Obama, please answer this:

[amborin]

"Samantha Power, one of Senator Obama’s chief foreign policy advisers, strongly criticized the United States in her book “A Problem From Hell” for failing to intervene in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and for the three-year delay in intervening in the Bosnian war, until the 1995 Srebrenica massacre.

Saddam Hussein also committed genocide by killing thousands of Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons in the late 1980s and massacring thousands of Shiite marsh dwellers in southern Iraq after the first gulf war. How could we have left Mr. Hussein in power? How can Senator Obama say that removing a genocidal killer was a “dumb” war?"

from: suggested debate questions for both candiates:Op-Ed Contributors
Is That Your Final Question?

Published: February 26, 2008

in nytimes.com/is that your final question

[tekisui]

1. You can't be serious, can you?

You think the Iraq invasion was a good idea?

Who is this Bill Kristol?

[amborin]

5. of course I'm not saying the Iraq invasion was good

it was a horrendous blunder from the get go

my point is:

same as the pundit's:

Obama needs to get consistent.....his future chief foreign policy advisor advocates invading a country to stop genocide and stop cruel dictators......

[amborin]

8. no, but that's not the point

the point is the glaring inconsistency in Obama's foreign policy statements

[tekisui]

15. I call bullshit. Rwanda vs. Saddam, apples and oranges.

[guidod]

24. This is Bill Kristol...

A republican hack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GgUbUTQwHg&feature=related

[skipos]

2. I didn't know that we went to war because Hussein committed genocide

I thought I heard things about "weapons of mass destruction" and "ties to 9-11." I guess my memory is bad.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. how could Hillary say she'd vote against it now?

you're running in circles here.

[cali]

4. this post is disgusting.

We defended Saddam against the charges in the 80s. We're complict in his killing or the Kurds. And you don't go to war 15 years after a genocidal event to remove the person mostly responsible for it.

[amborin]

6. truth disgusts you?

the truth of the matter....as pointed out in that NY Times article....is that Obama needs to get consistent

[cali]

21. Try addressing my points

In the 1980s Saddam was an ally. We couldn't even get a statement of censor passed in Congress about the killing of the Kurds. Saddam had not committed any genocidal acts in over a decade when invaded Iraq, and that was not the justification for war. The genocide in Rwanda could have been stopped. I suggest you educate yourself. There's nothing remotely inconsistent about opposing the Iraq War and supporting having stopped, through international means, the genocide in Rwanda. This is so basic that anyone with any knowledge knows this. The letter in the NYT is bullshit and you are unable to address the issues.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. don't hold your breath Cali- the OP just said they were

"off for the weekend"-

Hit and run-
But you got their plate #, and they can't counter your facts.

:shrug:
peace~

[sandnsea]

7. Samantha Power isn't running for President

and there are more ways to intervene around the world than unilaterally invading and occupying a sovereign nation, as Bosnia proved.

[amborin]

9. but she's Obama's foreign policy advisor

he'd be getting advice from her, and the advice reflects her views

[sandnsea]

27. It doesn't mean he'd take it

That's why you have an array of advisors. Different opinions, particularly different opinions than what you already have. You don't need people to advise you as to what you already believe and know.

[Eric J in MN]

10. There wasn't a genocide by Saddam going on in 2002. NT

NT

[amborin]

14. twist words all you want

fact is: Obama's foreign policy is inconsistent

his foreign policy advisor recommends intervention to topple brutal dicatators

[housewolf]

11. What I want to know is

if we went to war with Saddam Huessin over committing genocide (which happened in the late 1980's), why did we wait 15+ years to do it? Especially when we were already in-country in 1992, 11 years earlier and only 3-4 years after the genocide occurred?

And just what does this (as well as our ignoring the Darfur situation) have to say about how the US really feels about genocide?

[Bluerthanblue]

12. Obama addressed the atrocities of Saddam in his speech against

the war-

How many innocent Iraqi's have died because of OUR ACTIONS ?

How many will continue to suffer and die, for decades after we leave???

Iraq was a soverign nation.


Ask Abeer's relatives (those that survived her rape, murder and the destruction of her family) what atrocities under this invasion have been like.


peace~

[amborin]

17. again, that's not the point

the point is: Obama's foreign policy advisor advocates US intervention

the policy is inconsistent

[Bluerthanblue]

25. If this woman advocated going

into Iraq to remove Saddam in 2003 for the reasons that you cite in her call to stop the genocide in Rwanda, or for our foolish abandonment of the Iraqi people after the Gulf war, that would be one thing.

