When would you support military action overseas?

[reDEMption]

We talk a lot about how the war in Iraq is a mistake... Well, when do you think war would be right?

Do you think we should attack another country ONLY if:

--we have been attacked on American soil?

--another country assassinated our President?

--another 9/11 happened?

--Iran nuked Tel Aviv, London etc.?

--Iran invaded Saudi Arabia?

--an American aircraft carrier at sea got bombed?

ETC. whatever your reasons are for saying 'no' or 'yes'.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

66. There's no black and white up or down answer

And that kind of thinking is typical of Neoconspeak.

Each Armed Action by this government should be considered in context and weighed carefully for consequences beyond the immediate.

You don't do that with a prefab notion of when it's appropriate

[NMDemDist2]

2. I supported the Afghanistan action, not only for al Queda but for the

women in that benighted country.

WWII was a good cause, Kosovo also. We should be in Darfur. I would support sending troops under the UN to stop genocide.

It's truly a case by case thing IMO

[wryter2000]

3. My reasons

We're attacked by a foreign government or the foreign government refuses to help us capture the attackers. IOW, if Afghanistan had allowed us in to find Bin Laden, I wouldn't have supported attacking them but performing a police operation with the cooperation of the local government.

To stop an on-going genocide.

When another country invades or attacks one or more of our allies.

[Warpy]

4. I want the Pentagon put on a strict diet

and our military mission changed to one of national defense, only.

If someone attacks us on our soil, repel them.

If someone assassinates the president, encourage that country to do the police work, catch the murderer and apply the appropriate punishment. Swear the VP in immediately, according to the constitution. This is a POLICE matter, not a military one.

If another 9/11 happens, then do the police work it takes and build the international cooperation it takes to hunt down the perpetrators. Cut their funding. Catch them, try them, and punish them. This is a POLICE matter, not a military one.

If Iran nukes Tel Aviv, London, etc, then join with the rest of the civilized world under the auspices of the UN to deal with them. It's not our job to go solo, never has been, never will be.

If Iran invades Saudi Arabia, it will be an improvement. Do some reading on the reality of life in Iran opposed to life in Saudi Arabia to see what I mean.

If a US aircraft carrier gets bombed at sea, find out who did it. If it's a gang of criminals like Al Qaeda, then it's police work. If it's an act of war by another power, then go to the UN to build a coalition to deal with it.

Military adventurism ruins a country's international reputation and drains the national treasury, both of which lead to national disaster. Check out your history books to find out why wars of corporate convenience are always wrong. France in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will provide a fine example. France in the late eighteenth century will provide an example of what happens to a government that insists on it to the point of ruin.

[htuttle]

7. I think I agree with every point you made

...Though if Iran invaded Saudi Arabia, I would expect the UN to take up the matter in the Security Council, as that would be against the Charter (and I'm sure you'd probably agree if I understand the sentiment of your post correctly).

All we really need to do is simply live up to the agreements we've already agreed to, ie., International Law. Is our word good as a nation? If so, we need to obey the treaties we've ratified, including the UN Charter.

Funny thing is, our own Constitution mandates that we obey the treaties we've ratified, but for some reason bringing that up anytime in the last 40 years, and especially the last 5, has been declared 'anti-American'. :shrug:

[jwirr]

9. I'm with you on every item.

[hack89]

13. Considering every aggressor state since 1945

has been a member of the UN and despotic governments of all sorts are welcomed at the UN, why do you think that the UN as a whole even believes that world peace is a desirable thing? Can you even give a example where the UN confronted an aggressor nation with meaningful military force?

[htuttle]

14. Korean War and the first Iraq War (to a lesser extent)

Korea is probably the best example.

The first Iraq War was done at least under the auspices of the UN, since the government of Kuwait appealed for US help under Article 51 of the UN charter. At least it was legal on paper.

And if the 'legal system' doesn't work right, do you think it's better to discard it and go back to vigilante justice (and wars of conquest), or would it be better to improve the legal system? Whether the UN 'works' or not in large part depends on what the US does. We've been almost as big a violator of the UN Charter as any other country.

[reDEMption]

28. GREAT POST!

Those are truly great questions!:wow:

[uppityperson]

29. Wow, sounds like you don't like the UN much

Think they should be disbanded?

[0007]

35. Are you John Bolton pals?

[reDEMption]

39. Do we need to be...

...in order for me to want them to be accountable for what they do?

