Obama: Don't Stay in Iraq Over Genocide

You will be sure come election time...

I haven't seen anyone trying to dig up dirt on Obama... I think they've found it too easy with Clinton's husband and Edwards' stylist. Both pretty lame, in my opinion.

Ahh, you haven't been watching FOX news. If you want to see something that will likely get your blood boiling check out these videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqU0D4HmDP4

Fox Accuses Obama of attending Madrassa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRRywAlop4Q

The Truth about the Madrassa Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhWaiULqkp4

Also check out a little bit I wrote on the high crimes committed by this administration

http://pjchester.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/14/835968-broken-oaths-and-high-crimes?mode=edit

enjoy!

I leave Faux news for diots to watch. no offence intended !

I've seen both videos before - doesn't look like an organized attempt to me - looks like a reporter thinking he had a hot story and subsequently getting taken to task.

Regarding the high crimes - weren't we talking about Obama, not Bush?

Does every politics article have to devolve back to Bush-bashing? Puhhleezze.

bmvaughn, I'm with you.

Unfortunately both sides have people who believe that the way to win hearts and minds is to speak louder and more often than the other side, pre-emptively dropping bombs everywhere or unilaterally invading any conversation territory and changing the subject, without regard to collateral damage and without an understanding that such action ends up breeding more enemies rather than allies.

This is so true !<strong> Vas

I agree 100%

So so true !

poppycock !

Selfish!

I'm sure if you ask the average Iraqi who just wants to live their life in peace, they'd rather we fight them over there too, except that their there is America.

But besides the important question of whether we have the right to do this to the Iraqi people, the point of disagreement many of us have is whether we are fighting them over there or are recruiting and training them over there to one day fight us over here.

because then you can disconnect yourself from the conflict and not have to personally deal with the actions your politicians make on your behalf.

I'd say you're both right :)

ok ill call you selfish !

hey forgive me if im wrong but it's not you doing the fighting !

Sorry I miss read your point here Bodhi1

How are you misreading it barry? Bodhi1 is drawing a comparison between what Tom Downey said and what Barack Obama said and then what eventually occurred in The Killing Fields.

How are you reading it?

So, Bodhi, I take it you agree that we should

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

and also that we should be

deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done.

I thought I'd correct your cherry picking Obama's words.

I don't mean to step on toes (but I have big feet and don't dance well) and I know you posed the question to Bodhi1, but I'd say yes to both of those, personally :)

Then I take back my calling you "selfish" in #5.1, even though you asked me to. :)

bmvaughn. This is how I read it. If the American people want the troops to remain in Iraq and be the meat in the sandwich of a factional war between Sunnis Shiites and other insurgents well so be it. My pulse tells me they don't and the democracy experiment has been-an abject failure. Saddam's out of power that should be good enough for you guys.
Unless of course you want to breed a lot of orphans who when they grow up might be incline to commit terrorist acts...

So, Bodhi, I take it you agree that we should

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

and also that we should be

deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done.

I don't see this as a "if this, then this" situation. We brought the war to Iraq. It is in our interest to have a stable, democratic Iraq. It's a national security issue. Leaving before securing the country would also send a message that America will run from a fight if the fight goes too long.

We made this mistake in Cambodia and 2 million died because of it. That was in a country with only about 7 million. Iraq has 27.5 million. How many will die while the terrorist factions fight for power? And then we will have to come back anyway when a Taliban style government emerges.

Better to finish the fight now, than have millions die and have to finish later.

Better to finish the fight now, than have millions die and have to finish later.

Excellent point, Bohdi.

Thank you.

bodhi1Trouble with that argement when will the finishing off end...when there is no one left in Iraq ?

Leaving before securing the country would also send a message that America will run from a fight if the fight goes too long.

No. Leaving before securing the country would send the message that the US people have taken back control of the US military ... and if Bush and Cheney want to enact the rest of the PNAC agenda for the middle east they will have to find another way.

For far too long has this administration been using the US military as its own personal armed forces.

Surya, that is well-written and expressed, but it is utterly false. The US people entrusted Bush with the role of Commander-in-Chief and he and Congress have authorized our military to conduct operations in Iraq, under a very clear and constitutional command structure.

