Iraq and Darfur, and a little on Obama’s foreign policy

I am always amazed to hear some young person stand up and ask a presidential candidate what they intend to do for the people of Darfur. It was a question for Barack Obama last February in Waukesha County; it was a question last Thursday for John McCain. What confuses me is that these young people are the same voters chanting to pull U.S. troops from Iraq.

There are estimates that the genocide in Iraq was equal to that estimated in Darfur. Now, before the job is finished and stability assured, these youngsters are wanting us out of Iraq and into Darfur.

Can someone explain the disconnect that allows one to support both the removal of intervention in Iraq and the commencement of intervention in Darfur?


If you want something that scares the crap out of you, watch Mr. Obama proclaim his foreign policy:

For those who would rather read, here’s the text from the late February statement. What caught my attention as unbelievably naive:

I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

As the site link above shows, that’s numbers 1, 2, and 3 on the 1963 list of 45 Communist Goals.

1) US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2) US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3) Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of “moral strength.”

(Take a peek at the full list here and see how far down that road we’ve gone.)

I’ll say it again: Obama’s agenda is a SOCIALIST agenda. Are we ready to go there?


  1. Well Cindy, at least the youth are speaking their minds on important issues globally. That alone should have some merit. I mean, these students could be just wasting their minds on drugs and alcohol instead…

    Iraq’s genocide occurred how many years ago? These students weren’t around to have a voice at that time. There’s also the philosophy of not making the same mistake twice. However, in terms of US Foreign Policy in the past 20+ years, let’s change “twice” to “at least four times.”

    Darfur is a big issue globally, and the US should help those people from being exterminated. One of the primary reasons why the US came to be was due to our desire to be free from British rule and oppression. Granted, we had no genocides in 1776, but that should make the reasoning to go in there even more sound and worthy of our attention.

    The situation in Iraq has boiled down to trying to assist the locals form a government and protect our assets in the country…those assets being companies and other interests who are trying to construct a new economy there.

    For Obama’s “socialist” agenda, that’s a tad extreme. However, Republicans tend to lean towards extremism when things get rough and tough. While we still have some fear and concerns with Russia, to state that we’re eliminating nuclear warheads shouldn’t be a problem for us. We have over 10,000 warheads as it is!

    So OK, under Obama we cut back on our nuclear stash…so it goes from 10000+ to 5000. I think 5000 weapons could easily blow this world up 3 times over, especially considering that Russia would retaliate with their own 5000+ warheads.

    Now, what’s the problem again?

  2. Oops, one minor correction.

    The United States, according to a Wikipedia source, has 4,075 nuclear warheads active. The Russians have 5,830 warheads active.

    Regardless, I think it’s safe to say 2,000 from the US and 2,000 from Russia could still blow the Earth to a cindering rock.

  3. “Can someone explain the disconnect that allows one to support both the removal of intervention in Iraq and the commencement of intervention in Darfur?”

    Bush did it (Iraq)
    Bush didn’t do it (darfur)

  4. Greg, you missed making an argument by a long shot.

    How do you reconcile wanting to leave Iraq but “solve” Darfur? Are you so sure the genocide of the past wouldn’t be a problem today in Iraq? Where’s your evidence that we’re only there for economic interests?

  5. Ah hah! So it’s Bush’s fault either way! Thanks. I get it now.

  6. Obama’s socialist tendencies go well beyond reduction of the nuclear arsenal

  7. Kathryn says:

    Many people lean to extremism when things get rough and tough. It’s a human condition, not a Republican condition.

  8. I didn’t ask to “solve” anything. I’m simply stating that American involvement in Darfur is needed and it would help stop a genocide in the Sudanese region.

    I also never said we were only there for economic interests. My statement was:

    “The situation in Iraq has boiled down to trying to assist the locals form a government and protect our assets in the country…”

    The Coalition forces were put into this situation after we took control of the Iraqi government, and then somehow decided to implement a democracy in a region of the world that barely knows the word exists.

    I have no evidence that would state Iraqi genocide would happen today if the US wasn’t there. But heck, when we invaded Iraq in 2003 there wasn’t any big reports of genocide. To create something that isn’t even in existence is really stretching the argument.

    Also, to state that we’re not there for economic interests…not at all…0%…is ridiculous, no offense. The US needs to find a way to handle this enormous debt for the “war.” There’s reasons why our economy is in the crapper – we need to spend, spend, spend because we’re not getting any funding (or oil) benefits from Iraq yet.

  9. The difference is that the United States has inspired hundreds of thousands of more deaths in Iraq, on top of the past genocide.

    I think the viewpoint is:
    Pull out of Iraq to stop bloodshed.
    Do something in Darfur to stop bloodshed.

    I don’t agree with intervening much at all. On Darfur, i’m conflicted.

    Like it or not the United States is responsible for just as many deaths as Saddam Hussein’s Baath party. That doesn’t make them better than us, it just shows that the same tactics run wild on either side.

  10. Dan,

    I’m not bashing the current administration by making a few points and asking questions. I also acknowledged that past genocide occurred in Iraq, however the US at that time, if I’m not mistaken, was in fact supporting Saddam’s regime against Iran.

    A bigger point to make is: Just because we allowed countries to “obliterate” entire towns and villages in the past doesn’t mean it’s right, or that we’re stand idly by, today.

  11. There are conflicts all over the globe and I think that the argument should be that we ought to pull out of the U.N. It has proven to be a completely useless institution and doesn’t serve any purpose that is worth the cost. It is a haven for third world politicians to live the good life while the people in their country go without. We should not be the world’s “policeman” and pay the U.N. dues to perform those duties. I agree that Darfur should be tackled, but the problem is that it’s the Muslims again causing the trouble, and they have too much say in the U.N. What? Are we nuts?