Biden: Pull out of the war on terror in Iraq and into the civil war in Sudan Update: students save the day!

posted at 5:28 pm on April 11, 2007 by Bryan

Or something along those lines. Judge for yourself.

Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a Democratic presidential candidate, called Wednesday for the use of military force to end the suffering in Darfur.

“I would use American force now,” Biden said at a hearing before his committee. “I think it’s not only time not to take force off the table. I think it’s time to put force on the table and use it.”

In advocating use of military force, Biden said senior U.S. military officials in Europe told him that 2,500 U.S. troops could “radically change the situation on the ground now.”

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”

But according to Biden and most Democrats, it’s not a moral imperative to stay in Iraq even knowing that if we leave too soon a genocide to dwarf Darfur’s will fill our wake. Not to mention what a premature bugout would do to US credibility.

Help me out here, Democrats. You all want out of Iraq. I know that a lot of you agree with Biden and want into Darfur. What underlying principle guides you? I’m not being snarky–I’m genuinely curious about it.

Because from where I sit, you people make no sense at all.

Your top reps in the House will meet with Assad or Ahmadinejad but not Bush. You run away from Fox News but I bet you’d all go debate on Al Jazeera. You’ll fundraise for CAIR but you treat James Dobson like he’s a leper. You all think Keith Olbermann is just the manliest man ever since he’s always “speaking truth to power” but, as a kid, he got beat up by girls all the time. And you’re all probably cool with that. And now this–let’s run away! from Iraq, and lurch right into Darfur.

You hate the “civil war” in Iraq? Well, you’ll just love the civil war in Darfur. Did ya know that the same Islamist forces we’re fighting against in Iraq are involved in Darfur? You’d best get up to speed. Chop chop.

Here’s one argument you could make, but none of you will: That you’d like to help the Christians and animists survive an Islamist onslaught. That argument might even win me over, if I thought you actually meant a word of it. But you’ll never make that argument, though it is the truth of the conflict.

And I do know that at the first drop of American blood spilled in Darfur, you’ll all be caterwauling to Bring The Troops Home Now! Because that’s just what you all do–support military interventions until they turn the least bit tough, and then pull the rug out from under whoever you claimed to be helping while you simultaneously abandon the troops.

At least it can be argued that the war in Iraq has something to do with national security. That case cannot be made for sending troops into Darfur. It can’t. Both conflicts have massive humanitarian dimensions, though Iraq’s is arguably the larger of the two (more people there, more enemies surrounding, etc).

So what’s behind all of this? Is it cynicism, since you all know that at the end of the day, China will veto sending any serious military presence into Darfur? Is it just a desire to use the instruments of American foreign policy in conflicts that have nothing to do with American security, exclusively? Do you all just talk about Darfur to make yourselves feel good? What could possibly motivate anyone in their right mind to actually see Darfur as being worth sending in US troops, if Iraq isn’t worth keeping troops there?

Hm?

Update: I think Darfur is the trendy cause du jour, having replaced Tibet at some point. I’m not alone in thinking that.

“Most students I know … think that someone else will take care of the problem and don’t have a responsibility to fix it themselves,” said Savannah Wiseman, 19, a freshman and international relations major who recently wrote an editorial on Darfur for the Daily Trojan.

What helps? Celebrities. Wiseman believes that the “trendiness” of the issue — one that has attracted the attention of Oscar-nominated hipster Ryan Gosling and actor George Clooney — is often what initially attracts some to activism.

“It has been a trendy issue,” said Scott Warren, a student at Brown University and communications coordinator for STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur), an organization that has coordinated activism at more than 700 high schools and colleges. “But the trendiness is needed. Whatever helps, even if it is celebrities, isn’t a negative in my view.”

Yes, yes, students are all over the issue. Just ask Speaker Pelosi:

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently said Darfur would not be a priority in Congress if students had not pushed the issue. “Students on college campuses … are calling for us all to do more to help the people of Darfur,” she said.

