Quote of the day
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.
Such compassion! It is that kind of thinking that afforded the world the killing fields of Cambodia, the hundreds of thousands killed in Vietnam, the 850K+ in Rwanda, along with so many other atrocities. I do remember Bill Clinton thinking differently in regards to the former Yugoslavia, especially after the US and UN turned their backs on Rwanda.
I’ve often wondered how liberals really feel about what is happening in the Congo and Darfur. We hear that they are against the slaughter. But, what would they really be willing to do to stop it? So far, the history over at least the past two centuries shows that no amount of dialougue will solve the problem. When liberals say "do something!" about Darfur, would they accept military action, because, no matter how much diplomacy you use, people who want to kill will continue to do it, unless stopped.
"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."
Even if at least one of the factions is bent on pure domination and cares little for the niceties of a civilized world? Ask Chamberlain and Stalin how well their negotiations with Hitler worked out, Obama. Report due on Monday, minimum 1000 words.
This is the danger of todays liberals. They will say anything and do anything to gain power, but, at their core, they really refuse to take action. They think you can negotiate with really bad people, who just need to be understood. Rather then be the worlds policeman, they want the U.S. to be the worlds psychologist.
Now, I have been sitting on this post a couple days, wasn’t sure if I was going to bother posting it. But, what the hell.
Ace has an interesting take on the whole thing
First of all, he’s absolutely right. Cold-heartedly and cynically right, but quite frankly, that’s the sort of "right" I like in foreign policy.
America does not risk thousands of casualties "merely" to prevent genocide. We like to make rhetorical noises about doing so, but we never do. We only risk (and lose) the lives of US troops when there’s a strong national security element to the intervention. "Mere" moral concerns are rarely enough. Enough for a very small micro-invasion, perhaps — as in Haiti — or enough for a bombing campaign — as in Serbia — but moral considerations alone are not enough to justify the loss of US soldiers’ lives.
Ace is correct in that regard. Cold, cynical "what’s in it for the USA." However, far be it for a small blogger to take a little issue with a bigger blogger, but, the point is not what the US is doing, and its interests, but how Democrats feel about it. They care little for the national security "how can this help the USA" position, as they prove time and time again. Obama is basically saying "f*ck the Iraqis." Will he say the same about those being massacred in Darfur and the Congo? Liberals always tell us how compassionate they are.
And, keeping a genocide and mass slaughter from occuring in Iraq is in our national security interests. Anarchy and al Qaeda/terrorist/Iranian control in Iraq could do serious damage to our national security, from oil issues which would jack up the prices, damaging our economy, to ultra-radicalism even worse then we see now in the Middle East.
It’s classic liberalism. These people REALLY think like this — they honestly believe that war cannot solve anything at all, at any time. They believe that everyone is good and that things like war make them bad — so more war makes them “more bad.”
Liberals believe that if you talk to someone, it will always exceed any results that can be obtained through violence. It’s the 60s peaceniks in charge. They believe they are compassionate by NOT using violence. The problem is that they take it to the extreme. Liberals like Obama simply do not understand that there are worse things than war.
Always amusing when Dafur or the Congo problems are blamed on LIBERALS. For the last 6 years conservatives were firmly in control of both Houses of Congress and the White House. Democrats had zero power.
At this point the Democrats really only control the House, unless as the Republicans threatened before, the Senate uses the “nuclear option”.
I don’t think they will do that, I think they will simply continue to make the republicans go on record as supporting the war. This is definitely a position that will hurt them in the next election.
During the Clinton administration the Republicans were never in the vanguard of using American forces in foreign countries. It was the Republicans who screamed loudest to remove our troops after “Blackhawk Down”
Ogre, most certainly right.
John, I am not blaming Darfur and the Congo on Democrats. Not by any means. If I was going to blame anyone, it would be the united nations.