PDA

View Full Version : Antiwar.com blasts Clooney


echo_bravo
05-12-2006, 07:12 PM
by Charley Reese
To George Clooney and the other Americans who demonstrated and demanded that the U.S. intervene in the Darfur region of Sudan, I have a simple and clear message: Buy yourself a gun and plenty of ammunition, and go intervene yourself.

In the 1930s, a tougher breed of Americans didn't just demonstrate. They formed the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, went to Spain, and fought in the Spanish Civil War. A famous movie star, Errol Flynn, risked his life and suffered wounds carrying money through enemy lines to the loyalist forces. Of course, Flynn was no sissy. Before becoming an actor, he was a deep-water sailor and smuggler and barroom brawler par excellence. He was a real man, not an image of a man.

Today's liberals are made of softer stuff. They don't want to fight or get shot at. They are too wealthy and live too comfortable a life. They want some poor American kid making $1,200 a month to go to the African desert and get killed.

It's a heck of a note when rich people can salve their conscience by sending poor kids to fight and die instead of going themselves. Granted, Clooney would have to do without his personal assistant, script, air-conditioned trailer, and stunt people, but who knows, he might find real combat exhilarating.

The fighting in Darfur is not a conflict of good guy versus bad guy. It is bad guy versus bad guy. Both sides are armed. Both sides have committed atrocities. Both sides show as much sympathy and mercy for the other as a rattlesnake does for a mouse.

It is not a conflict of white versus black. Both sides are black. It is not a Muslim-versus-Christian conflict. Both sides are Muslim. It might have even started the way the old range wars started in Wyoming in the 19th century. One side is nomadic herdsmen; the other side is farmers. When farmers try to keep herds from grass and water, there is sure to be gunfire, whether in Sudan or in 19th-century Wyoming.

The conflict is, most of all, none of our business. It does not affect the United States one iota. If it goes on for 10 years, it will not affect the United States. If it is resolved tomorrow, it will not affect the United States. We have no strategic or national interests whatsoever in Sudan. If the people in Sudan wish to kill each other, that is their business, not ours.

It is past time for the American people to demand that Congress and the president stop sending American youth to die in other people's wars. The idea of using American youth as a hypocritical humanitarian police force (hypocritical because liberals are always selective in choosing their crises) is both obscene and unconstitutional. These young men and women join the armed forces to defend America, not to inject themselves into other people's local quarrels.

If George Bush sends American military forces to Sudan, Osama bin Laden will be so elated he'll dance a jig. He's already warned that Western intervention in Sudan would be another attack against Islam. Our forces would find themselves in yet another hornet's nest. And what are they going to do? Pick one side and shoot the other? Or shoot people on both sides? Whatever, our intervention will increase the human misery, not make it better.

The casualty statistics you keep hearing are unreliable, though I don't doubt they are high. As for genocide, that word has been defined so loosely you could be charged with it for shooting a burglar. We did nothing when Stalin and Mao were slaughtering millions; we did nothing when Pol Pot murdered a third to a half of the Cambodian population. We did nothing when the Ibos were wiped out in the Nigeria Civil War. What's happening in Sudan is Little League compared with all the mass murders we've ignored.

Americans ought to remember Mogadishu. The people in western Sudan are so poor, they'll kill you for your boots. But a barefooted poor man with a gun is just as lethal as a college-educated American boy. There are large pockets of human misery all over the world, and we definitely are not the world's policeman. Why American liberals have decided to get excited about Darfur, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the rebel faction has hired a public-relations firm.

At any rate, let those itching to intervene go themselves and put their bodies on the line. They have no right whatsoever to deprive an American mother of her son just so they can feel good about themselves at their next cocktail party.

These pseudo-humanitarians are enough to make you throw up.
__________________________________________________ _______

wow
:eek: :eek: :eek:

The Heart Collector
05-12-2006, 09:42 PM
*sigh*

Vong
05-13-2006, 02:02 AM
The internet is both a gift and a curse. It provides millions with information at the ready, but it also breeds asshats like these who think that just because they have a website and alot of free time and "ideas", that they can say whatever the hell they want.

This idiot thinks that the only way for a person to truly understand anything is to rough yourself up or fight in a war. How narrow and simple minded. At least George Clooney is doing something to create awareness for Sudan. He's doing more than politicians would do. Oh, but who cares right? Peacekeeping is for chumps and liberals. We shouldn't bother with helping others if it doens't affect us.

