COMMENTS:
Voted : No
Do we really need yet another foreign expedition?
It may be in a worthy cause, but what will it achieve.
Did the bloody nose in Iraq and Afghanistan not make it clear to you that short of nuking the country its a war they cant win.
Voted : No
No. We have enough problems and Bush blew his wad when he invaded Iraq, supposedly to liberate them. Oh wait, not thats not it. It was because they had WMD's right? Can't quite keep his lies straight. And why are you only asking Democrats? You lost me the minute I read that. Next topic.
Voted : No
No, but I might support an invasion with the agreement of the major players in the world.
"It may be in a worthy cause, but what will it achieve."
An end to GENOCIDE dumbass.
Ahhh so Im a dumbass for seeing something as plain as the nose on my face.
The genocide will stop because the US invades, how will that work exactly?
This is exactly why the genocide continues.
1. Excuse makers.
2. "It is doomed to failure"
3. Blame America first
5. USA haters like steelhamster
6. APATHY - Hey it isn't happening to us, so we don't give a CRAP that a few HUNDRED THOUSAND have been murdered, enslaved, and RAPED.
7. And more than a little subtle racism.
I always thought Democrats stood for something.
steel... you love to go on and on about the rich and poor and compassion for people, but when it comes to stopping genocide... we all see your response. You are a hypocrite.
LOL
That's about as likely as Bush sticking a cucumber up his butt and dancing naked on the Oval Office desk for photographers from the UK Guardian.
Bush will NEVER invade a country that doesn't have substantial oil reserves.
And wouldn't this ballot be better directed to the neocons who howl about the U.N.'s lack of action on Sudan, but don't seem to offer ANY solutions, EVER, to the problem? Which does bring into question whether they really care about Sudan, or are just looking for another excuse to bash the United Nations.
Of course, I might support the action wholeheartedly if thousands of neocons came away from their computers and joined the military to go and fight in Sudan. I'd come to the parade and cheer them on. Of course, we all know the likelihood of THAT happening. 
Mr. Fiddlefaddle: Standing for something doesn't necessarily translate into unilateral action. I hope we have learned our lesson about unilateral action in Iraq. No matter what you stand for, in the modern world you need allies and agreement no matter how big and rich you are.
In the minds of the neocons, unilateral means "U" go and fight my battles.
And a unilateral invasion of Sudan would stop the genocide the way the unilateral invasion of Iraq stopped terrorism.
Margaret, what if we ask the United Nations for their permission and they say "No", what do we do then?
The United Nations is not the only way for nations to support each other.
Voted : Yes
In fact, Hell yes. Although I generally don't like "invade"ing (.. )
You made almost this exact ballot a few months ago.
by Jyl on Sun Sep 10, 06 8:32pm
[+]
^LOL. Some ballotmakers have a rather limited repertoire.
Voted : No
I wouldn't trust Bush with leading a unilateral invasion on his left nostril.
^would you trust kofi to run it? Lol.
Mr. Bostonian: What we do after a U.N. "no" on something we want obviously depends on the situation. I do think a President in that situation should go not only to the Congress, but the American people as well, for permission. Even though it might be cumbersome to achieve, if we got Congress to vote for a war, got the people to vote in favor of a war, then we could achieve the level of commitment necessary to prosecuting a war vigorously and totally. That's what we are missing I think: Involving the people in the decision to go to war outside of U.N. or International sanction.
Herzog: Would you trust Kofi to run it?
Hmmm and Bush is doing such a fine job isnt he.
Oh and I resent the 'Steelhamster hates the US' statement and would like you to retract such a libel
How is wanting the Sudan genocide solved without making the same blunders hypocrisy?
FF you seem to becoming more and more right wing as time goes on,when I first encounteredyou, you had a reasoned argument to a question, now you just resort to attacking those who wish to see a solution to death other than more death.
' Hmmm and Bush is doing such a fine job isnt he.'
Number of dictatorships removed by bush: 2.
Number of dictatorships removed by kofi: 0. Actually it ought to go into the negative because of all the ones he's propped up and generally supported over the years.
When it comes to actually getting something done absolutely I'd support bush over kofi. The US by itself took down saddam and the taliban. The UN, supposedly representing the entire world has thus far been unable to stop a few arabs with machetes from massacring hundreds of thousands.
' Oh and I resent the 'Steelhamster hates the US' statement and would like you to retract such a libel'
Where'd I say that? Maybe you do, maybe not. You certainly hate what the US stands for, but you're putting words in my mouth there.
'How is wanting the Sudan genocide solved without making the same blunders hypocrisy?'
Because your proposal wouldn't solve it at all. Certainly the holocaust wasn't ended quickly and without blunders, but it was ended, and if we'd waited for the perfect solution to fall in to our laps it would have been carried out to its conclusion.
How is doing nothing helping these people more than invading and disarming the janjaweed? If we wait much longer there's going to be no one left to save. Explain how they are helped more by the certainty of genocide than by the uncertainty associated with ending the genocide?
If you closely Herzog, I was speaking to FF.
Inyeresting point, the two dictators you mentioned were propped up which government, I forget... I know I should know this, can you tell me who it was?
The UN is constantly undermined by the US when they veto what they dont agree with then turn around and squeal when others dont support you.
' Inyeresting point, the two dictators you mentioned were propped up which government, I forget... I know I should know this, can you tell me who it was?'
Not the current one. No doubt the crown did some evil stuff back in the day, but I don't hold Mr. Blair responsible.
' The UN is constantly undermined by the US when they veto what they dont agree with then turn around and squeal when others dont support you.'
Proof? Find one real motion they were trying pass to deal with the sudan that the US vetoed. No seriously, find one. I don't think they've ever actually discussed the issue to any degree. But you claim they would act if the evil americans hadn't stopped them, back that up.
And bitching about the US is hardly the same thing as presenting a reasonable alternative solution.
So I'll ask again, how does doing nothing and allowing the genocide to be completed help anyone?
|
