Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

"Obama: Don't stay in Iraq over genocide

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Sat Jul 21, 4:39 AM ET

SUNAPEE, N.H. - 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.

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070721/ap_on_el_pr/obama_ap_interview;_ylt=...

No votes yet

...I think that the portrayal of the headline and lead paragraphs isn't very accurate.

Obama was saying, in effect, that if 'preventing genocide' is a reason to stay in Iraq, then why aren't we in other countries where this is happening...and if we're not in other countries where genocide is ocurring, then it's not a good reason to use for staying in Iraq.

I was quite disappointed with the play this story got from the headline...of course, considering the political climate, play is what we're going to get for ... 16 more months! UGH!

What is amazing is that the UK, and other countries, can hold elections with smaller time frames.

The UK is typically 5 to 8 weeks and here the candidates drone on for almost two years.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Money makes the world go round. Iraq with its oil researves and its proximity to Saudi Arabia and its reserves is simply more important to stabilize than Darfur or Sudan. The world's a big place, other countries can fix Darfur or Sudan. Iraq simply has strategic interests for us to be concern. Until the envronmental tree huggers figure out a cost effective replacement of large scale energy production and a key manufacturing ingredient in plastics, solvents, etc... Oil is a key element in the global marketplace. Bitch and whine otherwise.

Well, there is no national election in the UK, first of all.

And even if there were, it's about the same size as Michigan. Big Difference.

What gets lost in the conversations about Sudan and Darfur is that there is oil there and China and other countries

"LEAL, Sudan -- On this parched and dusty African plain, China's largest energy company is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. Chinese laborers based in a camp of prefabricated sheds work the wells and lay highways across the flats to make way for heavy machinery."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21143-2004Dec22.html

And the U.S. holds itself out as a protector of the repressed and so on, while people in Sudan are systematically eliminated and we watch as another genocide occurs and we wonder why the U.S. is held low esteem around the world.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

There was a general election in 2005 in the U.K.

"The United Kingdom general election of 2005 was held on Thursday, 5 May 2005. In it the Labour Party under Tony Blair won its third consecutive victory, with a reduced overall majority of 66 Members of Parliament (MPs)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

And the population of the U.K according to the census estimate is 60 Million +/-

Big difference?

Maybe or maybe they have many more centuries to refine the system and ours is becoming more and more about how much money a person needs to run for office and less about the issues.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

The prime minister does not get elected by every citizen, at least not directly. The only elections in the UK are for members of parliment. This is the same is local, congressional races. The party with the most MPs after the election gets to elect one of their MPs as the prime minister.

And in our present day system here we have campaigns that linger on for months and months and months and millions upon mullions of dollars spent to win our hearts and affection.

The efficiency of the other systems around the world are a marvel and for a country so young by comparison we might do well to look at those that have many more generations of governments that us, for a possibly better way to elect people, unless of course, we as a nation are content with the present system.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

When it comes down to it, I don't really disagree with your point, I just disagree with your analogy.

No, in the US we do not NEED a 2 year election. 15 years ago we had a 1 year election and it's not as if the country has doubled in size.

But to compare it to the UK is unfair for all of the reasons I've listed. Furthermore, there is no set date of an election in the UK. There is a final date by which one must occur, but the prime minister can meet w/ the Queen and dissolve parliament at any time and set an election day some minimum number of months away.

All of this aside, the fact that there is no single candidate that's elected by all of the voters is a major difference. It doesn't mean their government is more efficient than ours. Just different. Personally, I rather prefer a single, strong head of state that's elected with a mandate by the people, not just a guy from any old district around the nation that just happened to have the political clout to climb the party ranks into the prime position. I mean, applying that system to our congress would've left us with Tom Delay as the head of state.

No thanks. When it comes to that choice, I'll happily take a 2 year election cycle.

Plurality of political parties in many governments are also the norm.

Here we have two parties that a structure more like businesses than representative entities.

Could we benefit for more parties to represent us?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.