Flashback- Obama and genocide


With regard to Libya Obama says

“This is not an outcome that the United States or any of our partners sought. But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”

But hold on. Not so long ago he said something very different. Not so long ago genocide was not enough to maintain US involvement.

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.

And not just in Iraq:

“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.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There were 57 separate Islamist states before Obama was elected.
Seeing his quite selective assistance in the creation of more of them and the lack of concern for any other types of conflicts, I wonder how many there will be when he leaves office.
57 countries each voting on the UN creates an almost unbreakable bloc.

Sudan has been irritating me ever since I first heard about it. Now some may not feel the need to intervene based on demographics or because we have no interest in a country but I’m no spectator, to hear about people needlessly murdered/raped/tortured fills me with anger! like in the case of Sudan. If all good people are just spectators what would the world be like? Now you may disagree, in some cases it may not be worth it but we let mass humanitarian crisis go on in our “enlightened” and “futuristic” society all the time. In my opinion its just plain wrong. Call me an idealist; I find human rights abuses repulsive and you should too.