Obama: Genocide is Ok With Me!

John Scott · 07-19-2007, 09:13 PM

Quote:

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.

....

Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, said it's likely there would be increased bloodshed if U.S. forces left Iraq....

But he is ok with the genocide. I mean, why not be ok with it? Less humans on the planet, and it's not like they are US registered voters. Sure, it may be cowardice, but the alternative is very expensive, and human life just ain't worth the billions of dollars it is costing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070720/...a_ap_interview

jdenver · 07-19-2007, 09:21 PM

As far as I'm concerned, Genocide is OK with any president or presidential candidate that doesn't have a plan for Darfur. What's going on in Darfur is 1000x as bad as Iraq, we're just turning our backs to it the same way the rest of the world has.

John Scott · 07-19-2007, 09:25 PM

A bunch of cowardice, if you ask me. Should be stopped.

jdenver · 07-19-2007, 10:36 PM

I'm afraid big oil is in the White House and we're not leaving Iraq any time soon.

What should be stopped is the potential for corporations to get into the white house.

Just look at the Haliburton stock chart over the course of the war:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y

Just think what a fortune the Bush Administration made owning HAL stock.

John Scott · 07-19-2007, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Just think what a fortune the Bush Administration made owning HAL stock.

How much stock does Bush own?

GiorgosK · 07-20-2007, 12:31 AM

There is a fine line between getting involved in everyone's business around the world (all time US foreign policy) and preventing a genocide ....

I am usually against any involvement of US ANYWHERE in foreign local affairs.

but since they are there and withdrawing shows the real hypocrisy behind the US goverment actions.

John Scott · 07-20-2007, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiorgosK

I am usually against any involvement of US ANYWHERE in foreign local affairs.

Any reasoning for this?

GiorgosK · 07-20-2007, 04:50 AM

In summary,
Because wherever they step in, they create a mess and release chemical weapons without regard to the native people and environment ...

And they do it only for their personal gain and getting rid/selling weapons to the opposing parties (don't care about the situation at hand)

I make it a little oversimplified but ask any european citizen (not politician) and they will tell you the same exact things ...

(John you are a US citizen right ? I hope I don't get banned for this post ...)

John Scott · 07-20-2007, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Because wherever they step in, they create a mess and release chemical weapons without regard to the native people and environment ...

So wouldn't it be more logical to be against chemical weapons? I mean, your position at present is "let's not stop rape, murder and mutilation because there may be an off chance of the US using chemical weapons."

Doesn't really make much sense, no?

Quote:

And they do it only for their personal gain and getting rid/selling weapons to the opposing parties

If you are being murdered, and I step in and stop it and save your life, are you really going to care why I saved your life? If I have ulterior motives, are you going to ask me to leave and ask the murderer to resume killing?

Quote:

I make it a little oversimplified but ask any european citizen (not politician) and they will tell you the same exact things

Doesn't really speak highly of the European command of rational thought, eh?

**Rankenstein** · 07-20-2007, 05:01 AM

So who was it who armed and installed Saddam? They're the ones we should go after. Prevent them doing that kind of interventionist thing again, etc.

GiorgosK · 07-20-2007, 05:05 AM

OK my command of the english language is not the best but let me try again.

The chemical weapons were just one small consequence of the US making a mess. Internal/local affairs some times should be left to be solved locally. You don't always have the right to step in someones house and pretend to be their "saviour" (that is US)

I don't consider anybody's life saved from US intervention, tell me what you consider a succesfull intervention (I don't see any).

I am not the spokesperson of Europeans but I am stating the fact that european citizen have actually had it with the US ... even though it never makes it in the headlines because the governments still support the big bully that US is ... (out of fear of course, and maybe personal gains)

jdenver · 07-20-2007, 05:13 AM

First of all Saddam wasn't armed. It was a red herring. "Terrorists" from Saudi Arabia attack us, and we cloak that, tied with some BS about WMD's, to march right into Iraq. Then the share price of the vice president's company goes from 5 to 30, they get a 5 billion contract immediately, and the defense companies are jumping for joy.

Oh, Lockheed Martin doubled in share price too?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LMT&...=on&z=m&q=l&c=

This war has been VERY profitable for Haliburton, Defense companies, and no doubt the politicians that gave them the contracts and went to war to do so.

This war is all about money. It's not about safety, or weapons, or any of the spin that Bush and his cronies put on it. It's about money, and contracts. Fair and square. All the spending on Iraq, is that going to the soldiers that might make 20k in 4 years or is it going to the Co's that build the Apache helicopters for 50 mil a pop, the guns the bombs, all this costs billions of dollars. And lets not forget Haliburton, who feeds the troops and puts them up.

In short, there is no reason to be in Iraq. We need to leave and we need to leave right now.

