SUNAPEE, N.H. - 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. Right or wrong?
2007-07-19 17:20:26 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Right or wrong, we went into Iraq and removed Saddam. Right or wrong, that created an unstable situation in Iraq. We can't just leave and tell the Iraqi people sorry, we 've changed out mind now that it's become extraordinarily difficult. We have a responsibity to try to stabalize Iraq before we withdraw.
So yes, preventing genocide is a good reason to stay in given that our acts started the chain of events.
But more than that, it's probably in our best interest to stay until we can stabilize the country for other reasons. Everyone seems to discount the idea that attempting to dismantle Al Qaeda (sp) in Iraq will help prevent further attacks in the US. But--if the Al Qaeda network is disrupted, it does make further attacks here more difficult. And like it or not, there are a large number or extremists who have made it their stated goal to kill as many Americans as they can.
Can stabalizing Iraq even be accomplished? That's unclear, and if it can, it'd probably take far longer than we, the American Public have patience for. Im guessing we cut and run. But I really believe that cutting and running now will cause both us and the Iraqi people more problems in the future, and will just embolden the extremists.
In the interest of full disclosure--my husband is stationed in Iraq right now, and its a huge sacrifice. But we believe its a necessary one.
2007-07-19 18:15:15 · answer #1 · answered by Merissa F 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is a good reason even though we created the potentiality by destabilizing the country in the first place. My question to you is should we stay even with this good reason if it ends up destabilizing our own country as well? We have increasing discontent from Americans who oppose the war as well as huge cost that we can barely afford. Does anyone know how much money we have borrowed to finance this war? How many billions of dollars a month are we paying and is the price decreasing or increasing?
As justifications go I think this is a good one but if I have to choose between the future of the United States or Iraq I will choose the United States.
2007-07-20 00:39:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'll counter your question with my own question: "why should a potential genocide be more compelling than an actual one?" since there have been other genocides, darfur being just one of many others, why should iraq garner more importance than any of the actual cases of genocide which have been/are happening? there is no logical argument which can be mounted to defend the use of our military for that purpose. we are not the u.n. we are not the single handed peacekeepers. and, (apologies to phil ochs) we are NOT the cops of the world!
2007-07-20 00:52:05 · answer #3 · answered by tuxey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the legislature forces the military into surrender, they will blame Bush for withdrawing improperly.
Whatever the outcome, he will be blamed. He planned improperly, or he did not follow his directions from congress correctly.
The Vietnam was was lost because it was directed from the white house. The Iraqi war will be lost because it was directed from congress.
The military should be free to fight the war and the politicians should fight for the peace. There will be no peace in Iraq until the Iraqi government gets their people on the same page. They may all wind up under the same headstone if they do not do their part.
2007-07-20 00:26:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
If preventing or stopping genocide was our national perrogative, then we would have troops deployed in the other areas of senseless violence that are going on in the World at present. Genocide is excuse No. ___ that the Bush Administration gives to try and appeal to our sense of humanity. Meanwhile he extraordinarily renders foreign nationals into secret prisons. Obama works for me.
2007-07-20 00:36:00 · answer #5 · answered by scottyurb 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes - Absolutely - Positively - For Sure and did I mention that staying in Iraq to prevent genocide is definitely a good enough reason?
We cannot reneg on yet another commitment to a country. Think of the people who risked everything to vote in a free and democratic election and proudly displayed their inked thumbs in opposition to the militants.
Obviously, Obama apparently doesn't have any relatives in Iraq.
2007-07-20 00:29:37 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Does Obama support us protecting a different country from Genocide where the government has made clear they don't want our help and we have no national interest, such as say Sudan?
To know the truth about the War on Terror: see my blog:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--;_ylt=AiNXZokI1G6zowgYXNnJS9m0AOJ3?cq=1
No politics, Just the groundtruth from a combat veteran that has been to both battlefields.
2007-07-20 00:33:33 · answer #7 · answered by John T 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Obama was probably asked for his response to all the republicans in the all-nighter claiming that leaving Iraq now would turn it into another Darfur.
2007-07-20 00:55:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right but deliberately myopic. In addition to genocide, more unpleasantries would be bound to follow. Note how everybody's talking about what shouldn't be done, but nobody's addressing what should be. And don't ask me what that is!
2007-07-20 00:31:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is a potential Genocide the new "Weapons of Mass destruction"?
2007-07-20 00:28:16 · answer #10 · answered by huasquar 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