Should we Invade???

[Shrewman Capote]

Since many of you now cite human rights violations as the reason for invading Iraq since the WMD accusation was proven to be bottomless, do you think we should Invade Sudan, and bring "democracy there? Keep in mind millions have been murdered there since Bush took office. I provide the following link.........

http://www.bushcountry.org/news/colu...ians_sudan.htm

[CalHunter]

I have not heard this one before. The WMD accusation has now been proven to be "bottomless?" Does that mean we are finding an inexhaustable supply of WMD's? [8D]

[mr-pirk]

Shrewman
Point #1 If the UN was what it is supposed to be they would be taking care of it.
Point #2 Humans right violations was not stated as a reason for invading Iraq, toppling a dictator and stopping some of the torment was a side benefit.
Point #3 do you really think you are completely in-the-know about what weapons Saddam had and what he did with each and everyone of them? Do you think the UN inspectors found the Anthrax that is missing?
Point #4 Sudan isn't shooting almost daily at our planes trying to enforce a UN directive.
Point #5 Sudan isn't posturing to the whole world that it has WMD's and if the do have them they are not showing the world that they would be likely to give them to terrorist.
Point #6 Saddam was openly supporting terrorist org.s and those terrorist org.'s are openly supporting other terrorist some of which have sworn to attack America.
Point #7 Only a fool couldn't see that if the sanctions had played out and been lifted Saddam would have continued as before. Be glad GWB had the guts to do something about it.
Point #8 Saddam was then next legal target to prove the point GWB made, If you openly support terrorist that seek to harm the USA you are going to be confronted and made to answer. Even if you can't see this I am sure the point got across in the backrooms when these things are discussed in all countries.

A much better question to be asking yourself is do we attack Iran.
We have had the Atom-Bomb for 50 years now, anyone who holds a vision of the next 50 years with the Atom-Bomb in the hands of a Fundamentalist Islamic nation and not see them use it or pass it on to those who would use it is not only nieve but a fool.

Mr-Pirk

[logs]

Shrew my boy, what is your logic here? What does one, Iraq, have to do with the other, Sudan? Each is a separate and unrelated matter. Apples and oranges.

If you think we should invade Sudan, state the reason. If not what is your question?
Is Sudan a threat to us?
Can they assist any terrorist group with money or weapons?
Are there any other countries currently involved in helping the people there requesting our aid?
What action has the UN taken and do they have a position on what is happening there at this time? Are they getting blood money from anyone one there to stop another counrty from stepping in?Do we need the "Global approval" first?
How many fronts should we have our military spread over in a time of global terrorism?

I take it from the way you phase your post you think we should invade Sudan to stop the human rights violations and bring democracy to that country. How much do you think we can have on our plate at one time?????


And most important of all what is your exit strategy once you invade this country?

[AlaskaMagnum]

I believe his logic is known as Socratic Logic.

For example:


We invade countries if they commit human rights violations against their citizens.

The Sudan commits attrocities against their citizens.

Therefore, we should invade the Sudan.


It's a very black and white classical type of philosphical reasoning, not more cerebral type of stuff like Kantian philosophy or Utalitarianism. Don't know if the argument is right or wrong, but it certianly does fall withing th realm of logical.

[Shrewman Capote]

You guys can't be that oblivious????

[mr-pirk]

Shrewman maybe I am that oblivious but to me it appears you are constructing a strawman.

Mr-Pirk

[14mercs]

A big negative for that one there. Sudan does not threaten the U.S. freedom and way of life. They may threaten Christians as America is thought to be the nation of Christians, maybe a correlation there. Overall though, we did not go to Iraq to stop human rights violations. We went to fend off further attacks from N, B, C threats. The ethnic cleansing in Iraq by Sodom (sp) Hussein was horrible and adds to evidence of why it was a bonus to have him out of power. Let the worthless U.N. sanction Sudan for ten years like they did Iraq then we'll get serious in 2014 after the U.N. is still imposing sanctions with no results. God Bless out troops!

[logs]

Alaska, I agree with what you are saying and I understood what Shrew was doing. I was having a little fun with his baiting or introduction post. I am certainly not as versed in the different names and concepts of philosphical reasoning but I did understand what he was attempting to do.

Personally. I wish we did not have so much on our plate at this time because what is going on in the Sudan is horrible and something needs to be done to stop it. I just don't think we are in a position to take on all the worlds problems at once.It is a lot more complicated than that for sure with race, culture, value of relationship, economical value of the Sudan etc all weighing into the matter. No matter how one looks at it, it is mass murder and crime agianst humanity basically unchecked.

[AlaskaMagnum]

Logs,

I agree WE should not go into the Sudan, but I do think the (yes, I will say it) UN should do something to help those people there. It is tragic and is approaching genocide.

As for the Socratic logic, I do believe Bush did try to revert the arguement back to human rights violations when it became apparent that there were no WMDs and thus the perceived threat did not exist.

I am not one of those who believe that Bush=Divine Right from God. He's okay, but there have been better presidents in recent history, and in my opinion Bush has done a very good if not great job in some areas, and a fairly bad to pretty piss poor job in other areas. He is very black and white and when you live your life that way and conduct your job that way, this is the outcome. You are either good or bad at particular things. There is very little in-between. I think the one trait of Bush that I strongly strongly dislike is the fact that the man just refuses to admit it when he makes a mistakes. Now, I don't know if he sees it as a sign of weakness or if he just truly believes he is infallible, either way, neither is true, and I would consider it a breath of fresh air if the man would just come out and take responsiblity and admit he screwed up circa J.F. Kennedy.