Iraq

Obama in 2007: The U.S. Should Not Keep Troops in Iraq to Prevent Genocide

|

Whitehouse.gov

Last night, President Obama announced that he had authorized air strikes in Iraq, in conjunction with air drops of humanitarian aid. In a White House speech, he described the mission, "We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain."

This morning, reports confirmed that U.S. air strikes had begun on militants associated with the Islamic State.  

In a follow-up to President Obama's announcement last night, Secretary of State John Kerry released a statement justifying the strikes on the grounds that they could be necessary to prevent genocide of the Yazidi minority group in Iraq. 

In 2007, as a first-time presidential candidate running an anti-war campaign, Obama said he explicitly opposed keeping U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent genocide.

Via NBC News and the Associated Press: 

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.

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"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.

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

"Nobody is proposing we leave precipitously. There are still going to be U.S. forces in the region that could intercede, with an international force, on an emergency basis," Obama said between stops on the first of two days scheduled on the New Hampshire campaign trail. "There's no doubt there are risks of increased bloodshed in Iraq without a continuing U.S. presence there."

The greater risk is staying in Iraq, Obama said.

"It is my assessment that those risks are even greater if we continue to occupy Iraq and serve as a magnet for not only terrorist activity but also irresponsible behavior by Iraqi factions," he said.

Here's Reason's Ed Krayewski the question of whether the U.S. should intervene to stop genocide.

NEXT: More Telling Examples from Our 'Most Transparent Administration Ever'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When you have no principles you can do whatever you want and sleep soundly at night.

    1. People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time

      1. +1 True Detective Reference.

    2. You can sleep right through that 3 am call, for sure.

  2. The man managed to break a campaign vow while still campaigning. Are we surprised that he’s contradicting himself from 7 years ago?

    I don’t think he could even get through a whole alt-text without changing his position.

    1. Lincoln did the same disingenuous bullshit. It’s harder to get away with it with tv and the internet though. Harvard credentials don’t equal smarts.

    2. Cowabunga

      That’s better.

  3. In 2007, as a first-time presidential candidate running on an anti-war campaign, Obama said he explicitly opposed keeping U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent genocide.

    How dare you attempt to blame Obama for something that took place when Bush was President!!!

  4. If you like your minorities, you can keep them…

    1. …otherwise….

    2. “Those minorities that were lost, they weren’t good minorities, they were totally inadequate.”

  5. “We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide.”

    No, we can’t.

  6. In 2007, as a first-time presidential candidate running on an anti-war campaign, Obama said he explicitly opposed keeping U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent genocide.

    We should have elected that guy.

    1. Unfortunately, he wasn’t running.

  7. You keep using that word…

  8. Is he proposing deploying troops now, or just air strikes?

    1. Is Obama stupid enough to be the guy who re-started the war in Iraq? It could easily become his war.

      1. No. It would still be Bush’s war, just like Afghanistan.

        1. Let’s just call it Sykes and Picot’s Clusterfuck

          1. Dryden: …Mr. Sykes and Mr. Picot met, and they agreed that after the war, France and England would share the Turkish Empire, including Arabia. They signed an agreement, not a treaty sir. An agreement to that effect.
            Lawrence (chiding): There may be honor among thieves, but there’s none in politicians.
            Dryden: Let’s have no displays of indignation. You may not have known, but you certainly had suspicions. If we’ve told lies, you’ve told half-lies, and a man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth, but a man who tells half-lies has forgotten where he put it.

      2. Nah, Democrats these days seem content to stick to air strikes, if Clinton is any indication.

    2. And the hundreds of “advisers” from SOCOM are….?

      1. An invitation for entanglement we should avoid, but not an occupation.

        1. Obama will accomplish exactly the same thing that we accomplished in Syria and Libya. How’s that working out now?

        2. Nice try…but you said “deploying troops”.

          I would put it to you that United States Army Special Forces are, in fact, “troops”. And, having been moved from where they previously were, to Iraq, they have been “deployed”.

