[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Actually, I'm oversimplying for the same reasons a mother bird chews up the worm before she gives it to her chicks. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Actually, what I was doing was moving to a larger point than the one that you started with, not trying to comparing curing AIDS to regime change directly only. Nevertheless, I think that to the extent we do anything in the realm of foreign intervention it is fair to examine the over-arching reasons we do so, making comparison on that basis fair. I can't really compare curing AIDS in the US to intervening in Iraq for example, but I think I could compare the Iraq war to any affirmative steps we take to aid Africa and ask whether or not the reasons Iraq may be a bad idea also might be reasons aid to Africa is a bad idea. Primarily my point was that putting troops on the ground in Darfur is problematic for many of the same reasons that Iraw is problematic. The Janjaweed are muslim arabs. I think that is apples to apples and realize it was beyond the scope of your initial comments.

You are all over the place here. You go from saying we can compare AIDS in Africa to Iraq to a sudden shift to Darfur. Let's try to keep this thread a bit more focused or the conversation will quickly become unmanageable (it is already approaching that level, and my post here may not help as I respond to the tangential issues you raise in your post). Explain how attempting to cure AIDS in Africa is comparable to putting troops on the ground in Iraq and toppling their government. With AIDS, you are dealing with education, collaborative efforts with African governments, donations to foreign governments to combat a disease, and a race to find a cure before 120 million people die from the disease. You say we should ask if the "reasons Iraq may be a bad idea also might be the reasons aid to Africa is a bad idea." Of course, once again you get off the topic by generalizing the debate (which isn't about all aid to Africa but specifically about aid for curing AIDS). Show me why the reasons Iraq is bad are the same reasons trying to cure AIDS is bad.

Originally Posted by utahdan

Hard to argue your first point because I can't accept the premise that our goal is ever to maximize human rights if what you mean by engage is put troops on the ground. For reasons that many on the left have articulated well, if that is really the goal then there is a universe of places where we could potentially act and we should be asking which places and why. The point is that regardless of our reasons for going, we will be facing an armed militia who will not be happy to see us. While of course it is true that they could never being to challenge us on a conventional field of battle, they will surely be smart enough to know that they can wage a gueriila war such as being waged in Bagdad and outlast us. When the casualties start mounting there is it not fair to ask, as we are asking in Iraq, why a Sudanese life is worth an American life?

This, again, is dealing with a secondary issue to the issue I am raising here, but I will say that obviously intervention is a difficult issue. The US cannot be involved in every human rights issue throughout the world. It simply isn't practical. That said, I think most would agree that there does come a line where US intervention does become justified and necessary. Where that line is probably cannot be clearly defined, any more than terrorism can be defined, and it will vary from person to person. So, sticking to the topic, I find it obvious that the potential for 120 million AIDS related deaths (most of which will occur in Africa) within the next 25 years IS worthy of intervention. I wouldn't be at all surprised, by the way, if 125 million deaths is more than the total number of people who have died in every war ever fought.

Your points about toppling a government are not germaine to what we are talking about. In Iraq we sucessfully toppled the government, it is the aftermath that is a disaster. In the Sudan, the disaster already exists. So it is apples to apples to ask how we will be recieved in a power vaccum where there is currently a sectarian civil war ongoing and what, if anything, we will or can do to alter the vacuum. If we don't try to set up a "puppet government" then all we are doing is forestalling the resumption of hostilities that will inevitably follow when we leave. Why would you believe that we can affect any permanent solution in Darfur, and if you do not, why would you willing to expend your taxes and the lives of other there? Maybe you don't.

How can you seriously try to separate the toppling of the government from the aftermath? Isn't that like saying, "Well, we successfully started our campfire, you can't focus on the fact that it burned down the forest." The two issues go hand in hand. Toppling a government isn't difficult. We could topple every government in the world tomorrow if we wanted to. The aftermath IS the issue. Then what? The aftermath we are talking about is the aftermath of US involvement. In Iraq, our involvement has created a disaster. In Sudan, there is no aftermath yet because we have not yet acted. We do need to be asking the questions you are asking (such as what a peace would look like and how it would be attainable) and then we need to be working towards attaining such a peace. Turning a blind eye is hardly the solution, since the aftermath of that decision is certain: millions more dead. At least with intervention there is a chance. What chance is there under your "plan?" It is the same reason I think we need to stay in Iraq now as opposed to immediate withdrawal. One has no chance, the other has some, albeit slim. I thought you supported staying in Iraq for the same reason. Why the fatalism with Darfur and not with Iraq?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. When did Afghanistan attack us?

When did I say Afghanistan attacked us? I said we were attacked (passive voice, assigns no subject) and I said that attack required a response. Those responsible happened to be in Afghanistan at the time (which is not the same as saying Afghanistan attacked us). Certainly you understand that terrorists are frequently not state actors, don't you?

First, many, including me, believed that our security did demand an invasion because there was a dictator who possessed WMD, was hostile to the United States, had shown him self over a very long period of time to be impervious to influence by other means, and who was paying Palistinians to carry out suicide attacks. The though process was that it was only a very small leap to image that one who would pay a terrorist to blow himself up might also employ a terrorist to deliver a WMD to a US city. Post 9-11, we began to understand that we could not let a threat like that gather and wait for it to come to fruition before responding because the result would be so terrible. This is the sole reason we invaded Iraq, notwithstanding the mention of other collateral benefits, such as human rights benefits.

How small does that leap appear now? By the way, for all the rhetoric I hear about "not letting a threat like that gather and wait for it to come to fruition," I have yet to hear an explanation for why other proponents of that viewpoint, and I imagine yourself included, do not favor an invasion of N. Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Upon finding no WMD, the focus of the argument changed (for me and others) to the idea that we had now "broken and bought" Iraq, so to speak, and that it would be both be wrong and against our interests to abandon it so as to leave it worse, both for Iraqis and for us, than when we found it. What I, and apparently those who should have known better, underestimated was our ability to stabilize a state that had only been prevented from having civil war by Saddam's (a Sunni) ability to subjucate and oppress the Shia majority. I underestimated the thirst on each side to re-fight that war. I had assumed that they would welcome an opportunity for republican government. So far I was wrong. I don't think that outcome was ever "clear" as you say and is only so in hind sight, but yes we have already discussed that.

Clear as a bell!

I think that if you want to analyse any of this from a purely humanitarian perspective, then I would actually agree that we could impose ourselves in Darfur and as long as we are there the humanitarian interests of the non-Baggara peoples will be advanced. Mean while, US troops will probably die and Janjaweed will probably die and, no doubt, the White House will be picked by people carrying signs saying "The Janjaweed never Attacked Us!" and Cindy Sheehan will appear to explain who W and his oil buddies are enriched by all of this. I'm not really exaggerating much. Since we are calculating costs, as you suggest, I think it is fair to wonder why one US Solider ought to die in the Sudan when we have no interest there at all.

We do have an interest there- preservation of law, order and human life and respect. I hope we do get involved, and I hope we actually have a plan before becoming involved. Whether or not Cindy Sheehan protests is not of paramount concern to me.