NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html

SUNAPEE, New Hampshire — Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq is not a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.

I was looking at potentially voting for Obama but after this statement, my respect for him has dropped substantially. Anyone who says that preventing genocide is not a good reason to stay is not fit to lead this country.

I see he brought up the Congo but we are not in the Congo and the African Union was in Darfur and could still be there.

Obama, you want these problems solved then take it to the UN. Oh wait. That has been done with Darfur and not much has been done with it there.

And military troops were used to stop the genocide in Bosnia Obama. Did you forget about that?

Strange. I agree with him....:confused:

He'd be against intervention in Africa, as well? I'd like to hear him articulate that position next time he's campaigning on the pulpit of a black church. ;) Odd thing to say.

Strange. I agree with him....:confused:
As do I. Perhaps one of the only things I'll agree with the man on.

He'd be against intervention in Africa, as well?
Maybe you should RTFA - Read The Fucking Article.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we delay the inevitable and put our troops in the middle of it.

Maybe you should RTFA - Read The Fucking Article.

The longer we stay in Iraq, the longer we delay the inevitable and put our troops in the middle of it.

Indeed. Did you guys take a page from the RO playbook?

I wonder what Blair will do to the situation...

I wonder what Blair will do to the situation...
Who knows, he isn't Prime Minister any more :rolleyes:

[url].

And military troops were used to stop the genocide in Bosnia Obama. Did you forget about that?

The Genocide was over by the time force was employed. Theres been genocide against the Karen and various other burmese peoples for decades now, not to mention whats happening with Indonesia and somne of its island territories.....And were I you I'd stop whining about the UN, because when it suits the US it just goes ahead and ignores it.....

However, with regard to Iraq, the US presence is largely responsible for the violence, directly or indirectly.

And military troops were used to stop the genocide in Bosnia Obama. Did you forget about that?

Not to meantion WW2 :).

Not to meantion WW2 :).

No side in WW2 should ever try to hold moral superiority. Ever.

Not to meantion WW2 :).
You mean the one we didn't know about? :rolleyes:
Did you people fail history or what?

Well, Obama is right on this one. Who the fuck cares if other people around the world want to off each other.

You people wouldn't get the point if it was attatched to the broadside of a barn... that was used to hit you in the face.

Indeed. Did you guys take a page from the RO playbook?

Yes, Obama did. He's also big on sending our troops OUT of Iraq right now, and putting them in Pakistan immediately, so we can fuck it up there instead.

His argument seems to be that if you're going to be involved in a quagmire where you're killing Muslims, it might as well be the right Muslims. You know - the ones who did 9-11.

I wouldn't bother sending troops. I think it's easier, and more palatable to the American people, to bomb the area with conventional weaponry, and surveill the place with robotic aircraft looking for any living people, until that region of Pakistan is completely depopulated.

Yes, Obama did. He's also big on sending our troops OUT of Iraq right now, and putting them in Pakistan immediately,
No, wrong, sorry. He is advocating moving them back to Afghanistan. Go get your panties in a bunch with your asshat friends on the 'military' board where they will listen to your tripe without contradicting you.

No, wrong, sorry. He is advocating moving them back to Afghanistan. Go get your panties in a bunch with your asshat friends on the 'military' board where they will listen to your tripe without contradicting you.

Sorry, I linked to a quote from him yesterday where he very clearly said "Pakistan".

You lose.

Sorry, I linked to a quote from him yesterday where he very clearly said "Pakistan".

You lose.
And we blew that shit out of the water and you ran away.
Afghanistan-Pakistan border != Pakistan.

Its kind of hard to stop a genocide when the war your country starts leads to the mass murder of a people.

And we blew that shit out of the water and you ran away.
Afghanistan-Pakistan border != Pakistan.

Yes, it does.

If you just sit on the Afghanistan side, they sit on the Pakistan side.

People are already on Bush about, "why the fuck don't we go after them in the tribal areas".

Obama is talking about the tribal areas.

He also says that if Pakistan is taken over by extremists (a likely situation these days) we need to invade it.

You're wrong again.

Yes, it does.
I lived on the Alabama-Tennessee border for 10 years. Which state did I live in.

I lived on the Alabama-Tennessee border for 10 years. Which state did I live in.

Pointless comparison.

