Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

**Stan187** · 21 Jul 07, 01:51

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.

The senator has been a fierce critic of the war in Iraq, speaking out against it even before he was elected to his post in 2004. He was among the senators who tried unsuccessfully earlier this week to force President Bush's hand and begin to limit the role of U.S. forces there.

"We have not lost a military battle in Iraq. So when people say if we leave, we will lose, they're asking the wrong question," he said. "We cannot achieve a stable Iraq with a military. We could be fighting there for the next decade."

Obama said the answer to Iraq — and other civil conflicts — lies in diplomacy.

"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."

The Republican National Committee accused Obama of changing his position on the war.

"Barack Obama can't seem to make up his mind," said Amber Wilkerson, an RNC spokeswoman. "First he says that a quick withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops, and then he votes to cut funding for our soldiers who are still in harm's way. Americans are looking for principled leadership — not a rookie politician who is pandering to the left wing of his party in an attempt to win an election."

Obama, who has expressed reservations about capital punishment but does not oppose it, said he would support the death penalty for Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The first thing I'd support is his capture, which is something this administration has proved incapable of achieving," Obama said. "I would then, as president, order a trial that observed international standards of due process. At that point, do I think that somebody who killed 3,000 Americans qualifies as someone who has perpetrated heinous crimes, and would qualify for the death penalty. Then yes."

In response to criticism from Republican Mitt Romney, Obama said the former Massachusetts governor was only trying to "score cheap political points" when he told a Colorado audience that Obama wanted sex education for kindergartners.

"All I said was that I support the same laws that exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in which local communities and parents can make decisions to provide children with the information they need to deal with sexual predators," Obama said.

Romney on Wednesday targeted Obama for supporting a bill during his term in the Illinois state Senate that would have, among other things, provided age-appropriate sex education for all students.

"How much sex education is age appropriate for a 5-year-old? In my mind, zero is the right number," Romney said.

Obama said Romney was wrong to take the shot and incorrect on its basis.

"We have to deal with a coarsening of the culture and the over-sexualization of our young people. Look, I've got two daughters, 9 and 6 years old," Obama told the AP. "Of course, part of the coarsening of that culture is when politicians try to demagogue issues to score cheap political points."

"What we shouldn't do is to try to play a political football with these issues and express them in ways that are honest and truthful," Obama said. "Certainly, what we shouldn't do is engage in hypocrisy."

Romney himself once indicated support for similar programs that Obama supports.

In 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood in a questionnaire that he also supported age-appropriate sex education. He checked yes to a question that asked: "Do you support the teaching of responsible, age-appropriate, factually accurate health and sexuality education, including information about both abstinence and contraception, in public schools?"

**Parihaka** · 21 Jul 07, 02:09

Yeah I've noticed that on some of the loonier left forums. It's not a decision made from strategic concerns, simply as Obama put it himself, we're not in Sudan so who cares about the Iraqis.
I'm not sure if I'm describing this well as I'm still getting my head around it but basically, 'because we're not helping the (insert sudanese/zimbabwean etc here) why should we be helping or caring about the Iraqis.
Another I commonly get tied in with this is, "why should we be fighting someone else's war". This floored me for a while until I realised that 'someone elses' equated to bush/hitler/neo-con/fascists, not some other country....
It's a pretty big divide you've got going on.

**dalem** · 21 Jul 07, 02:21

It's the same illogic that allows the following to take place:

AntiBush Guy: "Get out of Iraq!"
Non-Anti Guy: "Why?"
ABG: "Why are we fighting in Iraq when we're not fighting North Korea who has threatened us?!?!"
NAG: "Oh, so we can attack North Korea then?"
ABG: "Warmonger!!!!"

etc....

If only these sad sacks could learn to think in a straight line, they'd be interesting to talk to. As it it, they're intellectual creampuffs.

-dale

**Bluesman** · 21 Jul 07, 03:18

I especially love the 'redeployment' thang.

Liberal Deep-Thinkin' Strategist: So, we're having a tuff time, and we should leave.

Me: Yeah, but if we leave, there will be a massive slaughter of the Iraqis that have trusted us to vote, serve in the government and the security forces.

LDTS: Well, we'll still be in the region, and we could intervene if that happens.

Me: Like we already did?

LDTS: No, with a much smaller force, and for a shorter time.

Me: Oh, I think I understand: a fraction of the troops we've got now, a non-permissive entry without secured lines-of-communications, and an already-dead friendly Iraqi force will be able to prevent what YOU say is happening NOW, even while we have all the advantages...

LDTS: No, see, it'll be like the cavalry riding in to rescue the wagon train. Get it?

Me: Not really; sounds like Little Big Horn to me...

I want somebody to tell me just how they imagine that a deeply-unpopular war will be made moreso by quitting it and accepting a de facto defeat, and under exactly what circumstances a Democratic - and therefore cowardly and traitorous - Congress would EVER consent to sending in the troops AGAIN, no matter WHAT was happening in Iraq.

When we leave, it's for good, and the Iraqis will truly be on their own.

Unless one of you LDTS's can tell me how you conceive the 're-deployment / re-intervention' thang would work, and under what conditions.

