[marden]

Civil War in Iraq? Big Deal! So What?

Many of you believe we should leave Iraq if it becomes a civil war.

I say the existence of a civil war should mean nothing to our desired goals of establishing a strong central government.

BECK: You know, and everybody -- at the same time, everybody is saying, this is turning into a civil war. We`ve got to get out.

Does this make -- two questions for you: one, what difference does it make? Colin Powell came out today and said it`s a civil war. Who cares if it`s a civil war?

And two, everybody is saying we should get out if it`s a civil war. Yet, the same people on the left who are saying we should get out here are telling us we should go in and do something about Darfur, which is a civil war.

MAY: Yes. Darfur is a civil war between black Muslims and Arab Muslims. Afghanistan was a civil war between the Taliban on one side and the Northern Alliance on the other. Bosnia and Kosovo, those were civil wars.

Of course, Rwanda was a civil war. Are we very proud of the fact we didn`t get involved there?

BECK: No.

MAY: The fact that it`s a civil war is absolutely -- you`re right -- absolutely meaningless. The question is, what do we do about it? But we have to understand, there are different conflicts taking place simultaneously in Iraq.

CNN.com - Transcripts

Go INTO Darfur because it is a civil war.

Pull OUT of Iraq if it becomes a civil war?

That's liberalism in action!

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by marden 

Go INTO Darfur because it is a civil war.

Pull OUT of Iraq if it becomes a civil war?

That's liberalism in action!

I'm glad you put on a smiley face for all the slaughtered children in Darfur by the Arab Islamofacists in the north.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by marden 

I say the existence of a civil war should mean nothing to our desired goals of establishing a strong central government.

aside from the fact that a country headed towards civil war is the exact opposite of establishing a strong central gov't. yet that fact means nothing?

if iraq were in a situation of improvement, i might agree that calling it a civil war (or whatever) would mean little, but i'm not so sure that is the case. engineers, doctors, and scientists are leaving the country. that is a bad omen for iraq as a whole.

another bad sign is that iraq recently became a net importer of gasoline. the infrastructure and confidence of the nation is shot right now. and that is worth a lot.

[marden]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

aside from the fact that a country headed towards civil war is the exact opposite of establishing a strong central gov't. yet that fact means nothing?

It doesn't mean that our goals have changed.

It doesn't mean that achieving those goals is out of the question.

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help reduce the violence.

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help create a better environment for the formation of a central government.

We went into Bosnia and Kosovo during a civil war.

We intervened during the civil war in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

if iraq were in a situation of improvement, i might agree that calling it a civil war (or whatever) would mean little, but i'm not so sure that is the case. engineers, doctors, and scientists are leaving the country. that is a bad omen for iraq as a whole.

another bad sign is that iraq recently became a net importer of gasoline. the infrastructure and confidence of the nation is shot right now. and that is worth a lot.

What you are doing is trying to convince Americans that we shouldn't buy that 'property' without mentioning that the Iranians are ready to snap it up even with all those 'problems' because they know those problems are solvable and minor in the long term.

You are treating us like punk ass beyotches.

You think we are stupid.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by marden 

It doesn't mean that our goals have changed.

It doesn't mean that achieving those goals is out of the question.

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help reduce the violence.

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help create a better environment for the formation of a central government.

well that's the $64,000 question - how do you fix it.

stated goals really mean little if you think about it. i strive for world peace and nothing is going to change my mind on that fact - no matter if the world is on that path or not. obviously we want something better for iraq, but what action goes beyond simply wanting it, but rather achieving that.

Originally Posted by marden 

We went into Bosnia and Kosovo during a civil war.

We intervened during the civil war in Afghanistan.

except, there was no civil war in iraq when we went in. it wasn't a "pre-existing" condition like those above (and darfur). it has become one since we intervened.

[pcguy1]

The question is do we have the right to decide wha/how other people want/live, might does not mean right imo.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by marden 

What you are doing is trying to convince Americans that we shouldn't buy that 'property' without mentioning that the Iranians are ready to snap it up even with all those 'problems' because they know those problems are solvable and minor in the long term.

