thinkprogress.org — Bush, explaining why didn't intervene military in Darfur: "A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive."
Feb 20, 2008 View in Crawl 4
aesopsbxFeb 20, 2008
hmmmmm....no sir, i dont like it
nirav72Feb 21, 2008
I'm speechless.
pritchardFeb 21, 2008
Well I wouldn't support sending troops into Darfur and telling them how to live their lives, either. Honest. I hold the right for countries to manage their own affairs to be highly important, especially civil affairs. If someone can tell me how to stop genocide without turning the country into another Iraq, please do so.1) We couldn't just go around killing the 'bad guys', as there isn't a clear one. The good guys would just end up being the people who had the most US Support aka Money.2) If we intervene, then it's a US Occupation in the end, and we have another Iraq where we won't let the country progress until we 'democratize' it's process. This is very expensive, and it's not true freedom we'd be giving them - Not like it's our job to hold the world to our standards, anyways.I hate people getting killed as much as the next person, but the money and power in these situations always goes to the warlords. It's expensive, and it harms our international reputation. The UN's been trying to solve these types of problems for years with little success. Not to say it's impossible, but I enjoy us being a country like any other rather than the parents of the rest of the world, and right now we just don't have a viable strategy for 'saving the world'.
purag66Feb 21, 2008
*palm on face*
Closed AccountFeb 21, 2008
There's always JimmySpazza... But then again, come to think of it, no one has ever successfully proven that they're not the same person.
Closed AccountFeb 21, 2008
Is that his new secret weapon? To make all our heads explode through the power of self-contradiction?