Where's the conservative outrage?

[Donutboy 0]

Where's the conservative outrage? Where's the US demands that the UN take action? Why aren't we selling the idea of liberating these victims to the American public? Why is our government ignoring this inhumanity? Could it be because there's no oil we want in the Congo?

.... Gang rape, rape with guns, with torches, with lumps of wood - here in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, brutal and systematic rape has become a weapon of war.

This region has been torn apart by conflict for more than six years. Neighbouring powers and numerous armed groups have each played their part in the fight for economic and political ascendancy. The women feel the war has become a war on them.

And the full extent of that offensive is only starting to become clear.....

Must read!!

[Tiger Al 0]

See, this is what I've been asking our conservative friends but without answer. Do we want the role of the US military to be that of a hall monitor, umpire or cop? Going to Iraq has opened this can of worms, assuming that oil really had nothing to do with it. Pretty big assumption, though.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Mainly because these countries currently pose no clean and present danger of any kind to the United States and its citizens, unlike Iraq and Sadaam Hussein, and Afghanistan and the Taliban. As I have mentioned before, if oil were the only reason, wouldn't we be planning military campaigns in these African countries, and in Venezuela, and thereby lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil? Last time I checked, none of the terrorists that have been blowing up people and places were from the Congo, or Liberia.

Here's another twist on your post - how come Democrats think it is a fabulous idea to go in and liberate Liberia from Charles Taylor, but thought Iraq was a bad idea? Isn't being tortured and killed by Hussein equally as bad as being tortured and killed in a Congolese civil war? Human rights violations PLUS a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States and its allies equals military intervention. HOW does Dean justify Liberia but not Iraq?????????????

"I opposed the war in Iraq because it was the wrong war at the wrong time," says Dean, but "military intervention in Liberia represents an appropriate use of American power."

Link

[Tiger Al 0]

Mainly because these countries currently pose no clean and present danger of any kind to the United States and its citizens, unlike Iraq and Sadaam Hussein, and Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Powell and Rice both said that Iraq posed no threat to its neighbors or the US. George H.W. Bush said going into Iraq was a bad idea.

Last time I checked, none of the terrorists that have been blowing up people and places were from the Congo, or Liberia.

Nor were they from Iraq, at least not until we invaded their country. Weren't 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists Saudis?

Here's another twist on your post - how come Democrats think it is a fabulous idea to go in and liberate Liberia from Charles Taylor, but thought Iraq was a bad idea? Isn't being tortured and killed by Hussein equally as bad as being tortured and killed in a Congolese civil war? Human rights violations PLUS a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States and its allies equals military intervention. HOW does Dean justify Liberia but not Iraq?????????????

You are ignoring several key points in the construction of your "Liberia is the same as Iraq" strawman. First, if we believed that Iraq was violating human rights and Hussein needed to be removed, then forces should've been deployed under the auspice of the UN. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? Liberia's situation is being discussed in just this manner.

On June 4, 2003, Taylor was indicted for war crimes by a United Nation's tribunal in Sierra Leone.

Faced with growing international pressure to resign, Taylor has repeatedly said he will leave and accept an offer from Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo for temporary asylum. Taylor gave no indication of when he would relinquish control, but said he will resign "only after a peacekeeping force is deployed to prevent chaos and anarchy."

LINK

Or, is it that you REALLY DO BELIEVE that the role of the US is to act as shepherd over the rest of the world and to deploy troops unilaterally whenever some leader doesn't play well with others? If so, then I guess I have a more isolationist ideology than you do because I believe the only time the US has the right to unilaterally attack another country is in its' defense or in that of our allies, in which case it probably wouldn't be unilateral. I'll buy Bush's inclusion of countrys that aid and abet the primary assailants, i.e. Afghanistan/Taliban. The fact that Iraq didn't cry for us on September 11th doesn't qualify.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Saddam Hussein supported terrorism - whether you care to believe it or not, he did - and not just against the US. He was paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, remember? The US has declared war or TERRORISM, in all its forms, whereever it may hide. As GWB said, you are either with us or against us, and if you do not fight terrorism, we will assume you support it and treat you accordingly.

Last time I checked, none of the terrorists that have been blowing up people and places were from the Congo, or Liberia.

Nor were they from Iraq, at least not until we invaded their country. Weren't 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists Saudis?

I was not talking about 9/11 - and I also wasn't just talking about Iraq - terrorism is everywhere - ask the people in Turkey. That was Al Queda. And they aren't from Congo or Liberia either.

You are ignoring several key points in the construction of your "Liberia is the same as Iraq" strawman. First, if we believed that Iraq was violating human rights and Hussein needed to be removed, then forces should've been deployed under the auspice of the UN. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? Liberia's situation is being discussed in just this manner.

On June 4, 2003, Taylor was indicted for war crimes by a United Nation's tribunal in Sierra Leone.

There were more than humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq - which have been discussed repeatedly. But to use your own argument against you - why should we enforce SOME UN positions and not others?? We should go into Liberia because the UN tribunal indicted Taylor and we needed peacekeepers. But we should NOT go into Iraq even though Hussein had violated fourteen or so UN resolutions over a twelve year period? Why is one UN decree worth pursuing when others are not?

