Agreed
Posted on 03/21/2006 6:44:03 AM PST by thegreatbeast
A flag doesn't blow in as many directions as Hillary does. Sheesh! It frightens me that so many people still like her and want her "leadership".
I see its more important to bash Hillary than to stop a genocide in the Darfur region (Not that we should believe Hillary, but even a stopped watch...) What a way to pick a winning topic fellow freepers! Why shouldn't we use force to stop a genocide as pronounced by the US government? I am in full support of doing whatever is necessary to end the genocide in Darfur. How do other Freepers stand on this issue. It seems that if you supported overthrowing Saddam for the crimes he committed against the Iraqis, it is only logical to put down the rebel troops accused of murdering tens of thousands of Sudanese.
I do believe that stopping genocide is a valid use of our forces, but that doesn't mean I support Hillary saying anything. She'll support this use of our military people now, and then next year do a 180 and say it was someone else's fault and call for the removal of troops. She wants it both ways. BTW, I didn't support the overthrow of Saddam at the time (3 years ago).
"[Hillary] has legs like Tina Turner."
Sarcasm set to max, correct?
"First of all, have we used the G word?"
Yes the Bush administration used the word "Genocide" to describe what is going on in the Darfur region. Colin Powell was the first to say as such in the Bush admin.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ls71BifXC2MJ:news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3641820.stm+darfur+genocide+colin+powell&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Rawanda Rawanda Rawanda. Stupid beeotch.
"we didn't venture into Iraq because he was committing mass murder of his own people but because he was sponsoring & underwriting terrorism."
But these Rebel groups aren't considered terrorists?
Is that what you are trying to say? Or is it the fact that they haven't targeted American interests?
"If the UN determined that what is happening in the Sudan is genocide then they are required to act."
The UN refuses to categorize the acts taking place in Darfur as Genocide, but the US government has in fact acknowledged this.
"REBEL GROUPS", since when do rebel groups target innocent women and children. Who have no compunctions about beheading those the kidnap. Saddam was in league with OBL and the papers that are finally getting out will verify that fact as well as his moving all his WMD"S to Syria.
No, actually it's just that our miltary has enough on their plate right now. Where is the American interest, btw?
The State Department has catagorized the rampage in the Sudan as genocide? I don't think so but you could prove me wrong by showing me an official document.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
Military intervention is ok as long as absolutely no benefit accrues to the US.
Today's Drudge Report headline:
"PAPER: Hillary Clinton insists Bill give her 'final say'..." http://www.drudgereport.com
HEIL! HEIL! HILLARY!
Agreed
I know it sounds crazy that the US has acknowledged the genocide while the UN refuses to use that term. I think ending the genocide does benefit US citizens, as well as christians who are being murdered and displaced by the thousands. I do not know how a government can willfully acknowledge a genocide without taking major action to stop it. I would suggest every recognized genocide requires military intervention. At least I have not yet seen a genocide in which I wouldn't suggest military intervention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.