Estimated 300,000 black Africans have died in ethnic massacres

[IEATV8S]

An estimated 300,000 black Africans have died in ethnic massacres in Darfur at the hands of Arabic-speaking militias! Yet African American's such as the followers of Louis Farrakhan embraces the muslim religion!

Darfur defector confesses - World - smh.com.au

[slow87]

Mr Idries's account is both chilling and convincing in its detailed description of a campaign by ferocious horsemen who despised the Darfuris as racial inferiors. It also outlines a clearly thought-out campaign of ethnic cleansing.

I think its only fair to return the favor of ethnic cleansing.

[1QWIK6]

An estimated 300,000 black Africans have died in ethnic massacres in Darfur at the hands of Arabic-speaking militias! Yet African American's such as the followers of Louis Farrakhan embraces the muslim religion!

Darfur defector confesses - World - smh.com.au

YouTube Video

[SGRIM]

What kind of arguement was that video? Sounds like to me the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't.... I would like to ask that woman who has been in power of the congress for the last 2 years.....

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by SGRIM

What kind of arguement was that video? Sounds like to me the Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't.... I would like to ask that woman who has been in power of the congress for the last 2 years.....

It make a valid point of why the Bush Regime invades some countries and not others.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by 1QWIK6

It make a valid point of why the Bush Regime invades some countries and not others.

Wouldn't THIS come under the auspices of the U.N. and NOT the American gov't?

America went into Iraq as Saddam was a threat to the world, seems Muslims killing 300,000 blacks have NO VALUE to the United Nations, whose responsibility it is to PROTECT these people from genocide!

Qwirk, you are a horses ass when it comes to your deranged liberalism! It is a mental disorder with you! You think in one plane only, instead of looking at the whole picture!

[V8Assassin]

Originally Posted by IEATV8S

Wouldn't THIS come under the auspices of the U.N. and NOT the American gov't?

America went into Iraq as Saddam was a threat to the world, seems Muslims killing 300,000 blacks have NO VALUE to the United Nations, whose responsibility it is to PROTECT these people from genocide!

Qwirk, you are a horses ass when it comes to your deranged liberalism! It is a mental disorder with you! You think in one plane only, instead of looking at the whole picture!

I gotta go with 8's on this one, surprise I know. Seriously, what are we supposed to do, go to every country that has civil unrest and start a war. We could do what the great dem leader of the 90's did and send our troops into one of those countries like oh say Somalia without proper support or air cover. The real problem is we refuse to go in to those countries and do what is truly necessary to stop what is going on. Because of liberal pc bs, we are not allowed to bring the potential of our full resources to bear. As long as you and your liberal coherts are more concerned for the lives of enemy combatants, we will never be able to truly do what is necessary. At any time during the assualt in Somalia, better known as Blackhawk Down, Pres clinton could have ordered C-130 gunship cover, which by the way is SOP for our special forces. Guess what, he didn't. Why a decision so careless and unconcerned? Because it would have looked bad to the world community. What do our soldiers get in return for your political correctness....................................... ............................................

American Casualties in Somalia

Medal of Honor Recipients - Somalia

[Black Power]

Yet another good deed from the religion of peace

[SGRIM]

The part of this whole thing I don't get is why is America even brought into this?

When we go in somewhere they want us out, they don't want us to go in anywhere....

So why are we responsible for NOT going in here?

[1QWIK6]

Originally Posted by IEATV8S

America went into Iraq as Saddam was a threat to the world...

WHAT?!

[86NYGN]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

I gotta go with 8's on this one, surprise I know. Seriously, what are we supposed to do, go to every country that has civil unrest and start a war. We could do what the great dem leader of the 90's did and send our troops into one of those countries like oh say Somalia without proper support or air cover. The real problem is we refuse to go in to those countries and do what is truly necessary to stop what is going on. Because of liberal pc bs, we are not allowed to bring the potential of our full resources to bear. As long as you and your liberal coherts are more concerned for the lives of enemy combatants, we will never be able to truly do what is necessary. At any time during the assualt in Somalia, better known as Blackhawk Down, Pres clinton could have ordered C-130 gunship cover, which by the way is SOP for our special forces. Guess what, he didn't. Why a decision so careless and unconcerned? Because it would have looked bad to the world community. What do our soldiers get in return for your political correctness....................................... ............................................

American Casualties in Somalia

Medal of Honor Recipients - Somalia

Or do what the great Rep leader of the 80's did in Lebanon when more than 200 Marines were killed in their barracks, pack up and do nothing!

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by 86NYGN

Or do what the great Rep leader of the 80's did in Lebanon when more than 200 Marines were killed in their barracks, pack up and do nothing!

Glad to see you back! If I call you a name, are you going to leave again?

FYI and anybody else that tries to use this BS everytime we talk about the Democrats surrendering in Iraq!