Or, is it that you REALLY DO BELIEVE that the role of the US is to act as shepherd over the rest of the world and to deploy troops unilaterally whenever some leader doesn't play well with others? If so, then I guess I have a more isolationist ideology than you do because I believe the only time the US has the right to unilaterally attack another country is in its' defense or in that of our allies, in which case it probably wouldn't be unilateral.

We did not unilaterally attack Iraq - we had international help from a coalition of countries - just not the entire UN, which honestly doesn't bother me in the least. And I don't believe that it is he job of the US to be the world's shepherd - that is why I do not support intervention in Africa - no threat to US national security. And again, US reluctance to get involved in Africa blows your theory that GWB and company are only in it for the oil. If that was the case, our military would be all over Angola, Nigeria, etc. But we aren't now, are we?

[Tiger Al 0]

Saddam Hussein supported terrorism - whether you care to believe it or not, he did - and not just against the US. He was paying off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, remember? The US has declared war or TERRORISM, in all its forms, whereever it may hide. As GWB said, you are either with us or against us, and if you do not fight terrorism, we will assume you support it and treat you accordingly.

Does this mean we'll be attacking the Swiss soon?

There were more than humanitarian reasons for going into Iraq - which have been discussed repeatedly. But to use your own argument against you - why should we enforce SOME UN positions and not others?? We should go into Liberia because the UN tribunal indicted Taylor and we needed peacekeepers. But we should NOT go into Iraq even though Hussein had violated fourteen or so UN resolutions over a twelve year period? Why is one UN decree worth pursuing when others are not?

Humanitarian reasons were the only honest reasons the Bush administration gave, and those were hardly more than a whisper. Until the public became wise to their ruse. WMD's were the centerpiece for justifying the attack on Iraq, not humanitarian reasons. Keep your eye on the ball.

And about those UN decrees on Iraq. What was Iraq supposed to be doing? Disarming WMD's. During the three months prior to attacking Iraq, UNMOVIC inspectors had unfettered access to any site they wished to look and found nothing. US intelligence directed them to many, many sites and all they found, in the words of one inspector, was garbage. Bush, realizing that much more of this would further discredit his WMD claims, had them pulled and attacked Iraq. But, to return the favor and use your argument against you, find out how many UN sanctions Israel has against it and then ask Dubya when we're going to attack them. Seems fair, since we want to be the enforcement arm of the UN.

We did not unilaterally attack Iraq - we had international help from a coalition of countries - just not the entire UN, which honestly doesn't bother me in the least.

Oh, you're right...it was the US, UK, some Aussies and a few other countries who donated some bandages and water. Saudi Arabia wouldn't even let us attack from our base there. By coalition, I mean a sizable number of countries like the representation we saw in Desert Storm. Even now, he can't get anyone to commit troops. Japan, who had reluctantly agreed, recently had a change of heart. And, remember, this was the point following the invasion that the rest of the world was supposed to be pleading with Bush to forgive them because they were wrong not to initially support him.

[Ranger12 46]

FYI... we are there, you just don't know that and you will not see it on CNN or FoxNews. And no, I can't give you a link. You can take that for what you will. Some situations have to be handled differently and by different means. Like a poster said, there is no immediate threat to the national security of the United States. Also from a tactical standpoint for conventional warfare, it is much easier to draw up a plan to handle a clear dictator with a supposedly organized and conventional army then it is to fight a warlord(s) with armies made up of guerillas. Not all situations can be handled in the public eye and can be handled the same. The congo is being handled in an unconentional way. Just the same as we handled similar situations in the past, albeit, those wound up being FUBAR because of the current adminstration then-Clinton. I speak from personal experience on those.

[Donutboy 0]

Last time I checked, none of the terrorists that have been blowing up people and places were from the Congo, or Liberia.

No. Most of them are from Saudi Arabia, one of this administrations favorite dictatorships. The Bushes and Bin Ladens are longtime friends. Reckon there's a reason we abandoned our search for Osama Bin Laden, who everyone claims attacked our nation, and our re-focus on Iraq who had nothing to do with the attacks?

Here's another twist on your post - how come Democrats think it is a fabulous idea to go in and liberate Liberia from Charles Taylor, but thought Iraq was a bad idea?

I DON'T think it's a good idea. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of those trying to twist the debate of why we went to war in Iraq from "WMDs", "Imminent threat" and "African Uranium purchase" to a humanitarian reason for going to war. The United Nations was created for such issues as Liberia and the Congo,and they have shown that they will go to war with the backing of the entire world, when war is the only answer. (Somalia, first gulf war, etc...)

[Donutboy 0]

MORE on the Saudis!! It seems they're willing to work with the terrorists to keep US away!!

However, events in the kingdom indicate that the House of Saud - despite its public rhetoric against militancy - and the Islamic radicals have "reunited' to save the kingdom from anarchy, and the inevitable subsequent threat of external forces meddling in the country's domestic affairs. This is due to the efforts of a few royal family members and prominent clerics.

At a three-day meeting over the weekend, Crown Prince Abdullah and a group of more than 40 Saudi scholars gathered in Mecca for discussions on mediation between the government and those waging a bloody campaign to overthrow the House of Saud. The meeting included a mentor of Osama bin Laden, Muslim theologian Safar al-Hawali, who denies claims that the recent Riyadh bombing could be considered jihad.

House of Saud plays a radical card