April 21, 2006
Sacked
The deeply dim Steve Sack touches on an issue...:
...in the same sense that Prussians touch on funk.
It's true; in a perfect world, I'd be all for sending troops to Sudan to stanch the bleeding in Darfur - or, for that matter, to perp-walk the entire marxist abomination of a Khartoum government to a date with a convenient court. Or wall.
But look at Sack's (usual, hamfisted) imagery; the guy behind the "radar" exhibits all the usual shorthand for "Ugly American" that hacks like Sack always use; mind by comic strip, body by Krispy Kreme.
But if success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, then abominations like Sudan were conceived in brothels. Nearly a century of British colonialism (which was small-l liberal and enlightened compared to neighboring Italian, German, French and German colonizers) was followed by a gigantistic socialist government (for a largely Bronze-age economy) followed by a vicious Marxist regime which is currently amalgamating with the worst of sharia rule.
So who's responsibility is it?
Sudan is by Europe's basement door - and, not coincidentally, European ideals are responsible for creating the mess in Sudan, dumping radical socialism onto a society and economy barely removed from tribalism.
Would it kill the Euros to clean up their mess, in their backyard, with their (let's be honest) UN?
Posted by Mitch at April 21, 2006 07:08 AM | TrackBack
At the risk of being called callous, or worse, racist, may I just point out that the purpose of the US Military is to defend the people living in THIS country?
Yes, I know about US expeditions abroad. Lately, they've been justified two ways: "pre-emptive defense" and "stop bad guys."
Saddam was looking to acquire nukes so we had to take him out now. Plus he had rape rooms. He was a bad guy so we had to take him out.
The USSR was building a huge airport in Grenada to base attack bombers, so we had to invade. Plus there were medical students, maybe hostages. The government was bad guys.
We always need a "bad guy" so the liberals will go along with the operation, thinking they're saving the world from genocide or something.
The pre-emptive defense argument reminds me of a character from Firefly who said "I'd kill a man in a fair fight. Or if I think he's going to start one."
I can go along with that. But where's the fair fight problem with Sudan? Bad guys? Check. Threat to the US? Not so much.
So sorry, Sack. No invasion. Not because the victims are Black, or African, but because they're no threat to us and therefore - by Constitutional definition - not our military's problem.
Posted by: nathan bissonette at April 21, 2006 08:32 AM.
To answer Mitch's question: Sadly, yes. Yes it would kill Europe to clean up their mess. Not one of them has the military necessary to accomplish anything, since we have been defending them all these decades while they spend their peace dividend on an unsustainable welfare utopia.
Posted by: chriss at April 21, 2006 04:02 PMHowever, it wouldn't kill Europe to actually call a genocide a genocide, and it wouldn't kill the UN to isolate the Sudanese government.
If the world acted in unison to isolate regimes like this many, many wars could be avoided. Instead countries (generally members of the EU) apologize for and do business with the worst offenders making diplomatic results unlikely and war -- generally long after the worst of the damage is done -- the only solution.
If the UNSC had acted in unison against Saddam he would have had to capitulate and there'd be no war. Instead he always thought he could play for time and play one country off another like he always had, making military action necessary.
Somali is requesting US Naval intervention with it's serious pirate problem. Perhaps this is the beginning of increased involvement in this region.
Posted by: Kermit at April 21, 2006 06:59 PMExcellent arguments there, Mitch. Oh wait. Thought for a minute you were talking about Iraq.
Right. Iraqis need freedom, Somalis don't.
Posted by: angryclown at April 24, 2006 08:16 AMVery awesomeTreeXlog
Posted by: Jake at April 27, 2006 05:31 PMmature chicks mature hardcore sex
Posted by: Yoqg at October 8, 2006 09:01 PMdog and adult sex female dog guy sex
Posted by: Cfgv at October 9, 2006 08:50 AMdog and adult sex female dog guy sex
Posted by: Cfgv at October 9, 2006 08:52 AMdog and adult sex female dog guy sex
Posted by: Cfgv at October 9, 2006 08:53 AMyoung hardcore hardcore porn free
Posted by: Pyktrazeeb at October 10, 2006 09:26 AMyoung hardcore hardcore porn free
Posted by: Pyktrazeeb at October 10, 2006 09:27 AMmasturbation scene vacuum masturbation
Posted by: Czjkeahua at October 24, 2006 12:36 PMhairy nipples hairy dick chicks
Posted by: Lsthogdce at October 29, 2006 11:22 PMzoo sex horse beast sex zoo
Posted by: Ohwc at October 30, 2006 01:29 PM