Code Pink supports only politically correct wars
Code Pink, to include Cindy Sheehan, were in South Korea recently protesting the presumed expansion of a U.S. military base, citing it as some sort of provocation while we have on-going tensions with a presumably nuclear North Korea. Yeah, that will certainly provoke them.
Code Pink makes a big deal out of their “No War” slogan. You would think that they would be against any war, at any time, right? Well, if you thought that, you’d be wrong.
It seems that Code Pink supports politically correct wars. In fact, when it comes to the Darfur, they are very much in support of military action. From their own website, Code Pink urges the U.S. government to:
- Condemn the Government of Sudan’s (GOS) recent military build-up and intensification of attacks on civilians in northern Darfur.- Call on the international community—including the Arab League, the African Union and the European Union-to mount intensive diplomatic efforts, beginning at the opening of the new session of the United Nations General Assembly, to halt the GOS offensive.
- Urge other nations to join the US and France in pressing the United Nations to prepare to deploy the UN peacekeeping force authorized on August 31 by the Security Council, regardless of the acquiescence of the Sudanese Government. (emphasis mine - DT)
Reading this, it sounds like Code Pink is in favor of a military invasion of Sudan, in order to end the oppression of the people by the Muslim Janjaweed militias and the Sudanese government.
Now, I’m not saying that the situation in the Darfur isn’t intolerable - because it is. It’s a horrible situation. But this brings to mind something I’ve seen before between liberal and conservative groups, when it comes to arguing whether or not we, as the United States, should get involved in a military confrontation outside our borders.
Generally, conservatives see military conflict as way to support U.S. strategic and geo-political goals. Liberals, on the other hand, often voice a pro-war stance when they see some sort of humanitarian crises - whether the war would have any benefit to the United States strategically or not. Sure, the two reasons often get mixed together in the argument to go to war, but in the end, those are the reasons first cited. This strategic-versus-humanitarian argument doesn’t apply to all conflicts we’ve been associated with, but seems to be more of a recent phenomenom.
For example, the bombing of Serbia. What strategic imperative did we have getting involved in the civil war in the former Yugoslavia? Most would argue, none. However, liberals were very much in favor of that conflict for purely humanitarian reasons. We were going there to save the Muslims from genocide (and a lot of good that’s done us).
I’m a conservative, but also a realist. I know that the invasion of Iraq was really a strategic move on the part of the United States. We already had a toe-hold in the Middle East with Afghanistan, and with the departure of Saddam Hussein, we could then have friendly countries (along with military bases) on two sides of Iran. Sure, there was lots of talk about freeing the Iraqis from Saddam, and that was a small part of the reason for the invasion, but that was mostly said to cater to the humanitarians in the American populace. Of course, it hasn’t all turned out this way, but I believe that was the real intent of the invasion.
Which leads us back to the Darfur. What geopolitical or strategic reason do we have for getting involved in that crisis? What benefit does the United States derive from sending our soldiers to fight the Janjaweed in Sudan? I would argue, none. Therefore, I would say that we have no business in the Darfur. I would, however, support an African solution to this problem - just as I supported a European solution to the Kosovo crises.
By the way, did you know we are still in Kosovo? When is Cindy going to start calling for those troops to come home?
Category :
Uncategorized 
Tags :
Similar Posts:
- Finally! A war liberals can get behind!
- Liberals want us to leave one screwed-up Muslim nation that doesn’t want us there, and insert ourselves in another screwed-up Muslim nation that doesn’t want us there.
- World reaction is basically what I expected
- Iraqi bill to allow Baathists back into the government
- Code Pink compares President to little boy with toys
- St. Cindy goes on the road
- On immigration and hyphenated Americans
- Saddam and terrorism - yes, he supported it
- Daily Show makes fun of lefties?
- U.S. to attack Iranian terrorist training camps?
Leave a Reply