READ this excerpt from AP:
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.
"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.
2007-07-20 11:53:49 · 24 answers · asked by Not so looney afterall 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree with Obama. Not only that, but if Bush & Co. are really so concerned about human rights abuses committed in other countries, then why didn't they invade North Korea, as well? Oh, that's right! There are no oil reserves there!
2007-07-20 11:57:59 · answer #1 · answered by tangerine 7 · 13⤊ 6⤋
He's half right. Our justifications for the war were flat wrong. There were much worse despots than Saddam and some (Lil' Kim) already have (and flaunt) WMDs. There are much worse human rights violations than Iraq also. Any way you slice it, the rational of a military solution to a humanitarian problem doesn't work.
All that being said. Preventing genocide IS a good enough reason to keep troops there (if that's what's currently preventing it). Leaving the troops in indefinitely leads to disaster. Pulling them out tomorrow also leads to disaster.
Democratic hopefuls say they'll pull the troops out because that's what their voters want to hear. Republican hopefuls haven't offered any solution aside from 'stay the course' which is clearly not working after more than four years.
No candidate from either party has come up with anything other than a knee-jerk solution.
I'm ready for my thumbs-down now.
2007-07-20 12:05:06 · answer #2 · answered by Fretless 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Use of military force MUST be the last resort and used only when there is a true and unquestionable threat to the United States. We must accept the word of our government when they tell us there is a need to go to war. How, after the past five years will we ever be able to believe war is the only alternative? We blame Bush for this, and in fact it has been proven time and time again he and Cheney lied to us, but in reality congress has to approve going to war. Congress did approve; they too however were lied to (sound familiar?) but the lie only worked because too many congressmen and senators voted on the word of the president. They did not read the intelligence reports or take time to study the situation. Now many of them are admitting we should not be there and we need to get out. They want to blame Bush but fail to acknowledge they voted for the war. Some do admit they voted for war but were mislead by Bush. Had they studied the situation and read the intelligence reports they probably would have voted differently. They all (the senate, congress and the White House) got us into this mess. We need to get out but we are only making it worse with the daily hue and cry by the media and politicians demanding we leave Iraq. We need to get out but we do not need to advertise when or how or under what conditions. Obama is correct; and by the way he was one of the ones who did read the intelligence reports and voted against the invasion!
2007-07-20 13:19:50 · answer #3 · answered by privateeye4U 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Darfur isn't sitting on oil reserves and is not (that we know of) harboring terrorists. To deal with the mess that is Iraq, we have to address our primary interest in the region and stop pretending there was anything "liberating" about the reasons we invaded that country.
I am not saying that Obama wasn't correct about admitting we can't control all of the misery and genocide in the world with US troops. I am saying that we did NOT go to Iraq to stop genocide. He is mixing apples and oranges.
2007-07-20 13:05:18 · answer #4 · answered by Buffy Summers 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Washington helped develop the government. Barack Obama is helping to destroy it.
2016-05-18 22:23:10 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely.
It's funny that the government picks out who they think they should help for certain reasons, but those same reasons are not appropriate for other countries.
Simply put, the government only care about other countries when there is money or land involved. Iraq has oil, Darfur doesn't. To them, people are just collateral damage.
2007-07-20 12:07:05 · answer #6 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, he doesn't have a good point. This is his argument: humanitarian reasons weren't enough justification to go into Iraq because other countries have humanitarian crises, too, and we don't have the ability to go everywhere. So, what is he saying - that we shouldn't help anyone because we can't help everyone?
To compare his argument to domestic crimes, Obama is saying that if he knew there were terrible crimes being committed by a homicidal maniac, he wouldn't interfere. He either wouldn't interfere because it's none of his business or because he can't fix every similar crime.
That's ridiculous. It's a bad argument and I think it's a dangerous precedent to set. And by his own admission, genocides aren't important enough to warrant getting involved. Tell that to five million Jews who perished in the Holocaust. Tell that to the millions of people who died during Stalin's purges or Mao's culture war or in Sudan or in North Korea. I'm not saying we can help everyone, either, but if there is EVER a reason to get involved in another country, it's because of a genocide! JESUS CHRIST. I will never vote for this guy.
2007-07-20 12:03:34 · answer #7 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Yes, he does have a good point. If Iraqis are not willing to stop killing other Iraqis, more USA troops will not solve that. More Americans dead will not solve that.
As for humanitarian aid, read this,
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
he Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.
Iraq is about oil and money, oil and money.
2007-07-20 12:04:48 · answer #8 · answered by jack09 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
I agree with fretlless, but I do believe that the senator has a very smart point that is being rejected by not very smart people who just approach things with their minds already made up without looking at the issues at hand
2007-07-20 12:11:18 · answer #9 · answered by ericktravel 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Nexus, you missed the whole point. He's not saying sending troops to Africa would be a good move. He plainly said he doesn't think it would be a good idea. He's saying that the justification for keeping troops in Iraq for so long is wearing thin, and I happen to agree.
2007-07-20 12:03:53 · answer #10 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
The funny thing is, all you will hear of this statement on Fox News is that Obama wants a genocide to happen in Iraq.
Watch O'Reilly and Hannity tonight. They are going to be absolutely unhinged by it and won't even bother to play the entire quote.
2007-07-20 12:00:03 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