Furthermore, our Congress recently confirmed Gates and Petreus with ringing endorsements and authorized the troop surge. Before we even had all the boots on the ground, some in Congress were already admitting defeat and calling for an irresponsible pullout and surrender.

The charge you make about the military being the personal armed forces of the Administration is a slap in the face of every person serving in the uniform of this nation and a denigration of the outstanding job they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is a slap in the face of 50 million people freed from tyranny who - while still facing amazingly daunting challenges - desire the opportunity for self-government by large majorities.

I actually agree partially with both of you.

Tom, it isn't as simple as that. In-so-far as the Bush administration used deception or otherwise misled the American people in his case for war (Yes, I know you don't believe that, but some of us do), Surya's statement rings true. To the extent Bush, Cheney, Rumsfled et. al. manipulated the population into supporting the war, the war is the admin's war and not the war the American people as a whole implicitly chose to fight.

On more thing Tom:

our Congress recently ... authorized the troop surge

I'm sorry, perhaps I zoned out for a few weeks. When did that happen?

Surya, where I think Tom is partially right is that I don't think anyone can lay the entire Iraq war at the Bush administration's feet. This is a democracy, and despite its imperfections, despite the corruption, and despite the structural and political impediments to transparency that we have not evolved out of, the American people as a whole shoulder the ultimate responsibility. Because it was in our power multiple times to excercise our greater political will to stop the war, the greatest opportunity being the 2004 elections. In essence, there is a lot of blame to go around.

The great disadvantage of a democracy is that we can't lay all the blame on the leader. Even in Hitler's Germany, with much less democracy than we have today in America, part of the blame for the Holocaust lies with the German people as well as the people's of those other countries that looked the other way. Like it or not.

I sort of thought we were supposed to try and stop those myself, all in the interests of not letting history repeat itself.

Being the richest country in the world - we've tried to do that recently with mixed success. Bosnia is a good success story. Iraq in places is good, in others it isn't. Afghanistan is the same.

See #7.3

I just re-read Obama's statement Shannon. One way of reading it is that he's arguing it's worse to prevent one genocide while failing to prevent others than to never act against genocide at all.

Is that what you're taking issue with? If so, I can see why... to me that lens of the argument is fairly morally questionable.

"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.

My question still stands Vas - I was merely saying that one could lens his argument as fairly morally obtuse.

I think I know what you're saying. The odd thing is you're sounding liberal and I'm sounding conservative. So much for labels.

I'm pro intervention if it is the right thing to do. But "right thing to do" includes practical as well as idealistic considerations (Actually, I think the idealism-pragmatism duality is a false one, but that's for another day). So the questions are:

1. If we intervened militarily in the Congo, what would happen? How does that compare to what would happen if we don't intervene? Are there other, more sophisticated or nuanced options than these two rather black & white ones? Take into account all pieces of data, including the historical, political and cultural context of the crisis, as well as the possible reaction to a US invasion or other action.
2. The same questions, but applied to Sudan.
3. And the same questions, but slightly tweaked because we are already there, applied to Iraq.

While you and I may be, I don't think most people on this thread are asking these three questions with an even hand. It is possible that Obama isn't either... my jury is still out on him.

Thank you for summarizing so eloquently. I think we're channeling each other through the ceiling/floor or something.

Well said, Tim.

mmm i haven't channelled for a while...

1. If we intervened militarily in the Congo, what would happen? How does that compare to what would happen if we don't intervene? Are there other, more sophisticated or nuanced options than these two rather black & white ones? Take into account all pieces of data, including the historical, political and cultural context of the crisis, as well as the possible reaction to a US invasion or other action.

2. The same questions, but applied to Sudan.

3. And the same questions, but slightly tweaked because we are already there, applied to Iraq.

Good points, Vas. I appreciate it when people can step back and begin asking hard, fair, and relevant questions that address reality.

Sorry I wasnt able to partake in this convo earlier.

