Candidate Obama on the use of Military Force 12/20/2007

[Ron Mars]

Preventing genocide is absolutely an acceptable reason for invading another nation. Unfortunately for Bush, said genocide occurred decades earlier and Bush was too late. Reagan was the one who should have intervened to prevent it.

So that is not a valid excuse, leaving you with only two ... WMD and Iraqi ties with global terrorism. Both of which were ultimately proven to be non-existent.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...-weapons-mass-destruction.html#post1059370195

 

[VanceMack]

Please stop attempting to re-write history. UN Security Council Resolutin 668 authorized a no fly zone over Iraq from 1991 to 2003. During this time Saddams forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both Kurds in the north and Shiites in the South. Estimates of innocent Iraqi citizens murdered during that time are as many as 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 for Shiites. Mass graves were uncovered by coalition troops during the last Iraq war. And what of Saddam's tourture chambers and rape rooms. So why did the UN ignore the genocide that was taking place in Iraq after the first gulf war and they have decided that it is important to stop Kadafi?

I have to tell you that there more than a few of us that served under the command of President Clinton who were repulsed by having to fly CAS missions for Turkish forces to kill Kurds who's crime was that they happened to be Kurds living on the wrong side of a border...

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

enslave: to make a slave of; reduce to slavery; subjugate

Why do people think that just because you have justification to invade for humanitarian intervention, that that means we have to do it in all situations?

I don't know. I also don't know why some people think it's America's job to be the world's police.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

So that is not a valid excuse, leaving you with only two ... WMD and Iraqi ties with global terrorism. Both of which were ultimately proven to be non-existent.

It doesnt leave me with any.

So be it -- you have no valid excuses then.

I left the republican party because of Bush.

Evidence of a Conservative with a functioning brain.

If you honest to God dont think Saddam Hussein was conducting regular acts of genocide then you truly are mindless and blind. His attrocities continued throughout his regime. As for his ties to global terrorism...again...indisputable. He paid Palestinian terrorists, he housed terrorists, he allowed them to train.

I don't believe they were "regular acts," what evidence do you have to support that? Hussein committed genocide in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds. That was genocide. He killed scores of thousands more a few years later when there was an uprising against him. beyond that, what were those "regular acts" you speak of?

As far as his ties to global terrorism, that was tenuous at best. From memory, I recall him giving medical aid and shelter to one or two known terrorists. I hardly see that as "ties with global terrorism." And his aid to Palestinian terrorists has no bearing on the U.S., Palestinian terrorist organizations are not global. Israel was affected more by that than the U.S. and even they didn't bother with Hussein.

You want to make it be about 9-11. It wasnt. WIth regard to WMDs...again...Bush's claim was that Saddam continuosly refused to comply with UN resolutions providing as to the disposition of his known WMDs. Thats proven by the fact that the UN passed 17 UN resolutions. Make it what you want...facts, however, are pesky things. I understand why you dont like them.

No, I don't want to make it about 9.11, that was the image the Bush administration attempted to portray to garner public support for the invasion Bush was planning. I recall at one point, Cheney mumbling under his breath, disgruntingly, how there was no evidence linking Al-Qaeda with Iraq; a correction he was forced to make after giving the impression there was a connection.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I recall at one point, Cheney mumbling under his breath, disgruntingly, how there was no evidence linking Al-Qaeda with Iraq; a correction he was forced to make after giving the impression there was a connection.

Cheney said that the Prague-Atta connection was "pretty well confirmed" iirc.

Also, I think you made some quoting msitakes in your post

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Please stop attempting to re-write history. UN Security Council Resolutin 668 authorized a no fly zone over Iraq from 1991 to 2003. During this time Saddams forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both Kurds in the north and Shiites in the South.

I'm not re-writing anything. The massacres you speak of occurred in early 1991 before the no fly zones were established. That speaks to the heart of my point, which was that genocide was not ongoing and was not taking place when Bush invaded Iraq.

Estimates of innocent Iraqi citizens murdered during that time are as many as 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 for Shiites. Mass graves were uncovered by coalition troops during the last Iraq war. And what of Saddam's tourture chambers and rape rooms. So why did the UN ignore the genocide that was taking place in Iraq after the first gulf war and they have decided that it is important to stop Kadafi?

Uh-oh, seems you're the one re-writing history. The U.N. did not ignore those massacres. U.N. resolution 688 was drafted in direct response to those massacres and established the no-fly zones you mentioned above.

Exactly how do you go from talking about a U.N. resolution which was passed to stop Hussein's massacres to saying the U.N. ignored those massacres?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Cheney said that the Prague-Atta connection was "pretty well confirmed" iirc.

Again from memory, didn't Cheney have the wrong "Mohamed Atta?"

Also, I think you made some quoting msitakes in your post

Feel free to correct them ... I learn from my mistakes.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Again from memory, didn't Cheney have the wrong "Mohamed Atta?"