[0007]

40. You answer questions with questions? Then I'd say Yes!

[reDEMption]

44. I guess YOU are too, then...

Don't look now, but you just answered MY question to you with a question....:applause:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. I agree with you, and you said it better than I did

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

5. When would you support military action overseas?

[blondeatlast]

6. My thoughts exactly... nt

[uppityperson]

10. No answer yet.

Search is my friend. Interesting.

[democrank]

8. Hmmm.......First I`d like to talk this over with

the Vietnam Vet in the other room, then I`d have to ask myself what war would be worth waging if it meant my son might lose his arms, his legs, half his brain or his life?

I`m not into idle war chatter where people in comfotable Barco Loungers bellow out for war blood and tax cuts, providing someone else does the enlisting...and the combat.

[reDEMption]

27. This isn't idle war chatter...

I'm not sitting comfortably in a Barco Lounger or bellowing out for war blood and tax cuts, asking that someone else do the enlisting...and the combat.

[Hosnon]

11. I will say that I support military action overseas when a situation

imminently threatens the security of a state or region - with a caveat that any situation must be vetted before hand.

[wyldwolf]

12. we can wage war now with a minimum amount of boots on the ground...

... and a minimum loss of civilian life.

I believe massive conventional military assaults are pretty much outdated. Most of your situations wouldn't call for it. We could retaliate against the offending government and military with strategic air strikes and missiles.

I'd put boots on the ground to stop real genocide (Darfur) or if a close friend was invaded (think the UK being overrun by an aggressor, as unlikely as that is.)

On edit: I think this is a legitimate question regardless of whether you're actually a Democrat or someone pretending to be.

[reDEMption]

15. I think...

"I think this is a legitimate question regardless of whether you're actually a Democrat or someone pretending to be."



...everybody here can withstand me asking my little question without completely falling apart... It's just a question, for God's sakes...!
I've gotten some good answers--what on earth is SO threatening about me asking a question that, ultimately, is more simplistic than the ones you'd find in a Poly-Sci 101 class?:eyes:

[uppityperson]

18. When would you support military action overseas

We'd like to hear your answer. What on earth is SO threatening about me asking you your question that you won't answer?

[reDEMption]

19. Huh?

You'll have to point out where I said I wouldn't answer your question. I've reread all my posts and I just can't find it...


I'll be happy to answer it at the end of the day or tomorrow a.m. after I get some more responses--I don't want to skew the results.

[uppityperson]

20. I asked above and you didn't answer so I am asking again.

It is common for people to answer questions. Also it is common for people to state their opinions and they don't "skew the results". Please, I at least would like to know.

[reDEMption]

21. Again...

There's not a pollster, researcher, scientist etc. in the world that asks a question by first stating what the answer is....

Relax, grab a little patience....

[uppityperson]

22. There is "an answer"?

People write questions and give "their" answer here on DU forums. This is commonly done. This is a forum for discussing things, and stating your opinion in on a topic is normal. Are you researching us?

[reDEMption]

25. Sigh...

"Are you researching us?"



Only insofar as any other question and questioner does...

Look, if this throws you for a loop, just skip it and move on to the next thread--I've eggshelled it long enough with you.

[uppityperson]

26. Please read post #25 for more information.

You ask a potentially loaded question, refuse to answer after being asked to, stating you don't want to "skew the results", accuse those of us who question you of completely falling apart, being impatient, being thrown for a loop. Please read post #25 for more information. I again ask, when would you support military action?

[uppityperson]

64. Good morning Redemption. You said you would post this am. Answer is?

"I'll be happy to answer it at the end of the day or tomorrow a.m."
So, what is your answer? I am curious and would like to include you in the discussion you started.

[Dave Reynolds]

23. I don't think anyone is really threatened,

but we have had those types of questions thrown at us before from various people. Their only purpose for being here was to go back to their little loser conservative forums and jerk off about how stupid the DUmmies are.

Nothing personal, just some folks exercise caution when dealing with low-post members who offer questions but no opinion of their own.

[reDEMption]

30. Instead of...

...letting paranoia rule the day, did it ever occur to you all that 'low number' posters may not give their opinions because they have not yet made up their minds'? By asking a question, they are attempting to get some more information that will enable them to make a decision.

Secondly, who cares what some rightwing nutjob thinks about a post? And who cares if they call what's been written 'stupid' over on their forums? If you're secure in your beliefs, it doesn't matter that some opponent thinks they're stupid. If they want to call us stupid, they'll find a reason to do so, whether it's about one of our posts or not (the same as we do to them).