I agree with Obama somewhat on that statement that we are intervening in one and ignoring others. Look at what we are allowing/perpetrating even in our own country? The genocide of millions of unborn children.

I won't go further with that ...just some food for thought.

I must confess I didnt have time at the moment that I posted my original query to read the entire article. I just was appalled at the headline. And I guess that's what journalists do best. Make appalling headlines to get people to read their stuff. I will go read the rest of it now...

Sorry lets not mix up the debate of Abortion with a military invasion. Both result in death i know !

barrys - you don't have to type everything in italics

Woohoo thank you Corey.

But he didn't. :)

But is that any reason to stay? Let's get beyond the metaphysical issues of fault (i.e. Bush's, Congress' or the US's) and ask whether if we did create the problem, whether we have an obligation to set it right. First, do we have the ability to set it right? I think that most people against the war would say no and almost all of those in favor of continuing the effort would say yes. If a person is in favor of continuing the effort, but does not think that we have the ability to set things right, then that person had better stop favoring a continuation. If we cannot, then there is no question about what we ought to do.

So, we can't set things right (for this comment anyway). Do we have the ability to keep things from escalation? That is, are our troops useful in that they keep the bloodshed lower than it would be if we were not there. I think that that question is not something you can say to be true EITHER WAY with any certainty. Someone argued that I was simply uninformed to make that claim, but I still hold to it and don't feel that any evidence can counter it. We cannot know what an individual will do in the face of absolute anarchy. We can accept that people are averse to anarchy and will hope to end it in favor of a more controlled state, but I do not think we can claim with any certainty what form that state will take or how that state will be formed.

This thread has mentioned a number of times that history is some kind of guide to the future. I agree. The guide is that you cannot estimate the power of an individual to effect the course of history. There may be some unifying, George Washington-like figure that sprouts up and brings the country together with minimal bloodshed. That's the best of all possible outcomes, and most claim (with far too much certainty) that there will simply be a civil war that will up-end SW Asia and lead to the destrution of the US (I'm not quite sure how anybody thinks that in the midst of a civil war, terrorists will waste time blowing themseleves up in the US, but whatever).

IF either outcome were to become a reality, would you look at it and say "We done the Iraqi's wrong there"? I think that some responsibility has to be taken on by the Iraqi's leadership (whatever form that might take) and that the US would do better to guide them rather than force their way.

I'll agree on this one America troops have not the ability to set it right by Military force. As well there are 100,000+ military contractors also stirring up the soup. Given the atrocities of Abu Graab the US troops have lost credibility now !

Yes and the Congo was not invaded bt the U.S.

But is that any reason to stay?

There's no way to give a non-qualified answer, but generally speaking, yes, I do think it's "a reason to stay". I mean, just going "oopsie! so sorry! nevermind!" won't cut it. But you're right in that there's no point in staying, if staying doesn't help. If we could get some multinational or regional force in there, that might help - but then, for all we know it could make it worse. And we most assuredly do owe Iraq something, even if it's just loads of money and expertise ten years down the line when they're stable enough to use it and not have it funneled to lord knows where.

What if we leave and it all goes to hell. Will we go back in? But how will we know it will go to hell if we don't leave? I might be more for withdrawal if there were some conditions - ie, we're going to do this, but will reassert ourselves if all hell and genocide breaks out. Otherwise it'll be on our hands, and I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

chasing I don't think cut and run is the right action. But sure an orderly withdrawal say over three years is better than trying to hunt out ever rebel & every insurgent and every suicide bomber,,

The atrocities in Iraq did not go unnoticed unlike mant conflicts and dictators around the orls where the Western media tend to ignore..

It is true they were not unnoticed by many in the international community, however their resolve did more harm than good. For instance, the sanctions placed on Iraq by the U.N. fueled Saddam Hussein's lies and unlawfulness. Furthermore, more the sanctions and U.N. sanctions only masked the problem.

Saddam Hussein brazenly challenged the international community by denying U.N. officials access from certain areas. At the end of his rein, it was discovered, he had hundreds of mass graves and torture chamber. No matter what your feelings of the war are, Saddam was an evil man that was bent on destruction.

