Wow, say goodbye to the Greatest Generation, and hello to the weakest generation.
Senator Obama (D) has echoed the Democrats’ view on war: genocide isn’t worth fighting against. It’s why American troops don’t get sent to Sudan. It’s why American soldiers don’t go to Congo, and it’s why Americans should leave Iraq. Apparently President Clinton was right to ignore the machete massacre of millions in Rwanda, and President Roosevelt (D) was wrong to wage war against an enemy that never attacked the US, and had no operational or cooperational ties with the Japanese who did. Genocide is permitted and accepted by Democrats. Yep. That’s the face of the new Democratic Party.
"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.
Perhaps the "Progressives" (often in love with nuanced reasoning) would only support action against a genocide if it the action were supported and called for by the UN? Nope. Sorry, but that rules out Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, and Iraq. All four had UN resolutions calling for intervention to prevent genocide. Even the Iraq War (referring to the post-Saddam occupation here) is authorized-even compelled-by a series of UN resolutions that essentially demand that the US and others who invaded must stay in Iraq until it is secure and stable enough to stand on its own. Senator Obama either is ignorant of the myriad of UN resolutions that have called for intervention against genocide, or he’s taken the same position often accused of President Bush: he’s ignoring the will of the international community; thumbing his nose at the UN.
Perhaps Senator Obama and others believe that problems which are far away-like genocides in Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Iraq-are not American problems. They’re so far away as to be irrelevent. It’s not like they’re happening in Mexico or Canada where our completely undefended, unprotected, and ill guarded borders would protect us. History bears them correct, right?
The US had no business trying to stabilize a civil war in Lebanon in the 1980’s, so US Marines left, and the only effect was to turn Osama Bin Laden from rich playboy to Jihadi bent on holy war with the west-including the US.
The US was right in ending support for Afghanistan after the Russians left, and the ensuing anarchy which brought about the Taliban and Al Queda was their-fault not America’s, and people in Afghanistan as well as Holy Warriors everywhere understand that.
The US was right in running from anarchy in Somalia as the only effect was to prove Osama and other holy warriors’ idea that the US is a paper tiger that will run rather than fight.
The US was right not to respond to the USS Cole attack as the only effect was to create an Al Queda recruiting video.
Really, one wonders if regressive "progressives" learned anything from World War II, Pearl Harbor, and 911? If genocide isn’t worth fighting to end, then is anything, and if deliberately, purposefully letting millions of people be slaughtered in genocides isn’t the greatest human sin of omission, then what is greater?
Senator Obama has a new campaign slogan. Look for it in the 2008 Democratic Party Platform as well:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing until it’s too late, then we’ll point fingers rather than take action that should’ve been taken in the first place.”
They just don’t get it.
Nations that are in trouble, need food, bridges, and they need security against anarchy and genocide. We happily send doctors to third world nations, medicines at below manufacturing costs. We send missionaries to give hope and to give a more peaceful religious option to the "religion of peace" that has spawned almost 9000 attacks since 911. We send peace corps people to help build bridges and infrastructure where none exists. We provide loans to spawn business and provide jobs, and we are happy to do all these things and more, but when a nation is in anarchy, civil war, sectarian war, when a nation’s been taken over by terrorists, when the thing they need the most is security, progressives take Pontius Pilate’s approach and wash their hands, committed deliberate sins of omission rather than answer the call of the UN and provide security.