You are treating us like punk ass beyotches.

You think we are stupid.

i haven't stated a position so convincing somebody of something would be kind of hard. and for the record i believe that we should stay (now). i didn't agree with the invasion. i didn't agree with the 'stay the course' for the past two or so years after saddam fell. i didn't believe that course was the best one, and it gives me no consolation that it appears i was correct. though, i think we should leave iraq better than what we started with and i don't see withdrawal as achieving that aim.

(i'm still wondering why powell's plan for a post-saddam iraq, which was being worked on in 2002, was unceremoniously scrapped prior to the invasion.)

a strong gov't needs a strong economy and strong citizenry to support it. the oil revenue is not there (the key to the rebuilding effort from the very start). those citizens who have the money (and are not paying ransoms on kidnapped relatives) are fleeing. on both counts, we are losing. these are simply facts.

[goMac]

The Civil War started due to our intervention.

So for once I agree with you Marden. Lets work to remove the cause of the civil war.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The Civil War started due to our intervention.

So for once I agree with you Marden. Lets work to remove the cause of the civil war.

Invading Iraq under false (or weak) pretense is quite different than "liberating" them by giving them the tools of their freedom, which an election is the end result, and not the principle mean to achieve it.

Darfur is not comparable, because this catastrophe was left to aggravate.

In both cases, the International community is to be blamed (including the UN) for not acting to prevent both situations.

This is a very sad World (dis)order we are facing. After 100 years of so-called "order" one would expect more from a civilization.

[ink]

You do know that Glenn Beck bases his entire Middle East strategy on the Book of Revelations and the Doctrine and Covenants, right?

If John the Beloved and Joseph Smith are your political strategists, that's fine, but you can understand why some might not be persuaded...

Personally, I think Beck should stick to moron trivia.

And there's enough hypocracy to go around and around and around and around....

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

You do know that Glenn Beck bases his entire Middle East strategy on the Book of Revelations and the Doctrine and Covenants, right?

If John the Beloved and Joseph Smith are your political strategists, that's fine, but you can understand why some might not be persuaded...

Personally, I think Beck should stick to moron trivia.

And there's enough hypocracy to go around and around and around and around....

We welcome support from the Amish, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, Protestants, Quakers, Shakers, Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians and more. Each denomination or religion has a different flavor to surround their support of freedom and America but we are a united people and include ALL who love America in the tent, even atheists and agnostics.

So please tell us more about your religious bigotry.

But a quick look at Beck's guest list and his position statements show him to be on good solid conservative ground.

The Glenn Beck Program Website Archives

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Invading Iraq under false (or weak) pretense is quite different than "liberating" them by giving them the tools of their freedom, which an election is the end result, and not the principle mean to achieve it.

Darfur is not comparable, because this catastrophe was left to aggravate.

In both cases, the International community is to be blamed (including the UN) for not acting to prevent both situations.

This is a very sad World (dis)order we are facing. After 100 years of so-called "order" one would expect more from a civilization.

Dear Readers,

This comment above is made by a poster who supports the Islamist's takeover of Somalia. A Somalia which already had a non-Islamic government.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The Civil War started due to our intervention.

So for once I agree with you Marden. Lets work to remove the cause of the civil war.

How can we single out the Iranian instigators?

[marden]

Originally Posted by pcguy1 

The question is do we have the right to decide wha/how other people want/live, might does not mean right imo.

You have a point pcguy1.

The Iraqi people voted for a democratic government. Who is it that is trying to decide wha/how the Iraqi people want/live?

Who is preventing them from having what they voted for?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

The Iraqi people voted for a democratic government. Who is it that is trying to decide wha/how the Iraqi people want/live?

Who is preventing them from having what they voted for?

Uhhh...the people they voted for?

How can we single out the Iranian instigators?