It is true there are many dictators and conflicts around the world that go seemingly unnoticed. However, in recent years many of these conflicts, such as Dar fur, have become more widely publicized. The United States of America has given millions to such causes as the Dar fur conflict as well as the Aids epidemic in Africa. While these conflicts go unnoticed to some, there are those that are promoting goodwill.

I hope we can continue our conversation.

well Saddam has well and truly gone now & so have is Son's So what is the next strategy ?

We need to do several things, with the priority being the well fare of the Iraqi citizenship. Before we can "get out" of Iraq, we need make sure the region is stabilized and their army and police force are strong enough. I do think some of the responsibility should fall on the U.N. and the world community, however we first need to reestablish our connection with much of the world.

The idea that this will only take several months is ludicrous, however we maybe able to pull out much of our troops during that time, and implement the Iraqi army and police force. Nonetheless, the road a head is a long and arduous one filled with many pitfalls and goals.

Now that you usurped the UN with faulty intelligence you want them which means us to go in and clean up the mess. That's just great !

I did not intend that the U.S. take the place of the U.N. I merely suggested they could have done something more then placing sanctions, nor did I say allege they had faulty intelligence. I think the U.N. can do a great deal as "peace keepers" that has been their role in many conflicts. Yes, it will require help from U.S., but others will be involved.

Where does your conscious lie with the one hundred thousand Kurds that Saddam viciously gassed? I know the loss of U.S. soldiers is terrible, but ask yourself what is the cost of freedom and peace?

Yes they did have faulty intelligence unless someone was lying !

Obama never.

Hey guys... let's make this a little more constructive, okay?

Hey guys... let's make this a little more constructive, okay?

OK, what do you have in mind?

As for me, see #14 below, which was posted 5 minutes before your post above.

Everybody has a view. In fact there 10 a penny right now. I for one dont think stayig the exact course wereon now is the answer !

I was very disappointed to read this of Obama... very disappointed. I don't know enough about the context to make conclusive statements, but, if I read that right, this could have been his political suicide.

No i doubt it !

I hate to agree with Barrys about this, but I think he's right. Even though statements like this should be the end of Obama's Presidential chances, they won't be, because the American people seem to have no freaking clue right now about the foreign policy ramifications and consequences of what Obama said.

In this day and age, I think such information can wreak havoc in politics. I may be wrong, but Obama's strength in my mind was that he is charismatic and vague appealing to a large number of people who are not happy with present alternatives... And if that is a large portion of his base, making his position like this known will alienates a lot of people presenting him as having an extreme position.

What he said was not a policy position on some topic, but saying that certain premises ought to be rejected and the "bloodbath" reason to stay is one of those. He's saying that in situations that are analogous (to those of genocide), we are not willing to send troops, so in this situation we should not be willing to send troops unless there is something else, beyond genocide that is to keep us there.

It is humorous that some on this thread are talking out of both sides of their mouth. First, Obama is a vague, but inspiring and charismatic and should have kept it that way for politcal reasons, but should be more specific and realistic on things such as foreign policy. Do you see the tension? I think those that feel conflicted on questions like what to do in Darfur should feel Obama's reasoned approach to be comforting because he has those conflicts as well. He is intelligent and, if president, has the best military minds in the country advising him. He feels what you feel, so I do not see why we should be so upset with him for saying that those who are throwing up these arguments aren't being honest with themselves and ought to reevaluate their position.

The original columnist or me ?

The Congo and Iraq have nothing to do with one another. We are over in Iraq because we had to retaliate against terrorists

Obama used to have my respect, even as I am a Republican. He does no longer.

You will earn none with the first comment. You are tying Iraq to 9/11, again. Typical.

Shannon 163599

No we invaded Iraq because the United States wanted to. The US alleged that Weapons of Mass Destruction posed an imminent an immediate danger to the U.S. and/or its allies...within nine hours..