Did she actually advocate going in to take out Saddam apart from the bush admin. 'war on terra'?

Can you point to an actual quote of hers doing so?

The policy isn't inconsistent.

The use of the incidents of atrocities "rape rooms" (in bush speak) was NOT the reason the US delcared war on Iraq.

The Kurdish 'gassing' was not continuing-

You are looking to make connections where there isn't any solid ground.

peace~

[tekisui]

13. I didn't realize Obama had Samatha Power as a foreign policy advisor.

That is awesome! She's great.

Look, the Rwandan genocide was light years different than the Iraq Invasion.

The gassing of the Kurds had nothing to do with authorizing an illegal war.

[Johnny__Motown]

16. Are you claiming this isn't a dumb war? Saddam was contained, no way he was a threat to anyone

[amborin]

20. again, that's not the point

the point is not that this or any other war is or is not dumb

the point is the inconsistency of obama's foreign policy

[cali]

29. there's nothing inconsistent about it

now stop ignoring my post upthread and address my points. And stop drinking bill kristol koolaid. I can't believe anyone is dim enough to buy into his spin.

[cloudythescribbler]

18. If the US were to remove EVERY "bad guy/gal" from power, we'd be at war ALL OVER THE PLANET! nt

[JimGinPA]

19. Bill Clinton's Golf Buddy, "Poppy" Bu$h Is The One Who GAVE Sadaam The Chemical Weapons He Used

:eyes:

[amborin]

22. this thread is not about Saddam

nor is it about any of the specifics of the invasion

it's solely pointing out that there are inconsistencies in Obama's foreign policy positions

his foreign policy advisor advocates US intervention in cases of brutal dictatorships



leaving now for the weekend.....

the suggested debate questions were all excellent, in the ny times article

[Bluerthanblue]

26. no- not 'brutal dictatorships' active ONGOING, massive

genocide-

There is a vast difference-
You are pretending not to see it.


peace~

[denem]

23. Mark Penn: The Clinton campaign has some nerve to talk about marketing

when Penn, their chief strategist has dominated all that they've done, to Hillary's great detriment. Marketing, gone badly wrong.

[johnnydrama]

30. you realize

"US intervention" doesn't mean 4,000 dead US Soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's.

How many US soldiers died in Bosnia?

I think it's around 0.

[intaglio]

31. OK, Who was it

Who refused to support the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs in their campaigns against Saddam after Gulf War 1? Clinton or Obama or ... Poppy Bush?

[mythyc]

32. you're very clever amborin, but riddled with fallacies

either (1) because you honestly believe this is a "worthy" question and feel an ethical obligation to it---which I doubt because of your insistence on it and refusal to discursively address the credible challenges to it that have been raised in responses to it here (choosing instead to nitpick--itself a fallacy--minor points made not in rebuttal but protest). Thus---> or (2) because you're trying to cause trouble, smear your opponent, be divisive, effect general (modest) mayhem. Normally, I wouldn't bother responding via logical argumentation to someone who clearly (a) lacks logic and (b) has clearly demonstrated that s/he's not interested in participating in a well-reasoned, objective debate, but I like the challenge of this question, despise the depth of its fallaciousness, and want to see, and show, whether you're being genuine in your quote-unquote "request" for an answer. My guess, given the trend of your other responses in this thread, is you won't, so I hope this can be a good "logical" proof for both your and this question's inanity:

these are all terms for fallacies that you're committing; you can look them up in any logic book, though I doubt you're willing to do so:

(1) non-sequitur: "it does not follow"; it assumes that saying Iraq was a dumb war automatically results in the conclusion that Obama is against stopping and preventing genocides. Simple cause and effect, my friend, and no logician out there will allow such a connection between those two points.

(2) apples and oranges 1: (already pointed out above): two issues that are not logically correlated in your argument, in any way whatsoever. Genocide was not the given cause for our going into the Iraq war. WOMD and Terrorism were, and Obama has consistently attacked these premises for the war, and that they are PROVEN falsehoods---never the issue of genocide.