The man also has no idea what peacekeeping means or what it truly means to be a humanitarian. Most of this is just one long and stupid rant about why he thinks the American liberals are to blame for soldiers dying over sees.

Americans ought to remember Mogadishu. The people in western Sudan are so poor, they'll kill you for your boots.

I truly laughed for 2 minutes on this comment. It's amazing how people can sit here casually and comfortably in their safe homes commenting on shit going down in less privledged nations and being so insensitive towards these people.

It's like he's putting the Western world on a pedestal that is above all the world. That countries, like the US, shouldn't bother with peacekeeping beacuse it will only end up like another Somalia. That it would be too risky for our soldiers to be sent over to even attempt a peaceful outcome.

Insensitive and uneducated clowns like this shouldn't deserve internet space.

The Postmaster General
05-13-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by Vong
This idiot thinks that the only way for a person to truly understand anything is to rough yourself up or fight in a war. How narrow and simple minded. At least George Clooney is doing something to create awareness for Sudan. He's doing more than politicians would do. Oh, but who cares right? Peacekeeping is for chumps and liberals. We shouldn't bother with helping others if it doens't affect us.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting peace. I think it is cool we have the capabilities as to allow us to use free time to share ideas that we agree upon, and even those which challenge our current thoughts.

The internet is both a gift and a curse. It provides millions with information at the ready, but it also breeds asshats like these who think that just because they have a website and alot of free time and "ideas", that they can say whatever the hell they want.

I disagree for the above mentioned reason as to why I'm able to agree with you.

Lynn7
05-13-2006, 08:57 AM
I had a much different reaction. I really thought the guy made some good points. If people complain about Iraq, then getting involved in the Sudan would be much worse. Actually, in thinking about what the guy said, the reason we are involved in Iraq today started when we went to help Kuwait in the first Gulf WAr. If we had not gotten involved in that then we wouldn't have been in the situation where we were in Iraq holding them to sanctions etc and then we would n't have had the situation where Hussein started thumbing his nose as us and we had to take action.

What I quesiton is when do we get involved in other countries' horror shows? We can't allow a man like Hitler to come to power again and yet I don't think the Americans have the heart for war so we are in a dilemma.

Brando @$$ Fat
05-13-2006, 07:59 PM
Sometimes if you want peace, you have to pwn some ass.

outsyder
05-14-2006, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Vong
I truly laughed for 2 minutes on this comment. It's amazing how people can sit here casually and comfortably in their safe homes commenting on shit going down in less privledged nations and being so insensitive towards these people.

It's like he's putting the Western world on a pedestal that is above all the world. That countries, like the US, shouldn't bother with peacekeeping beacuse it will only end up like another Somalia. That it would be too risky for our soldiers to be sent over to even attempt a peaceful outcome.

Insensitive and uneducated clowns like this shouldn't deserve internet space.


Yes, because when somebody is poor, they automatically deserve the benefit of any doubt.

Still doesn't change the fact that the UN mission in Somalia was a MASSIVE failure.

Besides, I didn't think you liked Western nations interfering with other countries.


As for me, I'm all for peace commitment in Sudan, by massive military presence if necessary. After Rwanda, many countries talked about how sorry they were for not acting in time and how they'd pay better attention in the future. Well, now's the chance to make good on that.

bigred760
05-14-2006, 03:22 PM
I think this guy's going about it the wrong way: if it doesn't affect us, we shouldn't intervene? What the hell is that? If you saw somebody on fire, would you not want to help him/her? Or is it: "well, I'm not on fire, so I'm not going to worry about it"?

So instead, he thinks that the only reason George Clooney doesn't go out and fight himself is because he's an actor and makes millions of dollars. Well, Clooney went over there to see first hand what's going on and has asked for help.

Yes, Darfur is a case of bad guy vs. bad guy, assholes vs. assholes, but it's people who couldn't care less about who wins who are suffering and dying needlessly. Clooney and others actually give a damn and hate seeing people live like that.

I think this guy should take some of his own advice and not worry about what other people are doing.

Vong
05-14-2006, 07:36 PM
Still doesn't change the fact that the UN mission in Somalia was a MASSIVE failure.

The Somalia crisis began as a Chapter 6 mission. This meant that all UN soldiers cannot fire unless upon. It also restricts what they can bring into the country (ie. wepaons, vehicles, artillery, peacekeepers). Chapter 6 is basically the level known directly as "peacekeeping". It was increased to Chapter 7 when things became more violent. Chapter 7 increases the level of security, weapons, etc. to the peacekeepers effectively making them soldiers. Chapter 7 has only been used in the Korean War, Somalia and the Gulf War.

