October 7, 2004
REALPOLITIK ISN'T MORAL:
Kerry Balks at Sending Troops to Sudan (The Associated Press, Oct. 7, 2004)
Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry says he would not send U.S. forces to stop the genocide in Sudan if they continued to be needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]Asked whether he'd send troops, Kerry said the United States would "have to be in a position in Iraq and Afghanistan" to allow that to happen. He said his options as president would be limited because President Bush has overextended U.S. forces.
"Our flexibility is less than it was," he said. "Our moral leadership is not what it ought to be."
Yet he thinks we need to keep troops in Europe for cripessake? Sometimes its hard to tell where political coup-counting stops and genuine amorality begins. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 7, 2004 11:49 PM
Good point. Like, what if some crazy leader tried to invade another country, gets thousands of his own people killed and injured and kill dozens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process, all for political gain. That would be, like, way-amoral.
Posted by: Special Patrol Group at October 8, 2004 12:38 AM(So Very) "Special" Patrol Group:
It seems that you haven't bothered to read the actual posts, or you'd know that your analysis is both shallow, and 180° off.
You epitomize the reason that regular readers of this blog are impatient with the Left: All talk, no time spent thinking.
For instance, you might elaborate on why you think that President Bush received political gain from invading Iraq, when in the real world, it's been a constant source of weakness for him.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 8, 2004 2:06 AMWow. Is that, like, supposed to be witty sarcasm? 'Cause you sure put us in our place.
It's really sad how the quality of trolling has steadily declined as the election approaches.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 8, 2004 2:13 AM"Special:"
You've just described Saddam Hussein to a tee.
And you're right, he was, like, 'way amoral.
And I'm sure you therefore have no objection to removing him from power and liberating his people.
Glad to have you on our side!
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 8, 2004 6:48 AMWouldn't preventing a genocide when the rest of the world is doing its best "Kitty Genovese" impression enhance our moral standing? I'd prefer to shame other countries and the UN into acting, but that assumes the presence of shame.
Posted by: AC at October 8, 2004 7:35 AMKerry was for sending troops to Sudan before he was against it.
Posted by: mike earl at October 8, 2004 10:14 AMThe appropriate behavior for the US here is to think in simple terms. When Libya tried to take over Chad in the 80s, the French sent the Chadian army some Toyota pickup trucks with machine guns or RPGs in the back. They were able to use these to defeat Libya with a minimum of French involvement.
By the same token, the introduction of light, unsophisticated armaments into the hands of the people of Darfur might go a long way to equalling the odds. And there would be minimal American casualties.
Posted by: Bart at October 8, 2004 10:56 AM