You must not have been reading the news if you don't know that they go back and forth across the border, to hide in Pakistan and to attack in Afghanistan.

Often the trip is made on the same day.

You're far too ignorant to argue with.

Yes, Obama did. He's also big on sending our troops OUT of Iraq right now, and putting them in Pakistan immediately, so we can fuck it up there instead.


No, he didn't say that, as we pointed out on your typically bullshit laden thread on the subject.

Do you ever say anything remotely related to reality?

I find several problems with the arguments being made here. The Senator is saying that the Bush Administration tried to change the subject and say that we were bringing Democracy to Iraq, after it came out there were no new weapons of mass destruction. By this argument, there are a dozen places troops should be deployed to in an attempt to solve various crisises (that's probably not the correct plural form of crisis).

I believe the Senator is trying to make a few points. One is that the Bush Administration's "morals" are shifting, which is needs very little illustrating (wiretapping, torture, pillaging the third world, all in "the name of Jesus"). The next point is that deploying military troops doesn't always solve the problem. Note that he listed a few examples where troops wouldn't be a desirable. He doesn't come out and say "deploying troops is never an option". The Senator is also saying that we need to leave Iraq. I know some people disagree, but if it's news to you that Barack Obama is against the war, your head is up your ass.

The article greatly distorts what the Senator says, but then again, it is Fox that's carrying the article. These are the same people who claimed that the Senator was raised in a "radical madrasa" which just turned out to be a school. Fox is as "Fair and Balanced" as seesaw with the governator on one end and one of the olsen twins on the other.

Pointless comparison.
Which state did I live in. Alabama or Tennessee?
If you can't answer that, you can't say where Obama was advocating putting troops (of course if you read your own article you would have seen the only place he actually said besides the border was Afghanistan).

I believe the Senator is trying to make a few points.
Duh. However, as he should have learned from Jon Kerry, using logic, reason, and common sense in America is more likely to confuse and confound the populace.

The article never quotes him. With regards to the title, sorry.

Which state did I live in. Alabama or Tennessee?
If you can't answer that, you can't say where Obama was advocating putting troops (of course if you read your own article you would have seen the only place he actually said besides the border was Afghanistan).

I can say it, because that's the reality on the ground, and it certainly seems that he wants to deal with the reality.

If you're going to deal with the reality, you'll be fighting on both sides of the border, to keep them from getting away.

And if he's not dealing with reality, then it's ass-covering doublespeak so that if he invades, he'll say, "I said I would" and if he doesn't invade, he'll say, "I told you I wouldn't".

Oh, pantless, you said he NEVER mentions Pakistan...

"America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Gee, I see the word Pakistan there.

Oh, and where are the command and control networks located?

In Pakistan.

They aren't in Afghanistan.

So, how are we going to eliminate them without going into Pakistan, Mr. Wizard?

I can say it, because that's the reality on the ground, and it certainly seems that he wants to deal with the reality.

If you're going to deal with the reality, you'll be fighting on both sides of the border, to keep them from getting away.

And if he's not dealing with reality, then it's ass-covering doublespeak so that if he invades, he'll say, "I said I would" and if he doesn't invade, he'll say, "I told you I wouldn't".
So you admit that he didn't say anything about going into Pakistan, that you are the one inserting "we should go into Pakistan" into what he actually said?

Glad we got that sorted out.

So you admit that he didn't say anything about going into Pakistan, that you are the one inserting "we should go into Pakistan" into what he actually said?

Glad we got that sorted out.

No, he said we're going there.

How else are we going to eliminate their command and control network?

Glad to see you're as ignorant as always.

Oh, pantless, you said he NEVER mentions Pakistan...

"America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

Gee, I see the word Pakistan there.

Oh, and where are the command and control networks located?

In Pakistan.

They aren't in Afghanistan.

So, how are we going to eliminate them without going into Pakistan, Mr. Wizard?
Did you switch personalities on me? We just had this discussion.

I lived on the Alabama-Tennessee border for 10 years. Which state did I live in?

No, he said we're going there.

How else are we going to eliminate their command and control network?

Glad to see you're as ignorant as always.
Really. Where did he say we were going into Pakistan.... wait a minute, you know for a fact the C2 network is within the Pakistani border? I think the CIA might want a talk with you.

Did you switch personalities on me? We just had this discussion.