She has been in the House for years. She’s privvy to much more information than any student can get their hands on. So to me it’s a bit cringeworthy to hear her yammer up a student role in driving the issue. Pelosi knew about Darfur long before they did, but did nothing about it until they bugged her first. Or at least, that’s how the quote comes off.

And then there’s this.

070411_darfur.jpg

The caption reads:

University of Connecticut students participate in a protest against the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, at the Connecticut campus in Storrs, Conn.
Photo by AP

Laying down on a sidewalk does diddly squat, other than make the laydowners feel like they did something. If they really wanted to do something constructive, they’d start bothering the Chinese government. But that’s not likely to have any effect at all, and it would get in the way of classes, and there’s that date they have this weekend, and they have to think about their careers and the possibility of working in Beijing at some point…so let’s just lay here for an hour with a cardboard sign and call it a day, shall we? Anyone up for latte?

And isn’t George Bush just awful? I mean, he’s like Hitler or something.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Heh. You can only laugh, at this point.

Jaibones on April 11, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Contradiction in terms?

Defector01 on April 11, 2007 at 5:31 PM

For once, I agree with Biden.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Here’s one argument you could make, but none of you will: That you’d like to help the Christians and animists survive an Islamist onslaught. That argument might even win me over, if I thought you actually meant a word of it. But you’ll never make that argument, though it is the truth of the conflict.

I’ve made that argument before.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:35 PM

They’ve long passed the point of being able to keep their stories straight.

Nice photo Bryan. I’ve always referred to him as Smirkin’ Joe – and you captured it.

fogw on April 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM

I’ve made that argument before.

But Biden hasn’t. And won’t.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM

So what? Balaam’s donkey has uttered some truth. If this ass can inadvertantly get us to do the right thing, so what? Hugh Fitzgerald has made the same argument. We’re not morally obligated to prevent a fight that’s been going on for 1300 years.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:39 PM

I think Biden the nobrain senator from delaware has been talking wiff Jese Jackson and Al Sharpton to tack the slack off of Imus by pushing Darfur…………..such a BS artist the bunch of them.

bones47 on April 11, 2007 at 5:40 PM

How about we “stop the bleeding” everywhere?

Iraq, Sudan, anywhere we find it. If we are going to be accused of being the global police, let’s pursue it to the fullest extent.

unamused on April 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM

To War! In Darfur. I’ll call my detailer the day of.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Because Somalia worked out so well.

see-dubya on April 11, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Fine, support it all you want to. But the man leading the charge today will be the man leading the retreat tomorrow while he blames it all on someone else. And the people of Darfur won’t have been helped a bit.

Cf: Somalia, 1993.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Cf: Somalia, 1993.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Apples to Oranges. Somalis are all Muslims(Sunnis). They’re incapable of civilization. Islam reinforces tribalism.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM

The only reason that any Democrat would call for troops to be sent to Sudan is that they know that none will ever be sent.

Technically speaking, doesn’t Congress have the power to force the sending of troops to Sudan by declaring war?

rw on April 11, 2007 at 5:44 PM

He’s just saying this because it’s the new, politically correct fad to support doing something to stop the killing in Darfur. It’s like the old “Free Tibet” nonsense that used to be so popular – half the people who are advocating have no idea what they’re supporting but they think it makes them feel compassionate.

Way to jump on the bandwagon with both feet, Sen. Biden!

Chad on April 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Apples to Oranges. Somalis are all Muslims(Sunnis). They’re incapable of civilization. Islam reinforces tribalism.

Pray tell, who’s driving the violence in Sudan?

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM

The difference is Boner and Leo DiCraprio say that we don’t “care” about Darfur b/c we are raaaaaaaacist. So we have an “obligation” to do something. What a bunch of tools.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Pray tell, who’s driving the violence in Sudan?

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Arab sunnis. In Somalia, we were trying to get cooperation from a bunch of Muslims who’d rather just fight one another, as Sahih al-Bukhari states (paraphrase) “support your shiek even if he is an Ethiopian with a head like a raisin.”

