BleedingPinky

That´s one perfect reason for playing some music. You go to bed. I´m gonna mess with my guitar. Remember you are a few hours younger than me.To hell with politics. I promise to both, keep out of this thread, and record something right now.

michelemichele

Oh hey, that wasn't a slap at you: stay in the thread. My relapsing into old habits from Maher's board isn't your fault, I was kidding.

__________________
(((start the music)))

BleedingPinky

LOL! Who the hell here thought about any slaps? And now let me keep up with it, please. Downloaded the song, a midi file, a tab, tuned up to standard E again, thinking about how to fix it up. Eventually I´m getting there. Haha! I´m serious.

W.M.DEEEZ

I was wrong. I predicted O'Reilly would let Obama speak. I can't imagine why I would have thought so, but I did.

BillO never let Obama make the points you suggest, because he began (predictably) talking over Barak before he could finish his point. I too, was waiting for Obama to make those points.

After talking over him, he then quickly changed the topic to Afghanistan.


And didn't you find it ironic, that Bill kept pressing Obama to admit he was wrong, when this admin. was never held to the same test?

I couldn't help thinking about Condi in front of the 9/11 commission....




I just realized, they both have the same initials...hard to save keystrokes when discussing the interview

__________________
Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone

Heretic

Relative to his usual that's true. However, O'Rielly know that if he's an asshole to Obama it'll only work to Obama's advantage.

The reason you won't see the U.S. stand up to Sudan is because Jr. has asked Sudan to offer intelligence help in Iraq. This further explains why we haven't figured out jack shit in Iraq. Sudan knows they can fuckin' lie to us and Jr. will just buy it like the retard he is.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!

michelemichele

yepHalf true

Sending troops into Sudan under the UN umbrella will require a lot more than Chapter six/seven protocol: it'll also require a lot more troops, and I mean: a lot, and for a long time. I doubt most UN nations would support this kind of commitment, much less the US.

It also requires China & Russia's vote.

Going into Darfur puts Sudan's North/South peace deal at risk: that peace is already fragmenting, but things haven't yet passed the point of no return.

The US still treads carefully because of its experience in Somalia, and they're (I mean, you're) stuck in Iraq & Afghanistan; accusations are flying that US interest is spurred only by Sudan's oil, so Washington dreads recreating the same chain reaction in northern Africa as there has been in the ME.

This wouldn't be some little tiny operation: it'd be a big one.

__________________
(((start the music)))

leftparadise

unfortunately, you're (canada) in sudan, at least some of you are. i have good friend in the canadian forces finishing off 6 months of peacekeeping duty there. he sends back fascinating emails with photos but i'm in a constant state of worry for him.

that said, at least he's in a country that desparately needed intervention and they are trying to actually help the locals instead of running roughshod over them.

michelemichele

You must be, it's a complete state of chaos, and for their own safety, there needs to be far, far more troops in there than there are now. It's a miracle Bashir let any in at all.

Would you be able to tell us a bit about his or her experiences and/or point of view?I so agree with you. Peacekeeping is a very big deal to me, though the latitude those forces have demands redefining. I used to talk about Darfur with Heretic a lot last year, but back then I hadn't known how much more would be required: he may have updated his info since, but just in case, I wrote that post.

I think we have to go into these situations on humanitarian grounds, but we must do it with our eyes open lest it turns into a Somalia/Rwanda scenario, where the number of troops are insufficient for the task at hand, or they're recalled as the groundswell of public support at home evaporates the second a few Western troops are killed. These things must not happen again.

__________________
(((start the music)))

Heretic

However, the fact the U.S. stalled back channel talks because of Iraq is already known. That's why our public gestures have been half measures.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!

michelemichele

This surprised me: apparently, most of the outcry for action in Sudan has come from Americans (probably Canada's thrown in with the US as shorthand for North America). It's barely on the European radar.

So. Contradicts the usual stereotype of average American = self-absorbed greedy swine, especially given Iraq, Afghanistan, and the looming shadows of Pakistan & Iran.

As for the Bush administration's handling... I've more to read (six beautiful books came today), but this is one thing where they're cornered. Remember the links I sent you? According to the Asia Times, the US is already trying covert operations over there. It's not all humanitarianism, like, a person has to be real, too, but I don't think the little action there is is all about self-interest, either.

I'll keep you updated

...hope to god I don't end up eating my words, I hate that

__________________
(((start the music)))