I think it was just never pretty well confirmed but rather was in doubt.

Feel free to correct them ... I learn from my mistakes.

I can't. You have to edit it yourself. I think you quoted someone else, but it says you're quoting yourself.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I can't. You have to edit it yourself. I think you quoted someone else, but it says you're quoting yourself.

I see what you mean. I meant to cut & paste "

" but inadvertently cut & pasted "

". Thanks. Too late to edit though.

 

[Geo Patric]

I have to tell you that there more than a few of us that served under the command of President Clinton who were repulsed by having to fly CAS missions for Turkish forces to kill Kurds who's crime was that they happened to be Kurds living on the wrong side of a border...

see... now, how can a weak kneed, tender hearted, peace loving, downright squeamish liberal not admire this sentiment?

and how can the same lib NOT note the hypocrisy in the failure to note that the Bush administration offered to help the Turks fight the Turkish Kurds rebels as well, or note that in BOTH cases, the attacks were for the purpose of stopping PKK rebel attacks from Iraq into Turkey and forestall a Turkish invasion of Iraq and that in fact... the selfsame problem has extended into the current admin and that, m. Obama has also assured the U.S. ally Turkey, with whom we maintain a mutual defense pact (since Truman, 1955), that we will assist them in defending themselves against PKK attacks!

what a quandary!
geo.

 

[reefedjib]

I don't know. I also don't know why some people think it's America's job to be the world's police.

So you agree that while Saddam committed genocide in the past (1988, 1991), he had led the persecution and subjugation of the Iraqi people consistently since coming to power. Furthermore, this constitutes an acceptable Jus ad bellum in Just War Theory for our invasion:

A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

As far as our being the world's police, a better term is that we are the global security guarantor. We inherited this role from the aftermath of WW II. We secure global shipping lanes, the Suez and Panama Canals, the Middle East (even though we get less than 10% of the exports), and numerous countries around the globe. Sometimes we have to get it done. Spreading democracy is a fine direction for us to take after so many years of seeking stability through supporting dictators. Isolationism is foolish.

 

[SgtRock]

Preventing genocide is absolutely an acceptable reason for invading another nation. Unfortunately for Bush, said genocide occurred decades earlier and Bush was too late. Reagan was the one who should have intervened to prevent it.

So that is not a valid excuse, leaving you with only two ... WMD and Iraqi ties with global terrorism. Both of which were ultimately proven to be non-existent.

Your own words are

Unfortunately for Bush, said genocide occurred decades earlier and Bush was too late

You are right the no fly zone was a response to the on going genocide in Iraq after the end of the first gulf war in 91.
1) That was not decades before we invaded in 2003 was it?. 2) Do you believe that the murder and genocide ended after the no fly zone was put into place? 3) What about the torture chambers and rape rooms that were in use at the time of our invasion? 4) Since Saddam had committed genocide on many occasions do you believe that Saddam was capable of murdering his people again? 5) Do you believe that Saddam and his sons needed to be brought to justice for thier crimes against humanity? 6) Does Kadafi need to be removed from power and prosecuted for his crimes?

If you believe that Kadafi should pay for his crimes why not Saddam? Saddam Hussein was responsible for so much more evil **** than Kadafi.

After you think about these questions, ask yourself why? Why does the United States have to be the worlds police? I'll tell you why, because no other country has the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.

 

[VanceMack]

see... now, how can a weak kneed, tender hearted, peace loving, downright squeamish liberal not admire this sentiment?

and how can the same lib NOT note the hypocrisy in the failure to note that the Bush administration offered to help the Turks fight the Turkish Kurds rebels as well, or note that in BOTH cases, the attacks were for the purpose of stopping PKK rebel attacks from Iraq into Turkey and forestall a Turkish invasion of Iraq and that in fact... the selfsame problem has extended into the current admin and that, m. Obama has also assured the U.S. ally Turkey, with whom we maintain a mutual defense pact (since Truman, 1955), that we will assist them in defending themselves against PKK attacks!

what a quandary!
geo.

If there is a quandry its yours. Ive stated on NUMEROUS occasions my displeasure with Bush, his fiscal accountability, and his pisspoor management of postwar ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Geo, baby...if you are looking for a partisan brush to paint people with, dont come here.

 

[Geo Patric]

If there is a quandry its yours. Ive stated on NUMEROUS occasions my displeasure with Bush, his fiscal accountability, and his pisspoor management of postwar ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Geo, baby...if you are looking for a partisan brush to paint people with, dont come here.