The Darfur Christians would actually be glad to see us.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Our unwinnable conflict is better than this unwinnable conflict :P

lorien1973 on April 11, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Doesn’t anyone on this blog read jihadwatch?

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Y’know, we always hear this from the left, Darfur, Darfur, what about Darfur? I say, Europe, UN, what about the Euros and the UN? What are they doing to solve this humanitarian crisis? Aren’t these the same liberals who bitch day in and day out that we act like the World’s Policemen now asking us to be the damned World Police? Interesting that they’re in total support of unilateralism on this but not Iraq. Hypocritical and moronic, but interesting.

Bad Candy on April 11, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Volume 1, Book 11, Number 662:
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, “Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief.”

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Hm?
posted at 5:28 pm on April 11, 2007 by Bryan

You’ll never get an answer from the Dems on any of these questions, or on any domestic policies either.
I don’t disagree with Democrats any more.
There’s nothing there to disagree with.
Isn’t that the real reason they don’t want to debate on Fox?
It’s not Fox that scares them, it’s the idea that they might have to take a stand on an issue.

billy on April 11, 2007 at 5:58 PM

One only needs to take a quick look at the oil contract maps to see who is benefiting from the slaughter in Sudan… In first place is the Chinese followed by, wait for it, the French!
Does Senator Biden really feel so compelled to put American troops on the ground to stop a slaughter taking place under the eyes of the French oil companies, followed closely by a host of other EU nations?
Shall we go in with blood and treasure to right another wrong by the EU?
This whole situation makes me sick.
Why doesn’t Senator Biden have the nuts to tell the EU that the slaughter must be stopped? If the EU wants to continue doing business with the gov’t of the Sudan then they have a moral imperative to stop the slaughter. The U.S. has had an economic embargo against the Sudan for many years now due to their human rights violations. We get no oil from the Sudan. Why is it that we have to now go “solve” this problem?
If one American boot lands in the Sudan I will be totally pissed.

Babs on April 11, 2007 at 5:59 PM

To modify Bryan’s multiple-choice quiz above just a bit:

Is it:

A. Cynicism, since you all know that at the end of the day, China will veto sending any serious military presence into Darfur?

B. Just a desire to use the instruments of American foreign policy in conflicts that have nothing to do with American security, exclusively?

C. Do you all just talk about Darfur to make yourselves feel good?

To which I add the correct answer …

D. All of the above.

Spurius Ligustinus on April 11, 2007 at 6:00 PM

How about, the people in Darfur share a common religion (there’s plenty of Christians and Animists in the US). I don’t feel morally obligated to help Sunnis and Shia from killing one another. I do feel obligated to help other Christians from being slaughtered. Let’s transplant all of the Assyrians and Chaldeans to the US and call it quits. Darfur sounds like a good idea. This time, we’ll leave the Christians in charge and send the Arabs packing.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 6:03 PM

i think we’re better-served staying out of this one. Conflict wasn’t started b/c the Arabs wanted to slaughter the non-Arabs. It started b/c the non-Arabs were tiring of not having any power/voice (generally being treated like crap), and rebelled. They formed rebel armies and staged attacks against their government. Now the Arabs are engaging in flat-out genocide of the non-Arab population. This is a regional conflict; solving it does serve our interests any.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM

i think we’re better-served staying out of this one. Conflict wasn’t started b/c the Arabs wanted to slaughter the non-Arabs. It started b/c the non-Arabs were tiring of not having any power/voice (generally being treated like crap), and rebelled. They formed rebel armies and staged attacks against their government. Now the Arabs are engaging in flat-out genocide of the non-Arab population. This is a regional conflict; solving it does serve our interests any.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Are you kidding me?????

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Its politics talking. Biden wants to say “Look Im tough on terrorists Im fight a war for humanitarian reasons”

So pray tell me what theat is Darfar to the US ? What WMDs do they have ?

isnt Biden one of the ones who crows about how the Iraqi war is illegal ? If Iraq is illegal (Saddam was at war with us before in the past and had invaded two countries) Then what did the people of Sudan do to threaten the US ?

