SkyPiggie 0 #1 July 20, 2007 News: Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there. "Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now—where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife—which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said... http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_article=1&image=large So, Obama would prefer that genocide continue in the Sudan, Congo and Iraq, rather than risk the life a single U.S. soldier to intercede. I wonder what that philosophy would make the world look like with Obama as President, where tyranical despots don't have to fear anyone stopping them from committing their heinous acts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 July 20, 2007 QuoteSo, Obama would prefer that genocide continue in the Sudan, Congo and Iraq, rather than risk the life a single U.S. soldier to intercede. Seems more like he noticed that US policy confirms that. We're not preventing it in Sudan and Congo, and hardly preventing it in Iraq, at a considerable cost in soldier lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #3 July 20, 2007 QuoteI wonder what that philosophy would make the world look like, where tyranical despots don't have to fear anyone stopping them from committing their heinous acts? "anyone" doesn't necessarily equal United States Armed Forces. "USA as world policeman" is not the answer to all of the world's problems. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #4 July 20, 2007 I think it was easier for the Dems to attack the Iraq policy when they were out of power. Now that they control Congress, it seems to be a lose/lose proposition for them. "So, do you think we should pull out of Iraq, effectively making the lives lost and billions spent irrelevant, as well as contributing to major instability in the Middle East?" The Reps got us into this mess, but now that the Dems control the legislature, the onus is on them. Not an enviable position. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #5 July 20, 2007 >So, Obama would prefer that genocide continue in the Sudan, Congo >and Iraq, rather than risk the life a single U.S. soldier to intercede. That's as valid as saying you favor genocide, and would rather the genocide continue in the Sudan and the Congo rather than risk your life to go down and try to stop it. (Needless to say, I don't really think you favor genocide any more than BO does.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #6 July 20, 2007 Quote"USA as world policeman" is not the answer to all of the world's problems. They're the only ones with the will and might to do it. No one else has the means to step forward and do it. Ah, but many spoiled Americans don't even possess the will to help others any more. The world prefers to sit back in their easy chairs in front of the TV, and let millions of people be slaughtered. As long as it's not them, everything is okay! So what's good on TV tonight? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #7 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote"USA as world policeman" is not the answer to all of the world's problems. They're the only ones with the will and might to do it. No one else has the means to step forward and do it. Ah, but many spoiled Americans don't even possess the will to help others any more. The world prefers to sit back in their easy chairs in front of the TV, and let millions of people be slaughtered. As long as it's not them, everything is okay! So what's good on TV tonight? That's a contemptible thing to say. Other nations won't even pay their share of such activities and condemn the USA whenever it intervenes no matter what. EVERY time you get involved there's usually some enemy on the other side you're stopping. You also get idiotic situations like helping Albanian Muslims annex a piece of Serbia and the consequences as the 4th estate drives us all to institutional stupidity. Despite actually intervening in some places you STILL get people bitching. It's a thankless task where even humanitarian intervention can fuels paranoid local hatred and despite real efforts people like YOU still condemn those who foot the bill with lives and treasure as solipsistic couch potatoes. Obama is saying it's not OK to trade US lives for foreign ones even if the ratio looks good, and that the USA has no obligation to do this around the world. It's a simple message, it's not an invalid point. People have a right to agree or disagree. Saying the US is the only country who can intervene anywhere is also rank bullshit. We certainly shouldn't do this to silence critics of US inaction, if they want to be boy scouts let them join the boy scouts. Action should align with geopolitical interests as well as humanitarian ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 20, 2007 QuoteThe world prefers to sit back in their easy chairs in front of the TV, and let millions of people be slaughtered. As long as it's not them, everything is okay! revise that to so long as it's not US soldiers, everything is as good as we can make it. I think you need to come up with a consistent stance here. The US by and large does not stop genocide, just as the UN does not. In Iraq it's a weak explanation for the US presence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #9 July 20, 2007 Quote Seems more like he noticed that US policy confirms that. We're not preventing it in Sudan and Congo, and hardly preventing it in Iraq, at a considerable cost in soldier lives. Easy solution; If the Sudan & Congo announced they had oil, the Dubya administration would have troops in the in the blink of an eye. "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 July 20, 2007 Sudan does have oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #11 July 20, 2007 QuoteSudan does have oil. Let's roll! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #12 July 20, 2007 >Ah, but many spoiled Americans don't even possess the will >to help others any more. The US gives tens of billions to other countries in the form of reconstruction aid, humanitarian assistance, relief supplies etc. If you mean "military action" when you say "help" - well, sometimes it's better to let other countries fight their own wars and kill tens of thousands, rather than step in and do their killing for them. It's regrettable when someone else kills tens of thousands of innocent people, but it's a much bigger deal to me when WE kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #13 July 20, 2007 'favoring genocide'? A bit of a stretch isn't it from what he actually said....? I would say in the same argument that GWB 'favors' killing US soldiers.... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #14 July 20, 2007 QuoteQuote"USA as world policeman" is not the answer to all of the world's problems. They're the only ones with the will and might to do it. No one else has the means to step forward and do it. Ah, but many spoiled Americans don't even possess the will to help others any more. The world prefers to sit back in their easy chairs in front of the TV, and let millions of people be slaughtered. As long as it's not them, everything is okay! So what's good on TV tonight? Bullshit. For decades we've generously given humanitarian aid all over the world and it seems to have generated only contempt. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #15 July 21, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote"USA as world policeman" is not the answer to all of the world's problems. They're the only ones with the will and might to do it. No one else has the means to step forward and do it. Ah, but many spoiled Americans don't even possess the will to help others any more. The world prefers to sit back in their easy chairs in front of the TV, and let millions of people be slaughtered. As long as it's not them, everything is okay! So what's good on TV tonight? Bullshit. For decades we've generously given humanitarian aid all over the world and it seems to have generated only contempt. Walt Partially correct. For generations the US has given generous humanitarian aid and strongly tied it the the US's geopolitical interests, which are not always aligned with those of the recipient. And the contempt generally is associated with US bullying. It may surprise you, but much of the rest of the world sees, for exampkem the US invasion of Iraq as a clear case of bullying in the US's self interest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