Shouldn’t the soldiers be held in as high regard as aid workers, missionaries, doctors, etc., and if not, then why? After all, without the soldiers to provide security and stability, then all those others are only putting bandaids on hacked up bodies of yet another Democratic Party sanctioned genocide.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Ohh so now the conservatives went there to stop the genocide that would occur when we invaded Iraq under faulty intelligence. That makes sense. We should stay they now, because if we leave this war genocide will inflame Iraq. Can you guys come up with one reason and stick to it? By my account, first it was WMDs, then it was the connection between Iraq and 9/11, then you tried out an Iranian connection (which no one buys because we were already told the same stuff about Iraq), and now we can’t leave a quagmire because of GENOCIDE?? These muslim people stone each other to death as punishment. They believe in “honor killings,” the use of death to a family member (female) that has disgraced the family. You know Vitter, the US senator that used prostitution? Well, in Iraq he would be stoned to death. These people will kill if we are there, and they will kill if we are not. We are not cutting and running, we are ending George Bush’s war. You can not give me one reason for war that is substantiated by facts. However, I can give you report after report that shows we used faulty intelligence to go to war with Iraq. Cheney and Bush thought this would be a cake walk, and it turned out to be a disaster. But don’t blame them. You don’t have to. Keep making up excuses for why we should stay and fight, and watch as the number of people that believe you dwindle. I know we won’t be out of Iraq anytime soon. Wars do not end quickly. You know that too. However, once it ends, and the dust settles, people will begin going back to the reasons we actually went to Iraq in the first place. And that is when all of the facts will come to light, that intelligence was force-fed time and time again until the CIA gave into the president, and allowed him to use all the ammunition, even if they were all blanks, that he wanted to.
By the way, what happens if there is no genocide? Then what will be the reasoning for you guys?
No one said that the US invaded to prevent a genocide. That’s an argumentative allegation made by someone who can’t open their eyes to the current reality. Put another way, you’re comments are all in opposition to an invasion that occurred 4 years ago. The enemy is different now (unless you want to argue that the enemy there today-Al Queda) was there before the invasion.
dontblameme is just spewing the opposition for opposition’s sake mantra intended to make the wara political football for GWB by conveniently ignoring all the Democrats who promoted, authorized, and then supported the war before they discovered they could use fear to pander to their base and get campaign money. “Bush’s War” I love that line! AWESOME! Right up there with Mr Lincoln’s war, Mr Roosevelt’s War, or Clinton’s wag the dog affairs. History is less partisan and more fact-based.
oh btw, that pipedream that if America leaves everything will be hunky dory; no genocide. Great idea. Seriously. I like it because if the Democrats force the troops out of Iraq, then the genocide that results will be on their hands where as if the President gets his way and stays until (as the UN mandated in post-Saddam resolutions) the Iraqi govt is secure and stable, then the victory is on President Bush.
Put another way, dontblameme appears to be another one of those people who desperately want the US to fail so Bush can be embarassed by “Bush’s War.” Unfortunately, the war is a lot more than just Bush/Republicans vs Democrats. Real lives are being lost, and either some lives will be lost now via Bush’s new direction, or millions will be lost in the future by the Democrats’ new direction.
It’s things like the fear of intervening to prevent a genocide that has made liberal the dirty word it is today. Today’s liberal doesn’t seem willing to fight for anything.
I am curious how you feel about, say, intervening in the Congo. The Congo civil war was pretty much a direct follow-up to the travesty in Rwanda and resulted in 4 million dead. Those are WWI magnitude numbers, simply unheard of in any other sphere of conflict today. This was essentially unreported in the Western press, and there was NO impetus for action on the part of any politician in the US. Do you think this was wrong? Should we have intervened in the Congo? Done something? Or was it none of our business?
I fully believe that the US should have sent troops to the Congo, Sudan, Balkans in the 90’s, and everywhere else genocide takes place IF POSSIBLE. Sadly, the US is too busy fighting in Iraq (a war that’d be dramatically shortened imo if people supported successful action there rather than advocating the same policy that the enemy has). There was a time when Americans would see a fight for liberty/freedom and life itself, it was a time of Democrats like Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy…a time before “progressive” Democrats took over the DNC and seem to know only opposition to anything and everything. Problem (as Democrats now in control of Congress have discovered) is that opposition fine and all, but sooner or later you have to be FOR something.
“Do you think this was wrong? Should we have intervened in the Congo? Done something? Or was it none of our business?”
a better answer:
http://howardwasright.com/index.php/site/more/2056/
“dontblameme” seems to have the English skills of a 6th grader.
