Look out world!
If Barack Obama becomes the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, preventing or halting a genocide would not be a good enough reason for the deployment of U.S. troops. He would not use our military to come to the aid of people suffering unspeakable horrors.
Specifically, atrocities as extreme as genocide would not prompt a President Obama to keep U.S. troops in Iraq.
While he would try to assist via diplomatic efforts, he's saying that he would basically stand idly by while a disaster with an enormous human toll played out.
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.
Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq.
"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."
The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.
"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.
Potential genocide?
No problem.
Obama has no problem with saying that we should bail out of Iraq and leave the innocents to fend for themselves, even if it means a death sentence for them.
Obama's theory is that if we can't help everywhere, then we shouldn't help anywhere.
Obama wants U.S. troops out of Iraq so badly that he'd be willing to let innocent people of Iraq become victims of genocide. He could order a troop withdrawal with a clear conscience even if it meant ushering in a large-scale humanitarian disaster.
That's pretty extreme. Obama certainly isn't moderate on this issue at all.
I have a feeling that this isn't going to go over too well with Obama cheerleader captain Oprah. I think she's anti-genocide, but I could be wrong.
2 comments:
This quote seems to be missing from your story:
"When you have civil conflict like this, military efforts and protective forces can play an important role, especially if they're under an international mandate as opposed to simply a U.S. mandate. But you can't solve the underlying problem at the end of a barrel of a gun," he said. "There's got to be a deliberate and constant diplomatic effort to get the various factions to recognize that they are better off arriving at a peaceful resolution of their conflicts."
No one is pro-genocide, no matter how you and Jessica McBride try to twist it.
Template, I clearly stated in my post that Obama said that he would try to assist via diplomatic efforts. Did you miss that part?
And I completely disagree with you on the "No one is pro-genocide" thing. Genocide has been a policy of tyrants throughout history. Furthermore, the people who look away and let genocide occur must bear some responsibility. I consider the impotent United Nations to be pro-genocide.
It's just like when Dem candidates say that no one is pro-abortion. Frankly, that's BS. People are rabidly pro-abortion.
Someone's twisting here, but it's not me.
Post a Comment