We have to be stronger than THAT!

[uppityperson]

32. redemption, we are trying to give you information, you call "paranoia"

DaveReynolds and I are trying to engage you in the same conversation you have asked us about. You are not answering except to call us paranoid, etc, when we try to explain why we are suspicious. You could simply answer, be engaged in the conversation you started, or you could continue to not answer. The choice is yours. I would like to know what you think. You infer you are attempting to get more information that will enable them to make a decision (or you are only talking about others). Either way, I would like to know what you think and have a conversation. A 2-way conversation. Is that possible?

[Dave Reynolds]

34. In that case,

Here are my answers. I personally do not care about winding up on conservative lists, it would not be the first time.

Now, back to the question(s).

The attack on Afghanistan was legit, I was all for it. Since we all believed Osama was behind it, the Taliban was keeping him safe, we needed to go in to kick their asses and get Osama. Imagine our surprise on hearing Bush say that Osama was not that big a deal, Iraq is the real threat. Anyone with half a functioning brain sat up and said "bullshit".

Hitting us on our own soil is a self-imposed death sentence to another sovereign nation. If the attacker is found to be on another country's soil and is not handed over, then they need to be convinced to do so. Regardless of what I think of that piece of shit in the oval office now, if there were a state-sponsored hit on him, and that could be proven, then they need to be dealt with.

Israel and Saudi Arabia can take care of themselves, we have been arming them for so many decades they should be able to make do with what they have. Honestly, I think the Saudis are friends in commerce, but not worth a shit beyond that. Sure, I guess that makes me a racist and anti-semite, right?

Pre-emptive strikes on threats real or imagined has opened a Pandora's box. Look for Israel to attack Iran within the next couple of months, based on this administration's example.

Good enough for you?

And what do YOU think?

[Harald Ragnarsson]

55. I know that about Afghanistan is accepted history, but it's wrong

The Taliban said if the US would provide them with the evidence "we" claimed to have that osama was behind the 911 attacks, then they would turn Bin Laden over to the US. Bush refused and we went to war.

On a related note, NO ONE, except allegedly Blair and Putin of all people, has seen this alleged evidence that proves Bin Laden and Alqueda did 911. No one.

Yet here we are about to start our 3rd war because of it.

[wyldwolf]

53. hey, reDEMption, chill...

I could care less what your post count is or whether you're really a conservative or liberal or somewhere in between. My point is, the question is legitimate regardless of who asks it. See?

[Douglas Carpenter]

49. "a minimum loss of civilian life"

???

[wyldwolf]

52. You seem puzzled. Let me explain

Sometimes war is necessary + civilians always get caught in the crossfire or are targeted + modern warfare has/can reduce such casualties = a minimum loss of civilian life.

Get it?

Or do you want to debate the fact?

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. yes it can reduce the number. I agree. But when one looks at the

actual numbers killed by "collateral damage" and the long term after affects of war, the numbers are simply not as minimal as some would have us believe.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. There are, in my mind, many reasons for war ......

.... none of them frivolous.

9/11 ----> Afghanistan was righteous. Iraq? No fucking way.

Were the USS Cole bombing state sponsored, that would be a reason for a measured military response.

Same if an embassy is attacked. but once again, only in a case where it is an absolute certainty the act was state sponsored.

Humanitarian issues are also a reason, but with allies at our side. Darfur comes to mind. Bosnia, too.

In every case, war has to be last resort .... diplomacy - long and hard - is step one.

But our military strength is something we need to maintain. And its use should never be completely off the table.

As for the (bullshit) "War" on terror, that is the **last** fucking reason to go to war .... ***unless*** there is a proven state sponsor. Absent that, John Kerry was dead-on right ..... it is a 'nuisance' and a matter for more along the lines of police work ... not war. That .... and good border security. Not fences other draconian bullshit, but good security that knows who comes and goes and reduces restrictions on travel .... not tightens them.

This regime that has our country hostage has caused all of us to think in a skewed way. We have become a nation of GI Joe wannabes. Even many on our side see things froma skewed perspective. We need to get back where we were ... not where these motherfuckers wanna take us. We're staring to act like a mix of Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and Napoleon.

