July 20, 2007
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."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.
"We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven't done. Those of us who care about Darfur don't think it would be a good idea," he said.
In other words, all that we have to do is "care" -- not act -- about genocide to do our duty in the the world of Senator Obama.
But he ignores one point in his analysis -- we have the means, right now, to prevent the carnage that would follow our withdrawal by not withdrawing. But his strawman argument - if we aren't stopping genocide everywhere we shouldn't stop it anywhere -- is morally bankrupt. It is like arguing that I shouldn't help one poor family in my neighborhood because I cannot wipe out world poverty.
Posted by: Greg at
02:22 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: YA at Mon Sep 15 08:31:03 2008 (pay9P)
21 queries taking 0.0081 seconds, 30 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.