I lived on the Alabama-Tennessee border for 10 years. Which state did I live in?


Really. Where did he say we were going into Pakistan.... wait a minute, you know for a fact the C2 network is within the Pakistani border? I think the CIA might want a talk with you.

He says it here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p30/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda -- so that we are confronting terrorists where their roots run deepest.

He says it here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p30/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
Least you bothered to actually find a source instead of falling back on the one and pretending it says things it didn't.

Our strategy must also include sustained diplomacy to isolate the Taliban and more effective development programs that target aid to areas where the Taliban are making inroads.

I will join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.

Sounds like he is trying to open up diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan first to me.

He says it here:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p30/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Doesn't appear to be advocating military by the look of The Pantless, clarification.

Least you bothered to actually find a source instead of falling back on the one and pretending it says things it didn't.

Sounds like he is trying to open up diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan first to me.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

He's said that we need to focus on Pakistan.

We need to eliminate their command and control networks.

Their command and control networks are NOT in Afghanistan.

They are in Pakistan.

Sounds like he wants us to go to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and fight on BOTH sides of the border to stamp them out.

I'm not making that up - you're being deliberately obtuse.

You're being deliberately obtuse.
I guess I will have to accept that considering your personal mastery of the skill.

He's said that we need to focus on Pakistan.

We need to eliminate their command and control networks.

Their command and control networks are NOT in Afghanistan.

They are in Pakistan.
I think the CIA would like a talk with you considering all of this hard, indisputable knowledge about al-Quiada.

Sounds like he wants us to go to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and fight on BOTH sides of the border to stamp them out.
What is this? Charades? "Sound like" - you putting words in peoples speeches does not mean they exist there, especially if that person is opposite your ideology.

It's an excellent idea to let them kill each other.

It means we won't have to do it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301792.html

Oh, that Washington Post, that right-wing blog...

Abu Sarhan's views illustrate the deep animosity toward Shiites that fuels so much of the sectarian violence in Iraq. His comments also suggested a more restrained view of the United States, which he considers an occupier but one that should not leave immediately.

"I personally don't have a hatred of the American people, and I respect American civilization," he said. "They have participated in the progress of all the nations of the world. They invented computers. Such people should be respected. But people who are crying over someone who died 1,400 years ago" -- referring to Shiites and their veneration of a leader killed in the 7th century -- "these should be eliminated, to clear the society of them, because they are simply trash."

"The real enemy for the resistance is Iran and those working for Iran," he went on. "Because Iran has a feud which goes back thousands of years with the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq."

With Sunnis like that, we don't have to worry about Iran at all - we should just leave and let them kill each other wholesale.

Because staying there to prevent the already on-going civil war (according to your source) is doing an excellent job of stopping the fighting.

Because staying there to prevent the already on-going civil war (according to your source) is doing an excellent job of stopping the fighting.

I'm sure they'll be killing each other at a much faster rate if we don't interfere.

And Obama is right - we have no business stopping it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's win for the US if they commit genocide. Iran will be busy with insurgents instead of us.

Of course, they won't be half as nice as we've been. The Iranians will want to round up Sunnis in camps and exterminate them.

I'm sure they'll be killing each other at a much faster rate if we don't interfere.
How much do you assert we are even hindering them? I wasn't aware we were trying to stop outbreaks of fights between Sunnis and Shiites. I thought we were covering our own asses and trying to build back the country.

And Obama is right - we have no business stopping it.
You can stop addressing that because you obviously don't understand what he was saying.

He'd be against intervention in Africa, as well? I'd like to hear him articulate that position next time he's campaigning on the pulpit of a black church. ;) Odd thing to say.why.. Why do you keep backstabbing you own credibility -in such a blatant way- ?

How much do you assert we are even hindering them? I wasn't aware we were trying to stop outbreaks of fights between Sunnis and Shiites. I thought we were covering our own asses and trying to build back the country.

You really don't watch the news. This is complete and utter proof.

We're there trying to build the country back.

Trying to get the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to work together.

They can't. So the Iraqi government can't agree on shit.

So they fight in the fucking streets. Killing each other.

We have been trying to stop the bloodbath between them. But we're not very good at it.

It's clear it would go faster if we weren't there.

The link to the article I posted proves it.

You really don't watch the news. This is complete and utter proof.
I know I don't watch the same news as you...

