Obama: Genocide isn't that big of a deal

Apparently, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama may have taken this whole political honesty thing a bit too far.

Senator Obama told a crowd that U.S. Military Forces Staying in Iraq in order to prevent a violent outbreak throughout the country and even possible Genocide is not a good enough reason to stay.

But you have to give the guy credit he's basically admitting to what Republicans have been saying about Democrat's stance on Iraq all this time.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_article=1&image=large

Is it just me or is all of this a bit hypocritical? I mean the entire reason that the war hasn't gone in our favor is because it is being run by politicians not military leaders. And now we have another politician trying to do the same thing.

I hate the Rebublicans 100%

obama is absolutely correct.

"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.

so neocons play the humanitarian card and say we're there to free iraq. what a load of bullshit. and you're eating it all up and saying 'yum yum seconds please'

Is it just me or is all of this a bit hypocritical? I mean the entire reason that the war hasn't gone in our favor is because it is being run by politicians not military leaders.

who spoon fed you that talking point? the reason the war hasnt gone in OUR favor (good choice of words) is because they do not want us there, there is a civil war there, and the business of policing foriegn civil war is a failure. its about OIL, not the women and children that they pretend to care about.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Is it just me or is all of this a bit hypocritical?

Sounds like a twisting of words. We really should just pull out and let them deal with their civial war. If some foreign super power had stuck their nose in to the US civil war I think things would have gone very badly for all involved.

Though taking words out of context, and spinning them to attack the other person is standard politics. After all they did it to a republican presidential hopeful too didn't they?

"I can't imagine anything worse than polygamy."

Originally posted by Schecter
obama is absolutely correct.

so neocons play the humanitarian card and say we're there to free iraq. what a load of bullshit. and you're eating it all up and saying 'yum yum seconds please'

who spoon fed you that talking point? the reason the war hasnt gone in OUR favor (good choice of words) is because they do not want us there, there is a civil war there, and the business of policing foriegn civil war is a failure. its about OIL, not the women and children that they pretend to care about.

You're just as bad as Deano with all your theories.

I hate how polorized this conflict has become. There are very strict ideological lines drawn in the sand over the fact that America even went to war in the first place.

Honestly, why not try to have a discussion about what to do with Iraq as it is currently without needing to argue about why America went to war?

I honestly don't think genocide is the worst case scenario for the Americans. If something is not done to prevent the situation in Iraq from becomming the same as it was in Afghanistan post soviet invasion the implications for America are another failed state that harbors extremeist elements. Genocide probably wont kill Americans, another state run Taliban style could.

The "continue fighting" vs "Bring the troops home" is also just retarted. America won the war with Iraq and then lost the war with the Mujahadeen. Thus, war is over, mission successful, then subsequently unsuccessful. A totally new and redefined concept of how to deal with the middle east, and very specifically with an Iraq in a power vaccum, needs to be thought up. It will unfortunatly probably require troops to be on the ground performing some type of combat opperations. I say unfortunatly for two reasons, 1) Troops on the ground means people dying, which is always a bad thing and 2) Many NATO countries are unwilling to properly support mission into the middle east, meaning that even if we were able to use military power effectively against the muj, most nations wouldn't.

HEY, I know! that guy who is the new special envoy to the middle east will sure help in Iraq. I bet they will trust him to have the best interests of the Iraqis in mind. Its not like he was one of the catalysts for potentially the most destabalizing war the region has seen in decades.

Originally posted by Grimm22
Apparently, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama may have taken this whole political honesty thing a bit too far.

Senator Obama told a crowd that U.S. Military Forces Staying in Iraq in order to prevent a violent outbreak throughout the country and even possible Genocide is not a good enough reason to stay.

But you have to give the guy credit he's basically admitting to what Republicans have been saying about Democrat's stance on Iraq all this time.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QGF5700&show_article=1&image=large

Is it just me or is all of this a bit hypocritical? I mean the entire reason that the war hasn't gone in our favor is because it is being run by politicians not military leaders. And now we have another politician trying to do the same thing.