(3) apples and oranges 2: further, you are implying that Obama said Iraq was a "dumb war" because of the genocide. He said it's dumb because of the way we've fought it, the ways we didn't prepare for it, and, especially, the way we isolated the international community in declaring and then conducting it.

(4) Straw man: You use Obama/Power's actual position and substitute a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. (source: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html ; a simpler example of this "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that." ). In your case, you've distorted his position by assuming that it has exceptions, exceptions proven above that dont even apply. You've exaggerated it by implying that he thinks America should unilaterally respond to all genocides with military action--without or without international help or consensus (two anti-diplomatic approaches he has vociferously contested). And you've misrepresented it because you have shown no evidence of Obama's actual position on the actual genocides in Iraq.

congratulations! you've pulled off the straw man hat trick, a rare feat--wow, i'm speechless

(5) slippery SlopeYou've taken one point, applied it comprehensively to all situations like it, and used it to make a sweeping, damning statement. In actuality, Obama being against how Iraq was declared and conducted does not mean that he is NOT against preventing genocides and therefore not an untrustworthy candidate for commander in chief.

There are other fallacies that I could dig deeper for, but I think I've made my point. Your response? ... I'm waiting, and so are those at DU who actually care about logic, critical validity, objective discourse, and responsible discussion.

[Forkboy]

33. Remind me not to piss you off.

:)

[Ichingcarpenter]

36. I'm impressed

And I even taught logic in high school.

ZINGER.

[amborin]

34. chuckle, chuckle

it's hilarious how some have responded with pompous and pseudo-intellectual critiques of my original post....and even more hilarious when someone tries to acquire credibility and an aura of intellectuality by boasting of rather low level institutional affiliations or positions.....

anyway....

did anyone bother to actually read the post?

it was certainly not meant to support the Iraq invasion....rather, it was meant to shed light on Obama's possibly conflicting statements....and upon what could be an untenable foreign policy, namely, acting as the world's policeman.....

in any case...

my original post was a snippet of an excellent NY Times editorial from last week....a compilation of recommended debate questions concerning troubling issues not yet addressed by either candidate

the question I posted was:

"Saddam Hussein also committed genocide by killing thousands of Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons in the late 1980s and massacring thousands of Shiite marsh dwellers in southern Iraq after the first gulf war. How could we have left Mr. Hussein in power? How can Senator Obama say that removing a genocidal killer was a “dumb” war?"

and the author of that question is:


— RUTH WEDGWOOD, a professor of international law and diplomacy at Johns Hopkins, was an adviser to the Rudolph Giuliani campaign.


i am off for the rest of the weekend

[mythyc]

35. you're pathetic ... and on ignore

Not one single, substantive word in reply to a host of arguments proving the invalidity of that entire question, who or whatever its source; that the source is a Giuliani advisor all the more highlights its clever and complex fallaciousness (something I pointed out in my original post if you bothered to read it), and that it is primary purpose was to bait the candidate into a logical skein.

You did not respond to a single rebuttal offered here, which demonstrates just how insincere you were in requesting an "answer" in your original post. Any one who reads the entire thread here can clearly see this. Why didn't you answer? If you're so positive that you or your source is not just simply valid but infallible and correct, why not explain (ever heard of that novel discursive method...) where each one of the arguments against it--not just mine but the host of other ones against it--falls short by your evaluation?

Besides being conspicuously incapable (probably a right wing mole, and a poor one at that), you could care less about actually engaging in the dialogue you profess as the intention of this thread. All you're doing in this post is posturing, baiting, insulting, squawking and then running away, proving my original speculation: you're a divisive, lying, incoherent, combative, baiting, fallacious piece of sh...

my advice to anyone who agrees that amborin asked a question he never meant to be answered, let alone addressed, is to put him on ignore as well.

[zulchzulu]

37. Based on that "logic", the United States should invade most of Africa, China, Saudi Arabia...

...our own country based on our past history of genocide, nearly all of Indochina and perhaps a few parts of the former Soviet Union.

Obama stated that Saddam was an evil man. We created both he and Osama bin Laden by the way.

What Obama stated about a "dumb war" is exactly predicted and as it is occuring at this moment. Make a country headless after invading it with no clear exit strategy, not understand the inevitable civil wars that would ensue with the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds and also turn the region into a bloody boiling cauldron of endless disaster. Add trillions of dollars down the drain, countless dead and wounded and presto...a DUMB WAR.