If there is a quandry its yours. Ive stated on NUMEROUS occasions my displeasure with Bush, his fiscal accountability, and his pisspoor management of postwar ops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Geo, baby...if you are looking for a partisan brush to paint people with, dont come here.

which of course is why you only condemn Clinton's brutality in forcing you to kill all those defenseless rebels

it was a partisan slam. you know and anyone reading the post knows it. Even Geo. I had his troubles attempting to mediate between the PKK who took advantage of the first Iraqi no fly zone to launch attacks into Turkey.

your partisanship is yours to claim, you niggling quibbles with Bush II, notwithstanding. Nor do i object to the slam on Clinton, as such - hell, i have probably made as many critiques of him as you have of Bush. No, it was, as i tried to show, your manipulating of your reader's emotions to make your point. yes, we owe you our gratitude for putting YOUR life on the line. and yes, your ability to sympathize with your targets is, indeed, admirable.

but that those things are true lends no rational support for your desire to slam THIS president by slamming a predecessor of the same party. and that is what you attempted to do.

btw, we should be encouraging the Turks to give into the Kurds demands for self determination, just as we obliged to Iraqis to do. The great argument that that arab world makes about the western victors of WWI carving up the middle east to their own benefit is too accurate. we could ameliorate a lot of anger by simply doing the right thing.

geo

 

[VanceMack]

which of course is why you only condemn Clinton's brutality in forcing you to kill all those defenseless rebels

it was a partisan slam. you know and anyone reading the post knows it. Even Geo. I had his troubles attempting to mediate between the PKK who took advantage of the first Iraqi no fly zone to launch attacks into Turkey.

your partisanship is yours to claim, you niggling quibbles with Bush II, notwithstanding. Nor do i object to the slam on Clinton, as such - hell, i have probably made as many critiques of him as you have of Bush. No, it was, as i tried to show, your manipulating of your reader's emotions to make your point. yes, we owe you our gratitude for putting YOUR life on the line. and yes, your ability to sympathize with your targets is, indeed, admirable.

but that those things are true lends no rational support for your desire to slam THIS president by slamming a predecessor of the same party. and that is what you attempted to do.

btw, we should be encouraging the Turks to give into the Kurds demands for self determination, just as we obliged to Iraqis to do. The great argument that that arab world makes about the western victors of WWI carving up the middle east to their own benefit is too accurate. we could ameliorate a lot of anger by simply doing the right thing.

geo

I 'slammed' Clinton because I was there. First hand experience goes a long way to personalizing the revulsion. I will also tell you that while there and serving under Clintons command I never spoke a negative word of him to my subordinates nor did I allow it. And BTW...you likely have missed it, but I have on several occasions been complimentary of President Clinton. I dont care about his personal life. As a politician I thought he worked well and intelligently with both parties.

Im not sure where you get the sense I am 'slamming' Obama since I have stated numerous times in numerous threads that while American servicemen are in harms way under the orders of the CiC you wont here me utter a word against Obamas actions in Libya. My son is serving in the middle east currently. Id like to see direction...goals...clearly identifiable metrics. So would those that are there currently because frankly...no one there knows. My critique of Obama is no different than my critique of Bush. Im not bashful about expressing the dislike I have for Bush's handling of postwar ops.

I stated before Obama signed off on this action that I do not believe we should engage militarily. But once we have committed, I believe the right and wrong of this is a discussion for another time.

 

[Boo Radley]

Then take it up with the ones who voted yes. Take it up with the democrat liars that stated Hussein had WMDs. Stop pretending it aint what it is and wasnt what it was. Democrats...the same ones that had access to the intel on Iraq throughout the Clinton presidency made the same comments during the Clinton presidency that they did during the first few years of the Bush presidency. So I guess they are ALL liars. Im cool with that.

Context and when matters. That's something those who misuse quotes by democrats often miss. However, while most believed Saddam had some left over wmds, few believed the Bush claim that Saddam was growing and gathering with active programs.

Second, even if a few stupid or scared democrats went with the lie, it wouldn't make it the truth. A lie is still a lie.

 

[Geo Patric]

I thought he worked well and intelligently with both parties. . . Im not sure where you get the sense I am 'slamming' Obama

the POINT of this post is a critique of m. Obama's actions. Your comment regarding one democratic president in a thread whose intent is criticisms of a second while ignoring that the selfsame criticisms could be made of two other republican presidents makes the conclusion that your criticism is partisan perfectly rational.

it does not, however, make it true. if i am mistaken, i retract my criticism.

geo.

 

[mac]

Doesn’t that statement mean that Obama's decision to authorize action against Libya is prohibited by the Constitution? In submitting to the UN’s self-declared authority, Obama has shirked his sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

I understand that candidates say things during a campaign that they flip on later. But this is a constitutional issue, The War Powers Act.

Well, that statement is wrong. The President does have the authority to do just as he did, despite what he said then.

 

[Red Crow]

As we American Indians have always said: "Obama speaks with fork tongue".

 

[Thorgasm]

As we American Indians have always said: "Obama speaks with fork tongue".

How many generations does that go back?