          1. So what did you think of our recent War in Nigeria?

            1. Bo is not very good at this.

              Yes, we did deploy troops to Nigeria….and I think it was a useless exercise. About like deploying troops to help hunt Kony.

              1. Would you talk about our War in Nigeria? But you would talk about a War in Iraq I imagine, if, as you and others like WTF see no difference why not talk about our invasion and War in Nigeria?

                1. Bo Cara Esq.|8.8.14 @ 11:35AM|#
                  Is he proposing deploying troops now, or just air strikes?

                  derp

          2. I guess Bo thinks any deployment less than division strength doesn’t count.

            1. Watch how he keeps changing positions/terminology – “deploying troops” becomes “occupation” becomes “war”.

              1. Yeah, and then he’ll accuse you of moving goalposts.

                1. He has showed his arse enough today for a while to come.

              2. Occupying is the language quoted from Obama

                1. “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.

                  1. Bo Cara Esq.|8.8.14 @ 11:35AM|#
                    Is he proposing deploying troops now, or just air strikes?

                    derp

                2. You’re the one who changed it to ‘war’.

                  1. I probably should have said something than just ‘deploy’, but I think that’s an exceedingly pedantic point to hinge arguments on.

                    If you want to say Obama is wrong I, as a non-interventionist, agree and always have. But if you want to say Obama is a hypocrite on this, then what he says and meant is key. I don’t see how you can read his comments and say he was against any and all interventions. He’s clearly talking about significant ground deployments that he opposes. Someone can oppose those and still think deploying military advisors or giving air support are fine without being hypocrites at all.

                    1. The point about using the term ‘war’ is to show that most normal people make distinctions between something like what happened in Iraq in 2002 (?) and what happened in Nigeria recently.

                    2. 2002(?), huh? Yeah, you’ve got a lot on the ball, don’t you?

                    3. Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I’m going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!

                    4. Hunh, frankly I expected you to just play your race card as per your traditional step three in an argument move.

                    5. Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o’ shit, or did you have to work on it?

                    6. Still pretty bad, guess you should stick with your usual script

    3. His diaphragm is forcing air through his throat and random sounds are coming out of his mouth. Attaching any meaning to them is a fool’s errand.

      1. I think troops or air strikes are interventions we should not do, but his 2007 comments seem to be talking about troops on the ground and occupying which one could oppose while still coherently favoring air support

        1. Pretend it’s Bush making the same statement and re-analyze it.

          1. It’s not like it’s unprecedented to support air support but think ground deployment is a bad idea in certain cases. If anything he’s repeating Clontons mistake

            1. The Clontons from Nebula 9? Who made the foolhardy maneuver to intervene in the Bosniatian crisis in Croatica system?

              1. Meant to type Clinton, referring to the decision to use the Mothership for air support against the forces of Sir Nose

    4. Unless you’re going to say that putting boots on the ground will get ‘Americans’ killed, what difference does it make which way you kill people?

      1. That’s one thing I can imagine him or someone arguing, yes.

  9. Fuck this guy. OIF was a failure; so much so that even a shrub like Obama could figure out which way to lean when he was running for office in Illinois. Why is he set on repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, with far less manpower?

    1. He’s a proglodyte. The entire philosophy of proggies is based on repeating the same mistakes, forever.

    2. If it’s something very different (far less manpower) is it the same mistake?

      1. “Principled non interventionist seeks rhetorical cover for blatant hypocrisy” – Film at 11

        1. It’s only hypocrisy if Obama is a non interventionist.

          As an interventionist I would oppose air strikes and occupying, but I realize there’s a difference between the two such that supporting one but not the other is not inconsistent.

          1. Ah…

            …so all your bullshit semantic twaddle is simply to help OBAMA have rhetorical cover.

            I see. Its actually just democratic partisan apologia.

            I see. So, NEOCONS are OK when they’re democrats, and they bomb people. All clear now.

            1. I know you are stung by my calling out your Neocon leanings, but that’s no reason to be this silly

            2. I think he got into shriek’s coke stash today, GILMORE.

              1. Because while condemning both air support and ground troops I recognize a difference in the two?

                Yes, only being under the influence could produce such thinking!

