If genocide is a good reason to occupy countries, why didn't we go to Darfur?

[See if you can identify the difference and similarities between those two situations. It will be a fun exercise for everyone! -Ed.]

The UN said they'd handle the Darfur situation... after they ship money, computers, and cognac to Kim Jong Il first, of course.

You mean that even in the face of blatant genocide the UN won't do jack? I'm shocked! SHOCKED!!!

Sean we pick and chose what genocide we want to interfere in and usually we only get invovled if someone is killing Muslims. In Dafur it is Muslims killing Christians and Animists so we do not want to interfere there. In Rawanda it was the predominately Muslim Hutu killing predominately Christian Tutsi. So we cannot go in there. In Bosina it was Christians killing Muslims this time around so it was ok to go in an occupy there. In Iraq there was no genocide before we went in but if we leave it will be Muslim killing Muslim so since we do not know how to react to that it is just better to stay there just in case.

So just to simplify it.

Situation: Muslim practicing genocide on (insert name here)
Resolution: Send Token UN force, US leave it alone

Situation: (Insert name here) practicing Genocide on Muslims
Resolution: Send in UN led by US in overwhelming show of force to crush them and save the Muslims

Situation: Muslim practing Genocide on Muslim
Resolution: Sit and wait and blame it all on the Jews.

And yet Hussein Obama thinks we should be involved in Darfur. Oh, that's right - Darfur is of no consequence to our national security, so it's much more important for us to put all of our resources there.

What I love is the irony of this post running with Obama's campaign helping to fund it through multiple advertisements (at least the adds are showing up as I type).

I love the Obama add that shows up in this comment section! Ain't Ads by Gooooooooglio grand?

I think he's going after the Drewly Kos vote. This is similar to Markos Whosis saying he didn't care about the contractors who were murdered in Falujah a few years ago. A total lack of empathy for your fellow humans seems to be the status quo for the Dems. ...but club just one baby seal!...

"If genocide is a good reason to occupy countries, why didn't we go to Darfur?"

Sean, isn't that an argument that we should do something in Darfur much more than a case for pulling out of Iraq?

Here are the analogies I’d offer for that -

- Your friend is having financial problems. He’s in desperate need of $100. However, you didn’t give money to a homeless guy/salvation army person who you passed by going to work today (who may have needed the money more) . . . so, do you tell your friend to get lost in this scenario or help him out?

- You pass a guy on the street who’s being mugged. You do nothing. From that point on [to be consistent] do you decide you’ll never help anybody who’s in need of mugging in the future?

- The U.S. justice system let O.J. get away with murder. Should we keep tossing murderers in jail or, because that would make us hypocrites, just let them go about their business?

- We didn’t stop the Armenian genocide 90 years ago. Because of that, should we not have prevented any massacres since then (and if some were okay, then which ones)?

---- If you screw up once isn’t more of an argument that you need to make up for it in the future, rather than an excuse for screwing up again?

---- Does Obama really want to argue that if we go down the path of not preventing genocide, not toppling dictators (letting them just go about their business), that this will improve America’s standing in the world? Doesn’t that completely go against liberal criticism of American foreign policy over the past 30 years? Seriously, quit bitching about Pinochet, where he killed three thousand commies, if you’re going to advocate us sitting on our asses and abandoning people we vowed to protect so that a few hundred thousand of them can die in a massive civil war and totalitarian dictatorship. This is the path for America gaining respect in the world? Bite me.

As long as we teach five year olds that butt sex between men is ok, abortion is cool and all about sexual harrassment then I don't care about anything else!

"...but club just one baby seal!..."

DEAL!!!

*grabs club and car keys.

See ya!

He's just TOO busy slipping condoms over bananas for the Kindergarten class to care much about the whole GENOCIDE thing. I mean, really- what's more important- sex ed for the toddler set or saving hundreds of thousands of lives?

Oh, that's right - Darfur is of no consequence to our national security, so it's much more important for us to put all of our resources there.
Master shake, you just proved a point right there. We aren't in Iraq because of a genocide, we're there for national security. So that means that we shouldn't be using the argument of genocide prevention for being in Iraq.

WAL, I didn't make an argument to pull out of Iraq at all. I'm trying to keep the scope of the debate as narrow as possible, focused on the argument by Frank that we should stay in Iraq to prevent genocide.
So if we are, indeed, in Iraq to prevent genocide, then how can we explain the lack of intervention in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur?

"So if we are, indeed, in Iraq to prevent genocide, then how can we explain the lack of intervention in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur?"

A couple arguments you could make -

- we broke, we bought it--we're directly involved in the problems of Iraq right now so it's our responsibility to fix it.

