Posted by SAM on 20 July, 2007 at 8:16 am. 9 comments already!

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.

>