Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why India should invade Sri Lanka now.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by wistahpatsfan, May 10, 2009.

  1. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Aid worker: Shelling kills 378 civilians in 'no-fire' zone - CNN.com

    Nearly 400 people were killed overnight Saturday by government shelling in what is supposed to be a "no-fire" zone of Sri Lanka, a humanitarian worker in the area told CNN on Sunday....

    The government denies the assertion, saying it is the Tamil Tiger rebels who have been killing civilians....


    Violence from both sides kills kids and other innocents. It's amazing that no one gives a damn. They must be too dark-skinned.
  2. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,530
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    EDIT: oh goddammit I wrote this thinking that it was a Mav post. I admit, I was somewhat surprised. Anyhoo... here is what I wrote, so as not to "post and run." But I'll make it smaller.

    Ah, after multiple years of asking why your own attention is never drawn to such conflicts unless one side is Israel, you finally recognize the existance of Sri Lanka.

    And you believe in all seriousness that India should invade, I take it?

    PFnV
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0



    You're a completely biased, paranoid Zionist tool who takes everything personally. At least you're un-subtle about it.

    I have posted on here about other places as well, including the monks being slaughtered in Myanmar, but that isn't the point of your attack. I'll remember to keep my mouth shut, at least temporarily, the next time Israel tries a public relations spree to justify why they just killed some more innocent women and children, or why the apartheid/Holocaust going on to the Palestinians is somehow okay. You claim to be liberal, but sound just like an extreme right wing Zionist neo-con whenever killings of Palestinians happen.
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Well Clinton stood by while 700,000 died in Rwanda, so with a dem in the White House what do you expect.
  5. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    He stood aside along with the UN and African Union...he's hardly alone in that.
  6. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    He was largely responsible for that, refusing to use the word "genocide" to describe the atrocities which would have mandated intervention by the UN.
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3



    I am sure that will be comforting to the Rwandans. :rolleyes:
  8. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Blaming him alone is idiotic, he wasn't alone in it.
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,530
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Welllll, let's take your terms one by one:

    We'll leave aside the modifier "completely," evidently intended to be a sort of force multiplier for the remainder of what we'll generously call this sentence.

    Next, I am "biased." This is, however, from a source that I for one consider biased. So since neither of us can be framed as universally accepted as "objective," we are left with a terribly inconvenient I'm-rubber-you're-glue conversation on this subject. I hold myself to be "completely" unbiased, and you to be biased, which is the source of your confusion. So this is a fairly empty charge, given the source.

    I am not so certain why I am meant to be paranoid, but given the subject matter, it is quite likely a synonym for "inconvenient member of an inconvenient minority which has actually suffered genocide, inconveniently refusing to undergo it again."

    Next, the damning noun these supercharging modifiers are meant to pump up -- I am a ZIONIST!!! My GOD, a ZIONIST. The difficulty is, that I am, and am quite happy to say so. I do believe in the existence of a Jewish state. Of the Jewish states available I would have to say Israel is the best implemented, given that it is the only one.

    So I do have to wonder whether the supercharging is additional to the horrors of Zionism, since Mav virtually spits the word in his Gibsonesque moments, or whether Mav views Zionism as a value-neutral stance which must therefore be made more clearly wicked by the addition of the various attack-dog words.

    Well, to sum up - I'm "completely" biased, but that's true of whoever disagrees with us. I'm paranoid, which seems like a strange little unsupportable add-on word to make the rest of the vitriol sound better, and I'm a Zionist, which, as far as I'm concerned, is value-neutral in and of itself.

    But really, Mav, your vaunted principles are so in-point here. A slaughter of 400 civilians in a night? Shouldn't you be opining that all of Sri Lanka must be given to the LTTE to rule? After all, they did take care to blame Sri Lankan government forces -- hell, it might even be true!

    I don't much care what the label is, Mav. I'm usually characterized here as a liberal, and I'm comfortable with that. I'm also comfortable with "progressive," Whatever. I think of myself more as a moderate.

    It's likely I'd be out of place among your buddies who believe that progressive opinions must embrace the Palestinian cause, in a zero-sum calculation that vilifies Israel. That is the game in some quarters of the American Left.

    Similarly, the game in some quarters of the American Right is to claim that any American stance other than "Go get 'em tiger" (if you'll pardon the pun, given the topic of the current thread,) is an abandonment of our Israeli allies. Netanyahu is not Livni, and Livni is not Perez. While we're at it, none of them are Hitler. It does us all as much of a disservice to conflate various Israeli points of view from either the right or from the left.

    I'd like very much to hear what you make of this turn of events in Sri Lanka, Mav. I am certain you've read up on the Tamil Tigers, on the Sri Lankan government, and on what India thinks of it all... I am sure as well you read up on Georgia, Russia, and Abkhazia, and on the Chechen war.

    I feel I've been terrible about enabling this focus of yours on Israel in particular, since comparable incidents are constantly happening the world over, and for either of us to focus on this one tiny subset is simply ignorance.

    So let's hear your no-doubt long-considered and deeply researched opinion of the Tamil Tigers, the Sri Lankan government, and the "Holocaust" of 400 deaths in a night -- after all, a greater count than happened in a given day in the recent Gazan "Holocaust."

    PFnV
  10. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Still doesn't excuse them for not acting when it was clear what was happening. Inaction is as bad as ignoring. Clinton deserved ire but he doesn't deserve the sole ire for it.
  11. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    We'd be hearing plenty about it if Bush was in the white house, during the Bush years if a dog got hit by a car in Iraq Katie Curic would start crying and the NY Times would run a picture of the dog on the front page for six months.

    Whats going on over in Iraq anyway we haven't had many 'body counts' since Jug Ears was Coronated.

    GET OUT OF IRAQ
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    DEPORT AUNT ZUCCHINI
    DADDY OBAMA LOVED SEX

    THE PRESS HAS BEEN ORDERED NEVER TO TAKE A PICTURE 0F PRINCE BARACK FROM BEHIND
  12. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    Well the U.S. is the premier power broker in the U.N., at least it was at that time. Of course he doesn't deserve sole blame for it, but he's culpable nonetheless.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Dem or Republican...doesn't matter, does it? They're black - they die.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    What's your efin point?
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3

    Perhaps, just that if Rwanda had happened during the Bush administration some
    would have called Bush a racist for not doing anything.

    And we shouldn't forget the Sudan either...Had Bush tried to intervene without UN approval the left skewers Bush.
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,671
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0


    Harry...FOCUS!

    Sri Lanka.
    You might remember it as Ceylon.

    It's an island country off the southern coast of INDIA!...INDIA!
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  17. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    HE ISN'T THE ONLY ONE TO BLAME.

    Need it any clearer than that? :rolleyes:
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,230
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -3


    Why would expect ANYTHING from the UN????????????????:singing:


    Are y

    RU kidding, fine Clinton was as good as the UN....:rolleyes:
  19. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Did I say he was as good?

    Did I say that?

    NO!

    I said they were as much to blame as him. :rolleyes:

    Heaven forbid someone around here point out something that bursts bubbles. Heaven forbid someone place blame wherever else it belongs.


    Sorry, I forgot it's only bashing each others ideas and claims allowed here :rolleyes:
  20. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    FWIW, Madeline Albright says that their failure to act in Rwanda is her single biggest regret.

    Efin, what is the point of saying "yeah but the African Union failed to act too?" The U.S. had the ability to do something about it and failed. The fact that others failed to act also doesn't lessen that.
  21. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    why should the US have acted?
  22. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    Because they had the ability to and hold a seat on the Security council who's charged with stopping genocide whenever it occurs. They deliberately refused to call it "genocide" so that they wouldn't have to live up to their obligation.
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
  23. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I thought you were a non-interventionalist?
  24. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    so which genocides are acceptable to stop and which ones aren't?
  25. efin98

    efin98 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,090
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Two wrongs don't make a right. I believe that there should be some focus put on others who ignored their plight as much as Clinton and Albright(UN Ambassador) and Perry(Sec. of Defense).

    The UN had troops in place in the country, in fact their force saw 10 Belgian troops murdered before countries started to pull out of the UN force leaving the country to the genocidal maniacs. They could have demanded more help from other countries yet they did not, instead they feared what happened in Somalia the year before and pulled out.

    France and Great Britain had/have a stronger influence over events in Africa than the US and who also have the military might to do something as much as the US. Where were they? Why aren't John Major and François Mitterrand getting hung out to dry like Clinton? Hell the French were even supplying arms during the height of the slaughter going so far as to force the arms laden plane be released from UN custody.

    How about Belgium? Their own troops were being killed in the country as part of the UN peacekeeping force in place before the genocide started yet they didn't seek out the people responsible nor ask for help from the other countries- they just pulled out.
  26. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    No genocides are acceptable, is his a serious question or are you just trolling again?
  27. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    but which ones are worth putting US citizens in harms way in order to stop? was this a serious answer or are you just trying to be a dick?
  28. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    I don't see how you make this a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation, but obviously Clinton and co. don't deserve all of the blame. I don't think anyone has said that. BUt they do deserve some blame for not acting.

    Right, and this is why they deserve blame. The UN pulled out because the US put pressure on the rest of the UN to not refer to the situation as genocide, mostly for U.S domestic political considerations in the wake of Somalia.

    They do deserve blame. But they are nowhere near as powerful as the U.S. in Africa, the UN or anywhere else. It's not an all or nothing game, there's plenty of blame to go around. But this conversation started within the context of U.S. administrations and their responsibility, not U.S. v the rest of the world. The fact is though, that when you're the top dog you have a greater responsibility to act because you have a greater capability to do so. At least that's what I believe.

    Belgium does not have a seat on the security council and were pretty much the only ones doing anything about it. Of all the people involved, they are probably the least to blame. They simply couldn't sustain their presence in the region.
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  29. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,845
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +32 / 2 / -0

    The U.S. is a security council member. As such, they have a responsibility to act with the other members in stopping any and all conflicts categorized as genocide. If the U.S. stopped undermining the UN by pointing to its flaws so that they can rationalize acting unilaterally all the time, and actually attempted to improve it then the UN could make strides in being a multilateral peacekeeping force. Yes Americans would have had to go, but so would peacekeeping troops from other countries too. That's the price of being, you know, human beings. Much better to lose American lives saving others from genocide than invading other countries for strategic power purposes.
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
  30. tanked_as_usual

    tanked_as_usual Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    4,981
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    wildo hands out blame like no other........

    maybe the US made the decision that it wasn't worth risking US lives....I don't blame them at all.........sound like they made the right move given that 2 years later they looked like morons in mogadishu

    people sign up for the military to protect the interests of the US......not to solve every problem around the world......

    maybe you should have spent some time in the military......throwing flowers

Share This Page