Or is Biden leading the charge to blow up more asperin factories like Pres Clinton ?

William Amos on April 11, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Are you kidding me?????

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM

No. I’m not. You’re links talk about the genocide, which is obviously happening. No one is denying that, except the Sudanese governement and Arab apologists.

I was talking about the conflict as a whole, including its roots.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Sounds like Clinton’s war in Serbia. Say, aren’t there still troops in Serbia. When will we extract ourselves from that quagmire??!!! What’s it been, 8, 9 years? Hell, WWII was half as long as that. And now they want to send troops to Dafur? You can’t trust these Donk-hawks.

I think it is another reason to draft a pork-stuffed troop funding bill. But, it’s a dem war, so there won’t be a time limit to bringing the troops home.

Mallard T. Drake on April 11, 2007 at 6:26 PM

PRCalDude, I did a quick search of FoxNews and even they have an article up stating this:

The conflict began when two Darfur rebel groups with roots in the region’s ethnic African tribes rose up in February 2003, accusing the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum of neglect and discrimination. The government is accused of trying to suppress the rebellion by backing ethnic Arab herdsmen known as Janjaweed, who long have competed with African villagers over Darfur’s scarce resources.

Go to any major news source and you will find the same thing. I’d support intervention if we were not on the verge of a Democrat-led defeat in Iraq.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 6:30 PM

From CIA factbook:

Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan was embroiled in two prolonged civil wars during most of the remainder of the 20th century. These conflicts were rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. The first civil war ended in 1972, but broke out again in 1983. The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than 4 million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than 2 million deaths over a period of two decades. Peace talks gained momentum in 2002-04 with the signing of several accords. The final North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in January 2005, granted the southern rebels autonomy for six years, after which a referendum for independence is scheduled to be held. A separate conflict that broke out in the western region of Darfur in 2003 has displaced nearly 2 million people and caused an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths. As of late 2006, peacekeeping troops were struggling to stabilize the situation, which has become increasingly regional in scope, and has brought instability to eastern Chad, and Sudanese incursions into the Central African Republic. Sudan also has faced large refugee influxes from neighboring countries, primarily Ethiopia and Chad, and armed conflict, poor transport infrastructure, and lack of government support have chronically obstructed the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected populations

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

Thanks, that is a great summary of the situation; accurate, too.

RW Wacko on April 11, 2007 at 6:36 PM

The same CIA that can’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shia? That didn’t read the history of the British invasion of Mesopotamia before we went in? Sorry, I’ll stick to JihadWatch.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 6:38 PM

You make good points about many Dems and Dem leadership, Bryan, but as to this:

But according to Biden and most Democrats, it’s not a moral imperative to stay in Iraq even knowing that if we leave too soon a genocide to dwarf Darfur’s will fill our wake. Not to mention what a premature bugout would do to US credibility.

Credit where credit is due. Biden is actually much less reflexively cut-and-run these days than many Dems:

The debate about Iraq in Washington centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice. Do we continue on President Bush’s failing course and hand the problem off to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?

There is a third way. Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have proposed a five-point plan to keep Iraq together, protect America’s interests and bring our troops home. We recognize that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind, so that America’s interests and security are protected. That is what we have proposed.

He goes on to suggest his split-in-three plan, which we may or may not agree with, but he seems to be pretty good these days at warning against leaving quickly.

The course we’re on has no end in sight. This plan can allow us to achieve the two objectives most American share: to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

I don’t love Biden, and I’d have to do some research to figure out where he’s twisted and turned and such in the past. He could quite possibly have been pro-pull-out-now before, but I saw him on the campaign trail in Iowa, and he was talking about “ending the war well” and scorning the other Dems for taking the easy way out and risking leaving the place in chaos. It also looks like that’s the issue he’s decided to use to distinguish himself from the other Dems on the trail (this is his site), which obviously doesn’t help him a lot with the Nutroots, but is a sight more responsible than other Dems’ position.

Puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending Biden, but there it is.

marykatharine on April 11, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Mallard, I agree with you 1000%. Hubby and I were talking to a friend of ours who is going back to Bosnia of all places in two months. What the heck are we doing there? Get us out of Bosnia now!
As far as Darfur is concerned-let all the liberal hollyweird elites like Clooney, De Crapio, Mia Farrow, et. al. go. These people like Clooney like to pretend they have some military knowledge because they played a military person on tv. Why don’t Bono and crew hire their own little mercenary military and go in there. The Armed Forces of the United States have enough on their plates without this buffonery. As for Biden-he’s going to be out of the race pretty quickly anyway and then maybe he can go and solve the “crisis in Darfur”, never mind the crisis in Iraq they’ll leave behind if they pull out too soon (mine and hubby’s humble opinions).

Catie96706 on April 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Oops, here’s the link on that:

The debate about Iraq in Washington centers on a false choice that is also a bad choice. Do we continue on President Bush’s failing course and hand the problem off to the next President? Or do we just leave and hope for the best?

There is a third way. Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have proposed a five-point plan to keep Iraq together, protect America’s interests and bring our troops home. We recognize that while leaving Iraq is necessary, it is not a plan. We also need a plan for what we leave behind, so that America’s interests and security are protected. That is what we have proposed.

marykatharine on April 11, 2007 at 6:42 PM

I know this number is BS, but the lefties like using it so I see no reason to minimize the suffering.

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”

Lets stop the bleeding in Iraq first you tool.

csdeven on April 11, 2007 at 6:47 PM

Did ya know that the same Islamist forces we’re fighting against in Iraq are involved in Darfur? You’d best get up to speed. Chop chop.
…………………
At least it can be argued that the war in Iraq has something to do with national security. That case cannot be made for sending troops into Darfur.

So how can you say those two things without realizing your contradiction?
I’ll not rebut most of what you said about Dems, because I can’t, most of it’s sadly true. This is where I get so blasted aggravated now by my lefty friends because they fail to see the looming humanitarian crisis if we pullout immediately.
But for you to allude that a brutal Islamist takeover of one country is less significant than another doesn’t jive. OK, Iraq has oil. You say “something to do with national security” and the only supporting argument I’ve heard about that is “fight them their so we don’t fight them here”.

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 7:09 PM

But for you to allude that a brutal Islamist takeover of one country is less significant than another doesn’t jive.

Didn’t the “brutal Islamist take over” occur about 600 A.D. in Iraq?

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 7:11 PM

It’s like the old “Free Tibet” nonsense

Glad to see you support the Chinese on that one.

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 7:17 PM

…the man leading the charge today will be the man leading the retreat tomorrow while he blames it all on someone else.
Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM

Exactly.
Step 1 – We send troops to “separate” the janjaweed from the peoples of Darfur.
Step 2 – The ummah gets wind of it and money and weapons begin to pour in from abroad.
Step 3 – Some Americans get killed.
Step 4 – Joe Biden denounces Bush for mishandling Darfur, says that he would have “done it differently”.

I think that’s close enough for government work.

eeyore on April 11, 2007 at 7:48 PM

You know, now that I think about it, Patsy sang the song just for him “Crazy”……..

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on April 11, 2007 at 7:59 PM

At least the Dems might be willing to fight for something. Not all dems you understand just Biden and a couple of others.

Rob Taylor on April 11, 2007 at 8:01 PM

The same CIA that can’t tell the difference between Sunni and Shia? That didn’t read the history of the British invasion of Mesopotamia before we went in? Sorry, I’ll stick to JihadWatch

I was actually going to add a number of things, but got a bit sidetracked.

Start with the easy part: what sort of plan would you have for pacification of the warring parties? How would the troops be used? How open ended would the commitment be? Do plan on resettlement of the ~2 million christians, and ~10 million animists? Where will these people go? What if they refuse to leave their ancestral homelands? Are you proposing partition of the country? What is your plan for when the parties refuse to abide by the agreements?