Ahhhhh, so it's the Iranians who are behind the civil war in Iraq now! Those damn Iranians! I know it! Those Iraqi people democratically voted for Freedom™, but the Iranians are taking it away!

I don't know, man, it sounds to me like we should just go and attack the **** out of those bastards. The Middle East will finally have some stability once Iran has a free democracy!



greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Uhhh...the people they voted for?


Ahhhhh, so it's the Iranians who are behind the civil war in Iraq now! Those damn Iranians! I know it! Those Iraqi people democratically voted for Freedom™, but the Iranians are taking it away!

I don't know, man, it sounds to me like we should just go and attack the **** out of those bastards. The Middle East will finally have some stability once Iran has a free democracy!



greg

I just read in the other thread how much you love Chavez.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ezuelan-today/

Originally Posted by IceBreaker 

chavez is a nutjob,

but if the people there are stupid enough to vote for him, they deserve him.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Oh yes. People who vote for a charismatic leader who loves to talk about the glory of their country and who "stands up" against those "evil nations" who seem to want to keep them down at a lower level and deny them this glory that their great country deserves...are stupid.

Nope, I don't see how anyone could vote for that at all.

greg

Why not share your views here?

Learn foreign languages in Venezuela - Venezuelan Language Exchange

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help reduce the violence.

It doesn't mean that pulling out will help create a better environment for the formation of a central government.

What if there is a 1% chance that the US presence in Iraq is aggravating the violence there and creating a worse environment for the formation of a central government?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

I just read in the other thread how much you love Chavez.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ezuelan-today/





Why not share your views here?

Learn foreign languages in Venezuela - Venezuelan Language Exchange

Not even a subtle dodge ....

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

I just read in the other thread how much you love Chavez.

Your attempt at a straw man is as pathetic as your arguments around here lately.

I think Chavez is a moron. But if you can't see why Venezuelans would vote for him, then your head is truly further up your own ass than I had ever imagined.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

What if there is a 1% chance that the US presence in Iraq is aggravating the violence there and creating a worse environment for the formation of a central government?

GWB is not a pessimist.

Where your interpretation of the 1% doctrine might be as you stated above, his is if there are 15,000,000 Iraqi people who want freedom he isn't going to abandon them because 1% of the American people are leading the charge in support of the Jihadists terrorists.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Your attempt at a straw man is as pathetic as your arguments around here lately.

I think Chavez is a moron. But if you can't see why Venezuelans would vote for him, then your head is truly further up your own ass than I had ever imagined.

greg

Ninth rule of the Political Lounge: You will have respect for other posters and their right to opposing viewpoints.

version 1.4

Reported.

[moodymonster]

goals?

remove WMD - didn't exist

establish democracy - country dividing along sectarian lines

make world safer - Spain attacked, UK attacked, other ME countries being drawn into Iraq - Iran and Saudi, US hated even more, North Korea emboldened

make rich groups richer - done and done.

[marden]

Originally Posted by moodymonster 

goals?

remove WMD - didn't exist

establish democracy - country dividing along sectarian lines

make world safer - Spain attacked, UK attacked, other ME countries being drawn into Iraq - Iran and Saudi, US hated even more, North Korea emboldened

make rich groups richer - done and done.

remove WMD - didn't exist (We had to make sure they didn't.)

establish democracy - country dividing along sectarian lines (Iran's fault.)

make world safer - Spain attacked, UK attacked, (Proof that doing nothing gives a false sense of security.)

other ME countries being drawn into Iraq - Iran and Saudi, (Iran had plans for aggression no matter what we did or didn't do. Saudi's getting involved MAY be a good thing.)

US hated even more. (Like teens hate Dad.) North Korea emboldened. (Can't start world war, has no global ambitions and is not suicidal.

make rich groups richer - done and done. (God bless capitalism and freedom and America!)

Great Britain: Resorted to a Big Brother type of surveillance to keep the peace with so many potential terrorists in the country.