                1. i bomb you
                  I shoot you

                  the end result is surprisingly similar.

                  I’m sure you can explain why one is rationally preferable to the other, Bo. Go ahead.

                  1. Yes Gilmore, air support and invasion followed by nation building are totally the same thing!

                    Talk about Derp

                    1. It is bizarre how you manage to condone clearly un-libertarian policies like unilateral airstrikes by presuming that anyone is actually proposing a fictitious ‘re-invasion’ to serve the same purposes.

                      i thought you would openly condemn unilateral intervention rather than exert all this effort attempting to provide an apologia for “airstrike diplomacy”

                      personally i believe if the US were to intervene at all, diplomatic efforts would be preferred to military action. That to me seems to be the more principled POV. or do you disagree, being more Neoconservative in your general approach here?

      2. So Bush is actually completely awesome, hm. Bo is John.

      3. If it’s something very different (far less manpower) is it the same mistake?

        It is if it has the same or similar goals in mind. Iraq from 2004-2006 was in a similar situation, and the response was the surge, which had temporary effectiveness. Considering that the problems are deeply rooted in Iraqi society, it is unclear to me how, exactly, air strikes solve the problem of low institutional trust and competence in the Iraqi military, and hostility to the Iraqi government’s Shi’ite supremacism.

        The mistake in question is that “strategic” use of our military can resolve these problems within Iraqi government and society to our satisfaction.

        1. At that level of generality of goal described on your last paragraph I guess you have a point, but using air support vs invasion and nation building strike me as different enough to say that if he’s repeating anyone’s mistake it is Clintons

          1. *shrugs*

            While I see what you are getting at, I can’t say that I see an excusable difference between these two failing strategies when they both have the same (or similar) ends in mind and only differ in how, exactly they will set about failing at achieving those ends.

  10. ” I don’t know. I’m starting to think ‘Operation Enduring Occupation’ was a bad idea.”

  11. Funny how “responsibility to protect” is all “fierce moral urgency” when there are Islamist radicals to protect, but vanishes entirely when there are Christians and Kurds to protect.

    In all seriousness, is there any reason to believe that Obama’s fundamental goal in the ME isn’t to advance the cause of Islamist radicalism? Has he done anything that doesn’t have that effect?

    1. US begins bombing ISIS, with first strike on Islamists’ artillery already confirmed: Obama carries out his threat to stop the spread of ISIS in a bid to save thousands of lives

      GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING: This story contains images of death that some readers may find disturbing
      Two F/A18 fighters dispatched to unleash 500lb laser-guided bombs on Islamic militants outside Kurdish capital Erbil
      Hundreds of thousands of religious minorities have been driven from their homes as ISIS jihadists storm towns
      Some 50,000 Yazidis – half of them children – fled to hills after ISIS took Sinjar, the Yazidis’ heartland in Iraq
      ISIS calls Yazidis devil worshippers because of their beliefs that predate Islam, Christianity and Judaism
      Obama said U.S. warplanes had already carried out airdrops of humanitarian aid to Yazidis holed up in Sinjar hills
      David Cameron welcomes airstrikes to help Iraqis ‘in their hour of desperate need’ but rules out British military action
      Pope begs world leaders to step in as Iraq’s main Christian city is sacked, sending thousands of Christians fleeing
      Foreign Office urges British nationals to stay away from Kurdistan as America pounded Islamic State positions
      FAA prohibits U.S. airlines and other commercial carriers from flying over Iraq as spectre of more airstrikes looms

      1. Is the point in the post the headline about some of the first strikes being against Islamist extremists threatening Kurds?

          1. So it was really a rambling cut and paste of a bunch of random headlines one of which ironically undercut MM’s point?

    2. The proglodyte end goal is radical Islam rule. Once they have achieved the society that they are ‘progressing’ towards, there is no other possible outcome.

      1. LOL WUT?

        1. It’s not difficult to figure out, really.

          1. But let me give you just one of the thousand clues that are right there to see in plain site.

            Why do you think proggies constantly hate on Jews and Christians right out in the open, but are completely silent about Islam?