Why do you think we should stay in Iraq? What is this war for ?

oh god i hate that question. you know the answer, and its not the answer they had 5 years ago. now they tell you that its all for iraqi freedom and love and babies and flowers and puppies. then in the same conversation you'll likely hear "we should just nuke all them sand n*****s".

makes me sick every time.

Originally posted by Schecter
oh god i hate that question. you know the answer, and its not the answer they had 5 years ago. now they tell you that its all for freedom and love and babies and flowers and puppies. then in the same conversation you'll likely hear "we should just nuke all them sand n*****s".

makes me sick every time.

I know, but I wanted to see what Mr. Grimm would say. Most people who support this war, don't even know why they do. It's just what thier party tells them to do.

You know that.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I know, but I wanted to see what Mr. Grimm would say. Most people who support this war, don't even know why they do. It's just what thier party tells them to do.

You know that.

if Grimm gives you the answer you know to be true, what relevance does that have on the current Iraqi problem?

Originally posted by inimalist
if Grimm gives you the answer you know to be true, what relevance does that have on the current Iraqi problem?

What current Iraqi problem ? We have no business there. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and the other Republican liars just keep coming with more bullshit excuses as to why we should keep our troops there, and have our family's children come home with missing arms and legs.

Think about it...it's been SIX ****ing years, and we still haven't found Bin Ladin...why ? Because we're looking in Iraq, thinking we're gonna find him. We overthrew Sadam Hussien ...YEAH !!!!...okay, now where's the guy who destroyed the World Trade Center, I thought he was on priority.

neocon talking point machine: oh so you think the world would be better off with saddam in power?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
What current Iraqi problem ? We have no business there. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush, Cheney, and the other Republican liars just keep coming with more bullshit excuses as to why we should keep our troops there, and have our family's children come home with missing arms and legs.

Think about it...it's been SIX ****ing years, and we still haven't found Bin Ladin...why ? Because we're looking in Iraq, thinking we're gonna find him. We overthrew Sadam Hussien ...YEAH !!!!...okay, now where's the guy who destroyed the World Trade Center, I thought he was on priority.

after the soviet invasion of afghanistan there was a power struggle within the country. Years of wars followed. The winner of this war was eventually a very hard line group known as the Taliban, and the rest was history. The reason the Taliban won, aside from some lucky victories against the former soviet enclaves where they were able to comendere some good technology, was their willingness to be the most ruthless and brutal. To impose rules that people will be unwilling to break out of fear. afaik, the Taliban are the only government to effectively curb the sale of marijuana from their country, by boiling those who smoked it alive or having them beat publicly.

America is directly responsable for creating a situation in Iraq where there is no longer any centralized authority. The institutions that provide a decent standard live for people are destroyed and all of those educated or wealthy enough to have left are already gone. Investment into the country is down, and investors are targets for the insurgents.

Many people, for some reason, think that as soon as Americans leave, people are going to go back to sipping tea in some market square and that the ethnic problems that required a genocidal tyrant to surpress prior will subside. However, we have a population of individuals who are now have no autonomy in their life, no direction, no ability to rise above the problems that they experience on a daily basis. While the American invasion may have caused those problems, it is almost irrelevant to the discussion now, unless you want to talk about who these disenfranchised youth will be angry at.

Afghanistan was never occupied by America prior to 9-11. Terrorism is not caused by American military involvement in the region.

Originally posted by Schecter
neocon talking point machine: oh so you think the world would be better off with saddam in power?

1) again, this is with regards to why America went to war in the first place and does not effectively paint a picture of the conflict as it now exists.

2) would it have been?

the fact is that iraq is a puppet democracy and iraqis have no sense of patriotism/nationalism. i feel that the only solution for iraq is to destroy it. not with weapons but with new boarders and new sovereign nations. this wont be allowed because it would naturally lead to a new cooperative shiite iranian neighbor, essentially an expansion of iran.

thats my take on it all: split it up.

similar proposals have been made by republicans but with the notion that they would all have a central body of government. this imho would be an utter flop

Originally posted by inimalist

1) again, this is with regards to why America went to war in the first place and does not effectively paint a picture of the conflict as it now exists.