John Scott · 07-20-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GiorgosK

OK my command of the english language is not the best but let me try again.

The chemical weapons were just one small consequence of the US making a mess. Internal/local affairs some times should be left to be solved locally. You don't always have the right to step in someones house and pretend to be their "saviour" (that is US)

I think it is obvious that you hate the US of A so much that you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the murder and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, which I find astonishing. If fact, I suspect that if it would help your Anti-American cause, you would readily jump in and help mutilate women and children.

As far as rights go, every human on other has not only the right, but also the moral obligation to defend the rights of other humans, do do what we can to stop the murder of innocent people. You talk about rights, as if the people being slaughtered had none.

John Scott · 07-20-2007, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdenver

First of all Saddam wasn't armed.

Wrong thread? Who the hell mentioned Saddam? As far as I can see you are the first to mention Saddam. Some kind of obsession?

And, yes, he had plenty of arms. Bombs galore. He just didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Quote:

In short, there is no reason to be in Iraq.

See above - As far as rights go, every human on other has not only the right, but also the moral obligation to defend the rights of other humans, do do what we can to stop the murder of innocent people. You talk about rights, as if the people being slaughtered had none.

Quote:

We need to leave and we need to leave right now.

I have to ask, are you a Jewish person wanting Iraq to turn into a wholesale bloodbath, or just an indifferent Westerner?

GiorgosK · 07-20-2007, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

I think it is obvious that you hate the US of A so much that you are more than willing to turn a blind eye to the murder and mutilation of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, which I find astonishing. If fact, I suspect that if it would help your Anti-American cause, you would readily jump in and help mutilate women and children.

Where do you get this ?
I have lived 13 years in New York and I have been friends with lots of Americans for once and I NEVER SAID I hate US (That is just your own conclusion which is very far from the truth),

I just hate people going to war for the wrong reason ...

You on the other hand never answered, Who do you considered saved by an american intervention ? (just saying "All these innocent people" does not tell me really anything)

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

As far as rights go, every human on other has not only the right, but also the moral obligation to defend the rights of other humans, do do what we can to stop the murder of innocent people. You talk about rights, as if the people being slaughtered had none.

I could not agree with you more but,
What does this have to do with the way the US government is conducting business abroad (which is what bothers me) ? Again tell me ONE instance where you think the US has actually saved innocent people, as far as I see even the latest IRAQI intervention, the natives Hate US military for killing innocent people and for and not helping in this situation at all ...

And to close this conversation here, since I don't want to be enemies with you John or anyone in here let me just say that what goes on behind the scenes, the political games played behind the backs of innocent people and nations will never be revealed to us, so all our talk is just theory, speculation and actually inconclusive ....

jdenver · 07-20-2007, 09:17 PM

Rankenstein said: So who was it who armed and installed Saddam? They're the ones we should go after. Prevent them doing that kind of interventionist thing again, etc.

That's who mentioned Saddam.

John Scott said: As far as rights go, every human on other has not only the right, but also the moral obligation to defend the rights of other humans, do do what we can to stop the murder of innocent people. You talk about rights, as if the people being slaughtered had none.

So you think we're in Iraq to free the Iraqi people? That's a laugh. Why aren't we in Darfur then? What's going on in Darfur is FAR worse than what's going on in Iraq. Oh but wait Darfur doesn't have oil, just a bunch of poor people the US gov't doesn't care about. They could all die for all "we" care, and that's exactly whats happening. We don't have so much as a single troop in Darfur. Too bad for them they're not sitting on an oil well.

There was the story in the New York Times yesterday about an Iraqi man in a car that circled a block three times and American troops shot him. A woman comes out of her house screaming that it was the taxi cab driver she called. And then there's the stories we've all seen about us soldiers shooting children standing next to packages thinking they're bombs.

Look we have three options.
1.)We leave now, and the Iraqis sort it out themselves, which will involve bloodshed.
2.)We leave later, and the Iraqis fight it out themselves, with bloodshed.
3.)We stay there forever. The second we leave, the Shiites and the Sunnis are fighting it out with bloodshed.

So you think we should stay there forever? Or just a little longer and delay the inevitable.

And why would I be Jewish to disprove of our troops in Iraq? I have no idea what thats supposed to mean, but I have no religion whatsoever except I believe in nature, balance and meditation.

John Scott · 07-21-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

So who was it who armed and installed Saddam? They're the ones we should go after. Prevent them doing that kind of interventionist thing again, etc.

You might be a bit confused. No foreign power "installed" Saddam.

And even if some foreign power had installed him, if installing him was to save lives, then I would have to see a valid argument against intervention in order to agree with the statement. Simply saying something is intervention is not grounds for opposing it. Indeed, without intervention we would have anarchy.