So they fight in the fucking streets. Killing each other.

It's clear it would go faster if we weren't there.
Based on what?

The link to the article I posted proves it.
Your articles never manage to prove shit, especially what you assert they do.

I know I don't watch the same news as you...

Based on what?

Your articles never manage to prove shit, especially what you assert they do.

The article has a direct quote from a Sunni warlord. They want to have the US leave because they actually have no quarrel with us - we're just in the way of them killing the Shias.

See his description of Shias.

- we're just in the way of them killing the Shias.
See his description of Shias.
Religious banter. Didn't the Pope say the diplomatic version of it a couple weeks ago?

He also says that the US actions have caused the Sunnis to attack them in Iraq and band together.

If the US left, everything would eventually get sorted out between those who know what is going on - the groups that exist there. It is going to be bloody regardless of our presence, but the longer we are there, the longer we unite the factions and encourage the bloodier groups - like al-Queda.

He did not condemn the actions of al-Qaeda in Iraq, but he said there were ideological differences among insurgent groups.
[...]

U.S. military commanders have worked in recent weeks to exploit the divisions within the Sunni insurgency. The Americans have collaborated with members of such groups as the Islamic Army and the 1920 Revolution Brigades who have turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq because of its indiscriminate killing.
[...]

Abu Sarhan, who lives in the nearby Khadra neighborhood, dismissed this cooperation with Americans, saying it represented temporary divisions rather than a widespread acceptance of U.S. forces.

"Right now I think that the Islamic Army has split into two factions. Some are cooperating with the Americans against the rest of the Sunnis, while some have remained as they are," he said.

[...]
Abu Sarhan estimated that about half the attacks against American forces come as reprisals for U.S. raids or arrests. He cited the U.S. offensive in Diyala province, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, as the type of effort that engenders more enemies than friends. "You can imagine how many families were hurt because of this military campaign," he said.

Yes, Obama did. He's also big on sending our troops OUT of Iraq right now, and putting them in Pakistan immediately, so we can fuck it up there instead.
you know. Saying the same bs over and over again in ever thread doesn't make it so.
Stop following Goebels and just grow a pair already.
One final time to see if it sinks in:
Obama wants to the US military to search for al Qaeda on the border of Pakistan.
On.
The.
Border.

If you are one the border of a country, it doesn't mean you are in that country. Texas borders Mexico. Doesn't mean Texas is in, or part of, Mexico.

Is that really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

Well the US didn't militarily intervene in Rwanda or when Saddam was gassing the Kurds the first time, in fact it was Iran that was helping the Kurds from being gassed and killed while the US helped Iraq do it. I know it may be hard for the rigid 'New American Century' neocons to get over their grand world design, but realpolitik and the cold hard reality always wins in the end.

Strange. I agree with him....:confused:

Same, wierd ain't it.

you know. Saying the same bs over and over again in ever thread doesn't make it so.
Stop following Goebels and just grow a pair already.
One final time to see if it sinks in:
Obama wants to the US military to search for al Qaeda on the border of Pakistan.
On.
The.
Border.

If you are one the border of a country, it doesn't mean you are in that country. Texas borders Mexico. Doesn't mean Texas is in, or part of, Mexico.

Is that really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

As I mentioned before, there's also the assumption that any US troops would be in either Pakistan or Afghanistan (as they currently are) with the approval of said governments as part of a task force to take out al Qaeda. Karzai couldn't very well keep us out of Afghanistan, but who knows what Musharraf would do--regardless, if we're there with permission, you can hardly call it an invasion, the way RO seems to be insisting it is.

As I mentioned before, there's also the assumption that any US troops would be in either Pakistan or Afghanistan (as they currently are) with the approval of said governments as part of a task force to take out al Qaeda. Karzai couldn't very well keep us out of Afghanistan, but who knows what Musharraf would do--regardless, if we're there with permission, you can hardly call it an invasion, the way RO seems to be insisting it is.
To be fair to RO, the idea of actually negotiating and seeking agreement with heads of other states before committing US troops is too difficult a concept for most, if not all, neocons - especially the ones currently in power - to grasp.

Thus he's just following the logical conclusion that such an action as you've described if it was undertaken by the Bush govt. In which case, yes it would indeed be a invasion (and, as well, a clusterfuck of staggering proportions).
RO is simply incapable of thinking outside the narrow views that his Dear Leader (TM) espouses.