STOP IT ALREADY

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Holocausts deserve to be on that possible list

Each case is unique, but acting to stop it, especially with a genuine international mandate, is often the only truly moral choice. I wish we had sent troops into Rwanda. And I have a thread about Darfur you may want to look at:

Speaking of Genocide... Why aren't we?"

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2471216&mesg_id=2471216 Speaking of Genocide... Why aren't we?"

You can skip the OP if you want but read post number 24, about an 8th grade class in New Jersey.

[nickshepDEM]

24. All of the above except... Iran invading Saudi Arabia.

[NativeTexan]

31. To protect real allies, like the UK....would be one.

Also after a direct attack on our soil. But unfortunately, the Village Idiot has a much LONGER list than I. Sneezing on the wrong person, I believe is on his!

[Orsino]

33. War is never right.

Sometimes it's impossible to avoid, though. To go to war, you have to believe that the results of not waging war would be even worse--or worse for those you most care about. This central issue is the one most obfuscated by the hawks, who don't want us thinking about it. They want us rooting for it like a team sport.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. Very few good reasons for military action

--we have been attacked on American soil? --Maybe. It would depend on if the culprit was really identified and known

--another country assassinated our President?--No. This would be the trigger of World War I all over again. Austria declared war on Serbia because a Serbian nationalist assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne, and literally millions died as the interlocking alliances that prevailed at the time forced all of Europe into total war.

--another 9/11 happened?--I'm LIHOP, MIHOP on my worst days, so no.

--Iran nuked Tel Aviv, London etc.?--Too unlikely to even consider.

--Iran invaded Saudi Arabia?--Saudi Arabia can take care of itself. It's one of our biggest recipients of military aid.

--an American aircraft carrier at sea got bombed?--This would be like the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It turned out that the North Vietnamese didn't fire on American vessels as we were told back in 1964, so especially if one of the Busheviks told us that an American naval vessel had been attacked, I'd be very skeptical.

Only a real, verifiable attack on American soil would be the remotest justification for military action in my book, and even then, I'd half suspect that we'd done something to deserve the attack.

NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING is worth a nuclear war.

If you think that there's anything worth fighting a nuclear war for, I suggest you go to the museum at Hiroshima and see the exhibits and the films. Then ponder the fact that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were so small that the hills of Nagasaki provided protection for many residents. Now imagine the whole world looking like the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[reDEMption]

45. "Iran nuked Tel Aviv, London etc.?--Too unlikely to even consider."

Ah, ah, aaaahhhhh--no fudging!

And, yes, all that about WWI, assassinations, alliances, Gulf of Tonkin episodes (and LBJ's contribution to that), all the various aspects in the development of the nuclear bomb, who suffered and why etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....are givens that have been analyzed to bits.

I wasn't thinking of the past when I asked my question.... I was thinking of a future wherein we were threatened with nuclear weapons. By acting only defensively, any enemy of ours would essentially get a free 'bite'...and, in this era of devastating nuclear weapons and/or nerve agents like sarin, if we were hit first--and only decided THEN we would launch a military response--there might not be enough of us left to do anything at ALL about it.

I cannot seem to find a balance between preemptive strike bullying and prudent self-defense. I guess this, more than anything, made me post the question I did...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. Iran attacking Tel Aviv or London IS too unlikely to consider

Both Israel and Britan have nukes. Iran is years away from developing them.

The American people are way too gullible in accepting what the fearmongers on TV tell them.

[reDEMption]

51. "fearmongers on TV"?

Actually, I don't pay much attention to the 'fearmongers on tv' and what they say... Rather, I am paying attention to what the President of Iran (or whatever his title is) has taken great pains to say to the Jews, and the rest of the world, regarding the continued existence of the state of Israel.

Also, they needn't SAY they are going to acquire WMD's and launch an attack--I can SEE them actively trying to acquire them, and common sense tells me they are not weapons for use at home.

Israel is the closest target--and their own words indict them as they baldly state their objective of it's destruction.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Israel also has the best intelligence network in the Middle East and

has not hesitated to use force when it felt threatened.

They can take care of themselves, especially as the #1 recipient of U.S. military aid.

[Catrina]

71. Interesting that you haven't considered the fact that Iran has been

threatened with attack by both this administration and by Israel ~ if this country were threatened by attack yo uclaim it has the right to consider war, but not Iran?

As I recall, until the warmongers in this administration, through George Bush, listed the countries (check out the PNAC) it intended to 'bring democracy to', there was no threat, not even the hyperbole of the current Iranian president, from Iran. In fact, Iran was very helpful to this country after 9/11.

