day arguing for it. Just saying my piece.

By all rights, that Darfur a problem that should have long ago been dealt with by (1)neighbors, or (2) the UN. But they didn't, won't, and probably can't.

So, the question boils down to this. Should SOMEBODY intervene? If your answer is no, then fine. Mine is yes. Nobody but the US will. And some causes are noble enough that they don't require a 'national interest' angle.

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

where you are coming from and you have a valid argument. Methinks you are a tad more caring and compassionate than I am too (and that's not a slam, just an opinion).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Beck, we're always cool -- in fact I'm usually in the gallery throwing rotten produce when you are troll-bashing. Also one of the guardians of the reverential honor of Franz, when His Name is mentioned outside your presence.

As for Darfur -- there's a very valid argument for staying out too (a very potential, bona fide quagmire, for example). It's a complicated, ugly issue.

I have to point out -- it's pretty cool when the holder of the IdiotStick™ says Methinks you are a tad more caring and compassionate than I am.

BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for noticing, brother!

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

But when it comes to Governmental action, there should be none without national interest.

But this is why making mercenaries against international law was so bad. Private citizens wanting to go ahead and help out for money is another matter altogether...

(how do I do that trademark symbol? the HTML post isn't helping)
Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

Do the following, but take the blanks out :

& trade ;

There's actually a whole BUNCH of things using that markup notation. Go here to see an intro. The whole world of possibilities is here .

So, just to show off a bit:

copyright [& copy ;] -- ©
registered [& reg ;] -- ®
spanish 'ny' [& ntilde ;] -- ñ

Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie

Test™
Test ™
Test [&trade]
Test[&trade]

So, what? It just doesn't work in the Subject line?

Carlos: "What? Were they [Democrats]?"
Seth: "They look like [Democrats]? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires.
"[Democrats] do not explode when sunlight hits them."

And Rightly So!

The Rightwing conspiracy™ drove me to it.

cool

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I agree that someone SHOULD go into the Darfur region. I disagree with who should show up.

The American military is built to win symmetric armed conflicts and that's the tip of the iceberg. If our military showed up, the militants would scatter and wait for us to leave. We would become a permanent feature of that region if we wanted to maintain the peace.

IMHO, the best solution is to find a private military firm like Executive Outcomes that understands how to win conflicts in Africa. They got the job done in several African countries and the legitimate governments had trained militia after the conflicts were resolved. To me, it sounds like a slightly better approach than putting American soldiers (or UN peace keepers for that matter) in harms way.

--
Gun control means never having to say "I missed you".

The civic structures have so collapsed, that not only can't we distinguish between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" I don't know if we even know if there are any "good guys".

I don't mean that there aren't many innocents suffering, but rather that we have a lot of broken eggs there without any instruction manual as to how to reassemble (or whether we even want to reassemble to be previous condition).

Not to mention meddling from neighbors.

And Rightly So!