Umm guys, why are we Remote Observer seriously, I assume we all know who's puppet he is.

Umm guys, why are we Remote Observer seriously, I assume we all know who's puppet he is.


DK's, I presumed. The same bullshit spews from both.

At least he is honest. No one has ever cared about the Iraqi people. In the debate over the Iraq war the suffering of ordinary Iraqis was always secondary to the political agendas of the global left and right wings. If Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, with the same outcome as you see now, the right would use the arguments the left currently employs and the left (exceptions granted to NS forumers) would use the arguments currently employed by the right.

Its funny that the genocide thats been happening in Africa for years has never been an issue. Bush is more interested in Iraqs oil then genocide in my opinion.

But if Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, he would not have had to forge a ridiculous "alliance of the willing" to finish a job his father had failed. You know, before Bush, world affairs were different. And Clinton would have probably trusted Hans Blix and his folks to do their jobs properly.

You mean Clinton's? I wasn't aware Clinton's father was ever president :D

At least he is honest. No one has ever cared about the Iraqi people. In the debate over the Iraq war the suffering of ordinary Iraqis was always secondary to the political agendas of the global left and right wings. If Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, with the same outcome as you see now, the right would use the arguments the left currently employs and the left (exceptions granted to NS forumers) would use the arguments currently employed by the right.But if Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998, he would not have had to forge a ridiculous "alliance of the willing" to finish a job his father had failed. You know, before Bush, world affairs were different. And Clinton would have probably trusted Hans Blix and his folks to do their jobs properly.

You mean Clinton's? I wasn't aware Clinton's father was ever president :DOh really? So the parallel to the current president fails there as well.... subsequently the "If Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998..." doesn't work at all.

Oh really? So the parallel to the current president fails there as well.... subsequently the "If Clinton had invaded Iraq in 1998..." doesn't work at all.

If you're going to talk about history, get your facts right, and actually use your words like an adult.

If you screw up, deal with having screwed up.

Strange. I agree with him....:confused:

Yeah. I do, sort of.

If you're going to talk about history, get your facts right, and actually use your words like an adult.

If you screw up, deal with having screwed up.What? I was only saying that Clinton would not have had any urge to finish a job his father started, unlike Bush, you know.

UB, watch your temper :)

What? I was only saying that Clinton would not have had any urge to finish a job his father started, unlike Bush, you know.

Yes, but your method of phrasing it suggested that Clinton's father HAD started something.

And if it makes you feel any better, I do agree with the point you were trying to make.

Yes, but your method of phrasing it suggested that Clinton's father HAD started something.

And if it makes you feel any better, I do agree with the point you were trying to make.The entire point is: Clinton would have never been so braindead to start a war in Iraq like the moron in the White House did. I still wonder if someone will indict Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld/Powell at the Hague for their warmongering and their responsibility for 655000 Iraqi deaths. It really is a shame they did not have to dangle besides Saddam.
And that Obama does not see the US responsibility and wants to duck out is a shame as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290073,00.html



I was looking at potentially voting for Obama but after this statement, my respect for him has dropped substantially. Anyone who says that preventing genocide is not a good reason to stay is not fit to lead this country.

I see he brought up the Congo but we are not in the Congo and the African Union was in Darfur and could still be there.

Obama, you want these problems solved then take it to the UN. Oh wait. That has been done with Darfur and not much has been done with it there.

And military troops were used to stop the genocide in Bosnia Obama. Did you forget about that?

Wow, I've never seen a worse summary. Nothing he said remotely sounds like what THEY say he said. Obama said what we're doing isn't working and that preventing genocide alone has not been the cause of military action in the past nor is it now, since we refuse to involve ourselves in most genocidal situations.

Wow, I've never seen a worse summary. Nothing he said remotely sounds like what THEY say he said. Obama said what we're doing isn't working and that preventing genocide alone has not been the cause of military action in the past nor is it now, since we refuse to involve ourselves in most genocidal situations.

You expected something different?

You expected something different?

Contrary to what many say about Fox news I usually find they are at least moderately good at hiding their bias. Many are much worse. This wasn't even an attempt. I meant it literally when I said I've never seen a worse summary from a major news source. Or at least I don't remember one.