Unfortunately for you, you're wrong. Reagan did not order an immediate retreat. He stayed in Lebanon for HALF A YEAR after the bombing attack.

After six months of efforts to help the Lebanese government, he determined that we would either have to go to a big-troop war in Lebanon - something the Congress was not at all interested in doing - or leave the area, as US Marines AT THE FORCE LEVELS WE HAD THERE, could do nothing but be targets.

If we had had sufficient forces to make any difference in Lebanon, and he still left, that would be a cut and run - You know, like the Dems are still asking us to do in Iraq.

Oh, BTW, What we couldn't do overtly, we did covertly. We got some pay back for that bombing. Two training camps, one in Lebenon and one in Syria, got wiped out.

Of course we could talk about the Clinton's Ruby Ridge Massacre, or the Waco atrocities, nothing like Democrat's attacking and killing Christians!!!

[V8Assassin]

Originally Posted by 86NYGN

Or do what the great Rep leader of the 80's did in Lebanon when more than 200 Marines were killed in their barracks, pack up and do nothing!

There is no comparing a surprise terroritst attack on a military compound and knowing sending special forces into a situation without the proper resources. As 8's has aleady stated, Regean never cut and ran from the situation, he stayed as long as it was a viable option and used the resources at his disposal to extract some measure of justice for our troops.

What Clinton did showed his complete lack of experience as a Commander in Chief, and an overall cowardice to get the job done putting our political correctness over our troops safety. He was told the danger to our troops, ignored it, and sent them into the field with more concern for the safety of the enemy than for his own forces. Maybe if he wouldn't been so busy smoking dope and dodging the war, he would have been more prepared to make the decisions neccessary for our highest military officer to make. Much like the current dem prospect he lacked the experience, knowledge and courage to make tough decisions when our troops lives hang in the balance. We can depend on more political correctness while our troops on the ground pay the price with their lives. I suppose if he is elected him and tricky dicky can smoke a blunt in the oval office over blowjobs, and best decide how to get our troops killed. Of course the one thing about ole bill is, at least we know it will be a woman working on him and not some fag like larry sinclair.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

I gotta go with 8's on this one, surprise I know. Seriously, what are we supposed to do, go to every country that has civil unrest and start a war. We could do what the great dem leader of the 90's did and send our troops into one of those countries like oh say Somalia without proper support or air cover. The real problem is we refuse to go in to those countries and do what is truly necessary to stop what is going on. Because of liberal pc bs, we are not allowed to bring the potential of our full resources to bear. As long as you and your liberal coherts are more concerned for the lives of enemy combatants, we will never be able to truly do what is necessary. At any time during the assualt in Somalia, better known as Blackhawk Down, Pres clinton could have ordered C-130 gunship cover, which by the way is SOP for our special forces. Guess what, he didn't. Why a decision so careless and unconcerned? Because it would have looked bad to the world community. What do our soldiers get in return for your political correctness....................................... ............................................

American Casualties in Somalia

Medal of Honor Recipients - Somalia

I read the book Blackhawk Down (it was a book before it was a movie), and the story makes a really good case for a foreign policy of non-interventionism and for keeping our sovereignty from groups like the UN. Us and the UN were trying to make sure a certain group of people got control of Somalia. The UN sent a squadron of our AH-1s to surprise attack a council of leaders of the various tribes that we didn't want to be in charge, and killed a bunch of them. That is what got a lot of the locals so pissed at us, and led to that famous battle in Mogadishu. We need to stay the hell out of local conflicts like that. besides the issue of whether an interventionist foreign policy makes us safer or not, we simply can't afford to have troops policing every country that has civil unrest.

[V8Assassin]

Originally Posted by henschman

I read the book Blackhawk Down (it was a book before it was a movie), and the story makes a really good case for a foreign policy of non-interventionism and for keeping our sovereignty from groups like the UN. Us and the UN were trying to make sure a certain group of people got control of Somalia. The UN sent a squadron of our AH-1s to surprise attack a council of leaders of the various tribes that we didn't want to be in charge, and killed a bunch of them. That is what got a lot of the locals so pissed at us, and led to that famous battle in Mogadishu. We need to stay the hell out of local conflicts like that. besides the issue of whether an interventionist foreign policy makes us safer or not, we simply can't afford to have troops policing every country that has civil unrest.

I agree, we had no business there in the first place. Our role should not be the world police. It seems like everytime we try to act in that capacity we end up putting our soldiers in an unwinnable situation because of politics. Our forces should be used in time of war, with the full backing of every resource our country has to offer.

"Service analyses of the action later identified three factors in the failure of the raid to achieve its objectives without serious casualties on both sides:

A failure of intelligence gathering, particularly in relying on local intelligence sources only and failing to recognize Aidid's capability in urban guerilla warfare;

A lack of political support for the Task Force Ranger mission, reflected in denial or removal of military support assets tha