Democratic Debate

[DSTCHAOS]

The world will explode if there's another debate.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The world will explode if there's another debate.

best believe there will be one more....i hear mars is looking good this time of year...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

best believe there will be one more....i hear mars is looking good this time of year...

Correction: The Universe will explode if there's another debate. The Universe is already close to an end. Kadeem Hardison is in a new theater-released movie.

[pbear19]

First time I've been online today, so let me clarify why I think threatening 'massive retaliation' against Iran is different from 'free darfur'.

One (to me) means the United States taking military action in no uncertain terms, being the physical agressor. The other means taking internationally-backed diplomatic action. I do not support US military action in Darfur, and I have not been under the impression that the majority of democrats support US military action there, either. I will absolutely concede I am wrong in that if someone can provide the tangible evidence.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we should be using agressive military tactics to push our individual country's agenda. If we choose to use negotiation, economic sanctions, peaceful organization, etc, acting in concert with the collective wishes of the UN, then I find that action to be acceptable. The promise of agressive military action by Hillary is what I found disturbing, and what to me is more in line with the current administration's foreign policy.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by pbear19

First time I've been online today, so let me clarify why I think threatening 'massive retaliation' against Iran is different from 'free darfur'.

One (to me) means the United States taking military action in no uncertain terms, being the physical agressor. The other means taking internationally-backed diplomatic action. I do not support US military action in Darfur, and I have not been under the impression that the majority of democrats support US military action there, either. I will absolutely concede I am wrong in that if someone can provide the tangible evidence.

I wholeheartedly disagree that we should be using agressive military tactics to push our individual country's agenda. If we choose to use negotiation, economic sanctions, peaceful organization, etc, acting in concert with the collective wishes of the UN, then I find that action to be acceptable. The promise of agressive military action by Hillary is what I found disturbing, and what to me is more in line with the current administration's foreign policy.

I understand what you're saying. Of course I fundamentally agree with your hesitation to use military tactics, but nevertheless I see where you're coming from.

I understand your willingness to accept more peace-driven interventionist policy, but I think it has a history of failure. We tried and failed in Lebanon (by failure, I don't mean our military, I mean our attempted role). We tried and failed in Somalia (same thing). The UN has been unbelievably inept in Somalia, Rwanda, and now Sudan. If you advocate intervention into one of these situations, US servicemen are going to pay with their lives. I'm not saying that there are no causes that may be worth it, but I am questioning whether tying their hands behind their back is blatantly irresponsible. My Marine buddies all joke about how they're gonna end up in Darfur with rifles unloaded and absurd ROE (Iraq isn't far off, really). Basically, I think it is easy to advocate one because it is much more palatable to do so, but reality is often a different story (and you probably know this, I'm just clarifying my view).

[pbear19]

Fair enough. For my part, I would rather we be part of a peaceful international movement that runs the risk of ineptitude than to take any kind of military action when we are not in immediate danger ourselves. I strongly believe we have no business policing, save in the case that the action is specifically warranted and requested by the UN. Even then I don't like it, but I can stomach it.

ETA - in other words, I would rather see shitty things happen in the world because we don't step in with force, than to see us step in and have shitty things still happen, which invariably seems to be the case.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Fair enough. For my part, I would rather we be part of a peaceful international movement that runs the risk of ineptitude than to take any kind of military action when we are not in immediate danger ourselves. I strongly believe we have no business policing, save in the case that the action is specifically warranted and requested by the UN. Even then I don't like it, but I can stomach it.

Just for clarity, I'm not as worried about the potential failure of the UN as I am about the situation it puts our people in. Putting our troops in hostile situations without the license to do what they've been trained to is what I worry about.

Also, while I like the idea of a united front on things like Bosnia or Darfur, the UN is certainly not something I'm fond of. The idea, sure, but not the reality. I believe the biggest danger to our way of life is Islamic extremism, so when the UN Sec. Gen. called "Fitna" hate mongering while taking absolutely no action to combat terrorism, I became aware that the UN is not an entity I can ideologically support.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

best believe there will be one more....i hear mars is looking good this time of year...

I heard that Obama said poor Martians living in rural craters were bitterly clinging to central heating as a result of their disillusion with the cold climate brought on by a deficiency of greenhouse gases.