Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
7. If we are arming these, perhaps/perhaps not, freedom fighters, directly or indirectly, why should
Thu Jan 31, 2013, 03:19 PM
Jan 2013

the local powers that be destabilize themselves, politically and economically, to go get them and put an end to this stuff? If that's how politics is done in their countries and we are messing with that for our own reasons, how can we expect the indigenous leadership to do anything about it? Even if they could "succeed" perhaps there's a price for that that they choose not to pay.

I think a basic driver to how we are "the policemen of the world" is the fact that we are arming the world. Maybe Russ Feingold is a realist about this, hence, selective support for drones, but I'd bet also that his position is against our "Fast and Furious" assault weapons and other arms' markets around the world.

"engagement"? Does the last paragraph in this excerpt include the possibility of drones ifnecessary? patrice Jan 2013 #1
When I searched just now for his position on the use of armed drones... ellisonz Jan 2013 #3
If we are arming these, perhaps/perhaps not, freedom fighters, directly or indirectly, why should patrice Jan 2013 #7
US involvement in Mali has been limited to... ellisonz Jan 2013 #9
Peace is not served by people being attacked and killed, even if we are just the innocent bystanders patrice Jan 2013 #19
Have you followed what has gone on in Mali? ellisonz Jan 2013 #21
Thanks for the info. I bet that "business" model is not that uncommon & pretty marketable outside of patrice Jan 2013 #28
The "sovereign host country" has requested this intervention... ellisonz Jan 2013 #31
Wow. This from Russ Feingold. nick of time Jan 2013 #2
sigh Puzzledtraveller Jan 2013 #4
No, the U.S. does not need greater engagement in Africa. RILib Jan 2013 #5
Gaddafi had flooded Africa with weapons and trained militants for decades! ellisonz Jan 2013 #6
Remembering what looked recently an awful lot like test-marketing to me: Kony 2012. nt patrice Jan 2013 #8
wasn't it our involvement that caused the problem in the first place Fight2Win Jan 2013 #10
No. ellisonz Jan 2013 #11
ok Fight2Win Jan 2013 #20
They defected after they were encircled with no promise of relief. ellisonz Jan 2013 #22
DU already threw Feingold under the bus on Uganda in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Robb Jan 2013 #12
"We would be wise to listen." ellisonz Jan 2013 #15
dear Russ, don your uniform, pack yer bags, and drag your own butt over there to fight ok? nt msongs Jan 2013 #13
wrong on this one. really, really wrong. KG Jan 2013 #14
And, in addition, on this one he's really wrong hooverville29 Jan 2013 #30
HELL NO! Taverner Jan 2013 #16
We DO use and GET USED in return. Is that inevitable, or is that more obsolete paradigm stuff patrice Jan 2013 #25
Yes and it is a failed approach Taverner Jan 2013 #26
I think there is GREAT potential to get used if we're the "policemen of the world" & then there are patrice Jan 2013 #29
Getting involved in civil wars has worked so well in....Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan,...... Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #17
he isn't talking about military engagement Enrique Jan 2013 #18
He's certainly not ruling it out completely... ellisonz Jan 2013 #24
IF this MUST happen i.e. IF it's possibly the least death & destruction of ALL scenarios??? I don't patrice Jan 2013 #23
We've made some huge blunders in foreign policy... EastKYLiberal Jan 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Russ Feingold: Conflict i...»Reply #7