When the time comes to help free you blokes I'll remind my countrymen to make sure your name is on the No Free List.

[Ron Goodman]

I'm confused. Shrub said the other day that Al Quaida was behind the violence, now marden is saying it's the Iranians? (And here I thought it was Sunni/Shiiite animosity dating back 1400 years or so...)

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

North Korea emboldened. (Can't start world war, has no global ambitions and is not suicidal.

It's quotes like this that astonish me. Why? Because it assumes that, because Islamic jihadist terrorists are suicidal, that Islamic leaders are suicidal.

And that is where I get confused. Because I have seen little to no evidence that any jihadist leader, or Islamic leader, is suicidal. Suuuuure, there's no problem convincing other people to blow themselves up. But where are they when it comes to push and shove? Why do we "capture" top Al-Qaeda men, instead of getting 20 soldiers killed when they blow themselves up at the last minute? Why does Osama run and hide, rather than splatter himself all over some American embassy in Iraq?

And for me, that's the rub. Saying that Iran could get nuclear weapons and immediately attack Israel or Europe (or hell, even North America although that's unlikely) completely ignores that fact that their country would be completely annihilated as soon as they did so – and their leaders are not stupid. They know this.

I don't see a shred of evidence that these leaders would sacrifice their country, and their power, for a few days of glory.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman 

I'm confused. Shrub said the other day that Al Quaida was behind the violence, now marden is saying it's the Iranians? (And here I thought it was Sunni/Shiiite animosity dating back 1400 years or so...)

Stick around here, keep your eyes and mind open and you might learn things.

November 02, 2006

'Iraqi Sunni tribe helps protects Iraqi Shiite tribe'.
Greyhawk

Another translation from the Iraqi media by Haider Ajina. There are plenty of "bad news" stories to be found there (all the same stories that appear in our western outlets) but somehow they find room for these stories too.

Here's Haider:

Greetings,
The following is my translation of a head line and article which appeared in 'Iraqi News Agency' October 29, 2006

'Iraqi Sunni tribe helps protects Iraqi Shiite tribe'.
By Ali Alshumary in Alkut Iraq

'The Sunni Aljuhaishat tribe helped protected men from the Alkufaifan Shiite tribe after armed fighting broke out between the Alkufaifan and an armed group. Men from the Aljuhaishat tribe answered a call for help from Alkufaifan even though there were light clashes between these two tribes just a few days ago. As soon as Aljuhaishat answered the call of the Shiite Alkufaifan tribe it became evident that the attackers were not from a local Sunni tribe. The attacker were creating strife between the tow tribes by attacking the Shiite tribe and making it seem as if the local Sunni tribe Aljuhaishat was attacking the Shiite Alkufaifan tribe. After all day fighting the Shiite Alkufaifan with the support of the Sunni Aljuhaishat tribe, seven of the attackers were killed and three were captured. It became evident that the attackers were member of a murder and robbery gang or militia. Later men from both tribes praised and thanked each other for helping ending the attackers and help the truth come out. This incident proves the national unity of most Iraqis while turning a blind eye to their sect or origin'.

Haider's comments:

The cooperation and comradeship amongst Sunni & Shiite displayed here is very similar to the Iraq I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s before Saddam came to power.

Incidences such as these (Sunni & Shiite helping each other) happen frequently in Iraq. They go unreported in western media. It is mostly the former Baathists and Alqida and some Shiite militia who are creating the sectarian strife in Iraq. The foreign influences of Iran and Syria especially fund and aid the strife. Criminal gangs or militia, who can be Sunni or Shiite, are trying to ignite fighting amongst Tribes in Iraq. I could not find further details about these criminals who tried to get Aljuhaishat and Alkufaifan to fight each other. Gladly, cooler heads prevailed and the truth came out.

Regards
Haider Ajina
McKinleyville

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/006918.html

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by marden 

When the time comes to help free you blokes I'll remind my countrymen to make sure your name is on the No Free List.

yes.... riiiiight ....whatever

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

The Iraqi people voted for a democratic government. Who is it that is trying to decide wha/how the Iraqi people want/live?