And most importantly, how will you prevent the peace brigades from demanding that we withdrawl as soon as we a) take casualties or b) things don’t go according to plan.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 11, 2007 at 8:07 PM

But for you to allude that a brutal Islamist takeover of one country is less significant than another doesn’t jive. OK, Iraq has oil. You say “something to do with national security” and the only supporting argument I’ve heard about that is “fight them their so we don’t fight them here”.

They’re both nasty snakepits, but some snakepits are more vital than others. It’s harsh, but it’s a fact of the world. Iraq has major national security implications, not just in the “fight them there so we don’t here” context, but in the broader context of what a bugout will do to US credibility. Our allies and enemies alike will never look at us the same way again, and that will have profound effects on the world. Additionally, if we can destroy most of al Qaeda there in Iraq and keep Iran at bay, that will have profound effects on the region and the course of Islamism. Right now there are two powers vying for what amounts to supremacy in the MidEast–us and Iran. The region is too vital to let Iran win.

Sudan has none of those broad implications, at least not yet. Morally Sudan and Iraq might be rough equivalents (even though Iraq’s potential for genocide is probably larger), but strategically they are clearly not even in the same league. It’s not even a close call.

Of course, now that I’ve argued all this, the Bush administation will go ahead and put troops in Darfur and everything will be peachy until one of our troops gets shot. Then all bets are off.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Start with the easy part: what sort of plan would you have for pacification of the warring parties? How would the troops be used? How open ended would the commitment be? Do plan on resettlement of the ~2 million christians, and ~10 million animists? Where will these people go? What if they refuse to leave their ancestral homelands? Are you proposing partition of the country? What is your plan for when the parties refuse to abide by the agreements?

Simple. Kill the Islamists. Keep killing them until they head back to Arab countries. We’ll try displacing the Islamists for a change. The Darfurians stay where they are.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM

They’re both nasty snakepits, but some snakepits are more vital than others. It’s harsh, but it’s a fact of the world. Iraq has major national security implications, not just in the “fight them there so we don’t here” context, but in the broader context of what a bugout will do to US credibility.

What about British credibility when they “bugged out” in the 1930s? They weren’t politically correct and they still couldn’t subdue those nuts.

A Muslim in-fight is good for us. The Arabs will have to deal with the ‘rafidite dogs’ (Iran) instead of funding their next jihad against us.

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 8:21 PM

The Muslim in-fight that’s so good for us brought us 9-11. Unless you missed the fact that al Qaeda’s war aims include displacing the Saudis on their way to setting up the next caliphate.

The MidEast’s Muslim in-fight hasn’t been and won’t be confined to the MidEast. If it was, there wouldn’t be a civil war in Sudan, for starters.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:36 PM

You know, had Biden’s friend Bill Clinton not decimated the military the way that he did, we’d have the reach to ALREADY be in Darfur, even in Iraq-sized numbers. We’d be kicking butt, taking names (and ranks and jihad numbers), stopping future terrorist attacks, and restoring dignity to a devastated land! Think about that. It’s great that we can do those same things in Afghanistan and Iraq, but clearly the world’s butt-kicking needs are even bigger than that.

Bush certainly hasn’t been quiet about Darfur… just ignored, That’s surely because the dems and their complicit media want Darfur to be their issue. As I recall, Bush was one of the first people to attach the word genocide to what has happened there, and he even did it at the sacred altar of the UN, right? Meanhile, on most news outlets, crickets chirped.

flutejpl on April 11, 2007 at 8:38 PM

The Muslim in-fight that’s so good for us brought us 9-11. Unless you missed the fact that al Qaeda’s war aims include displacing the Saudis on their way to setting up the next caliphate.

The MidEast’s Muslim in-fight hasn’t been and won’t be confined to the MidEast. If it was, there wouldn’t be a civil war in Sudan, for starters.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:36 PM

I’m confused: how did a Sunni/Shia war bring us 9/11?

