Make Sudan Next

[preemptingyou03]

This wouldn't be so much as preemption, as it would be intervention, considering the civil state they are in. Any suggestions?

I'll list my reasoning later.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Okay, here we go.

- The Islamic Sudanese government funds the following terrorist groups: Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, and the former ANO.
- They have given haven to al-Qaeda members.
- They have violated at least four UN resolutions regarding their support for terrorism.
- They are involved in genocide with their non-Muslim population and their leader, Bashir, has killed at least 500,000 since the start of 2002.
- They are believed to have chemical and biological weapons.

The major justification for this war, however, would be of the genocide they are doing.

Once there are elections in Iraq in Afghanistan, I support us to look at Sudan as our third war, in the War on Terror. Iran and Syria will have their time, if they don't reform. If Sudan doesn't do what Libya did, they are next.

 

[Avatar4321]

Id have no problem taking care of Sudan but i think we need to make sure we are good in Aghanistan and Iraq first. we cant do too much too fast unless you guys are more informed about the military than I am. Besides can you imagine what the liberals will try to do to keep us out of Sudan?

 

[preemptingyou03]

I don't suggest doing this now. Soon though. Maybe 2006.

It makes sense strategically. We'd just have to find a reason why Sudan's more urgent than Syria or Iran.

 

[insein]

Yea. Overextension is a military's worst enemy.

 

[Doc Holiday]

I think we cold solve a lot of our problems in Iraq if we took out the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has a policy of exporting their Islamic revolution since 1979 and we still owe them for that. Why not move a little more eastward and see what develops.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
I think we cold solve a lot of our problems in Iraq if we took out the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has a policy of exporting their Islamic revolution since 1979 and we still owe them for that. Why not move a little more eastward and see what develops.

Im going to have to agree. I mean Sudan is a problem but Iran is supposedly developing nukes and that should be top priority and so should syria since saddam shipped all of his weapons there.

 

[Patriot]

I will have to agree that Iran needs to be next. Those freaks spend more on their nuclear progam which they claim is for power yet they cant even build earthquake safe buildings for their people?

Then after that we need to put the smack down on North Korea. Sudan will just need to take a number and wait their turn.

 

[007]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I don't suggest doing this now. Soon though. Maybe 2006.

It makes sense strategically. We'd just have to find a reason why Sudan's more urgent than Syria or Iran.

Just as soon as Iraq gets done "PAYING US BACK" for the war there.

That's my only concern with any war. Money. I think we should get PAID for our efforts. By everybody we help.

 

[Patriot]

Pale Rider,



Actually America forgives most of others debts because we realize most are never going to be able to EVER repay it back. We call it buying insurance for the future. However, You can be sure that America gets all the first dibs on juicy lucrative deals for all our major corporations.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Patriot
Pale Rider,



Actually America forgives most of others debts because we realize most are never going to be able to EVER repay it back. We call it buying insurance for the future. However, You can be sure that America gets all the first dibs on juicy lucrative deals for all our major corporations.

That may be true. But "you or I" will never see any of it.

You know that "taxes" are one of my sore spots, and wars just add up to MORE TAXES to PAY for them. The average American citizen works until May 1st as is JUST TO PAY THEIR TAXES. That's already too much in my opinion.

I think we should get paid for fighting wars... starting now.

You do know that GW just asked congress for ANOTHER $25,000,000,000??!! Where's THAT money going to come from?

"YOU AND ME" Bub. You and me.

 

[Patriot]

Pale Rider,



I myself do not mind paying large sums of money to killing terrorists. In fact if I could afford it I'd go do it for free!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This wouldn't be so much as preemption, as it would be intervention, considering the civil state they are in. Any suggestions?

Yes, let's redefine as many words as we need to justify burning thousands of women and children to death.



The war in Iraq wasn't preemptive. A preemptive strike is one where we know a strike by the enemy is imminent.

The war in Iraq was preventative. A preventative war is one we fight because we think maybe possibly someday Iraq might attack.

 

[007]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Yes, let's redefine as many words as we need to justify burning thousands of women and children to death.

Perhaps you would have prefered living in pre-war Iraq under the hand of your hero Saddam Hussien? Because God knows.... he never "intentionally" killed, raped or tortured any women and children...

 

[Patriot]

Pale Rider,


Dont even bother with Tuba...He is a terrorist.

 

[Doc Holiday]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Yes, let's redefine as many words as we need to justify burning thousands of women and children to death.



The war in Iraq wasn't preemptive. A preemptive strike is one where we know a strike by the enemy is imminent.

The war in Iraq was preventative. A preventative war is one we fight because we think maybe possibly someday Iraq might attack.

Semantics, the end result is the same. Iraq and Saddam Hussein will not be a threat to America in the future.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Doc Holiday
Semantics, the end result is the same. Iraq and Saddam Hussein will not be a threat to America in the future.

You know, we could just blow up the planet, and then no one will be a threat to us. What do you think of that idea?

The removal of Hussein from power is a good thing, but the ends don't justify the means in this case.

 

[5stringJeff]

In order of precedence:

1. Iran
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Sudan

I think of all those countries, however, I have the most disdain for Sudan. They openly enslave the blacks that are captured in civil war, yet they have the gall to sit on the UN Human Rights Commission! I would gladly support a nuke aimed at Khartoum (sp?).

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
In order of precedence:

1. Iran
2. Syria
3. North Korea
4. Sudan

I think of all those countries, however, I have the most disdain for Sudan. They openly enslave the blacks that are captured in civil war, yet they have the gall to sit on the UN Human Rights Commission! I would gladly support a nuke aimed at Khartoum (sp?).

The only just war is one that is in response to imminent threats. If we have the luxury to sit back and plan out invasions of nations one by one, much as Hitler did in the 1930's, then we are not in imminent danger.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
DOH! You have just been called a terrorist Spidey!

Now do you see the signifigance in the way you lay out your arguments?

I care not what Patriot calls me, for I am not the one who supports the torture of unarmed men.