- given that there are 36 million there and it has the ability to draw in other countries, Iraq has the potential to be an even bigger mess those were/are (not saying it would be, just that I think it has the capacity).

But--that's kind of a moot point because, yeah, I do think we should be involved in Darfur and should have been involved in Rwanda.

"So if we are, indeed, in Iraq to prevent genocide, then how can we explain the lack of intervention in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur?"

A couple arguments you could make -

- we broke, we bought it--we're directly involved in the problems of Iraq right now so it's our responsibility to fix it.

- given that there are 36 million there and it has the ability to draw in other countries, Iraq has the potential to be an even bigger mess those were/are (not saying it would be, just that I think it has the capacity).

But--that's kind of a moot point because, yeah, I do think we should be involved in Darfur and should have been involved in Rwanda.

sorry, double post

"So if we are, indeed, in Iraq to prevent genocide, then how can we explain the lack of intervention in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur?"

Didn't I already explain that one?

Muslims killing other folks in a genocidal way is acceptable and must be left alone. But if someone is commiting genocide against Muslims we must then rush to the Muslims defense so that they will not hate us and want to kill us.

Someone please let the Muslims know that they owe us for letting them rampage across Africa and saved thier butts in Europe and we let them slide on Khobar Towers, our Embassy bombings, USS Cole, and the first WTC bombing. So they owe us Iraq.

He is also apparently in favor of sex education for kindergartners, as long as it's "age appropriate."

What young girls aren't getting pregnant soon enough for him?

This begs the question "What is age appropriate sex ed for kindergartners"? These are people who can't even tie their shoes, write their names or color in the lines. Maybe Mr. Obama could come up with some criteria schools can use in this endeavor. It's about his age level or he can get the Slickmiester to help him. After all Bill Clinton has a Ph.D. (piled higher deeper) in sex, especially when it comes to deviancy. What a grand example

Bill Clinton won't help.

Kindergarten girls aren't old enough to make decent cigar holders.

“Barack Obama has said that he doesn't think preventing genocide is a good enough reason to stay in Iraq.”

Especially when each and every death can be blamed on a Republican. Anyone old enough to remember how the left kept blaming Republicans for Cambodia. Same old story. I think that’s the real center of the argument.

I do have to have to say that Barack Obama is the perfect match for the new generation of Democrats. He’s got no real world experience. He fits the profile of what they want. He’s received more political grooming than George Bush since being selected for political life from within academia. Thinks he’s being oppressed, after all isn’t everyone in academia oppressed. He speaks in high platitudes but never gets into details and will never deliver. When the going gets tough he doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on. Any shortcomings he may have or opposition to his politics can be blamed on racism.

"So if we are, indeed, in Iraq to prevent genocide, then how can we explain the lack of intervention in the genocides of Rwanda and Darfur?" In other words, since we can't do it all we shouldn't do any of it.

Just to name a few off the top of my head:
We cannot eradicate poverty, so how does he explain continuing to fund family-assistance and anti-poverty programs?
We cannot feed the whole world, so how does he explain spending any foreign aid money on development programs?
We cannot stop female genital mutilation, so how does he explain supporting cultural intervention programs against this?
We cannot abort every child, so how does he explain his support for federal funding of abortions?
We cannot guarantee the absolute safety of every drug that gets to the American consumer, so how does he explain the existence of the FDA.
We cannot eradicate every disease, so how does he explain having doctors and drugs and all manner of medical facilities?
We cannot properly armour all of our troops in Iraq, so how does he explain his arguments for armouring any of them?

Obama cannot make a perfect world. By his own argument, he should not be given the chance to try. He cannot get all of the votes (hell, even Stalin never pulled 100%!), so how could he explain accepting any of them? He has just stood up there and told everybody not to vote for him. I wonder if he realizes that? The utter inanity of his statement suggests otherwise.

Derek, I am reading that Rwanda was only 4% Muslim before 1994. The Hutu and Tutsi are both majority Catholic.

..He's just TOO busy slipping condoms over bananas for the Kindergarten class to care much about the whole GENOCIDE thing. I mean, really- what's more important- sex ed for the toddler set or saving hundreds of thousands of lives?..

Last i checked, aids was killing more than a few hundred thousand people. Don't make mornic comparisons.

Hey you are right Quiet, my source was wrong. The Hutu are predominately Catholic. Good catch.

So let me amend.

Christians commiting Genocide against Christian means leave it alone. As long as Muslims are not getting killed it is ok, but anything that wipes out Christians and Jews means the US will not lift a finger to help.