Your neglect to consider this fact, despite your statement that you are not influenced by the propaganda on Fox et al, (which began at the beginning of last summer) is interesting.

Maybe the lesson learned ought to be that sensible countries can avoid war if they mind their own business, reduce their dependence on oil, don't elect oil barons to power, refrain from issueing threats to other nations, and most of all, don't give countries (like Iran) proof that you are an aggressive nation more than willing to lie to start a war with an oil-producing country that was zero threat to YOU, by invading the neighbor of the country you are now threatening.

This whole premise regarding Iran is pure bull ~ we had nothing to fear from Iran, until this bunch of war-mongers with their little list of oil-producing countries which they fully intend to attack, and have already begun with Iraq, got into power.

Iran is the country which has been threatened. What should they do, considering what happened in Iraq? That's my question to you ~

Oh, and yes, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, both of the countries who threatened Iran do. If I were an Iranian citizen, after watching the warmongers in this administration destroy Iraq, I would demand that my government do something to protect my country ~ (of course we all knew that Bush's illegal war on another oil-producing country with no Nukes would only cause the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the globe) ~

He isn't talking about nuking N.Korea, is he? Why? No oil and they have nukes. Lesson to other countries feeling threatened by the US? Get nukes!! So, who is responsible for all this? Ask yourself THAT question.

[elshiva]

38. War what is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!

[leesa]

41. Are you afraid we might never have a war?? Oh NO!!

[reDEMption]

43. You'll need to point out...

...where, in ANY of my posts, that I even hinted at a desire for war; I've reread them, and I just can't find it...:tinfoilhat:

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. only after considering that any military action will almost certainly

cause unimaginable harm both in the short-term and even more so in the long term. I think this can be said about all wars in history even the relatively just ones. So this reality must be considered.

Only when all other possibilities have been tried or at least throughly explored.

Only when solid factual evidence is convincing to a moral certainty and beyond any reasonable doubt that the danger of not taking military action is greater than the danger of taking it.

[reDEMption]

46. Interesting...

"to a moral certainty and beyond any reasonable doubt"


Who will decide how this is calculated? Whose definition shall we use? (I guarantee you the Republicans will have a different definition of what constitutes 'moral certainty' and 'resonable doubt' than we would...!)

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. yes they will have a different definition

However, short of repelling a direct attack on the United States, it is hard to come up with an exact formula of what justifies mass killing.

However any moral person who contemplates mass killing must excercise at least as much reservation a moral person would excercise when contemplating premeditated murder. In other words there may very well be cases where premeditated murder by the individual or mass killing by the state is justified. But such decisions can never be taken by any moral person without significant contemplation and there is no reasonable alternative.

War is horror. War will almost always create more problems than it solves. It will almost always cause more harm than good. It is not something to be taken lightly. It is always immoral to be caviler about war or to take decisions in support of mass killing lightly.

[reDEMption]

50. Question:

Why do you consider a question about war 'taking mass killing lightly', or being 'cavalier'? My post did neither--but I AM curious about why it would even occur to you...

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. I was not suggesting that you were taking mass killing lightly

but it is clear that many people do.

[reDEMption]

62. Perhaps...

...but you know, the more I think about that statement of yours--many people taking mass killings lightly--the more I realize that I really don't know ANYBODY who takes mass killings lightly. I really don't...

[Douglas Carpenter]

63. well, I confess I once did...and I think many people do without realizing

I recall in January of 1991 as the bombs were raining down upon Baghdad watching some young and naive people jumping and cheering and displaying all kinds of bravado. I didn't quite go that far. But my sentiments were a milder version of the same feelings.

Some years later I had the experience of being being near enough to a war zone and I saw the littlest victims of "collateral damage". I came to realize that those wonderful high-tech weapons don't just kill bad guys. And the extent of the collateral damage extends very wide; clean water supplies are halted, hospitals are made inoperable and young minds are destroyed that will never-ever recover. And new seeds of bitterness, hatred and indeed terrorism are sown.

There probably are circumstances in which there is no way out except war. But for the sake of humanity let us exhaust every other possibility first. And let us do whatever is possible to turn America away from the dangerous course on which it has embarked.

[wyldwolf]

54. let me try to understand this

You say all wars, even just ones, cause "unimaginable harm both in the short-term and even more so in the long term."

Do you feel that the just wars shouldn't have been fought?

