Obama says "Let them die."

[12th Doctor]

Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

(cut)

Wow... simply stunning.  What a piece of sh**t.  Clearly passing out contraceptives in public high schools is more important than Iraqi lives.

Newsflash: There are more people in this country that vote for the Libertarian Party than care about Iraqis.

We are Americans. We don't care about Rwandans, Kosovars, Darfurians, Iraqis, etc. You can take a poll of the Republican Party, if you asked them what they would rather support, fighting "passing out contraceptives in public high schools" or "Iraqi lives", the former would win handily.

No, you are absolutley right... rather than be beacons of hope and vision, our leaders should feed to the lowest common denominator.

[nlm]

Democrats talk about pulling out - that gets maximum political mileage and they're milking it for everything its worth.

The various factions in the Democratic party seem to be backing a host of ideas regarding Iraq. To lump them all together seems more than a bit disingenuous. Just as an example, Obama and Clinton seem to be backing Baker/Hamilton for the most part while Kucinich just wants to withdraw and Biden wants to split Iraq into three pieces.

Kucinich has a fringe position which is easy to rip apart - so most Republicans seem to like to pretend that all the Dems share his view. Watching any potential for an honest debate get spun into the ground and essentially strawmaned to death on an issue as important as war really lets me know how much trouble our entire political system is in.

[Keystone Phil]

Ouch. You see that? It looked like Hillary completely destroying this guy.

Mr. "Audacity of Hope" better hope that he learns how to keep his mouth shut.

[agcatter]

various "factions" of Democrats on Iraq:

1)  Joe Lieberman

2)  the rest of Senate Democrats


That about covers all "factions"

[Lincoln Republican]

Obama is a first term Senator you say?

It shows.

[The Duke]

Oh boy, first the kindergarten thing and now this.

It's gonna be a long election season.

Nothing says "start your horses" like misrepresentative rants used to make reasonable but controversial positions sound insane.

This is not a misrepresentation of what Osama said.  He is explicitly saying that he accepts genocide as an acceptable consequence of policy.

And the position he articulates is not reasonable.

[Rob]

This is not a misrepresentation of what Osama said.

Oooh, nice.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The amount of Partizan hackery in this thread is unbelievable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

various "factions" of Democrats on Iraq:

1)  Joe Lieberman

2)  the rest of Senate Democrats


That about covers all "factions"

Lieberman is no Democrat.

[Gabu]

Oh boy, first the kindergarten thing and now this.

It's gonna be a long election season.

Nothing says "start your horses" like misrepresentative rants used to make reasonable but controversial positions sound insane.

This is not a misrepresentation of what Osama said.  He is explicitly saying that he accepts genocide as an acceptable consequence of policy.

And the position he articulates is not reasonable.

No, it is a misrepresentation.  Acting as if Obama is perfectly okay with genocide is totally false.  His statement was simply that the United States is not capable of going out and stamping out every single bit of genocide that occurs throughout the world.  Argue the merits of that statement all you want, but to act as if he's fine with genocide is just being willfully ignorant.

The worst part about that statement is that it is technically true that he "accepts genocide as an acceptable consequence of policy".  Put like that, you can't say it's false; opponents are forced to attempt to disprove the unstated implications of that statement.  So well done in coming up with such a well-picked choice of words.

And "Osama"?  Come on, you're better than that.

[Rob]

And "Osama"?  Come on, you're better than that.

No, he isn't.

[The Duke]

Honest to God, that was typo.

Anyway, I am right on the substance.  And I never said Obama is okay with genocide, I said he accepts it as a consequence of his preferred policy.  He may not prefer genocide, but he isn't concerned enough to try and stop it.

And I don't accept the argument that there isn't a way to stop genocide just because he can't think of any.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And "Osama"?  Come on, you're better than that.

No, he isn't.

Exactly.

Feingold has committed many offenses that contribute to him deserving to be hit by a truck.

Hey, at least he only called for Feingold's death, as opposed to misspelling his name.

[Smash255]

Honest to God, that was typo.

Anyway, I am right on the substance.  And I never said Obama is okay with genocide, I said he accepts it as a consequence of his preferred policy.  He may not prefer genocide, but he isn't concerned enough to try and stop it.

And I don't accept the argument that there isn't a way to stop genocide just because he can't think of any.

Its not because he can't think of a way to stop it, quite frankly their isn't any.  Bush has screwed the pooch so bad on this one the only choices left are bad ones.  Just staying in there and hoping we can somehow turn it around is not going to result in anything other than hundreds of billions more $$ wasted and thousands of more American lives wasted.  What happens in Iraq is not going to change if we have a pullout within the next year, 3 years or even 30 years.

[The Duke]

Honest to God, that was typo.