            1. Why do you think proggies constantly hate on Jews and Christians right out in the open, but are completely silent about Islam?

              Because they’re rebelling against their Christian/Jewish parents and grandparents who tried and failed to instill in them a sense of morality.

              1. Look at how all of them also support Hamas as a victim while making Israel out to be the villain.

                Right now, they actually see the Islamists as their secret allies, they won’t come right out and say it, but it’s obvious. Once the proggies have completely silenced and oppressed Christians, Jews, white men, conservatives, libertarians, and everyone else on their hate list, then the Islamists will just march right on in and enslave them. It’s easy to see this outcome, I don’t know why everyone doesn’t see it.

                When there is only a totally effeminate proggie society standing between the Islamists and world domination, then there is nothing left to stop them.

                1. Progs thrive on “victimhood” morality. It’s all they have.

                2. Just curious, are only white men countering this effeminate state? Non white men are, what, already effeminate?

                  1. Just curious, are only white men countering this effeminate state? Non white men are, what, already effeminate?

                    You know that’s not what I meant. Stop being an arse.

                    1. What did you mean then? White men are not the only non effeminate bastion preventing a Islamic takeover

                    2. What did you mean then? White men are not the only non effeminate bastion preventing a Islamic takeover

                      Are you striving to be Tony, or Shreek?

                      I, obviously was making 2 different statements, that you somehow erroneously combined into one.

                      I said that Progs hate christians, jews, conservatives, libertarians, and white men.

                      That is obviously quite apparent. Have you even read HuffPo, Salon, Jezebel, etc?

                      I also said that a proggie ruled society would be effiminate. That is also obviously true as radical feminism and proglotardism go hand and hand. One cannot really exist without the other.

                      Now do you get it? One of those things have nothing to do with the other in the context that I stated it.

                    3. My point is that I don’t but that progs hate Jews and Christians given a huge chunk of progs ARE Jews and Christians.

                      And I don’t buy that proggie rule would make us effeminate facilitating an Islamic takeover. That sounds like something Ann Coulter might say on the Laura Ingraham show

                    4. And I don’t buy that proggie rule would make us effeminate facilitating an Islamic takeover. That sounds like something Ann Coulter might say on the Laura Ingraham show

                      Coulter isn’t smart enough to actually think about these things. She’s nothing more than a giraffe looking antagonizer.

                      Complete proggie rule will collapse what’s left of the economy and that will be the end of us, period. That doesn’t change the fact that the progs use of radical feminism is creating an emasculated society. And that is a weakness that the Islamist see and will exploit.

                    5. I don’t see an existential threat from Islamic radicals, sorry. We could all be forced into homosexual reeducation camps tomorrow and Islamic radicalism would have increased its chances of really threatening us from .01% to .05%. With all due respect, that kind of theory sounds like what I would hear from Weekly Standard.

                    6. You know that’s not what I meant. Stop being an arse.

                      You should know by now that you’ll never get an honest conversation from that douche bag.

                    7. Yes, I think there is some confusion your Coulter-ish theory that progressives are setting up a Caliphate on the West. What a douche bag

            2. That’s an odd statement considering strong Jewish involvement and support in progressive causes and strong support from black Christian churches

              1. Yeah. Because obviously I was talking about religious Jews and Christians when I made that statement. Fucking idiot. And you wonder why no one likes you.

                1. Black Christians are not religuous Christians?

              2. Did anyone say that Jews or black Christians are smart for supporting proggies? It’s about as smart as the proggies thinking that they can somehow use Islamists to help with their cause.

                1. My point is a lot if proggies ARE Jews and black Christians

                  1. My point is a lot if proggies ARE Jews and black Christians

                    Because they don’t know any better. They don’t know who the progs really are. They just know the prog lies.

                    1. Again, they ARE the progs, in large part

                    2. Again, they ARE the progs, in large part

                      Geez, Bo, really? Are you really as dumb as Tony? I had a better opinion of you than that, but you are obviously trying to change my mind.

                      The progs use people, any people they can to achieve their goals. Their goals are all they care about, not people.

