How do people that supported sending American troops to Bosnia, Somalia and are now urging for military intervention in Darfur justify being against the war in Iraq?
"Our destiny in America is still linked to Europe, and what we're seeing in Bosnia is an affront to the conscience of human beings everywhere, right in the heart of Europe. The Bosnian people need the help of the international community to realize the promise of peace." -President Clinton (source)
"President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31.
In his first public explanation of why American troops were in that lawless land and when they would be getting out, Clinton said he had rejected calls from Congress and elsewhere to "cut and run" from Somalia because he believed that both Somali lives and American credibility were at stake.
"We face a choice," the president said. "Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive?" "We started this mission for the right reasons and we're going to finish it in the right way," Clinton said." -President Clinton (source)
George Clooney (major OIF critic):
"Mr Clooney said that if UN forces were not sent in, aid workers would leave and 2.5 million refugees would die.
He said: "The United States has called it genocide, for you it's called ethnic cleansing. But make no mistake - it is the first genocide of the 21st century. And if it continues unchecked it will not be the last." (source)
*Side note: Liberals always said we weren't invading Darfur because "they didn't have oil" -that argument didn't work because indeed they do (I posted about it in January of 2005). Amazingly, now the argument is "Zionists" are finally getting involved because Darfur has oil!! OMG, these people never cease to amaze me!
So what makes Saddam's rape rooms, gassing, hanging and imprisoning of little children and mass killings of Iraq any less worthy of intervention than those in Bosnia, Somalia and Darfur?
There is even video of these atrocities...funny, I haven't seen them on CNN (or FNC for that matter):
And in case you don't remember this, know that sick violence didn't end with Saddam --just last year Powerline reported:
"The Iraqi army said on Thursday it had seized a number of booby-trapped children's dolls, accusing insurgents of using the explosive-filled toys to target children.
The dolls were found in a car, each one containing a grenade or other explosive, said an army statement. The government said that two men driving the car had been arrested in the western Baghdad district of Abu Ghraib.
"This is the same type of doll as that handed out on several occasions by US soldiers to children," said government spokesperson Leith Kubba." (source)
Remind yourself what we are fighting for and who we are fighting against:
Saddam's Torture: But be warned, this is graphic ACTUAL torture...not panties, dog collars and cold rooms!!!
I don't know what I think about being the "policeman of the world" (and since I don't have children in the military, I don't feel like it's my right to say)...but I don't get how one instance of mass murder/genocide deserves intervention while another doesn't...