Anyway, I am right on the substance.  And I never said Obama is okay with genocide, I said he accepts it as a consequence of his preferred policy.  He may not prefer genocide, but he isn't concerned enough to try and stop it.

And I don't accept the argument that there isn't a way to stop genocide just because he can't think of any.

Its not because he can't think of a way to stop it, quite frankly their isn't any.  Bush has screwed the pooch so bad on this one the only choices left are bad ones.  Just staying in there and hoping we can somehow turn it around is not going to result in anything other than hundreds of billions more $$ wasted and thousands of more American lives wasted.  What happens in Iraq is not going to change if we have a pullout within the next year, 3 years or even 30 years.

We have seen the civilian death rate fall 60% in Iraqq since the surge.  It fell 30% since last month.  Don't tell me the situation can't be salvaged, there is absolutely no military reason to think that is true and no evidence on the ground to suggest it.

You think there's no way to stop genocide simply because you can't thought of one.

Thankfully, David Petraeus has thought of one.  Unlike Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Casey, and Bremer, none of whom had my confidence at any point during this war, David Petraeus is an exceptional commander who is perfectly suited to this mission.  He literaly wrote the book on counter-insurgency.  We've abandoned search-and-destroy and begun a counterinsurgency (Better late than never).  We have finally adopted the strategy I have argued for for almost four years, and no surprise, its working (Although, another 25,000 pairs of boots wouldn't hurt).  Whether Congress will give it time to be completed is another story entirely.

[nlm]

various "factions" of Democrats on Iraq:

1)  Joe Lieberman

2)  the rest of Senate Democrats


That about covers all "factions"

Great, so Baker/Hamilton equals Dennis Kucinich is the land of Partisan driven willful ignorance. I guess I already said that.......

Kucinich has a fringe position which is easy to rip apart - so most Republicans seem to like to pretend that all the Dems share his view.

but thanks for the confirmation all the same.

[nlm]

Its not because he can't think of a way to stop it, quite frankly their isn't any.  Bush has screwed the pooch so bad on this one the only choices left are bad ones.  Just staying in there and hoping we can somehow turn it around is not going to result in anything other than hundreds of billions more $$ wasted and thousands of more American lives wasted.  What happens in Iraq is not going to change if we have a pullout within the next year, 3 years or even 30 years.

Smash, just remember we are in a perpetual state of turning the corner, it would appear we have been going in circles for years now.

And before you let anybody throw civilian body counts at you, there are a few things to remember. The US doesn't keep any official civilian body counts in Iraq - the estimates come from the Iraqi government that desperately needs its people to believe they are not being killed. The death of US troops is on the rise and every indication is that the violence being caused by the warring parties is increasing as they "surge" against the US led surge (and amazingly the civilian death toll has decreased as the violence has increased - odd). And most strikingly - the Iraqi government just changed the methodology by which they count civilian deaths - splitiing out estimates of those being killed due to sectarian violence and those being killed by other means. That kind of makes me wonder how they concluded there was a drop in civilian deaths caused by sectarian violence when they are comparing estimates generated in one fashion vs. estamiates generated in another. At the end of the day - the numbers being thrown about civilian deaths mean nothing, they don't back a pro-war or an anti-war position - because they are to unreliable to have meaning. The old saying goes something like this - "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics", this would certainly be a case where that saying would apply.

It's also worth noting that the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s operation isn't even authorized to release their civilian death toll numbers - the numbers presented are leaked from their office and not even official or any where close to verifable. And oddly - their estimates continue to show that less Iraqi soldiers are being killed each month than US soldiers (they are either underestimating that number or it's a fairly damning number). And on top of that even a Bush spokesmen acknowledged that it was far to early to conclude there is trend regarding Iraqi civilian death.

[David S]

It seems to me like genocide is pretty close to what is going on now in Iraq.
About 70,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war according to
http://iraqbodycount.org
Maybe ten times that many if you believe the study which appeared in the British medical journal Lancet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

The studies use different methodologies and get very different answers. Which one is correct I don't know, but either way a lot of civilians have died.

[nlm]

It seems to me like genocide is pretty close to what is going on now in Iraq.
About 70,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war according to
http://iraqbodycount.org
Maybe ten times that many if you believe the study which appeared in the British medical journal Lancet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html

The studies use different methodologies and get very different answers. Which one is correct I don't know, but either way a lot of civilians have died.

True enough.

[Eraserhead]

Obama is completely right about this. Time to get realistic about Iraq. It's going to be brutal when we leave whether we do it now or ten years from now. We may as well start leaving now and save as many American lives as possible.

[KEmperor]

Talk about a misleadingly titled thread. And he even put "let them die" in quotes like Obama actually said that.