Once Chapter 7 was in introduced, the UN still had troubles with the natives and maintaing the peace. The UN then invited the US to help with the mission. They would fight under the American flag, but would fall under UN jurisdiction and orders. It was shortly after the US came that the Mogadishu assault and "Black Hawk Down" started. If anything, the real cause for the outburst in Somalia was Mohamed Farrah Aidid. On countless occasions his faction prevented many UN aid missions. When the UN retaliated and won, it only made Aidid's men angrier. They did not like the international communities intervention from the start, and took it upon themselves to make the UN and US's job alot harder.

The missions wasn't a msasive failure. Both the UN and US did what they could in order to maintain peace and ensure the natives food, water and security. They underestimated the force of the native soldiers. Guerilla warfare has always been a pain in ass in many conflicts; Rwanda, Uganda, Somalia, the Gulf War. They all involved guerilla tactics that make operations extremely difficult to predict and solve.

I thought I should post this because I am sick and tired of people claiming that the UN is to blame for all tragedies and crises in its previous missions when there are so many factors involved that caused them all to occur. People need to get their facts straight before they pass judgment on the organization that at least tries to do its best in creating a peaceful and communicable world.

Besides, I didn't think you liked Western nations interfering with other countries.

Quite the contrary, I believe every country should be aided when it calls for aid. The aforementioned missions by the UN were decided and discussed by the international community and steps were done to carry them out. Despite how badly some of them turned out, that is the best way in which to aid other countries. As long as there is consent, it's all good.

And yes, I realize this makes things difficult since leaders of many wartorn nations won't accept help either due to their beliefs in their borders, or if they are the ones carrying out the problem at hand. In cases like these, it isn't up to any individual country (*cough* America *cough*) to take it upon themselves to invade another country souly on their own whim and desire to. To many countries, their soveriengty and borders are sacrosanct. It isn't anyones right to take that away from them regardless of what has happened. Things must be done peacefully with total committment on both sides in order to get anything done.

Vong
05-14-2006, 10:59 PM
In related news, Romeo Dallaire believes that Canada can and should send troops to Darfur to help maintain the recently signed peace agreement.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060514/qp_dallaire060514/20060514?hub=TopStories

echo_bravo
05-15-2006, 06:45 PM
The missions wasn't a msasive failure.

Holy hell yes it was.

I am all for sending aid to Sudan. I am just not for deploying a large number of OUR troops to a bloody civil war of rebel militias.

MacReady
05-15-2006, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by echo_bravo
Holy hell yes it was.

I am all for sending aid to Sudan. I am just not for deploying a large number of OUR troops to a bloody civil war of rebel militias.

That's what they did in Rwanda. It didn't turn out very well.

In fact, Bin Laden himself went as far as to say that he was siding with the genocidal arabs on this one and that his men should assist them. (My newslink source is a little screwy, but I can post it if you want).

I remember you stating some crap about liberals being soft on terror, so I'm curious to see how you respond to this.

Vong
05-15-2006, 10:42 PM
Holy hell yes it was.

If it failed, it wasn't the UN's fault (totally). That is what I'm getting at here.

outsyder
05-16-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Vong
If it failed, it wasn't the UN's fault (totally). That is what I'm getting at here.


Nobody was blaming the UN.

Vong
05-16-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by outsyder
Still doesn't change the fact that the UN mission in Somalia was a MASSIVE failure.

I was lead to believe that you were blaming the UN in this statement.

outsyder
05-16-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Vong
I was lead to believe that you were blaming the UN in this statement.


It was a UN Mission. It was a failure. But it wasn't their fault.

Brando @$$ Fat
05-16-2006, 10:41 PM
It wasn't an entire failure, some of the Somalian warlords were killed I believe.

littleupstart
05-17-2006, 12:01 AM
The thing that scares me so much about comments like this is the whole "us and them" mentality of it.

what happens in sudan doesn't affect america one iota... WHAT THE FUCK.

Just because there's some imaginary line political demarcation saying that there is a difference between the us and sudan, doesn't mean that people there are worth any less than people in america, or are less worthy of concern.

So, if George Clooney wants to talk about the injustices of the world, let him do it. At the very least, he will be making a few more people aware of a global problem... mainly people who wouldn't have known otherwise (ie people who think 'the news' involves brittney spears having a kid)