PRCalDude on April 11, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 8:12 PM

So are you suggesting that if we could militarily intervene in Darfur while keeping Iran at bay and hunting Qaeda that we should?

Believe it or not, I’m not for any kind of unilateral move into Sudan. (It’s a job for the UN the EU, truth be told. So that’s pretty much doomed.) I’m just arguing that the spread of Islamism and Sharia is equally dangerous in Africa as well as the Middle East. Shouldn’t we be more proactive and aggressive in cutting off future flash points, training grounds, etc?

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM

I’d love to be more proactive even in Darfur, but in the real world there are constraints on what we can do. One of those constraints is our president, who was the first to call Darfur a genocide and has more or less understood the war from the beginning–but has only now decided to increase the size of our military. It was obvious to me on 9-12-01 that we needed a bigger military. What took him so long to figure it out?

A second constraint is the vaunted international community. China could stop the genocide tomorrow by turning the screws on the Sudanese government to force them to stop it. But it won’t. It might even actively oppose anything we would do in Darfur. The French could have a powerful effect too, but they don’t seem too interested in doing much. Ditto Sudan’s neighbors.

A third constraint is the Democrats, who misunderstand the purpose of the military. They seem to think it’s an armed Peace Corps rather than an instrument of national security and foreign policy. This misunderstanding leads them to weakness: The first US casualty in Darfur would flip a switch and you’d have the same Democrats who favor intervention today, oppose it. That’s their MO.

If the world were perfect, I’d favor intervention in a heartbeat. But you have to intervene with the world you have, not the world you want. And the world we have sucks, pretty much.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Biden is an idiot. Delaware can do better, can’t it?

Phil Byler on April 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Well stated. I agree with everything you just said.

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 9:19 PM

Thank ya SD.

Bryan on April 11, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Shouldn’t we be more proactive and aggressive in cutting off future flash points, training grounds, etc?

SouthernDem on April 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM

We probably should, since the UN is failing so miserably, but then Bubba decimated the military so bad (as was already said) it’s impossible.
Bosnia started in 1995 o5 1996 if I recall correctly. I still remember hearing Congressmen saying they would be home by Christmas a year after they first went in.

As for Biden…did he plagiarize this position?

91Veteran on April 11, 2007 at 11:05 PM

PS. Perhaps if Bubba accepted Sudan’s offer of Bin Laden when he was offered, rather than worrying about the finer legal points of being able to hold him, we would be on friendlier terms with Sudan and it wouldn’t have fallen into such a mess.

91Veteran on April 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM

If those students really wanted to do something about Darfur they would put together a mercenary army a la the Abraham Lincoln brigade.

Chickenhawks.

Bill C on April 11, 2007 at 11:53 PM

A Volvo with a ‘Free Tibet’ sticker is so yesterday… get a Prius with a ‘Darfur’ sticker to be ‘today’.

DANEgerus on April 12, 2007 at 1:18 AM

“Let’s stop the bleeding,” Biden said. “I think it’s a moral imperative.”

OK, Mr. Biden, how about “stop the bleeding” on the US borders?

PinkyBigglesworth on April 12, 2007 at 1:45 AM

So these very passionate students who want our armed forces to go to darfur, can I ASSume that they will sign up to serve there as well?

Didn’t think so. Punks.

Highrise on April 12, 2007 at 2:17 AM

91Veteran on April 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Shoulda coulda woulda.
It’s been over 6 years. Bush has had plenty of time to rebuild.

SouthernDem on April 12, 2007 at 7:29 AM

We probably should, since the UN is failing so miserably, but then Bubba decimated the military so bad (as was already said) it’s impossible.

How is this Clinton’s fault? Yes, he failed to get Bin Laden, we all know that. But Reagan built us up to a 500 ship navy in his term. Bush has been in office for 6 years, and Rumsfeld was downsizing the military the entire time. Sorry, it’s time to blame Bush and his PC ‘religion of peace’ rhetoric.

PRCalDude on April 12, 2007 at 11:10 AM