I have to agree.

I find this post amusing, considering the poster's signature.

[Smash255]

Honest to God, that was typo.

Anyway, I am right on the substance.  And I never said Obama is okay with genocide, I said he accepts it as a consequence of his preferred policy.  He may not prefer genocide, but he isn't concerned enough to try and stop it.

And I don't accept the argument that there isn't a way to stop genocide just because he can't think of any.

Its not because he can't think of a way to stop it, quite frankly their isn't any.  Bush has screwed the pooch so bad on this one the only choices left are bad ones.  Just staying in there and hoping we can somehow turn it around is not going to result in anything other than hundreds of billions more $$ wasted and thousands of more American lives wasted.  What happens in Iraq is not going to change if we have a pullout within the next year, 3 years or even 30 years.

We have seen the civilian death rate fall 60% in Iraqq since the surge.  It fell 30% since last month.  Don't tell me the situation can't be salvaged, there is absolutely no military reason to think that is true and no evidence on the ground to suggest it.

You think there's no way to stop genocide simply because you can't thought of one.

Thankfully, David Petraeus has thought of one.  Unlike Rumsfeld, Abizaid, Casey, and Bremer, none of whom had my confidence at any point during this war, David Petraeus is an exceptional commander who is perfectly suited to this mission.  He literaly wrote the book on counter-insurgency.  We've abandoned search-and-destroy and begun a counterinsurgency (Better late than never).  We have finally adopted the strategy I have argued for for almost four years, and no surprise, its working (Although, another 25,000 pairs of boots wouldn't hurt).  Whether Congress will give it time to be completed is another story entirely.

Its headed back up in July, unless we have a real quiet week and a half the amount of Civilian deaths in Iraq will go back up.  Not to mention last months so called drop was still more civilian deaths than more than half of the months from last year.  Also the only reason you can spout off that statistic is because February and March was especially gruesome (as was Aug & Sept of last year) went back down a little to bounce back up.. 

[StateBoiler]

Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

(cut)

Wow... simply stunning.  What a piece of sh**t.  Clearly passing out contraceptives in public high schools is more important than Iraqi lives.

Newsflash: There are more people in this country that vote for the Libertarian Party than care about Iraqis.

We are Americans. We don't care about Rwandans, Kosovars, Darfurians, Iraqis, etc. You can take a poll of the Republican Party, if you asked them what they would rather support, fighting "passing out contraceptives in public high schools" or "Iraqi lives", the former would win handily.

No, you are absolutley right... rather than be beacons of hope and vision, our leaders should feed to the lowest common denominator.

That's what they've done and what they've always done, don't be so naive.

Should we go into Burma? Zimbabwe? Palestine? Chad? Sudan? Somalia? Cuba? Haiti? Venezuela? Fiji? Sri Lanka? Thailand? Ethiopia? Pakistan? All those places have despotic regimes.

If you're going to call for us to be the shining beacon of light and the world police force, at least realize the consequences. What you're calling for is the essential reason behind the "White Man's Burden" of the 1800s and the reason behind colonization. Iraq became an American colony (if you wish to argue the term, go ahead, I don't care, you're just arguing semantics, we don't call it a colony just like we didn't call a blockade a blockade in the Cuban Missile Crisis) just like the Phillipines did once and we are now putting up with the consequences just as those western European nations did throughout the 1800s and post-World War I and post-World War II. If anything, our country's actions right now are pretty much the same as with Belgium and the Congo.

If you're going for us to be the shining beacon of light in the world, than I ask for you to do your part and enlist. Any dumbass can criticize a politician, actually believing in something enough to risk getting shot at is another. Nothing pisses me off more than for a bunch of country clubbers telling my neighbors to go die for something they would dodge the draft for if drafted, and then openly brag about dodging later, like John Bolton.

[Silent Hunter]

StateBoiler, two flaws in your argument:

* It's not the same thing as "Manifest Destiny". It's about allowing Iraqis to choose their future rather than have it chosen for them by Saddam Hussein.
* "If we can't do them all, we shouldn't do any" is not a good argument.

[StateBoiler]

StateBoiler, two flaws in your argument:

* It's not the same thing as "Manifest Destiny". It's about allowing Iraqis to choose their future rather than have it chosen for them by Saddam Hussein.
* "If we can't do them all, we shouldn't do any" is not a good argument.

There are far far more worse places in the world than Saddam-led Iraq. The reason we went into Iraq and not those other places was strategic value.

Besides, our government will never allow Iraqis to choose their future, cause if they did, the Shiites would win cause they're 60% of the population and would make themselves allies with Iran and Syria, something our government and the Saudis would never accept.

(See Elections, Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine and Hamas.)