neocon talking point machine: *sputters* *ticks* well, whats done is done and now we are committed. if we leave it will be allout chaos and al qaida will take control, leaving us with another afghanistan debacle.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) would it have been?

neocon talking point machine: ZOMG YOU SUPPORT A BRUTAL DICTATOR????222

Originally posted by Schecter
the fact is that iraq is a puppet democracy and iraqis have no sense of patriotism/nationalism. i feel that the only solution for iraq is to destroy it. not with weapons but with new boarders and new sovereign nations. this wont be allowed because it would naturally lead to a new cooperative shiite iranian neighbor, essentially an expansion of iran.

thats my take on it all: split it up.

similar proposals have been made by republicans but with the notion that they would all have a central body of government. this imho would be an utter flop

I agree with everything you say

however, what is to be done about the groups who hope to make Iraq a Sharia run Calliph? I don't think they would be happy living under secular rule in any of the 3 regions, and giving them their own state is as counter-productive as letting them take one (if less bloddy)

I honestly don't have any answers. The Mujahadeen seem like an almost unbeatable opponent... through classical military intervention that is.

Why isn't America's no.1 priority to have 24/7 electricity in Baghdad?

Originally posted by Schecter
neocon talking point machine: *sputters* *ticks* well, whats done is done and now we are committed. if we leave it will be allout chaos and al qaida will take control, leaving us with another afghanistan debacle.

dude, if you can show me why Al Qaida or similarlly motivated groups wont take control in a post-withdrawl Iraq I would love to see it. I am certainly not ideologically attached to the war, I just see this as being a glaring issue that NOBODY is addressing

Originally posted by inimalist

dude, if you can show me why Al Qaida or similarlly motivated groups wont take control in a post-withdrawl Iraq I would love to see it. I am certainly not ideologically attached to the war, I just see this as being a glaring issue that NOBODY is addressing

im just expressing the great art of bullshiting and self exhoneration that the current administration puts forth.

my take: we have no control over the situation as long as we continue to try to push for a new iraq. irrationallity and hatred/despair brings about brutal dictators in this situation. the longer we stay there, the more irrational they become, it seems. al qaida and other terrorist organisations feed off of hatred sparked by u.s. occupations and misdealings. they publically acknowledge this. its an endless domino effect which leads to more and more recruits for every bomb we drop and every family we slaughter.

Originally posted by Schecter
the fact is that iraq is a puppet democracy and iraqis have no sense of patriotism/nationalism. i feel that the only solution for iraq is to destroy it. not with weapons but with new boarders and new sovereign nations. this wont be allowed because it would naturally lead to a new cooperative shiite iranian neighbor, essentially an expansion of iran.

thats my take on it all: split it up.

similar proposals have been made by republicans but with the notion that they would all have a central body of government. this imho would be an utter flop

Don't worry, America will be packing it's bags soon; then we'll have a huge civil war where with the Iran backed Shi'ites and the Saudi backed Sunnis will go head to head. Lose-lose for the Iraqi civilians, but in reality, as you noted, Democracy simply will not work in that region, they're not ready for it or simply do not want it; it was stupid to push it on them. Even the "purple thumb" voting thing was a joke, the people voted for whomever their Mullahs told them to vote for.

Not sure about your consensus of "it was for the oil" as the solereason. We're there, we could have control of the oil fields if we wished; gas dropping $75.00+ a gallon would help Bush's/his cabinets ratings.

Originally posted by Schecter
im just expressing the great art of bullshiting and self exhoneration that the current administration puts forth.

my take: we have no control over the situation as long as we continue to try to push for a new iraq. irrationallity and hatred/despair brings about brutal dictators in this situation. the longer we stay there, the more irrational they become, it seems. al qaida and other terrorist organisations feed off of hatred sparked by u.s. occupations and misdealings. they publically acknowledge this. its an endless domino effect which leads to more and more recruits for every bomb we drop and every family we slaughter.

the best part of the whole situation is, to me at least, that Bush Sr's military advisor is on record and shown in interviews to have known this would be the result of invading.

I don't know, I have no answers. Sure if America stays, the groups have more justification, but if they leave, stuff deteriorates, and they have more justification to hate America again. We should make the Muj wear uniforms, hahahahaha