See, even though a war like WWII caused harm, not waging it would have potentially caused more harm.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. no I am not saying that just war should not be fought

I agree that there was no way out of world war II.

I am saying that it is an illusion to imagine that any war, even just wars, have not created a whole new set of problems and that the long term of affects of the war are not absolutely massive beyond calculation.

Many of the conflict in the world today are rooted in the aftermath of the cold war and world war II which was rooted in the after affects of world war I which was rooted in still earlier conflicts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. This is a very true statement that underscores how serious a decision

it is to unleash deadly force in the world. It doesn't prove that for every specific case force should never be used, but the truth of this statement should always be foremost in mind.

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Please read 8th grader Emma Ellis

This is a post I put on another thread. Sorry if it is a dupe for you:

Emma wrote this opinion piece on Darfur with research help from her classmates. I hope everyone will read all of it by following the link provided, but here is a little of what she has to say:

"On the continuing misery in Darfur

Sunday, February 19, 2006

By EMMA ELLIS

The Holocaust. Rwanda. The Armenian genocide. These words evoke thoughts of ineffable death and suffering. After these tragedies, the world vowed "never again." Genocide is a problem of the past, right? But what about Darfur? Do you even know where it is?...

...Indifference can kill as surely as a bullet.

As Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said, "The opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference."

It seems ridiculous that in an era where news is transmitted in an instant via the Internet, more people aren't aware of the circumstances in Darfur. I am currently in the eighth grade and didn't learn about it until about two months ago. We had just finished reading Weisel's Holocaust memoir "Night," and I saw the horrifying similarity between the two. All I could ask was: How could the people of today's world allow genocide to happen?...

...There is something everyone can do to help the people of Darfur. My classmates and I are currently writing letters to our congressional leaders, educating our peers, and giving people postcards to sign and send to Washington. We are also going to raise funds to send to Darfur relief organizations."

http://tinyurl.com/fleqk

I was going to wait to post this until after I contacted the group Emma and her classmates have started, so I could share more information about them with you. But then I had a better idea. Let's all contact them ourselves and let them know how wonderful it is that they speaking up and acting on behalf of people they don't know who are dieing in a distant land. Let them hear that we honor what they are doing. Let them know that what they are trying to accomplish is being noticed. And maybe let them know that you are willing to do whatever you can to help them with their mission.

To quote Emma one more time:

"People need to act against this outrage. As in every genocide before, the people in power don't act because there is no great public outcry, there is no easy solution, there are other problems to be solved, and everything seems distant and hopeless."

If 8th grade students in Englewood New Hersey can break through all that and mobilize to make a difference, can't we?

Here is the contact information to reach Emma Ellis and her classmates:

"For more information on these students' project to raise awareness of Darfur, contact them at [e-mail] "

[uppityperson]

65. Still waiting for an answer. Why are you afraid to answer, reDEMption?

You have had a couple hours and are off playing the same stuff in another thread. Mistating what we write, vague accusations then protests when we take you wrong, still refusing to answer. "Where did I say I refuse to answer?" you ask. Your actions speak loud.

[Emit]

69. He's gone.

Tried to reply to the other thread, where I posted the link for you that was surprisingly similar to some of the posts this poster put out today. But, it's been locked. Anyway, glad to have been of service. I was following someof this discussion, thinking, "This person seems so familiar..."
And then it hit me where I had encountered a similar element.

[mdmc]

67. military intervention has my support when it is used to enforce

peace. Peace keeping. I support using military force to end war. If the isrealies and palestinians wanted us there, I would support it (under the UN). Basically, only when the UN authorizes it.

War is failure.

[Dave Reynolds]

68. Kicking for "poll results".

Hearing crickets.

[Sparkly]

70. There's "military action" and there's "military action..."

And there's also the THREAT of "military action," which can go a long way.

There's acting alone, and acting with key allies (including the UN Security Council).
There's acting legally, and acting illegally.
There's acting based on truth, and acting based on lies.
There's acting with a clear plan, and acting without one.
There's acting with appropriate troop strength, and acting without it.
There's acting with intelligent predictions, and acting as if it'll all turn out rosy no matter what.
There's acting as a last resort, and acting as a first priority, recklessly and needlessly.

It's not just about "when" -- every situation is different. It's also about HOW -- and the one thing this fiasco should have shown EVERY thinking person is, as General Clark has often said, military action should be used "ONLY, ONLY, ONLY as a LAST resort."