Who is preventing them from having what they voted for?

Huffington Post

Would you support a national vote in Iraq for US troop levels marden?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

We welcome support from the Amish, Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, Protestants, Quakers, Shakers, Seventh Day Adventists, Unitarians and more. Each denomination or religion has a different flavor to surround their support of freedom and America but we are a united people and include ALL who love America in the tent, even atheists and agnostics.

So please tell us more about your religious bigotry.

But a quick look at Beck's guest list and his position statements show him to be on good solid conservative ground.

The Glenn Beck Program Website Archives

I don't think anyone was debating Beck's tolerance of other religions. I think instead the question was if it was sound to be basing our politics on a book written thousands of years ago. I'm assuming you're either answering a different point purposely to ignore the one that was brought up, or you didn't understand the point to begin with.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by marden 

I just read in the other thread how much you love Chavez.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ezuelan-today/

Why not share your views here?

Learn foreign languages in Venezuela - Venezuelan Language Exchange

Textbook ad-hominem

[mania]

Originally Posted by marden 

remove WMD - didn't exist (We had to make sure they didn't.)

establish democracy - country dividing along sectarian lines (Iran's fault.)

make world safer - Spain attacked, UK attacked, (Proof that doing nothing gives a false sense of security.)

other ME countries being drawn into Iraq - Iran and Saudi, (Iran had plans for aggression no matter what we did or didn't do. Saudi's getting involved MAY be a good thing.)

US hated even more. (Like teens hate Dad.) North Korea emboldened. (Can't start world war, has no global ambitions and is not suicidal.

make rich groups richer - done and done. (God bless capitalism and freedom and America!)

Great Britain: Resorted to a Big Brother type of surveillance to keep the peace with so many potential terrorists in the country.

When the time comes to help free you blokes I'll remind my countrymen to make sure your name is on the No Free List.

Well, its posts like this that make me think Marden is either a. going for that internship with Bill Oreilly or b. just baiting us. Where is that 'block user' or at least digg down button?

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Huffington Post

Would you support a national vote in Iraq for US troop levels marden?

No, because they just had an election. They voted for FREEDOM.

Those who contend that “American forces have lost the support of the Iraqi population and probably cannot regain it” are incorrect; in fact, the majority of the Iraqi population prefers the American vision of a democratic and free Iraq to the Salafist version of Iraq as Islamic theocracy. The key challenge is empowering the intimidated majority to enable Iraqi and American security forces to eliminate the criminal insurgents.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/567702.html

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, because they just had an election. They voted for FREEDOM.

I didn't recall freedom being on the ballot. I recall people being on the ballot.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

No, because they just had an election. They voted for FREEDOM.

Getting rid of what many there perceive as an occupation force might also be considered FREEDOM.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Getting rid of what many there perceive as an occupation force might also be considered FREEDOM.

Yes. By those who want a radical Islamist government to prevail in Iraq.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

Yes. By those who want a radical Islamist government to prevail in Iraq.

Was there a radical Islamist government on the ballot?

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I didn't recall freedom being on the ballot. I recall people being on the ballot.

People who exercise their franchise by choosing people ON THE BALLOT have also implied support FOR THE BALLOT. Free elections = Democracy.

If I ask you which program you want to watch on TV and you make a choice of The Daily Show, you have implied your acceptance of absurdity.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Those who contend that “American forces have lost the support of the Iraqi population and probably cannot regain it” are incorrect; in fact, the majority of the Iraqi population prefers the American vision of a democratic and free Iraq to the Salafist version of Iraq as Islamic theocracy. The key challenge is empowering the intimidated majority to enable Iraqi and American security forces to eliminate the criminal insurgents.

This quote is a classic example of a logical fallacy. The key issue: how does "American forces in Iraq having support" equate to "Iraqi prefer American version of democracy?" That's the real question. Your quote confuses these two, very separately achievable, goals.

