PDA

View Full Version : Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide


Monsoon65
07-19-2007, 20:53
Now, I might be wrong, but didn't we go into Somalia because of genocide thru starvation? And what about Kosovo and Bosnia???






By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago



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 magnate 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."

An opponent of the death penalty, Obama said he would make an exception 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?"

Airbornelawyer
07-19-2007, 21:09
"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.The degree to which people like him care about Sudan seems inversely proportional to the degree to which he would be inclined to actually do something concrete about it.

Ret10Echo
08-02-2007, 12:32
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

Obama warns Pakistan on al-Qaeda

Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to tackle al-Qaeda
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.
Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point-scoring.

Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy.

The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls.

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will

During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions.

rubberneck
08-02-2007, 12:57
The more Obama is exposed to the public the obvious that it becomes that he is a total lightweight and in way over his head.

It isn't ok to invade Iraq but ok to invade Pakistan, a nuclear power and a reluctant partner in the GWOT. He also slipped during an interview and said that if elected he wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Realizing how stupid that statement was he tried to backpedal as quickly as possible.

Monsoon65
08-02-2007, 19:09
Mr Obama said Pakistan must do more to tackle al-Qaeda
US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would use military force if necessary against al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without Pakistan's consent.

Oh, it's OK for Obama to advocate going into Pakistan without consent, but they hogpile onto Bush about Iraq?

He's way over his head. He's a Senator from Illinois. I doubt he has extensive foreign policy experience, yet he's yammering on and digging himself a nice hole.

QRQ 30
08-02-2007, 19:19
Oh, it's OK for Obama to advocate going into Pakistan without consent, but they hogpile onto Bush about Iraq?

He's way over his head. He's a Senator from Illinois. I doubt he has extensive foreign policy experience, yet he's yammering on and digging himself a nice hole.

I don't know. If he is advocating hot pursuit and direct strikes against known targets he may have a point. That is quite different from invading an entire country. I haven't heard much hogpiling over Afghanistan.

The Reaper
08-02-2007, 19:31
I don't know. If he is advocating hot pursuit and direct strikes against known targets he may have a point. That is quite different from invading an entire country. I haven't heard much hogpiling over Afghanistan.

Any overt cross-border ops into Pakistan WILL get major attention from the Taliban supporters there and risks Musharraf's legitmacy.

Pakistan does have a large WMD program, which I am sure the Islamofascists would love to get their hands on.

I would recommend against anything but clandestine ops there.

TR

Ret10Echo
08-03-2007, 05:10
Imagine that, Pakistan isn't happy.....

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate
Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order
unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic
country.


Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and
likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.


"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's
Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the
election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American
candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our
expense."


But I missed this one earlier......


Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential
hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way
he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would
be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of
Mecca and Medina.

The Reaper
08-03-2007, 09:29
Nothing like backing an ally in wartime by invading them.:rolleyes:

TR

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/thanks__barack_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm?p age=0

THANKS, BARACK

FINALLY, '08 SUBSTANCE Obama: Terror speech prompts serious debate at last.

August 3, 2007 -- SEN. Barack Obama performed an immense service on Wednesday by delivering a speech on terrorism in which he basically promised that, as president, he would invade Pakistan.

Now, the substance of the speech is highly questionable: This country is never going to insert military forces to conduct a major campaign against al Qaeda inside Pakistan without the permission of that country's government. It won't happen if Obama becomes president - nor if Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or Frosty the Snowman wins the job.

The other sections of the speech featured earnest promises that Obama would do many things to fight terror - mostly things that this country is already doing and has done for the past five years.

Questionable or not, though, the speech was something, and that's something.

If you were listening closely, you heard a gigantic sigh of relief rising from the chattering classes - those of us who are paid to spend our days interpreting and analyzing the presidential contest: Finally, here's something real to discuss - not a well-prepared or poorly handled debate answer, not a memo by a campaign manager discussing fundraising prowess, not a staff shakeup. We sunk our teeth into Obama's speech like Neanderthals suddenly transported before a serving for two of Peter Luger's porterhouse.

By delivering the first major foreign-policy address by a leading contender for the '08 presidential campaign on either the Republican or Democratic side, Obama for the first time laid honest claim to being a force for change in U.S. politics.

(John McCain has given several important addresses about the new military strategy in Iraq on the floor of the Senate, but those were not campaign speeches per se. And Joe Biden has said interesting things, but I'll be president before he will.)

This presidential campaign has been going on for eight months now. It's the earliest, most active and most hotly contested campaign in this country's history. There's never been anything like it - and it will either redefine what running for president means in the future or it will stand as a fascinating aberration.

It's also been a campaign notable for its lack of substance. People love to blame the media for focusing on trivialities instead of deeply serious issues, but for most of the past year all anyone's been given to talk about has been trivialities.

The campaigns themselves are far more focused on the nuts and bolts of politics. They are the driving force behind all the articles about who has money in the bank and how much they have and how many donors they have and where they all are.

The campaigns talk strategy, not policy. They discuss organizational strength in Iowa or the national polls or the big Feb. 5 primary - whichever is their card to play.

Even on health care - a matter that is central to the Democratic Party's effort to retake the White House - campaigns have offered detailed plans that have a prefabricated, pull-down-off-the-shelf quality about them.

By far the most hilarious line of the race so far was John Edwards raging that attention was being paid to his expensive haircuts because insurance companies don't want people to know about his health-care plan. In fact, it's been praised to the skies by the liberal commentariat - but Edwards himself hasn't said a single memorable thing about his plan.

Instead, we're told Edwards deserves attention because he is doing well in the polls in Iowa and Nevada.

Obama made his speech because he made a mistake in the YouTube debate last week - agreeing to meet unconditionally with the dictators of North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. Despite efforts by some apologists to claim that this was a smart thing for Obama to say, clearly he and his people decided it wasn't smart at all - and that he had to talk tough about something to make himself appear to be a credible national leader.

That is why the YouTube debate was such a triumph and why it will be good for Republicans to field the same sorts of questions. At the very least, unconventional questions cause candidates to respond in uncharacteristic ways, which can have a bracing effect on the political discussion.

One of seven people - Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain, Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney - will be president in 15 months. It is past time for them to start talking at length in a sustained way about pressing issues.

QRQ 30
08-03-2007, 09:39
Let me be the first to post something relative to the Subject Line: Genocide in Iraq.:D

If we pull out pre-maturely there will surely be genocide in Iraq. We made the move and are now bound to complete it. Opinions will vary.:munchin