Question mainly for Democrats (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 03:09:50 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Question mainly for Democrats (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is it hypocritical to support pulling out of Iraq but support going into Darfur?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Author Topic: Question mainly for Democrats  (Read 1920 times)
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« on: July 24, 2007, 08:09:44 PM »

We should also consider the different religious sects of the nation.  One of the main problems in Iraq is that the Sunni and Shiites hate each other.  Is there any conflict (besides the obvious genocide) that would cause an Iraq like situation?

The conflict in Darfur is ethnic, not religious; almost all of the locals are Sunni Muslims. Within Darfur, the majority of the population is "black African", but in most of Sudan, the majority of the population is "Arab-Egyptian".

A big part of the problem in Darfur, however, is the past weakness of the Sudanese government. The people committing genocide were originally radical pan-Arab "nationalists" who rebelled against the Sudanese government. In order to quell the rebellion, the government agreed to turn a blind eye to the genocide, and some factions within the government now support it.

I wouldn't say I know enough about Darfur to know if any intervention, unilateral or multilateral, would be workable in the long-run. However, it is clear to me that the problem with Iraq was not the fact that we invaded (which was ill-considered in the first place but not itself a mistake), but rather being unwilling to leave shortly thereafter, which allowed initial support from the locals for "their liberators" to degenerate into open hostility to "an occupying army".

Were Darfur an open-and-shut case, I think it could be successful, but I think the same of Iraq. Therefore, it is not necessarily hypocritical to say that we should withdraw from Iraq now and invade Darfur. This is the argument many Democrats who initially supported the Iraq War, such as Hillary Clinton, have been trying to make. Unfortunately for them, while Iraq could have been successful if handled properly, the pre-war plans provided to Congress were clearly delusional. Any Senator or Congressman who supported the Iraq invasion either didn't bother to notice this (in which case I am disinclined to trust their judgment) or chose to ignore it in favor of voting for a war which was at the time popular with the public (in which case I definitely don't trust their judgment).

For now, I'm certainly an opponent of unilateral intervention and at least not an advocate of multilateral intervention.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2007, 09:13:22 PM »

Holding two positions in itself is never hypocritical; the hypocrisy arises from the reasons why you hold the two positions.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he doesn't think the US should be the world's policeman but then supports invading Darfur to stop the genocide, then yes, it would be hypocritical.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he thinks that that particular war is a mess that the US should remove itself from, and if that person did not think that a similar situation would arise if the US went into Darfur, then no, it would not be hypocritical.

Thank you for being much more succinct about what I was trying to say.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 15 queries.