As well, I hate to bring him up again, but Fareed Zakaria's last article briefly talked about a September poll that seemed to show general Iraqi disapproval for long-term American troop involvement:

To the contrary, both sides now see American troops as the problem. The Shiite ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright. That's why, in the most recent poll of Iraqis, taken in September, 91 percent of Sunnis and 74 percent of Shiites said they wanted American forces to leave within a year.

I don't know what poll he's referring to, but if he's quoting it then I would assume it has some measure of validity.

That your quote comes from the preface of a book (which is copyright 2005 from the looks of it) would seem to suggest that it's at least a year old, if not two. If that is so, then it's irrelevant in the context of the vastly different Iraqi war today.

Weaker and weaker by the day, abemardenwriter.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Was there a radical Islamist government on the ballot?

Should there have been?

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

Those who contend that “American forces have lost the support of the Iraqi population and probably cannot regain it” are incorrect; in fact, the majority of the Iraqi population prefers the American vision of a democratic and free Iraq to the Salafist version of Iraq as Islamic theocracy. The key challenge is empowering the intimidated majority to enable Iraqi and American security forces to eliminate the criminal insurgents.

So let's vote on it then.

It's democracy we're pursuing, right?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by marden 

Civil War in Iraq? Big Deal! So What?



Go INTO Darfur because it is a civil war.

Pull OUT of Iraq if it becomes a civil war?

That's liberalism in action!

It would not be the U.S. intervening in Darfur, but the UN.

I say that's what we need to do in Iraq, hand over authority. Let's swap out our troops with any other peacekeeping mission anywhere in the world and build a multinational force to administrate the rebuilding of Iraq.

If we broke it, we need to admit that we're not the ones to fix it.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

It would not be the U.S. intervening in Darfur, but the UN.

But you believe that SOMEONE should intervene in a civil war, just not us.

Originally Posted by Helmling

I say that's what we need to do in Iraq, hand over authority. Let's swap out our troops with any other peacekeeping mission anywhere in the world and build a multinational force to administrate the rebuilding of Iraq.

If we broke it, we need to admit that we're not the ones to fix it.

Somehow I get the impression your solution is to delegate. Let someone else get involved with Darfur. Let someone else get involved in Iraq.

There's nothing wrong with delegating but your grand foreign policy strokes seem to lack an appreciation of reality.

You don't see any groups rushing to get involved in Iraq except the Islamists. And I'd assume you aren't suggesting we "swap out our troops" with Iranian troops.

Your philosophy reminds me of the kind of philosophy I sometimes here at the sports bar when talking trades. Some guy will have the PERFECT trade to get the Red Sox their second World Series title.

Put together a package deal of Manny Ramirez and some minor league players to get Barry Zito, Jason Schmidt, Carlos Beltran and Alfonso Soriano.

Simple. Let's see someone "administrate" that deal.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

But you believe that SOMEONE should intervene in a civil war, just not us.

It's a difficult concept to be sure, but there is a difference between the US acting on it's own and the US acting as part of a multi-national force in a capacity agreed upon democratically by all of the stakeholders involved (read: the nations of the world)

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

It's a difficult concept to be sure, but there is a difference between the US acting on it's own and the US acting as part of a multi-national force in a capacity agreed upon democratically by all of the stakeholders involved (read: the nations of the world)

Well, 100 people (Muslims, btw) are dying every day there in Darfur and the UN just takes it's sweet ass time.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden 

Well, 100 people (Muslims, btw) are dying every day there in Darfur and the UN just takes it's sweet ass time.

Darfur is a real shame for the international community as a whole, including the US, and I guess one of the main-reasons why the UN can't act more decisively is China's role in supporting the Khartoum-regime.

I think it's time to abolish the vetoe-system in the UN-security-council.

Taliesin

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I think it's time to abolish the vetoe-system in the UN-security-council.

Taliesin

I suspect all of the veto holders would veto that proposal