“I am opposed to dumb wars.” From a Speech by Barack Obama

[McCamy Taylor]

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

"Now let me be clear. I suffer no illusions about Muammar Gaddafi . He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, sponsored terrorists , developed chemical and biological weapons, and enriched himself at the expense of his country.

"He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Libyan people, would be better off without him.

"But I also know that Gaddafi poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Libyan economy is in shambles, that the Libyan military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

"I know that even a successful war against Libya will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Libya without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."


Barack Obama 2002, with a few minor revisions in bold.

Here is the original. If I remember correctly, this is what got Obama the Democratic nomination.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear;I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

[Paradoxical]

1. Can you please post what you edited out? Otherwise this is totally unethical.

[McCamy Taylor]

2. Here is a link to the orginal.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

[Paradoxical]

3. Post that in your OP. Otherwise this thread should be closed.

[BzaDem]

9. .

[Paradoxical]

4. "without a clear rationale and without strong international support " - That's why you're wrong.

You tried replacing the words but you didn't realize that the two situations are significantly different. You should consider closing this thread. It's completely misleading.

[StarburstClock]

5. Rec'd, like the similarities

I also learned a long time ago if I wanted to find the original source of a statement all I had to do was google the 1st few words of it. I wasn't bothered in the least by your revisions to make a point.

[Paradoxical]

6. My point is ethical journalism.

If you are editing an original piece, always post, at the very least, a link to the original source.

[chill_wind]

7. K & R.

[Lasher]

8. Good point. Candidate Obama seems to have been a different person.

K&R

[BzaDem]

10. There was no imminent mass slaughter of civilians by Saddam, no UN support, no clear

rationale. In this case, there was an imminent mass slaughter of civilians, full international support, and a clear rationale.

In fact, Obama specifically said "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." Our intervention in Libya is anything but dumb. Yet tons of people here are acting as if Obama ran as some sort of pacifist candidate -- even though he promised to escalate in Afghanistan.

These comparisons are getting pretty desperate.

[eridani]

11. The question is "Does he have enough sense to quit while he is ahead?"

Incapacitating Libya's air force to they can't bomb civilians is a limited goal. The problem is, as always, that once you start, it's very difficult to let it go at that. No ground troops or tactical aid for any side in a civil war.

[jaxx]

12. You should read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=705275

[slay]

13. And Afghanistan is a smart war how?

That was Obama's idea of a "good war" on the campaign trail. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now for sure.

We've been there longer than Vietnam wasting HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars FOR WHAT???. I don't buy it. One damn bit.

This Libya thing - It's all for oil and the profit of the military industrial complex. As another poster pointed out we would have gotten involved in Burma and Darfur and other places where genocide was being committed but we did not because they did not have the oil production Libya does. At this point I do not trust Obama when it comes to his ideas on "wars".