                      When they achieve their goals, there will be a select few elite ruling class and everyone else will be peasants living under an authoritarian super state. That’s the way communism works.

                    3. Hyperion, perhaps I am not explaining myself well enough.

                      I don’t think progs use many black Christians and Jews because I think, in fact I know, many black christians and Jews are progs and vice versa. Certainly some Jews and black christians are duped into supporting prog candidates and issues, but for the most part Jewish and Black Christian beliefs just align with progressive policies and goals.

                    4. Did you really just say that Black Christians’ beliefs lined up with progressive goals?

                      Because that’s a derpsplosion of derpocaust proderptions.

                  2. My point is a lot if proggies ARE Jews and black Christians that I’m a complete moron

                    Yeah. We know.

                    1. Good lord you are juvenile

                    2. And you’re a dishonest piece of shit. You know what people mean, but you dance around and pretend like you don’t because you just like to argue. That’s why no one likes you. No one at all.

                    3. Again, no one likes you! You might not even be a teen with that kind of mental acumen

                    4. *looks around for people rising up to say they like Bo*

                      *looks again*

                      Nope.

                    5. Twelve, maybe 11

            3. Multiple reasons:

              Islam is a “victim” class

              Islam isn’t in the position to resist their political ends in the US, while Christians are.

              Our alliance with Israel opposed the expansion of the Soviet Union in the Middle East.

              Jews in the US seem incapable of wising up and abandoning their proggie friends.

              They are fundamentally amoral cowards.

              1. Oh, and self-loathing

              2. They are fundamentally amoral cowards

                Yes, and the Islamists can smell this from a mile away.

                Proggies are not anti-war for the same reasons that libertarians are. They are anti-war because they are cowards. Libertarians will fight when they have to. Proggies will just bow down to their new master when the time comes.

              3. “Our alliance with Israel opposed the expansion of the Soviet Union in the Middle East.”

                Yes, siding with the one nation all the others in the region hated was a brilliant way to stop Soviet influence there

                1. It helped contain Syria for a long while. As did our relations (money) with Turkey.

            4. *Why do you think proggies constantly hate on Jews and Christians right out in the open, but are completely silent about Islam?*

              Because Christians and Jews rarely behead, shoot, bomb or stab proggies who insult them.

              There’s probably a lesson to be learned, here, and someday, someone will stumble on it. Then things will get a bit complicated, won’t they?

      2. Disagree. Progs’ interest in Islamists is the same as their interest in African nationalists and Palestinians; as part of the psychodrama whereby they are on the side of the Oppressed against the Oppressor.

    3. Yes there is; Obama is a weak man who lacks vision and seems to focus on evading blame and accountability and coasting through life on a cloud of someone-else’s-fault.

      My take as an outsider is that he is allowing various factions inside and outside his government do their thing.

      My take is that the Saudi king is supporting ISIS in an attempt to weaken Al Queda while smiting the Shiite unbelievers, and given the knife that the Saudi king has at the throat of the U.S. economy, Barry O, LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT SINCE NIXON, begs “how high master?” when the Saudi’s say “jump!” more pathetically than some masochist being thrashed by a sadist in a hardcore porn video.

      1. Where’s Turkey on all of this, anyway? I keep hearing different things, like they’re sort of supporting, sort of opposing ISIS and that they’re sort of less hating, always hating the Kurds in Kurdistan.

        1. Keeping their heads down and using the situation for political leverage, as usual.

          1. I can respect that. Beats the drunkard’s walk of U.S. policy.

            1. But their idea of “political leverage” is to have it in the hands of an increasingly despotic/Islamist asshole PM and his shitbird AK party.

        2. “Pro Libertate|8.8.14 @ 12:02PM|#

          Where’s Turkey on all of this, anyway?

          They are playing chess like everyone else in the region.

          The simplest way of seeing things is to assume a ‘Sunni/Shia’ cold-war environment, in which the “Sunni” superpowers (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE/Qatar, etc) fight against the Shiite superpower (Iran) in various ‘failed states’ using proxy armies.

