Obama's War in Darfur

razorsharp · 10-03-2008, 10:19 PM

During the VP debate, the moderator asked Sen. Biden about Darfur.

Quote:

IFILL: Senator, you have quite a record, this is the next question here, of being an interventionist. You argued for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, initially in Iraq and Pakistan and now in Darfur, putting U.S. troops on the ground. Boots on the ground. Is this something the American public has the stomach for?

BIDEN: I think the American public has the stomach for success. My recommendations on Bosnia. I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked. Look what we did in Bosnia. We took Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks, being told by everyone, I was told by everyone that this would mean that they had been killing each other for a thousand years, it would never work.

There's a relatively stable government there now as in Kosovo. With regard to Iraq, I indicated it would be a mistake to -- I gave the president the power. I voted for the power because he said he needed it not to go to war but to keep the United States, the UN in line, to keep sanctions on Iraq and not let them be lifted.

I, along with Dick Lugar, before we went to war, said if we were to go to war without our allies, without the kind of support we need, we'd be there for a decade and it'd cost us tens of billions of dollars. John McCain said, no, it was going to be OK.

I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide.

Despite all the statements by Obama criticizing Pres. Bush for use of military force in Iraq, Obama will enter a war in Darfur which will result in the needless death of Americans. Iraq was the place for genocide, but Obama opposed going into Iraq.

America has absolutely no interests in Darfur. Darfur does not pose a military risk to America.

Going into Darfur will be perceived in the muslim world as an attack on Islam.

Obama is willing to bypass the U.N. Obama will support NATO's intervention in Darfur, yet Obama complains that Pres. Bush did not get the world's support to go into Iraq.

Which of American's children will be sent to Darfur to die to support the ego of Barack Obama?

debtocratic · 10-03-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Iraq was the place for genocide, but Obama opposed going into Iraq.

There was no genocide in Iraq in 2003. Saddam did gas people in 1988 with the support of Ronald Reagan's arms and in 1991 after Bush I sent mixed signals about US intentions. There is an ongoing genocide in Darfur.

Quote:

Going into Darfur will be perceived in the muslim world as an attack on Islam.

Going into Iraq was seen on as on attack on Islam. Did that stop you and Bush from supporting it? No. Nuff said. Send this to the bottom of page , it's short on facts, deep in ideology.

Hunt · 10-03-2008, 10:39 PM

Yeah, it sure takes a big ego to oppose genocide.

LongPrime · 10-03-2008, 11:31 PM

Does anyone know why there is a conflict in Darfur?

mini · 10-04-2008, 12:42 AM

There was genocide in Iraq 1993-1996, but the perpetrator was Bill Clinton. More than million dead, half of them children. Roughly three times the number of dead in Darfur. Violated U.N. Resolution 260, On the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

menloparkmom · 10-04-2008, 02:59 AM

"America has absolutely no interests in Darfur."
I see. Any attempt to try to prevent the massacre of BLACK people in Africa is not in America's interests as a humanitarian gesture to mankind, huh? It's only ok to invade another country, as Bush did in Iraq, if they have oil, which is of COURSE in Americas' interest. I gather you think that the genocide of Jews in WWII by Germany should have been ignored by America as well? After all, who cares about 6 million dead people anyway?

"yet Obama complains that Pres. Bush did not get the world's support to go into Iraq."
boy, you don't read history do you. BUSH and Cheney LIED to the world and to the American people to justify their invasion of a country THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. THAT is what Obama has accused Bush of. The Bush administration decided that Iraq was a threat, all evidence to the contrary, and fabricated evidence to match that decision as a pretext to go to war, knowing full well that the real reason for invasion, was their desire to get their hands on Iraq's OIL. Oh, and to get back at Saddam for trying to kill Bush SR. after the Gulf war.

-Allmusic- · 10-04-2008, 08:24 AM

Sadly, the genocide and displacement of millions of people in the Sudan will likely continue. Obama wasn't saying to go in and start a war in Darfur; he was saying that he would involve NATO allies, impose a no fly zone, and get the African Union forces in...to STOP THE GENOCIDE. He wants to take a global approach, which is exactly what George Bush did not do with the Iraq war, when he thought we could go in alone, without worldwide support (oh, yes, we first had a few hundred Romanian, Bulgarian or Albanian troops, and under a hundred Danish, Armenian and other troops to support this "mission").

Darfur does need global attention, but I doubt it will get it. It's criminal to allow a violent genocide to continue, but I suspect it will, as it has for over decade.

pmrlcomm · 10-04-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Any attempt to try to prevent the massacre of BLACK people in Africa is not in America's interests as a humanitarian gesture to mankind, huh?

Race is unimportant. If they had the right kind of black over there we would have stepped in. Black gold. That's why we care about the middle east. Once we are either free of that region's need for oil or it is gone we won't care how much of a 3rd world region that becomes.

mini · 10-04-2008, 11:13 AM

I think Obama should start with the five million refugees created by the U.S through its support of ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

razorsharp · 10-07-2008, 10:12 PM

Obama confirmed to night that he will engage in an act of war (no fly zone) in Darfur regardless of whether there is United Nations approval.

Obama is no different from Bill Clinton who used the military to project force in areas where America has no interests whatsoever.

There are hundreds of places in the world where one side is beating the daylights out of another side and we attach the name genocide. Will Obama also invade those countries?

debtocratic · 10-07-2008, 10:33 PM

If America is as great as we say it is, genocide should be in our national interest.

ADad · 10-07-2008, 11:15 PM

^^Excuse me?

debtocratic · 10-07-2008, 11:33 PM

What did you think I meant, seriously? Of course I meant preventing genocide is in our national interest. Sheesh.

ADad · 10-08-2008, 12:00 AM

Seriously, I didn't understand what you meant and that is why I asked. Thank you for your response.

Teddie · 10-08-2008, 12:06 AM

I was surprised tonight in the debate when Obama said he wants to go to Darfur.
He talks about bringing troops home. About not being involved in war, so why would
he send troops to Darfur?

This concerns me, so I searched for Obama's involvement with Darfur, finding this forum.

Obama's been to Darfur, yet he's never been to see our troops. What's his interest,
reasons for wanting to go to Darfur?

I know that their are a lot of problems in Darfur, but the USA can't go to every country
that has problems.