Actually, that’s an insult to 6th graders and I hereby apologize to any who may be reading this.
narf
Joe Mariani, author of Guardian Watchblog has penned an outstanding essay on liberals and Darfur:
And so, as in any dire situation, the world turns to America for help. Activists and protesters demand that President Bush stop the genocide. Hollywood actors appear in television and print ads urging action in Darfur. When President Bush mentioned Darfur in his 2007 State of the Union address, Democrats leapt to their feet, clapping wildly. When he spoke of victory in Iraq a few seconds earlier, however, most Democrats sat in stony silence. Those on the Left keep telling us that we’re not the world’s police. Ideological brothers-in-arms to those who cry, “Save Darfur!” recently marched in Washington DC alongside Vietnam-era traitor Jane Fonda, denounced the President for sending troops to Iraq, spat at an Iraq war veteran on crutches and defaced the Capitol. How dare they demand he send troops to Sudan?
Besides, for what purpose should we send troops — to simply stand between members of an Islamic militia and their victims? Liberals and their pet Democrats attack the President daily for his proposal to reinforce American troops in Iraq who (as they see things) serve only as targets for the enemy. We are constantly treated to Left-wing hand-wringing over the dangers faced by (again, in their twisted view) the “children” who were “sent by Bush to die” in a “war of choice.” Time magazine recently captured the Liberal attitude in a cartoon: rows of soldierly silhouettes wearing targets on their backs, with the caption, “21,500 reasons to oppose Bush’s troop surge.” Yet the same people want us to send those troops to perform that function in Sudan instead?
Or are we to believe that they want those troops to remove the Arab government behind the genocide? Let us apply the “Iraq test” to the Darfur situation, to help anticipate whether Liberals would consider regime change in Sudan a “good” war or a “bad” war once it reached the limit of their short attention spans. Sudan poses no possible threat to America. Sudan never attacked us. The violence in Sudan is contained. Sudan is not threatening to invade its neighbors, has no weapons of mass destruction, and we already know that Liberals do not generally believe there is an Islamic terrorist threat to the world.
If President Bush sent troops to remove Sudan’s president, and if they were true to their professed principles, the anti-war crowd would practically break their necks rushing out to the streets to hold a protest rally. They have shown by opposing the war in Iraq that they do not consider genocide or brutality sufficient reasons to impose change on a “sovereign” government, even one so heinous as that of Saddam Hussein or Sudan’s Umar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir.
We should not commit troops to a situation in which the Left would once again have the chance to stab them in the back without a pressing national interest — and there is no such need for American troops to be in Sudan. As much as we should oppose genocide and fanatical Muslim mass murderers, the same Liberals who demand we “do something” there have damned it by their own overblown criticism of our having done something elsewhere.
You can read the rest HERE
Good stuff Skye. Thanks. I think the earlier comments by dontblameme clearly demonstrate, however, that the core of the opposition to the Iraq War for many isn’t really anti-war as much as it is anti-Bush, and the argumentative arguments, regurgitated talking points, parroted political rhetoric, and hypocrisy shines through stronger and stronger with each call for action in Sudan or anywhere else. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who oppose the war for many reasons, but I think the most ardent sects of the anti-war “movement” are really far more concerned with opposing President Bush than they are about what’s right and wrong in the world.
Scott, first of all, congratulations on a terrific site. Front page is just fun to look at. The writing is up to the same level.
I haven’t looked around much, but enough to see you voted for Clinton twice. (I’ll disclose that I voted for Nixon once, Reagan twice, and against George W. Bush three times, (legally). I continue to believe – all the way down to my prostate cancer – that the current Bush has no promise to amount to anything other than the worse possible president in America’s history or future. He and Cheney are the problem. Alluding to your masthead, if those two deuces could be ‘flipped’ off the table, today, then all Americans could come back and sit down together for a re-deal and playable hand, starting with the Middle East.
Setting that aside, please allow me a few more column inches to address the subject of your thread to which I was drawn by the WIZARD, fkap. Speaking as a small-d democrat as well as an American nationalist, I have always felt that nations rightfully go to war when they are attacked, not when they feel, imagine, fantasize, or wish they might be attacked. And had not Bush and Cheney so recklessly and thoroughly whacked off our wad in Iraq, then all of your sensibilities about Darfur (and other holocausts past and future), would not ring so hollow. But, thanks to those two deuces, any possibilities of our contributing to the collective security of others is as about as plausible as drawing to an inside straight.