It is a bit ironic that you claim Democrats to have 9/11 amnesia and yet you clearly have forgotten the reasoning behind the invasion. Iraq and the Congo are linked by the theme of genocide and our use of military force (or in the Congo example, our lack of use). Your second point would be fair if Obama was saying the things Clinton and Richardson are saying which is "Vote for me and we're out of there." Obama is not saying those things. He is far less inclined towards a radical change in policy. Your third point would be fair if you really looked at what happened. Obama supported Age-Appropriate (which I agree any thinking person would say how can something appropriate be inappropriate) legislation, then Romney poked at Obama as some guy who wants to show porn to Kindergartners, which is very cheap and very hypocritical.

MartinEZ, Barrys, I started writing a response, but it became to wordy, so I posted it as an article. The problem is that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. all exist within the same ecosystem with terrorism being a tool... For my complete repsonse, please read here.

Ratigan, sorry, I am confused. How are Iraq and Congo linked by way of genocide?

Sorry, I mis-typed, I meant Darfur.

Ratigan, sorry, I feel US should be involved in Darfur, but instead they did what the critics suggested should be done - go along with UN, which is proving more ineffective by the day. US has been one of the harshest critics of what's going on in Darfur.

If you believe that Iraq will become like Darfur, then you probably support remaining in Iraq. But Obama's point is, hey we didn't go into the Congo when they were in heated civil war killing each other in ludicrous numbers, we aren't going into Darfur when we know damn well what's happening there, so don't act like Iraq is any different. He is saying that we should be consistent, and I think he's right.

If he's saying we should be consistent, perhaps what we need is to enter the Congo and Darfur rather than leaving Iraq.

Ratigan, i agree with vmvaughn. We are not in Congo and Darfur not because we approve of what goes on there, but because it is very difficult to do politically. Vietnam and Mogadishu come to mind when politics overrode reality. US is at the helm of trying to fix the world (regardless of whether it is driven by homeland security, finance, or altruism). US has limited resources and can't be everywhere at once. But not being able to be everywhere doesn't mean we shouldn't be somewhere. I think that what should happen is that people in all Western countries need to arrive at a conclusion that they will support their leaders if they place extreme pressure on leaders such as ones in Darfur - then, with China, EU, Russia, US on board, UN could potentially successfully deal with Darfur and similar situations.

Sorry, bmvaughn

But does that mean that we should be willing to take up any cause that the people will stomach, or should we take on the gravest issues and then move on. I agree that we should do what we can whenever we can, but I don't agree that there isn't the political will to take on Darfur--rather we don't have the political will to take on Darfur because of Iraq. So is Iraq more of an issue than Darfur, or the Congo? I don't think that we can make that claim at all.

Ratigan, US has been very critical of what's been going on in Darfur. Should US go in there militarily?

Well, obviously the US has been critical of it, the alternatives being silence or support.

But, seriously, I don't know. If somebody I trusted were to say that we could end the violence if we did, then I would probably support it. I'd prefer we go in with the blue helmets.

The interesting irony in people's disparagement of the UN is that they are simply continuing the cycle. If we were to put our faith in the UN and push for it to accomplish meaningful goals, then I think we might have done a great service to the world. It's easier to put down some tough love, though.

How do you push the UN though?

I think I meant giving our moral and monetary support rather than decreasing both every year.

As far as I am aware, US is one of the primary contributors to the UN (if not the primary). Would you have data to support this?

I'm basing that claim on a memory of reducing the amount we would give to the UN. We are still a large funder, however we are in the position to give more than we do. Of course, it is difficult to spend money on things the people have no faith in. But we still keep paying our Senators and Presidents, so I see no reason to stop paying the UN.

This is too sweeping a statement in my opinion and needs to be backed up by data. Otherwise I do not see any merit in your statement. Also, keep in mind that UN is a very large organization with some excellent parts and some that are very very poor. US does enough to support the UN that any claim otherwise needs to be substantiated.

What is "enough"? Are you saying that we do our fair share or that others should do more? The idea of the UN is that we don't act as isolated countries with separate goals, but a union of countries working for the common good. So there is no such thing as enough until there is only peace and stability.

Isolationism isn't not an option. Look at where everything Americans buy, comes from.

I meant in interests not in communication.

Ratigan, from what I undestrand, the shortage is not in money from US, but in participation from other states.