          Turkey was and is supporting ISIS. They made ‘agreements’ with the kurds, but that isn’t exactly ‘guaranteeing their security’ type friendly.

          Turkey would like the end-state in Iraq to be a sunni-controlled coalition. They want to keep iran at bay. If that means letting their proxys fuck up the Kurds pretty bad, I doubt they’re losing sleep over it.

          1. I’m not much on continuing to intervene in the region, but I suppose I could see protecting the Kurds, since they’ve been reliably friendly to the U.S. for a while. At least there’s an arguable interest other than the perpetual fight against Muslim extremists.

        3. Where’s Turkey on all of this, anyway?

          1. Lost the quip:

            Cheering on the destruction of the Kurds, I expect.

    4. Two, count ’em, TWO of the smallest bombs in our arsenal deployed against Islamist radicals openly and gleefully engaging in genocide.

      Oh, yeah, that’s fierce moral urgency. Compare and contrast to the rhetoric and armaments deployed to support Islamist radicals trying to take over Libya.

      And let’s not forget, that any bomb we drop on ISIS is a bomb that helps the Iranian Quds forces also fighting ISIS. So, bombing ISIS still advances Islamist radicalism. Just a different branch.

  12. Day one you bomb the artillery, by day 18 you’re bombing weddings.

    1. It’s ironic, like drones on your wedding day.

  13. Oh, Genocide, Schmenocide

    I fail to see the important distinction between the potential massacre of tens of thousands of Yezidis, and the continued and ongoing massacre of tens of thousands of “other folks” in the region.

    “Hate crime”? is that it?

    The justification for US military action should always be = how is it in our security interests.

    Supporting the Kurds, in theory, has that justification on that grounds.

    intervening because there’s some religious minority being persecuted is simply a pathetic appeal to some moral responsibility. Once you allow for that, the entire charade of ‘principled non intervention’ collapses completely.

    1. But Obama had never expressed a principled non interventionism. He said he supported air strikes in our ostensible allies territory to get at OBL for Pete’s sake. He seems to have been (rhetorically) against large scale military action and occupation (though not enough to keep from dragging out two if them through his two terms)

      1. Who cares about Obama?

        I’m talking about anyone. Including you. The policy is wrong.

        It may be justifiable under conditions that actually had some connection to our national security, but “humanitarian bombing” is bullshit.

        Go play in traffic now.

        1. What non interventionist is making the case for humanitarian interventions?

          1. He told you to go play in traffic. That’s because he doesn’t like you. No one does. Take a hint.

            1. I’d say 12, eleven year olds would be checking out Guardians of the Galaxy matinees right now.

              1. I think Bo is actually Pedobear.

              2. *again looks for people rising to Bo’s defense*

                Nope.

  14. Let’s just randomly wreck a bunch of shit, as a demonstration of our sincerity and concern.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Umm, the same sort of things that went wrong the last time?

      1. I think it’s called sarcasm.

  15. The justification for US military action should always be = how is it in our security interests.

    Supporting the Kurds, in theory, has that justification on that grounds.

    I think we should have “allowed” the Kurds to secede years ago.

    1. Yeah, i know.

      At the time we thought the turks would have gotten involved and stopped them. From what i read, they probably would have too. They wanted to roll in hot during the invasion of Iraq and “maintain security” in kurdistan to prevent just such an action.

    2. I have a cunning plan. No, not the same one I had before. A new one, more cunning. Kurdistan joins Canada. Everybody loves Canada. While we’re at it, maybe Israel, too.

      Kurdavut? Kurdario? Kurdish Columbia? Kurditoba? So many options.

      1. Nova Kurda

        1. Kurdbec? Prince Edkurd Island? Kurdkon? Yukurd?

      2. Well, poutine does have cheese kurds…

        1. Ah, ha! Perfect. See how these things all line up?

      3. I like Kurdish Columbia or Kurditoba best.

      4. Naw. Here’s my plan:

        Create a new federal district in Kurdistan: Kurditopia, D.C.

        Give Washington D.C. back to the Virginia and Maryland.

        Move the federal government to Kurditopia, D.C.

        Bonus: we don’t have to add another star to the flag.

  16. I’m confused. If you watch, as I did, Obama’s speech yesterday, he very clearly says the rational for any bombing is to protect American personnel in Irbil and Baghdad, not to prevent genocide of the Iraqi population.

    What are you talking about, Peter?

    1. ‘Rationale’ be damned – under international law, “genocide” provides the cover for unilateral intervention

      e.g.

      “The key phrase in Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement on Iraq is that ISIL’s actions “bear all the warning signs and hallmarks of genocide”. Under international law, that is enough to authorize the use of force.”

      blah blah blah. ‘Genocide’ is like the Commerce Clause of international law. If we’re intervening now its simply because some Yezidis on a mountaintop provided Obama the needed cover to do what he already wanted to do anyway.

      The problem will come when parties on the ground start using American air-cover as a pretext for their own unilateral actions. Its a bad move overall. Either get in for strategic security reasons, or don’t at all. By sticking his fingers in on this pretext, Obama opens the door for all sorts of ongoing efforts anytime there’s some shocking news in the headlines about the next ‘minority group’ under fire.

      1. Wow. talk about misdirection (Kerry and O, not you GILMORE).

        At no point in his address yesterday did O indicate military action (air or otherwise) would be used for anything other than protecting American personnel.

      2. I don’t care about international law. To use US military force you need to abide by US law. And, of course, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right.

    2. Which is blindingly stupid. People join the military to risk their lives to stop things like genocide. That’s the whole fucking point.

      You don’t bomb people to protect the military. You use the military to bomb people to protect other PEOPLE.

  17. There really needs to be an “Explanatory Journalism” site to Explain Vox’s Explanatory Spin on news.

    e.g. “What’s Behind Vox’s Sudden Support for an Imperial Executive Branch?”

    What progs used to criticize as ‘imperialism’ in the excessive use of presidential executive orders and unilateral White House actions bypassing congress, is now excused as *necessary*…. because Congress is now engaging in policy-making purely for the purpose of sabotage!

    “… conservative members of congress keep willingly embracing courses of action that they know will lead to policy outcomes that they know are worse than the outcomes that could have been produced through other tactics.”

    Vox seems to be imposing a new, novel concept to partisan politics = that opposing groups are NOT actually supposed to disagree about whether policy is needed *at all* – but that the GOP should be aiming to achieve ‘second best’ policies rather than attempt to actually *stop legislative action entirely*

    This rhetorical strategy assumes that the status quo is not actually principled opposition in the very nature of things (e.g. “climate legislation is merely a question of *what kind*, not whether it should exist at all”) – but rather simply in the details of their execution….”

    Something like that.

    1. UNITARY EXECUTIVE!!!!!

      BOOOOSH THINKS HE IS CHARLES V!!!!

      Oh, wait….

      /progderp

    2. So Sad Beard is admitting that leftist policies are shitty? That’s mighty sporting of him!

      1. no. that was me parodying his desperate apologia (in the link) for why Obama is “forced” to resort to executive authority and bypass congress and unilaterally impose his will…

        …see, cause liberals claimed to care about the constitutional limitations back when BOOOOOOOSH was doin’ it.

        Now: not so much, see.

    3. What do you mean “Sudden” support for the Obama administration?

      Vox was founded to give support to the Obama administration.

      1. Not so long ago it was “Obama, Uniter – Not Divider”

        Now its, “Obama: He Who Tramples Over Legal Niceties to Achieve *Results*”

  18. ‘Genocide’ is like the Commerce Clause of international law.

    Nice.

  19. I’m kind of with Megalo Monocle here.

    There’s a bunch of crazies actively trying to exterminate another ethnic group in Iraq. But he’s spending his time trying to get Israel to accept the demands of Hamas.

    Meanwhile, elsewhere in the middle east, The “Arab Spring” seems to have done little other that create a power vacuum that Islamic militants have stepped into.

    If one were to judge him only on the effect of his policies, one might think that was his plan all along.

    And if I was one of those people claiming he was a secret Muslim, I would be finding all sorts of circumstantial evidence to support that belief right now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.