**astralis** · 21 Jul 07, 03:29

bluesman,

not that i, or for that matter, S-2 (who first suggested the idea here) is exactly liberal.

but one could set up bases within what is effectively kurdistan. the earlier premise was go big, go long, or go home. well, with bases in kurdistan and out in the desert, we could go long and fight AQI. and by fight, REALLY fight and not just occupy ground: allow the US armed forces to use its advantages in information and precision technologies to hammer those bastards, instead of being fixed in information-poor urban terrain. little big-horn? against the might of the USAF and the US army?

massive slaughter of pro-US iraqis? that can be fixed: offer asylum to those who want to leave. as it is, how many of those in the iraqi government, those who voted, those who serve either in the IA or IP are there not because they felt warm and fuzzy towards the US, but because their tribal sheik told them to? how many have dual affiliation? if half the stories about the IP are true, well...

let's put it this way. we have stood up hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the IA. we've given them arms, training; given them the tiny beginnings of an air force; even given them a heavy mechanized and armor force. and you're telling me these troops are going to be crushed by poorly-trained insurgents or militias with light arms and RPGs? and if that's the case, exactly what type of human material are we dealing with? especially considering that shi'ites decisively outnumber the insurgent sunnis?

it took an all-out conventional invasion by the NVA, after two years of massive stock-up, to take down ARVN. with US support, you're telling me a bunch of losers with AK-47s are going to take down the IA. if that's true, we've really done a piss-poor job.

**gunnut** · 21 Jul 07, 06:54

Originally Posted by dalem

If only these sad sacks could learn to think in a straight line, they'd be interesting to talk to. As it it, they're intellectual creampuffs.

-dale

They do think in a straight line.

BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**dalem** · 21 Jul 07, 08:09

Originally Posted by gunnut

They do think in a straight line.

BUSH IS EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's more like a point source than a line, isn't it?

Listened to more Air America today. Holy Bejeezus but those people are frikkin' ignorant.

-dale

**gunnut** · 21 Jul 07, 08:19

I just had a good idea.

Let's go to a liberal hate site and post the question: what has Bush done wrong?

We can just sit back and watch the fun.

**Stan187** · 21 Jul 07, 10:58

I don't understand why everyone loves Obama so much. Ok, he's a charismatic public speaker, I'll give him that. But the actual points that he puts out are either nothing special, or as in the case of it not being our responsibility to prevent Iraqi genocide, straight absurd.

**McFire** · 21 Jul 07, 19:45

I agree with Stan187. Obama is a very charismatic guy and appeals to the masses. However, he doesn't really have much substance. He's never really said or done anything special. He served in the Illinois statehouse and is a junior senator, so he doesn't really have a whole lot of experience to lead the country. He has virtually no foreign policy experience. If worst comes to worst, I'd rather see him elected rather than Hildabeast.
It's also amusing (and sometimes scary) to see the politicians with no military background attempting to make decisions/policies for the military and the pull-out dates always seem to include the election year

Also, how come they never talk about pulling out of Afghanistan?

**gunnut** · 21 Jul 07, 19:48

There lies the hypocracy and racist nature of the liberals.

They see a black man who can speak clearly and is very articulate, as if black people can't do that. Plus he's a big time socialist. So they flock to him like he's the next savior.

We have plenty of black people who are articulate and intelligent. Liberals smear them because they are conservatives. Condi Rice is extremely intelligent and very articulate. What do they call her? Bush's pet? Bush's slave girl? Bush's parrot?

I personally don't like Obama because I don't trust him. Why don't I trust him? Just a gut feeling by looking at him. It's completely irrational, I know. But sometimes you just have that feeling about certain people.

**Kansas Bear** · 21 Jul 07, 20:00

Originally Posted by Stan187

I don't understand why everyone loves Obama so much. Ok, he's a charismatic public speaker, I'll give him that. But the actual points that he puts out are either nothing special, or as in the case of it not being our responsibility to prevent Iraqi genocide, straight absurd.

He IS a Democrat.

**FullTank** · 21 Jul 07, 20:14

I hate Obama. He will ruin everything what america stands for.

Whats does he mean by genoicide is ok? If US doesnt prevent it as a leader of the world who else will?

He is a loser and not a good president for a leadership country like USA. Americans dont stand for losers.

Democrat or not Hillary is way better. Atleast her hubby brought good for America.

Democrats...choose Hillary

**dalem** · 21 Jul 07, 20:52

Originally Posted by Stan187

I don't understand why everyone loves Obama so much. Ok, he's a charismatic public speaker, I'll give him that. But the actual points that he puts out are either nothing special, or as in the case of it not being our responsibility to prevent Iraqi genocide, straight absurd.

He Be Black. That's it. Spray paint him white and he's another empty suit mouthing socialist victim platitudes.

-dale

**Stan187** · 22 Jul 07, 09:13

Originally Posted by FullTank

Democrats...choose Hillary

Democrats... reconsider your party allegiance.

Thread: Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Kerry Slams U.S. Foreign Policy

Rethinking Iraq: The Way Forward

Arab volunteers killed in Iraq: an Analysis

Quagmire or not?

President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions